@ James - I am going to make my response in three parts.
Response to James - Part 1
I suspect you are correct. I think that some of this should be broken up into other threads as you say.
Some emotions I suspect have not been reflected upon much in philosophy - and mood it seems has not had much reflection applied to it either, from what I can see at least. I am willing to be stand corrected on this. This particular thread has a title that is not complete hence the three dots after the title. The idea I have for this thread is to tie together instinct, mood and emotion into an interaction philosophy. By interaction philosophy I mean how instinct, mood and emotion fit together in an order and how they affect each other. The other two sides to this thread are 1. A post for each topic and 2. General discussion on each three of these. I divert temporarily on some things for clarity and interest. Lastly I leave flexibility in so as not to dismiss any thought.
This thread focuses on the individual and the society. So talks about such things as mentioned in the previous paragraph in such a format to give us the following three categories:
A. Individual and Social Instinct
B. Individual and Social Mood
C. Individual and Social Emotion
I am interested in developing metrics on these three categories - check measures - there is still a lot to talk about around these topics and in the next part of my last post I talk about:
Instinctual Processes
Learning Processes
Natural Morality
Learned Morality
Mood Resolution
These are the “around these topics” items that I mention above the previous list. I have already talked about the first three in Part 1 of my last post.
In the next part of the response to you I discuss the first half of your response. And then in the third part of my response to you I discuss SAM Coops which is close to being the second half of your response. I exclude in my metric the quotes in your last post when I talk about halves - I will be using them to refer to, when it comes to social order, social mood and hopefully social emotion etc.; what I am saying here is that excluding your quotes I have split your post into two halves by measurement of your comments made; anyway it will become clear soon enough. I am sure you will approve.
Like I said in Part 1 of my response, I totally agree.
I will write a few paragraphs on the first half of your post.
Reality vs Perception - this/these topic/s get discussed often from what I notice. Reality is certainly a curiosity of the human mind as with Perception. I think a Reality vs Perception thread is a great idea and I think it would be wise to discuss objective reality and subjective reality and how they affect perception.
I think that Reasoning Methods and Rational Limitations warrant being put into the same thread as each other. Reasoning Methods I have studied in depth so I have a lot to offer there. I imagine that Rational Limitations could be used to build metrics and analytical tools and I suspect some of these already exist. I suggest in the thread on Reasoning Methods and Rational Limitations that a general discussion take place on the two topics and how Rational Limitations affect Reasoning Methods.
Emotions - Curiosity I have briefly covered in this thread and I intend on covering Emotions - Anger too. I think it helps to pick out a few emotions rather than all of them to cover in this thread for two reasons: 1. Some emotions I imagine get spoken about a lot already and 2. In this thread I want to focus on some of the emotions that do not get much coverage.
I think Emotions - Love deserves a thread of its own; I imagine this topic to be quite popular. Obviously I am not just talking about the love between two people but rather love at the level of the individual and society.
Frustration, Depression and Anxiety could probably fit into the same thread - Do you think constant frustration can lead to things such as Depression and Anxiety? I am not sure what else to add here. Obviously important topics to discuss at both the level of the individual and society - so maybe even two threads would be warranted.
I think Moods and Their Consequences have a significant impact on society when it comes to Joy, Productivity et cetera. When the social mood is harmonious I think that Joy and Productivity et cetera increase. When I look around these days I see a common mood and people are frustrated by this because they feel that they have lost their individuality; I think people need to be careful what they wish for here; I would prefer to be part of a group than focus on individuality after all we are a social creature - still we should proceed with caution otherwise the social mood again becomes negative or flat and we end up back at a problem that has the same magnitude of today’s here and now.
Hopefully this part of my response is clear enough for reading - if it is not then I suggest the reader make a comment.
Just to refresh our memories I will add a couple of quotes from another/other post/s contained within this thread as well as a copy of one of your sentences:
“The challenge in the modern age is to control mood with fear while also trying to control hope with diversity. Too many people get very tired of the “run around” and find all efforts to inspire to be unworthy of true hope (no one and nothing to trust).”
Thank you James for responding to this request.
Your response:
I think we could turn the corruption around and use the idea of a “social mood” as a means to help us analyze the social mood as opposed to control it - what do you think?
I would have to say that the social mood is always going to be there just that it should not be controlled like the way it is these days - this is a sad event taking place and I see it has been taking place for many hundreds of years.
The current form of globalism is a terrible idea as you state. I am very interested in your concept of SAM Coops and I think this is a way for the larger group to have a built in immune system if that makes sense.
Agreed - the hypnotism you speak of would have to be one of the most disgusting examples of humanity I have ever contemplated.
Eventually we are going to have to remove usury from our social diet - some say lending has led to the improvement of peoples lives but what about the lives it has destroyed? - something akin to a greedy child who is happy to share her/his toy but it comes with conditions and if those conditions are not met then it becomes a case of “my toy - you are not allowed to play with it - give it back”. The high rates of interest are the most ridiculous part of it - this leads to unnecessarily acceleration of the small few being able to consume resources at an alarming rate at the detriment to our home - the earth - and what about the idea that “our home” is not just “our home” but that of the creatures that occupy the same space - should we not be respectful of the other creatures on the planet, I can think of a few religions that justify doing what ever we want with the planet and its creatures - again we have to be careful of simple mindedness - not that I want to start a holy war here - lol.
James please excuse the slight edit in the following quote:
It is still possible that this rigorous method you suggest is up for some refinement but I guess what you are saying here is that a solid base set is what is required to produce harmony and that is what I agree with one hundred percent. In saying this you are quite welcome as far as I am concerned to brutally debate this with me. I use brutally in this sense: in a direct way that does not attempt to disguise unpleasantness; For example: “she was unapologetic and brutally honest”; source Google.
OK - I love this - the first time I saw this piece of writing I thought to myself “this is really cool”. I see a lot of thought has been put into this from the smallest micro-particle up to the largest entity.
I am interest by what you mean by communication. Could you elaborate?
That is certainly the oldest contention. I am interested in discussing this at length - I will do this via PM but for everyone else we could elaborate on this topic as needed or requested.
A really good use of Internet resources I think.
I have already read some of this and I came up with a concept on how the network could be built - maybe one day you would be interested in taking a look. I really like the diagram that you provide and it was that diagram that inspired me to put aside the time to build the concept - unfortunately at this time my big computer has crashed and I have to recover the data to be able to show you.
What do you think of the ideas that I have posted regarding Confinement Levels? They are a means of studying how effective a society is performing.
I am still in the early stages of developing this philosophy and have not even begun to develop any mathematical tools but I still think it is worth of a comment of some sort.
The idea of this philosophy is not for a few people to control but rather uncover flaws and to let everyone know about them - like in the News and other information sources.
Anyway - I am very grateful for your response and I hope we can discuss the topic of SAM Coops in depth - even if we have to shift the discussion to PM I do not mind.
Although this is only a brief discussion, the rationale behind topics 4 through 8 is more of an educational body of knowledge behind topics 1 through 3 - there is a slight disparity but as previously mentioned:
4. Instinctual Processes
When contemplating Instinctual Processes one has to ask a question: how reliable are decisions that are made via instinct?
I wont go into this too much as I am more interested in the thoughts of others here.
5. Learning Processes
I am sure Learning Processes are varied and many - again this is a topic that is open to debate as far as the optimal Learning Processes are concerned and: What should we be learning? Is probably an even bigger debate we could get into.
Regarding Learning Processes - I myself detail how the brain/mind deals with these. I then include other thoughts on what maybe optimal learning processes.
6. Natural Morality
Natural Morality as I am sure most people are already aware of is as follows:
Now while I do not necessarily accept it this way it is still an interesting topic with plenty of evidence to suggest that Natural Morality is very real.
7. Learned Morality
Learned Morality could also be called Moral Development and is partially defined as follows:
Learned Morality focuses on the morality that we learn from birth to death.
Morality is important when we consider how we should be treating one another and currently/probably is/should be used in economics, technological development et cetera. Politics could learn a few lessons here.
8. Mood Resolution
Resolution can be defined as follows:
The action of solving a problem or contentious matter. “the peaceful resolution of all disputes”. Source: Google
The idea here is not so much about mood regulation from drugs but rather how individual persons interact with each other and how those interactions leave the person in mood. I suggest that the way we treat each other is reflected in the individual mood and the social mood and these are indicators of whether or not a society is in good health.
The big question here is how to we go about solving problems associated with mood in a naturally effective way through our interactions and the interactions between other processes on my lists(whether they are currently listed or not).
Rational Confinement, Emotional Confinement and Social Confinement
These are metrics used to measure personal and societal satisfaction, health, efficiency and economic effectiveness et cetera. These three metrics have many uses and can be combined with technology to allow for speedy results via heuristics and other analytical methods.
Organization is key to making anything effectively implemented.
Happiness is key to keeping an implementation alive.
So as you can see - I am in early development of some of these principles - I appeal to anyone who would like to take part in discussion involved with any of these topics and I encourage people to develop their own philosophies based on any of these topics. I also hope that it stimulates thought toward other topics and I hope that it serves as a reminder that there is still a long way for humanity to go and much to do.
That is a pretty good “one for one” analogy James.
Very good question - I should have known I would not have got that one past you.
A short answer to your question: pattern matching.
Now for a much longer answer:
Take into account that what I am about to write is straight off the top of my head and I try to make a habit of not memorizing too much so if there are any discrepancies I would like to apologize in advance - you are welcome to request for me to clear those up if they appear.
Now regarding measurement - I can tell you that it is only early days, especially with instinct, mood and emotion - but I have an idea that the best place to start would be at the level of society, much like you do in some of your examples.
I do not want to alarm anyone here - I can say that some pattern analysis already takes place - it seems unavoidable in a world full of fear. Current techniques are a little shortsighted but that is my opinion.
There would be a typical baseline developed over time among any activities that develop patterns - this would be apparent among your SAM Coops or similar structures but it is even easier with the current structure of global society.
To name a few activities in global society that develop patterns:
schooling - logistics - crime-rate - days off from work - crop yields - network patterns associated with news reports - weather patterns - sickness rates - mental health data - war - traffic data and much more.
These activities could then be placed into an ontology of activities along with their baseline and their interactive elements. This ontology would be used to define and help manage the analysis of interactions between the above activities using a pattern recognition engine to check for deviations from their baseline. The ontology becomes the pattern buffer so to speak. The ontology lives inside a “living data base” whereby the database can change “on the fly” using subtle deviations over time to update within specified limits. The pattern recognition engine is able to build the ontology to begin with. When anomalies are detected an alarm can be set off.
If it is something that can develop a pattern then it is able to be studied without invading privacy or corrupting any other ethical concern. It is alarming what is already happening and I would prefer this sort of thing to be known - it would be better for society if society is aware of the things that go on in the data centers, behind closed doors or how ever else you want to apply a term for it. Eventually privacy will be the least of our concerns if we don’t awaken to the mess developing right now.
This is not to say that all of this data is needed - generally crime rates are a good red flag. Once a red flag is detected then a secondary process can be put into place. If logistical operations are affected it could be due to weather or sickness among employees - first you would rule out weather and if weather is not a factor you could move on to sickness - sickness could be false data in which case if a flag is raised then employees could be requested to have a meeting that a psychologist is present at. Falling grades at school is another red flag for many things: domestic problems, death in the family, bullying, dietary habits et cetera - incidentally school grades and crime rates work well together.
Sifting out information at the level of an individual is a little more difficult - psychology only has so many tricks up its sleeve - biological monitoring is useful - there will be new methods that will be spurred on by the neurosciences - the thing to watch here is: invasion of privacy and other ethical concerns - but where there are patterns there are metrics.
Instincts have patterns associated with them as do moods and emotions - it is just a matter of determining these patterns and the metrics follow. Over time human and animal behavior develops typical patterns. Orbits in star systems have patterns. If it is moving it is likely to develop a pattern. The evolution of a pattern tends toward convergence too which is why we see some overlap in the sciences with similar mathematics being applied to more than one science. Even chaos systems have some form of pattern that develop - it is hard to say whether chaos even exists at the human level because that would infer complete disorder and confusion which even in this world of crazy people doesn’t really show itself.
Warning: Tech Talk
The type of pattern matching techniques I have come across are scarily simple and extremely effective - forget Artificial Neural Networks(ANN) and Convolutional Neural Networks(CNN) - they are slow, complicated and ineffective compared to the tech I have come across. It turns out to be easier than we once thought and soon a revolution is about to begin. Add that to the worlds social demise and guess what? People need to take notice now because ignorance will no longer be bliss and obviously rioting, protesting, boycotting and not supporting these things will not achieve a damn thing; that is for the sixties and things have seriously changed since then.
I like to consider the story of the perceptron, to give people an idea of how long these things have been around; “The perceptron algorithm was invented in 1957 at the Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory by Frank Rosenblatt”. They are essentially still with us in a more complex form of the previously mentioned ANN’s and CNN’s. It turns out this year would be the sixtieth anniversary of the perceptrons inception.
Logic seems to be the easiest to measure mainly because logic has many defined patterns associated with it. But inevitably emotions have patterns like moods, they are just at a lower resolution. Anyhow we have mapped a significant portion of the neocortex which is probably the most powerful part of the brain, so many derivations of neocortex patterns can be traced back to emotion, mood and instinct; to the limbic system and reptilian complex respectively. The columns and layers in the neocortex are easily transposed onto computer memory and GPU’s and CPU’s can do the rest of the work. Once you add FPGA’s to the picture things speed up drastically. Human memory is arranged in such a way as to be a hierarchy that uses time based patterns. You can imagine how easy that is to map onto software and hardware. End of Tech Talk
That is just one technique I can think of off the top of my head. I have learned to detect patterns myself - with my own mind on a conscious level - a computer is of course better at it but people can be taught to do it. In fact most people automatically do it to more or lesser a degree.
There is more to the answer than that but I think I have gone on for long enough. Also take into account that this is a singular proposal out of potentially many more. There is always more than one way of doing something - all I have to do now is put it in a more summarized format.
@ James - so now that I have answered one of your questions I have a request of you:
I would like to talk more about MIJOT and SAM Coops.
I was rather surprised how quickly you worked out where I was coming from in the other thread: The Silent Mind
We have discussed some interesting things so far and I have introduced the emotion of being curious and now I want to talk about the emotion that you have introduced “Joy”. I think joy is the ultimate goal on a daily basis and I really like your MIJOT principle - you also give great examples on how to maintain that joy.
Do you think that being curious is a good way for one to find ones next goal that you speak of? Allowing our level of Joy to rise again.
Does SAM Coops add to MIJOT? I imagine from what you are saying that the answer is yes.
How do you recognize or celebrate your perceived progress?
What I’ve always been interested in is what control we have over our emotions, and so our responsibility for them.
Everybody has had the sense of being locked in by their feelings, at some point or other. In the moment, a powerful feeling comes over us and even when we would have chosen to feel otherwise, we can’t. Anger, jealousy, despair, etc… But what we feel and how we respond are two different things. The ability to recognize a feeling and it’s whim, to table one’s ego for a moment and not just react - that is golden.
If you ever admired someone for the force of their personality and the way they’re able to navigate social or professional worlds, and if you ever wanted to figure out how they do it - I’d say you should start by paying attention to how they manage their emotions and how they are energized by them. How do they react to the positive, the negative, and everything in-between.
I’m sure there are a lot more of those kinds of vague sensations that we get which are hard to put into words, but perhaps could be relayed through poetry.
True - I guess taking responsibility for our emotions is harder than developing a logical mind.
Good point - which is where I became quite happy at the idea of there being a metric for emotional confinement - I think what you are saying happens all the time but to a more or a lesser degree.
I totally agree fuse.
Thank you very much - I will most certainly take a look at the articles - thank you for the other sources too, that is very considerate of you.
It would primarily depend on who the individual is who is indulging in curiosity and what the subject of that curiosity is.
There are emotions, besides happiness, which some might find to be more beneficial to our well being albeit happiness is important for our all-around survival. If we are following our curiosity ~~ for instance, intellectual curiosity ~~ that can give us a sense of wonderment and mystery which can be extremely fulfilling.
We all need to be careful of that “cat within” though which could lead us astray.
It is going to take me a few days to get my head back in the game.
A) Here I only compare two states on purpose. It it easier to contrast two states than more. I am interested in other states that you might define - would you provide for me one or two more states? Please exclude substrate states; ie. the states within the brain.
B) I just want to remind you that I have often mixed these up. I accept the blame for the ambiguity I introduced - it is clear to me what you are saying.
So reasoning is deterministic and mood is bias?
- - - Extra - - -
There is more than one level of programming:
The substrate code.
The natural language.
Logic Conclusion/Possible Corruption
Each sitting atop of each other. Confined to states internal and external to the substrate.
- - - logic working in all three layers - - -
Points → i (affectance)
i ≡ inception ∨ recognition ∨ perception
helps us understand why we forget and remember things; helps us understand why ambiguity takes place.
∴ 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. In other words the unknown is always there.
- - - Correction - - -
You say: Mood is a mental state that biases emotional response.
I now say: Reasoning is a mental state that determines logical response.
I would say that reasoning is more logic bound (consistency of thought). Mood is inattentive to logic.
If by “natural language”, you mean the natural language of thought, I would agree. There are also social languages and social education, each divergent from natural physiological construct.
I would call that state, “sanity” (cohesiveness of thought). Reasoning is a process, much like programming.
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:
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 . . .
Is randomness an actuality or does it only (seem to) exist due to our limited perspectives…unscaled? If it is undiscovered (un-evolved/un-configured) to us, then only order exists?
