Nature, Law And It's Logics: A Glimpse Of What It Is To Be Me.

cannot let actions define me, though possible, this is not the way to go. True, healthy actions, such as solidarity and compassion can shape how you are perceived by people, but it would be invalid to conclude that actions per sa define or shape who you are in essence. The clean slate theory applies to molding and shaping the you responsible of how you see things, but when it comes to who you are in essence, its is comple and whole, leaving no residual value for other definitions- in the sense of how you react in certain given situations such as: saving someones life, better defined bellow does not apply. Because, when saving a person in this unexplained hypothetical scenarion,only your true self can act, so only who you are in essence can respond. I belive it woud also be valid to guess that decisions are results of circumstances, who you are in essense and what is in your clean slate. Just like the double determinism question: is my free will a product of a natural of cultural determinism. That in the last sentence explains why its both, but only one is shapable, logically it deducts me to believe that the determinism that does not change, the natural one, is the most important. Just a gut feeling. You see this, i enjoy it and I am fully taking the advantage of all the wonders that a smart braing can give, but as you can see i tend to shift focus quite disorderly. All Things become really relevant to the subject of applcation and my ability to connect dots, or stretch arguments in other words become stimulated, not sure whether over or not, over cosntitutes excess and excess can downplay necessity. I enjoy it, but I can also see it disrupting my line of though. Why? because this whole intensification in connecting the dots is caused by overconfidence, confidence reflecs in situation in which an alternative position can be imagined and attained meaning- your ego, by finding truths or new ways that aim at creating well being, another, both objective as well as promoters of confidence-( the revolving door phenomenon apply, but there are ways around, requiring you to discover whether a variable owes its origin to a specific object) rather than a consequence of a third exterior factor. So, summarizing the results reflected by self confidence, but not confidence alone are a result of your ego promoting well being innitiatives based on principles of individuality, competition and survival of the fittest, rathen than the reflection of something to be confident about, which uses as its resources(subject to the principles_- the clean slate as defined by the book. So on the same note, stretchin to the results of such rationale given its hypothetical applications is that your ego plays a crucial role, though not defined of measured, not even residually, on how you are perceved and how you act in the world- so this whole overconfidence that is a reflection of your ego or dopamine chemically speaking, given my thoughs in the relationship of both) put it that way, does not cause, but plays the role of a co factor in you believing you are smarter by connecting more dots. In order words, this whole connection of thougts, making sense of things, and widely stretching the applicability of variables or definitions reflect a negative thing, the ego being overworked in pursuant to a lacktherof something else. There is always an external factor for the change of things, over compensation aming a satisfying a necessity somewhere else is the proponent of inbalance. I think it would be inductively strong to conclude that the excess of individualistic properties tends towards the singularization of things, and sigulatization is by defintion, - given the existence of two separate things: singularity and plurality that reflect either the wholeness or lackthereof of the same component- devicive to the existence of the respective - in terms relationship to its extreme under the same varaition, singularity- plurality. This tendency to make what should be or otherwise naturally determined as plural and sustainable singular, or in other words the unecessary and perhaps devicise application of individualistic promotion depriving the plurality of its natural content to constitute singularity tends to the fridgid brake of its natural behavior. What is illogical is, the product of a mistake done along the processing. Errors are inexistent in nature, there is no way around it. Importatn to point our that such understanding of natural laws- is not an cannot be defined so generally as to create an applicable value to the item it compares, in other words this subject for lack of substantial and applicable value cannot be a factor of a deductible argument. This allows me only one way out, assign (PA), not in qualitative nor quantitative value but a simple position of agreement or disagreement, aiming at logically proving and establishing form, in which an inductive reasonign can be abstracted. This does so by lending one of the objects in the premises(not sure which) a stand point in either agreement of dicordance to given variable, one of the two stand point will serve as the PA or guessing of value to establish a logical form. For curosirty: A logical form in math is all that is required to obtain truth. So, this argument is inductively correct though not abosolute, sound nor valid. The reasonable or proovable doubt is the biggest enemy of inductive arguments. In cases involving undefinite values, or simply the unfamiliarity of the logician with the arguments context such as not taking advantage of background information, indefinite definitions for being "abstract" is in most cases of little aplicability in math. So yeah, by explaining the process, I am giving an clear example of what I am talking about. Overthinking things, can seem so righteous when your confidence levels are high, but what happens to over simplifying things, drawing a picture based on relevant whole datas only, rather than creating a picture full of fragments depending on on residual resoning to obtain truth ? Doesn't simplicity lead to higher management of informations and consequently a better retrieving mechanism. So then why is overthinking so fascinating ? Are the grounds for its fascinating factor as trivial as necessity ? Perhaps it is fascinating as well as necessary when we are talking about nonwhole --meaning, undefined fragments that constitute a bigger whole but its own existence is not assigned to a unique(only one) known defined value -- data, because those lets say without definition or only partially defined- such as abstracts- without solely distributed values are inapplicable, or only applicable to the degree in which a logically obtained statistitcs allows it. Therefore, as a whole, their application cant be accurate nor precise. Why ? Those that are determined to be whole or in other words conclusive, are subject only to variations of exterior factors, rather than its own. This is quite simple, given that the variance put in question is merely compared rather than defined, and the determining factor of the argument that determines truth is attained by simply finding a common value rather than "establishing ones" didnt this in "" seem unlogical? yes, this illustrates on more time how overthinking as whole is necessary in some cases. This logical mechanism applies just as well to lines of thoughts, or subconcious mind processing. Though arguments use a more defined structure in which paradigms of resolution can be created and universally adopted- lines of thoughts linear or non linear - i retain the specific application of linear, that of which constitutes definition of an object as sound attained by logical calculation. This is out of the topic, but it is relevant to point out; every thought is sound by definition, make no mistake a thought is not a conclusion, a thought is the sound conclusion of unkown factors that by definition, meaning validly and soundly makes use of natural law or logics (i see logics as absolute steps- Why do I say by definition? conclusions indeed are subject to mis use of logics, but that is because the factors that play a role in determining its validiy, truthfullness and consequently soundness are calculated by our conscious mind, our conscious mind is free willed to adopt logics or not, to establish truth or not, thoughts in the other hand are not subject to descretion, they follow a universal method that could only be corrupted by a conscious mind inexistent in our subconsious mind. This universal method, the natural method, the only known way to finding the truh is logics. I wish i could end this conclusion deductively but i cant, but it seems to me of high attribituve relevance the fact that nature, the creator of the consious-given its creation cannot be attributed to anything more broad- follows logics precisely, after all -- as a second proponent of the induction, my guts tell me that the laws of the universe are based on only two variables that because of natures lack of order caused the original propelling force be it - or ?minimalistic? "tendencies? tend to distipate and create more --(energy or force, is the causer of the phenomenon of variation, creation, or life. What caused such force to beahve in such way? and also what is the origin of force and energy?-- complex variables, that are complex only for its disparcity and multiplication of their own into the creation new ones . The origins remain the same -, and its dispertion has been proved to follow a logical approach. As a linear thought or conclusions, every thought for being a conclusion owes its existence to the "logical" product of external factors based on information or assigned values that are also transformed in thoughts in the same manner. Owing its creation to the same origin as that of a line of thought or conclusion, the origin of thoughts alone can play no constraint in its definition, --in this scenario specifically by definition, without sujectivity to discretion. So, when confronting whether you should make use of overthinking and seek unknown definitons, the key is to determine its parts. Is it whole or undefined? once you know you can proceed in different ways, you have to weigh whether a deeper analysis or as put out popularly "overthinking" will in fact affect work congruently to your over all conclusion(truth) or simply distract. On the same not, the way I see to establish a causal of equivalent relationship between an argument -- premises,object,variables-- and the conclusion-- decision being instigated, successful when it can work its way logically to the truth-is by just like connecting the dots, only different in the way that no external facts are connected, but the propertys of both the variable and object are-- establishing a causal instance in between what constitutes the premiss or premisses and the same exact and its objects and the same properties properties reestated in the conclusion. ( fact: a conclusion in a deductively valid argument is simply the restatement of information provided in the premises) So how does your brain make use of logics? it acts in guessing mode, it establishes two positive outcomes and based on what the intent is an outcome will be selected(just like computer software and its application of the truth tabel. This is just a concrete thought not complete but over simplified of what your brain does cognitively unconsiously when creating thoughts. Once, conscious, like previously explained the brain is to free to engage in discretion that can chose to be logical or not. In logics and arguments in general: It is valid to point that though the same principle -as mentioned on line last paragraph- is used not to obtain a complete truth but an educated guess in iductive reasoning. The differences between deductive and inductive ultimately revolve around the fact that for t former is whole or logically definite and the latter is simply an educated guess that aims at follwoing the same mechanism though lacking the essential factor to absolutism reached in sound conclusion which is a complete definition of assigment of value in the premisses. Though educated, inductive arguments are little more than guesses. Although, trivial and proponents of the obvious factor, they are of little use in instances in which one cannot make use of background information, and the ones whose variables are simply numbers. What is the problem of inductive reasoning? if its relevance is unknown to the persuadee, even in those inductive reasoning instances in which numbers are the determining factor, the enigma of reasonable doubt still applies for; though numbers, by definition, are assigned vallues, and their definitions well defined in pursuant to its universe or its context- the stigma is caused by the same factor, in a revert way explained, but in essence the same, the lack of a common qualitatve of quanitative factor existent in both the premiss and the conclusion. The lack thereof of defined common factors in both steps of the argument, the premiss and the conclusion is what makes a possible connection logically innaplicable. The result of logic in simple words is nothing but the repetition of the conjuction value -- an object(s) under a variable(s)-- in the the conclusion in which the same conjuction plays the premiss
xsta xsta
22-25, M
May 21, 2012