James
Extremely valuable input - thank you very, very much . . . It is becoming very clear to me how RM:AO affects my work - I endeavor to make it very clear to you if it isn’t already. One step at a time as they say . . . I am very grateful to you . . .
That is exactly what I mean. There are two of them - one is English in our case and the other is hidden/silent(you don’t need English to think). The same rules apply for social language.
I am going to go out on a limb here. To get my point across I must play with words a little.
► Everything known was once unknown.
► Everything there is still to know already exists, it is just undiscovered, un-evolved an un-configured.
► Everything can be expressed as information.
► Discovery is just the unknown configured into formation.
► Inception is formation.
► Unknown in-formation is known.
∴ i(inception) ≡ unknown/known(both quantifiable - even if random; randomness is then just un-evolved and un-configured)
∴ i can be thought of as always there because as you say: “Nothingness”, is absolutely impossible.
∴ i ≡ secondarily the potential for the unknown to become known.
With a twist of lemon: The known is always there - even if undiscovered.
Now for some cerebral flatulence:
If this holds for logic then I suspect it works for emotion - therefore I do not think all emotions are instinctual but rather some emotions are manufactured once we become self-aware - self-awareness is potentially a product of logic. Instinct is a product of logic that is formed in the substrate. The substrate is formed prior to birth. All things are recursively repeating - substrate is formed from matter - matter is formed from affectance. The skipped steps in this paragraph are arbitrary to the gist. Energy and matter are the same thing. Logic and emotion stem from the same place. The universe is alive and intelligent(I don’t know how) and can be thought of as a huge brain - like the brain some parts are undiscovered, un-evolved and un-configured.
- - - back to regular viewing - - -
Oh I agree - I am still keeping the two separate - just that they stem from the same place and inevitably affect each other.
There is a hint however that reasoning is deterministic - even if only partially - delta.
I feel sanity is a convergence of the mood and logic. Correct me if I am wrong - we might debate it a little though - just fyi.
I stand corrected.
They are inclusive so:
i ≡ inception ∨ perception ∨ recognition ∨ consciousness
??? Emotion and mood seem to be more autonomous ???
FINAL NOTES: i ≡ inception ∨ perception ∨ recognition ∨ consciousness is confined as follows:
Confinement[space ∨ scope ∨ time](i ≡ inception ∨ perception ∨ recognition ∨ consciousness)
or more elegantly:
► Confinement(i)
or even better:
► C(i)
I call this Rational Confinement(RC) . . . Motion bounds space and time to each person but that is a story for another day . . .
So to refine the terminology:
► RC(i)
or more simply:
► R(i)
The is a hint of the emotional process and Emotional Confinement in this post.
To re-iterate a subsection of Rational Confinement(R):
Logical deduction, when answering a question, is limited by:
[list]1. cognitive limitations
2. time available to answer the question
3. openness to influence from the social norm
4. availability of accurate information[/list:u]
∴ Plugging this subsection of R gives us a/one potential confinement to our consciousness.
or:
► R(i)
So hopefully the dots are easier enough to join here . . .