The Architecture of Thought

Human nature is to try understand our surroundings and in some way contribute to them, either to further our own existence or to help others in some way. Human curiosity is I think one of our most powerful attributes, the eternal need to search for more knowledge and to better understand our place in our environment. Now that's the basis for science as what science is constantly trying to do is discover how, why, when, where things exist. In order to make any headway along towards answering questions we have had to come up with a method, Scientific Method, that gives us the capacity to design experiments and processes whereby we can either explain something and predict it, or at least come up with a theory that gives us the best possible description. One of the cores of this Scientific Method is in order to measure something, to come to a reasonable conclusion, we have to limit any variables in that experiment so that any changes that are experienced can be attributed to the one known variable. If we observe changes in an experiment but there are two variables (ie potential contributors), how can we possibly know which one is responsible for the change or even how much each one contributed to that change? We can't, therefore it is imperative that all variables are removed except for one, so we can determine its affect on that change.

Most reasonable people will see this and agree without doubt it is the only way we can possibly measure things accurately. Why then is this same method not applied throughout all aspects of life? It certainly should be, or at least we should attempt to apply it. In this sense I find in order to apply this to everyday life we have to do something vital if its to be achieved. This is separating Emotions from Logical Thought Processes. I don't mean never use emotions, emotions exist for a reason and they hold value in our lives, obviously. However, in order to debate a topic and come to a reasonable conclusion we have to at least attempt to remove any variables that may affect the outcome. Probably the largest contributor to strong personal views is emotions. Now that is based on a variety of things, emotions themselves are based on the history of the individual and their experiences in life. For example if we were talking about a topic to do with something that has affected us personally we are unavoidably going to have a much stronger opinion on that topic. Now the actual experience is what probably shaped the belief, but it is our emotions attached to that which will affect how strongly we follow or defend that belief. 

So in order to debate something and attempt to come to a reasonable conclusion we have to remove these variables. So as I've said, first we Have To remove personal attachment to a topic and all the emotions attached to that. The reason I say that is because emotions themselves offer no potential value to a discussion, they hold no knowledge or information to any topic and therefore cannot contribute to any reasonable outcome. 

So if we are able to remove emotions from discussions we are left only with logical thought and an attempt at coming to a reasonable conclusion based on the information we have and the observations we can make. Many people attempt to remove emotions from a discussion (although frustratingly some people make no attempt at all), and in doing so think that any thought process that follows much be logical. This is a misconception, removing emotions from thought/discussion on a topic is only the most basic and first step (and yes, the most important). We have to continue the Scientific Method throughout our thought processes in order to be successful. The mistake that is made is thinking we can come to some sort of conclusion about a topic without removing any and every possible variable except for the one we hypothesize as being the cause to the affect of an experiment.

Now obviously it is not always possible to achieve this goal of ultimate measurement by the removal of variables, especially in the practical world. This is where reasoning comes in. We wouldn't need reasoning if we could measure everything precisely. Essentially my understanding of reasoning, and hence the thought process I follow, which I (unfortunately) find extremely rare, is, a careful calculation of statistics and odds. I think everyone uses this to a point, but for some reason it breaks down when applied to certain topics (I would venture one of the major reasons are those fidgety emotions). I think the examples for this are endless and when you consider many day to day choices you make you should arrive at the same conclusion, so I will venture a few basic examples to show the source of the thinking I'm referring to:

When you travel on an aircraft there is the possibility of the plane crashing and obviously death. You take the trip anyway, why? You have come to the conclusion that the Odds of Your plane going down are so small that it is worth the very small risk, you don't really have to worry about it that much. You are willing to get on that flight because reasonable thinking says the odds of your survival are pretty good. This example can be applied to numerable other transportation methods and unrelated risks.

When you purchase an item with good reviews or with a good name brand, you are purchasing that product on the idea that out of all the people that have used the general response has been positive and has indicated the purchase is worth the price (or it is at least advertised as such which essentially means our motivations are the same anyway, even if the product owners motivations differ.) So you are looking at the statistical average and coming to a conclusion that the most Likely outcome is that it is a good purchase and so you can feel comfortable making that purchase.

I believe that if people were able to follow the same logical thought patterns, as outlined, because the entire process is derived at a statistical likelihood of a Positive outcome, then the ultimate combination of day to day choices, based upon this method, have to tend to a positive outcome. That statement is carefully constructed in the sense that we should always take the most reasonable and statistically viable option in decision making Because the combination of all our decisions will have to, statistically, as already stated, tend towards a positive result.

I think though processes are very complex and this is just touching on an aspect of our thinking process but I do think its important from a personal and societal point of view. One benefit that I'll mention but not discuss is the potential for removal of punishment for "wrongful" acts and focus only on education or correction of the so called "wrongful" act. If someone was always able to justify a choice and action by being the most reasonable choice they could have made in that situation (based on the information they had), then how could that ever be classified as the "wrong" choice? They would have made the best judgement possible based on reasonable deduction, for example if a driver swerved out of the way of a child in the road only to hit a family on the side, how could he be judged as wrong? He would have had to make a judgement based on the information he had and come to the most reasonable action which was to avoid the child (the phrase reasonable takes into account that a reasonable conclusion takes into account all factors including time limitations, ie seconds to react).

So to agree with a person I haven't met but I feel is extremely Reasonable, Peter Joseph, the most probable and therefore reasonable action to take in the current world to address the growing number of massive issues, is a Shift in thinking and thought process to a objectively based method - Scientific Method.

Family

This is quite an interesting topic. The word or idea of "family" is so universal and accepted it would almost seem that any discussion on it would have to be personal. The idea of family however I believe is quite a bit more complicated (or at least should be) than what it may seem.

Family is essentially just the blood connection between people, so essentially the sharing of genetic material. Why is it then we have such a large emotional connection to family? (Or at least the majority of people have or are expected to.)

I think our natural devotion to family is obvious, it stems from our survival instincts and is one of the reasons are the most successful species on the planet. Our strong social bonding and tendency to help each other have catapulted us way ahead of any previous or current living creature. So over time it would not surprise me that natural selection has only strengthened that family bond.

Having realised the value of family to our species, and the emotional bonding as a result (emotions will ensure we are socially constructive as opposed to focussed just on our own individual existence), I think the personal value placed on the genetic definition of family is questionable.

A lot of value is placed upon blood connections between people, we value that person if for nothing else then purely for that connection. I would argue that there is a value to that connection it isn't anything comparable to the social expectant value it holds. I think the perfect example is that of adoption, the child becomes a part of a "family"; even there is no genetic connection at all (except for some artificial selection). That child will grow up with the same value placed upon family members as those who are genetically connected to their up-bringers.

This example alone indicates something transcendent of the traditional idea of family links, perhaps with a connection to the earlier source of family in reference to survival instinct. As we know that survival connection should break down or at least reduce when we become independent, but it doesn't reduce enough or even at all. So where is the value that natural families share with orphan families coming from?

This I think is the direct relationships we build with people and beyond that, the inevitable conclusion that the people you will have grown up with will have imparted part of themselves onto you. We have a pure connection to these people because they are a inevitably a part of what makes us up. I think this is evident in abusive households where a connection is reversed into adversary and so the "family" members contribution to that persons make up is stopped or restricted. The relationship is no longer something that is invaluable, it becomes disposable because it no longer contributes positively to lives. This is also demonstrable in the instance of family connections being broken due to massive changes to personal beliefs and principles, that deeper understanding of each other is compromised and middle ground is destroyed.

Essentially I think the value of the idea of traditional family is limited. I think what transcends the genetic link and is far more valuable because of that, is the personal connection between family members and the inevitable valuable exchange that goes on. This is where I think people who are referred to as "friends" could also fall into what I think is a more real description of family - reducing the importance of genetic link and emphasizing the importance of personal relationships.