DUPLICATE OF (prezi and alternate page design funcionality test)
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT No. 1
In this thought experiment, my aim is to redefine the concepts associated with some familiar terms with a little bit more precision than you are perhaps accustomed to in your day-to-day conversations. Accurately defining these concepts might start to seem tedious as you move along this thought experiment, given how “well known” and “understood” these concepts are. But I can assure you, this process is a crucial first step before we discuss anything if we want to avoid any confusion later on. This is also going to help us side step many of the traps set by the “loose” language we all seem okay with. But the truth is, I can’t tell you the number of times I observe people arguing what they believe to be opposing views when they are often in total agreement or are arguing two different things entirely, but they never arrive at that conclusion due to their conversation being littered with inadequately defined terms. So, if this starts to feel a bit overwhelming in its specificity, just remember that it will be all worth it at the end. But I will also summarize the take away points at the end for those who understand what I am trying to do and don’t need to go the step by step derivation of every new term. So, if you feel comfortable to skip ahead at any point, you may do so, but I highly urge you to go through the thought experiment in its entirety. But I also Italicized the portions of the discussion that would only be of interest to those who like these sort of thought experiments. But these portions can be skipped by those who don’t consider this discussion as their cup of tea as they have less baring on our main objectives as the non-italicized portions.
Part 1: TIMELESSNESS
Imagine waking up tomorrow to a world devoid of the concept of time as you have come to know it. It may sound tricky at first, but picture yourself in a world where clocks and watches were nowhere near as pervasive as they are today. Afterall, we live in a world where TIME is being “communicated” to us from every direction. I sometimes play a game to see how long I can go without being forced or tricked into learning what the time was. I never last long. Even if I manage to avoid looking at my car’s dash and radio displays, and remember to turn off NPR and keep my phone facing down, something like the stove or microwave often gets me as soon as I get into the house. Even when I’m driving a long distance as I usually am when I decide to play the game, there are way too many plaza or gas station displays that are equipped to tell me the time. But time wasn’t always so near to omnipresence in its prevalence as it is now. But I’m not interested in a discussion of how the world would be different without time, I proposed the hypothetical timeless world of tomorrow to help us define alternative ways to described the “sensation” of being alive if the phrase “by sensing the passing of time” was rendered meaningless, as it would be to those living in that TIMELESS world who has never learned what time or even clocks are.
One way we can go about it is to say that being alive means being an observer of the ever-present change that we can perceive with our 5 senses.
You can argue that methods exist to subject a person to undergo a form of sensory depravation but that wouldn’t make them not feel alive. But these methods don’t actually prevent our sensory capabilities but rather deprive the person from what they would consider a stimuli. That is to say a dark room doesn’t take away our ability to see but it dulls our sense of vision by limiting or preventing any change in our environment.
So imagine being suspended in mid air in complete darkness and silence inside a zero gravity room. In such a scenario, there is no change in my surrounding environment to sense but you would still know you are alive for the simple fact that you would still be able to cause change and sense it thereafter. In other words, you can still act, as in performing an action, like moving your arms around or blinking. Therefore, the safer way the “experience of being alive” can be described is the experience of a person exercising their ability to create change rather than sense change.
Part 2: THE ACTIONLINE
One way we could sum up a person’s life today would be the sum of all the Seconds that he lived. I’m sure you are all acquainted with the idea of putting someone’s year of birth and year of their death on their tombstone. But for the purpose of our discussion, I would like us to stick to using “Seconds” rather than “years”. And we can define a person’s TIMELINE as the geometric representation of the sequence of Seconds that makes up their entire LIFETIME. Lifetime being the “time period” between a person’s time of death and their time of birth.
But in our experimental timeless world, our ability to create change was the essence in our definition of living. By defining ACTING (taking an action, not the profession!) as the most fundamental means by which a person creates change, then we can define ACTIONLINE as the geometric representation of a person’s actions that they performed during their LIFETIME. So we can think of every point on the ACTIONLINE as the act that was taking place during that point or second on the TIMELINE. Obviously, the ACTIONLINE model is a superior to the TIMELINE model as it contains valuable information about the person by accounting for all their actions. I’m hoping it’s apparent how little to no information is contained in the TIMELINE model about the person whose life it represents.
Part 3: The DECISIONLINE
The Actionline as we derived and defined above is a great model to represent someone’s life, but it remains incomplete. Because actions alone don’t paint the complete picture of what is going on in a person’s head. We need to find a model that accounts for the types of “actions” that are carried out in the person’s mind.
To help us stay organized, let’s introduce the MATERIAL REALM since it is the REALM (virtual space) where the ACTIONLINES of every human being who has ever and will ever live are placed. And the reason that ACTIONLINES are assigned to the Material Realm is because it is defined as the virtual space housing all the things that are SENSORY. SENSORY being the adjective describing anything that can be perceived by our 5 senses. Alternatively, the MENTAL REALM is the virtual space containing all the things that are EXTRASENSORY. As you may have guessed, EXTRASENSORY is the adjective for the things that we cannot perceive with our senses.
It's worth noting that the Material Realm has the things perceived by our brains while the Mental Realm are the things perceived through our minds. Our focus will be on working in the Mental Realm as we move forward since the Action Line is the only thing modeled in the Material Realm in this thought experiment.
This brings us to the next major definition, DECISIONS. Sticking with our linear geometric model, The DECISIONLINE should be thought of as the parallel reflection of the ACTIONLINE into the Mental Realm. The reason why the decision line was described as a parallel reflection to the action line was because there is no difference between your decision to do something and doing it, or attempting to do it, in accordance with our definition at least.
For example, someone diving in a pool of water is a point on the Actionline corresponding to the decision of jumping in a pool of water which is a point on the Decisionline. In other words, performing an action and deciding to take an action refer to the same “event” and occur simultaneously. It’s important that you understand that there is no “causal” relationship between deciding something and doing it as far as these definitions are concerned. So it isn’t that a decision to do something is made and then the person carries it out. My definition of decisions instead is another way of modeling the Actionline in a way that allows it to be represented in the MENTAL REALM. If it helps, think of Action points and Decision points as two sides of the same coin. Each side belonging or facing the REALM that fits with its definitions.
But when we began defining the Decisionline, we were seeking a model with the added advantage over the Actionline of incorporating “actions” that don’t have any material aspects to them. “Actions” such as:
Deciding to imagine things.
Deciding to contemplate or think about a topic or an idea.
Deciding to try and remember things.
Deciding to plot for or design a mental plan.
All these decisions are actions omitted from the Actionline on account that they fall beyond the purview of our sensory capabilities. Afterall, someone can be doing all the examples I listed while they are laying down with their eyes closed. So, as it stands, my definition of the Decisionline doesn’t provide any added information regarding the extrasensory Actions like the examples. Given that my definition asserts that decision points and action points are practically different forms describing the same act.
I want to introduce another term to better distinguish the two different types of “actions” we’ve been talking about. I will continue to use “actions” to describe the sensory things taking place in the Material Realm (the points on the Actionline) but to prevent confusion, I will start using “THOUGHTS” to refer to actions exclusive to the Mental Realm. This makes the THOUGHTLINE a geometric representation of the extrasensory Actions (that I will be calling THOUGHTS now) that take place in tandem with each point on the Actionline.
With that in mind, pun intended, the complete definition of the DECISIONLINE becomes the sequence of points reflecting the points of a person’s Actionline in addition to the points from the Thoughtline. This means that the same, “noncausal” relationship I emphasized in the earlier definition also applies to the newly introduced Thoughline component of the definition. Technically, the addition of the Thoughtline points would add another dimension to our Decisionline making the Decisionplane model more geometrically accurate. However, we are only interested in how basic parameters of our models relatively measure up. As long as the line we use is the same length as the Actionline and Thoughtline (which are also the same length) then we can continue with our thought experiment without the need to expand our models.
To recap, the Actionline is better than a Timeline, but falls short compared to a Decisionline. The Decisionline isn’t only more inclusive than the Actionline, but it also offers us the means to go deeper into defining higher concepts and their roles in the decision-making process. And since decision making is considered to be a process, then I can finally introduce the Decision Making Function into our model.
I am using FUNCTION to model our decision-making process because functions are good mathematical models to represent a process that takes in data and outputs data based on what it took in. Think of every decision one makes as the Y Outputs of the Decision-Making Function or DMF for short. And we can define the X inputs as the conditions describing a person’s Present State. PRESENT STATE being the internal and external states a person when the decision is being calculated (not made!). Remember, making the decision is the same as the action taking place. So, the “making” part in the DMF refers to the calculation that produces the DECISION point from the X inputs values. Granted, according to our models and definitions, the “production” of the decision is simultaneously resulting in the person making it as well as acting it out. So, basically everything in our model occurs instantaneously. Any real-world deviation from that can be accounted for by biological factors like latency in our sensing abilities and delays in our nerve transmittance. Even in real world the difference is pretty much negligible.
A simple example to illustrate the DMF at work can be a situation where you see a tiger approaching the area you are standing. The tiger’s approach makes your external condition of your PRESENT STATE dangerous, and the internal condition would be the fear and anxiety you would be feeling. The danger and fear serve as the X inputs that led the DMF to output the Y decision to flee.
We can now use our understanding of DMF to justify an alternate definition of the DECISIONLINE as the sequence of all the Y decision points outputted by a person’s DMF. Keep in mind, this new definition doesn’t conflict our earlier version. The Decisionline is still a sequence of decision points and regardless of which definition we use, the decision points would come out to be identical. The difference arises due to a change in persepecive when defining the Decisionline. Phrases like My Mother and My Daughter can be used to describe the same person depending on who’s point of view is being considered. Similarly, we defined the Decisionline from the P.O.V. of the Actionline and Thoughtline, then we defined it in context with the DMF procedure. And the reason I wanted to change perspectives is to help us close in on a vital factor affecting the way we formulate our decisions which we can only get to by delving deeper into the inner working of the DMF and other higher functions that make up the mechanism of the inner workings of our minds.
Part 4: The Intended States
To recap, we deemed the Decisionline to be more informative than the Actionline since it accounted for the thoughts plus the actions of a person. Then we described every decision someone makes as reaction to their current circumstance or their Present State. Present State being the combined assessment of a person’s internal feelings as well as the conditions of the external world around them.
Now, I want to delve a little deeper into the DMF by introducing the term INTENDED STATE as the State a person was trying to realize when they are producing a decision. A simple example would be you entering your kitchen feeling hungry, finding a sandwich sitting there on the counter and proceeding to eat it. The decision function took in the internal and external conditions of your Present State (internally: feeling hungry, externally: there was food within your reach) and produced the decision to eat the sandwich to move you from a hungry Present State to the Intended State in which you are not hungry anymore. Since every decision can be thought of as a decision corresponding to the Present States and Intended States that produced it, then let’s define the INTENTIONLINE as the sequence of all the Intended States corresponding to the Decisionline of a person. And in a similar fashion, let’s call the sequence of Present States points, the Currentstateline or (CSL).
If we were given the CSL of a person’s life then in theory, we can use the Intentionline to reproduce all their decisions and the accompanying thoughts and actions. The only other thing we would need is their KNOWLEDGE MATRIX (KM). The Knowledge Matrix being the main generator behind almost every process unfolding in our minds, like the DMF and many other higher functions that I won’t be covering in this experiment. For example, the SEF of State Evaluation Function that assesses and evaluates the Present States conditions that then go into the DMF. The Knowledge Matrix will be discussed in more depth later in a separate post. But to keep things simple for the purposes of our current thought experiment, think of it as a live everchanging and evolving matrix modeled to represent someone’s “KNOW HOW”.
One such example would be if we know the Present State of a person is:
Externally - in class taking a math test with a problem in front of him.
Internally - Probably worried about how much time he has left.
If his Intentionline reveals the Intented State in which the problem is solved then we would know he’s going to decide to solve it (the Decision Point on his Decisionline) and what he’s going to write down (Action Point on the Actionline) since it’s a reflection of his Decision Point; Assuming we know his Knowledge Matrix contains the knowledge of how to solve it correctly.
One more thing I want to point out about the Knowledge Matrix is that for the most part it is generated and governed by our Experience and Memory and it continues to evolve as we continue to learn. This is obviously an oversimplification as it doesn’t take into account a person’s genetics and other intellectual abilities but it serves our purposes because none of the factors are under our control. I mean that how well we can remember things or problem solve or recognize patterns isn’t willfully enforced. The fact I want to underline about the KM is that it doesn’t fall under our conscious ability to determine it. Of course, we can decide to learn and improve our knowledge matrix, but in doing so we assert an Intended State of acquiring more knowledge that has led to said decision and thereby our conscious choice has been accounted for in that portion of mechanism that is the inner workings of our mind. And that is the path I want to continue along in our current thought experiment to determine, or define I should say, what is producing the Intended States from which all our decisions and actions can be derived.
Part 5: Desire
So, with the understanding that our definition of the Knowledge Matrix places it outside the influence of our control, and with Present States being mainly based on external factors, also beyond our control, our only means remaining where we can exercise our “free will” would have to be somewhere in the Intended States production process. And continuing with our nomenclature methodology, we can call the Intended States Selection function the ISSF (I’ll explain why I used “selection” in a bit). So how does each of us determine the Intended States that guide our decision making? To begin answering this question we have to introduce DESIRES into the mix. I will define DESIRES as a list of the things that are always “in demand”. I will break Desires into two categories, Innate and Learned. Innate desires are those we deem necessary for our survival while learned desires are those we believe are geared towards helping us achieve excellence.
For the likeminded individuals among you who may be wondering, I will add that learned are technically an evolved form of Innate desires. One way to think about it is that learned Desires are things that ensure our Innate Desires will be easier to satiate in the future. But let’s table this discussion for the better days to come.
Food and water are pretty straight forward examples of Innate Desires, while Learned Desires are things like money and power. Innate Desires are things that we know are required for our survival while the Learned Desires are things we believe fascilitates it. One additional key distingtion between the two different types is the fact that Innate Desires suppercede the learned however they are rendered “temporary undersireable” when they are fully satisfied while the learned Desires can never be fully satiated and have an infinite ceiling.
The reason why desires have entered the scene is because ISSF goes takes in Present States conditions as one of its inputs and Current List of Desires as it’s second input variable and through application of the Knowledge Matrix it ouputs the Intended States based on the highest ranking Desire the person believed can be saitiated. One way to visually think about this process, is having a “live” dynamically shifting and shuffling list with a ranking of all your desires, the ISF then goes down that starting from the top with the highest priority desire until it finds the one that can achieved given the Present Conditions at that moment.
In other words, Intended States and Desired States describe the same States. The difference is Intentions is the term used when we are looking at it from the Decision-making process’s perspective while Desired State is the label when we are talking looking at it from Morality’s point of view which I have yet to define. This should make perfect sense when we think about the fact that we “intend” for the things that we “desire”.
Part 6: Morality
But before I define morality, I want to define Absolute Selfishness as the force that fills all of us with DESIRE. So in other words, all are desires are completely selfishly inclined, therefore so are our intended states. Some might want to point out that donating to charity contradicts this view or definition but let me remind you that nobody desires states of being in which they are worst off then their present states. Even if someone is giving something away, all that says is that their moral compass assigns more value to the act of giving then the material worth of what they gave away.
Moral Compass is how we describe the altered reprioritized list of desires of a person. That means, if we all have the same list and ranking of Desires, MORALITY is a function that shuffles the ranking of these desires with the introduces of new concepts. Suddenly, things like compassion, philanthropy, even basic attributes like kindness start to be more desirable and sought after. But the key to remember here is that these are foreign concepts introduced by the introduction of Morality. Otherwise, there is no value to kindness and compassion aside from a long term of potential selfish gain that can come of it.
If we submit that SELFISHNESS is the primal motivator of every one of us and that every one of us has the same innate list of DESIRES, then we agree that absent any other variables, we all share an identical list of DESIRES. I know some of you are wondering how do selfless acts like donating to charity fit into the
and that One way to begin answering this question is by bringing Desires into it. We can then define desire as the can simplify this task by agreeing that One way to think about it is
As human beings, each of us has an optimum state of being. But part of being alive means we are in a constant state of departure away from that state. If you are full, you will eventually grow hungry. If the weather is perfect, it will eventually change, so on and so forth. All these biological necessicities to stay alive can be combined and called our Survival Needs. I am talking about basic things like, temperature, oxygen, food, wather, shelter and sleep. Survival Needs are the base portion of …………………………….I am not going to dwell too much on these right now because for the most part, most of us don’t have to worry too much about securing our Survival Needs, not in the U.S.A. at least, which means the majority of our Intended States are the results of our ……………. FUNCTION.
Search (Curious) Mode
Safe (Iman) Mode
As I mentioned earlier, very little of our time (relative to previous eras) is spent in Survival Mode. Search Mode was my mode for the first 2/3 of my life before I finally settled in Safe Mode. Each of the three modes is associated with in modern This brings us to the
If we retrace our logic so far, the ultimate determinant of our decisions and actions is a person’s morality. Since Morality assigns the values to everything a person desires, and the intended states are the highest desired states attaineable in one’s present state. One thing to note here before moving on to the last part of our thought experiment is that just like our decisions are derived from Morality, we can also determine one’s morality from their decisions. Think of it like integrations one way and integrals in the opposite direction.
Three main versions of Morality that people live by exist. There is the Morality of Self, the Morality of Society, and the Morality of God.
The self based morality is pretty basic and ranks desires as close to our innate list of desires as possible with alterations taking place only when the consequences outweigh the reward. The best example I can think of at the moment is an atheist seriving multiple life sentences in prison.
The Society based morality is very similar to the Self based but with the addition of perception based values. That means a desire of mainting a certain public image will lead to the shuffling of one’s desires quite a bit. The magnitude of this shuffling varies depending on a lot of factors. For example a politician list of desires may assign more value and thereby find participation in public philanthropic activities more desirable the average person. This is the type of Morality that is by far most widespread. The fact that there is no spiritual component to it ultimately means one thing. It means that if you can get away with it / be certain nobody will ever find out, then the list and values of desires is nearly identical to the prisoner serving multiple life sentences. And this is why corruption is so widespread and prevalent in our world.
Why would a politician vote their con
Why would a C.E.O. care about damaging the environment if he won’t be alive to experience the consequences?
Has anyone ever been the target of a random act of kindness from a complete stranger? Not counting myself of course
I know atheists and agnostics object to what I just said, but if you take some time to really think about it, you would know I’m correct. But don’t worry, if you insist, there will be a time to voice your objections and argue against me. For the rest, we can finally introduce Spiritual Morality.
Spiritual Morality is the most diverse type because it can assign any rank to any concept depending on the religion a person follows. Since the person believes in a higher power capable of rewarding and punishing a person beyond its material existence, any amount of reward can be associated to any kind of act as long as the person believes it’s from their God. One example of the type of extremes this opens the doors to is the suicide bombers who are often religiously motivated.
All these variations mean that there is an infinitely large set of Deities containing all the deities ever worshiped.
In summary, the Self Morality produces a hierchy of desires aimed at pleasing one’s self via satisfying their innate animalistic desires. The Social Morality produces a hierchy of desires similar to that of Self Morality except for the added desires aimed at glorifying them in the eyes of others and increasing their popularity. The Spiritual Morality produces a list of desires with the highest value assigned to pleasing God.
I would like to remind the reader that all of these Moralities are still rooted in the Morality of Absolute Selfishness. The difference arises in what the practitioner BELIEVES will result in the highest reward. That is to say the Self Moral thinks pleases themselves is the only thing worthwhile. The Socially Moral believes holding back some of their base desires in favor of a better reputation will yield more reward in the long run. While the Spiritually Moral believes the greatest reward would come from incurring God’s favor than from satisfying their own basic desires.
A second reminder, or note, is that I used the word “pleasing” when I was discussing Spiritual Morality. I want to underline the fact that the Intended States that come out from the desire of pleasing God is not the same thing as worshiping God.
WORSHIP is the word for the association of a certain decision with the GOD it was intended to please, from the P.O.V of an objective 3rd party observer in accordance with that GOD’s teachings. What does that mean exactly?
For one, It means that you are in a constant state of worship. Every instant you are making a decision and ever decision made is an act of worship of the deity it was tailored to please. Because every decision making process is based on an Intended State that came from a specific list of desires unique to the specific deity being appeased by it.
As you may have guessed, that means most people are polytheists. Perhaps you can begin to understand why there is so much emphasis on the idea of “KHALAS” in worshipping Allah alone in the Qur’an.
The other thing it means is that CHRONOS, the God of Time is by far the most widely worshiped and appeased God in the world today. This assertion isn’t solely based on this philosophical reasoning I just went over, nor on the prophetic interpretation I’m about to introduce. My assertion is based on the fact that The Creator* declared seeking Knowledge & Justice was the only means of worshiping him and after a decade of offering both on a silver platter, the reason why nobody wants to learn about a plan so miraculous that it turned the most staunch atheist into a devout believer is because it wouldn’t please CHRONOS; Or as they like to phrase it “don’t have time”.
*The Creator according to the Abrahamic traditions as interpreted by the person he appointed to present his will.
Before we jump into the prophetic section, I want to take a moment to define a few more terms based on the definitions we established so far. We defined the Material Realm as the realm where actions take place and we can distinguish it from the Mental Realm by the fact that we can perceive the Material Realm using our senses. The Mental realm is where higher functions as simple as thinking and imagining and more complex ones like decision making are carried out. The Spiritual Realm is where the God’s being worshipped by mankind can be placed. And the struggle for mankind’s worship can be described as a war between the God’s that is unfolding in the Spiritual Realm.
Additionally, every deity exists in part in each of the three realms. For example, the Creator of Everything exists in the Spiritual Realm as The God of Abraham. In the Mental Realm, he exists as the culmination of his teachings and pushing man to striving for knowledge and justice. And in the Material Realm we find the means in which his teachings and philosophies were meant to reach us such as his prophets and the written word they left us. Similarly, Chronos is the how Time exists in the spiritural realm. In the Mental Realm, it exists as Time the concept and what is primarily guiding our decision making and around which our days revolve. And by days I mean the 24 hour long sequence of decisions that is determined by his material vessels, the written and spoken forms of all that conveys TIME to us (Clocks, Watches, Phones, Etc.).
So, if The Creator was to send his CHRIST over with a KNOWLEDGEBLE plan to establish JUSTICE, who would be his most worthy adversary to earn him the title of The Anti-Christ Dajjal (Deceiver)?