What, me worry?
(I thought about "Don't worry, be happy", but Mad magazine is cooler than Bobby McFerrin, so that one got precedence.)
The one thing I ever really worry about is the welfare of others. Which is somewhat related to that last one. That's why one thing I worry about now is that I may have been rude in reply-response after that somewhat transparently ill-tempered entry. I don't mean to be, but shit happens. Even though I'm often an incredibly nice guy, and pull off quite well the "smiling all the time" friendly dude.. I also make a great asshole, and can come up with a way to put anyone down. They are intimately related, after all: to be nice is often to know what will hurt people, so you can avoid it. To turn that into mean, all you have to do is stop avoiding weak spots, and start targeting them. You're already acutely aware, it's a very, very small step. That judgement is not based entirely upon response or formulaic predictions. More shit I meant to put in a letter once. Rather did, but it got sent to hell instead of its recipient thanks to micros#!t. (I didn't put it that way because I didn't want to say shit, like I did in the preceding and following sentences, it just looks better to me if it's as though the two altered letters are omitted). Anyway, as I was saying, not purely predictions, there is an "intuitive sense" I rely on heavily. That may come from the "hidden power of the mind" but I think it's a bit more than a hyperintelligent subconscious predicting beyond my cognizant ability.
But that's just 'cause I happen to believe emotions are more than simple functions of hormonal interaction.. that a computer cannot be programmed to 'feel', even if it could somehow be made self-aware. I'm sure, just like we often do, such a machine would be perfectly capable of 'faking it' convincingly, and what exactly the distinction is would be completely imperceptible to anyone who cannot 'feel' for oneself the difference.
(aside)
I suppose I think about things like that fairly frequently.. because I'm a natural philosopher. I am not yet.. very accepting of that fact, I have been somewhat derisive of philosophical disciplines, that someone who majored in such a field would be wasting their time. I do still believe the latter, however, it has become necessary for me to accept that, useful or not, it's in my nature. And I think it can be useful, having considered that a bit more, I recognize that many scientific disciplines are rooted in philosophical pursuits. For example, calculus is in part a result of a couple of "Zeno's paradoxes", in which said philosopher noted (probably rough paraphrases if that): "If achilles and a tortoise are in a race, and the tortoise has a 5 yard head-start, by the time achilles reaches the point the tortoise began at, the tortoise has moved. And this is always true, so it's impossible for achilles to pass the tortoise."; and "If you walk toward a wall you must first go half the distance, then half THAT distance.. so you will never reach the wall". It is partly consideration of those problems which necessitated the idea of summation of an infinite series. Incidentally, I personally think the true solution is likely more close to: space is discrete; at some point there IS no "halfway". (/aside)
My belief in that principle, that emotion is something more than an empirical function, is almost certainly related to the very nature of my being. And, the one thing I can know is "I think, therefore I am." Therefore, I am, so whatever I am, is. This is all I can unquestionably know, as all other knowledge and perception is filtered through whatever exactly it is that I am. And one quality of what I am, for whatever reason, appears (and always has, to me) to be that emotion and logic are distinctly divided, hardly intersecting at all if at all.. but both are part of "me" nonetheless. The only explanation I've ever heard of for this has to do with the distinctive characteristics of the male brain. In this explanation, like "males have a lower percentage body fat", it is an 'on average' distinction, meaning individual cases vary so widely that a particular subset of humans in general could be selected such that the exact opposite trend appeared. For that reason, among others, there is no conclusive evidence to call that much more than a single barely supported hypothesis. However, it fits very neatly with my own personal experience of being, which is all I can conclusively know. As slightly more firm evidence suggests that "male intelligence" consists of proficiency in the very areas I am strong, and corresponding weaknesses as well, and as that evidence was the 'inspiration' for the further hypothesis, I have significant reason to believe it. But, like everything else, it is ultimately just a belief. I will probably never understand enough of the science to fully have anything close to a reasonable proof of that conjecture. It's also perfectly possible after all that I am merely crazy.. er, "odd" in exactly the right way to match others hypotheses. That's called coincidence, and I rarely accept coincidence. That allows me to make interesting connections (kinda like that show, except generally not so much about history), and also to come up with vivid imagery and analogies. It also allows me to see things that are not there.
There's a fine line between mental acuity and mental disorder. If indeed there is a line at all, that is. Autism, for example, is highly more prevalent in males than females (something on the order of 8-to-1, I believe), and it's been suggested that this is because autism is an especially extreme form of that male/female differentiation. That autism is an extreme form of "male intelligence" (This is not to suggest, by the way, and I might have done well to mention it the first time I used that phrase, that males are more intelligent either on average or in the extreme.. only that the most common male intelligence is acuity in different specific types of processing. "Multithreading" appears to be one advantage to "female intelligence", for example.) This would seem to be supported by the fact that many autistics are, while disabled in many basic areas, correspondingly gifted in unique, specific tasks. Think "Rainman" if you must. I suspect there are also some advantages to schizophrenia, but I'm less aware of exactly what those might be. Anyway, enough babbling, I am going to sleep now.
I don't think I said a single damn one of the things I meant to express originally. But I'm really more interested in sharing whatever I can than capturing what I meant to. The latter, after all, is an impossible task, because I would ideally (and I tend to think only in ideals) share everything with everyone. I know this would create a whole lot of problems, including probably make everyone in the world hate me. But I'd still do it if I could, because I am what I am, and it's their right to hate me for what I am, if they choose to be [antonym for "understanding"]. Anything short of that is disingenuous. Even though what I think I am, what I'm actually capable of sharing, changes moment to moment and frequently contradicts itself. Despite the fact that I am almost always "sorry I said" everything I have said in the past (It's not really sorry, it's more like.. shame, or simply incredulity e.g. "I can't believe how stupid I was".) That's not really all that strange, when you think about it, though. I mean, I am constantly learning. Therefore, I consistently know more than I did at any given point in the past. While "forgetting" is an option when it comes to specific facts (and "forgotten" generally means what "garbage" does in computer programming terms.. it's still stored in memory, the trouble is that you don't have anything that points to it, so you can't actually access it. Incidentally, human thought seems to work an awful lot like some crazy tree structure. Seems sorted by emotion rather than anything "logical" in my opinion.), it is not really an option in terms of.. let's call it "overall enlightenment". But, anyway, I was going to bed.
The one thing I ever really worry about is the welfare of others. Which is somewhat related to that last one. That's why one thing I worry about now is that I may have been rude in reply-response after that somewhat transparently ill-tempered entry. I don't mean to be, but shit happens. Even though I'm often an incredibly nice guy, and pull off quite well the "smiling all the time" friendly dude.. I also make a great asshole, and can come up with a way to put anyone down. They are intimately related, after all: to be nice is often to know what will hurt people, so you can avoid it. To turn that into mean, all you have to do is stop avoiding weak spots, and start targeting them. You're already acutely aware, it's a very, very small step. That judgement is not based entirely upon response or formulaic predictions. More shit I meant to put in a letter once. Rather did, but it got sent to hell instead of its recipient thanks to micros#!t. (I didn't put it that way because I didn't want to say shit, like I did in the preceding and following sentences, it just looks better to me if it's as though the two altered letters are omitted). Anyway, as I was saying, not purely predictions, there is an "intuitive sense" I rely on heavily. That may come from the "hidden power of the mind" but I think it's a bit more than a hyperintelligent subconscious predicting beyond my cognizant ability.
But that's just 'cause I happen to believe emotions are more than simple functions of hormonal interaction.. that a computer cannot be programmed to 'feel', even if it could somehow be made self-aware. I'm sure, just like we often do, such a machine would be perfectly capable of 'faking it' convincingly, and what exactly the distinction is would be completely imperceptible to anyone who cannot 'feel' for oneself the difference.
(aside)
I suppose I think about things like that fairly frequently.. because I'm a natural philosopher. I am not yet.. very accepting of that fact, I have been somewhat derisive of philosophical disciplines, that someone who majored in such a field would be wasting their time. I do still believe the latter, however, it has become necessary for me to accept that, useful or not, it's in my nature. And I think it can be useful, having considered that a bit more, I recognize that many scientific disciplines are rooted in philosophical pursuits. For example, calculus is in part a result of a couple of "Zeno's paradoxes", in which said philosopher noted (probably rough paraphrases if that): "If achilles and a tortoise are in a race, and the tortoise has a 5 yard head-start, by the time achilles reaches the point the tortoise began at, the tortoise has moved. And this is always true, so it's impossible for achilles to pass the tortoise."; and "If you walk toward a wall you must first go half the distance, then half THAT distance.. so you will never reach the wall". It is partly consideration of those problems which necessitated the idea of summation of an infinite series. Incidentally, I personally think the true solution is likely more close to: space is discrete; at some point there IS no "halfway". (/aside)
My belief in that principle, that emotion is something more than an empirical function, is almost certainly related to the very nature of my being. And, the one thing I can know is "I think, therefore I am." Therefore, I am, so whatever I am, is. This is all I can unquestionably know, as all other knowledge and perception is filtered through whatever exactly it is that I am. And one quality of what I am, for whatever reason, appears (and always has, to me) to be that emotion and logic are distinctly divided, hardly intersecting at all if at all.. but both are part of "me" nonetheless. The only explanation I've ever heard of for this has to do with the distinctive characteristics of the male brain. In this explanation, like "males have a lower percentage body fat", it is an 'on average' distinction, meaning individual cases vary so widely that a particular subset of humans in general could be selected such that the exact opposite trend appeared. For that reason, among others, there is no conclusive evidence to call that much more than a single barely supported hypothesis. However, it fits very neatly with my own personal experience of being, which is all I can conclusively know. As slightly more firm evidence suggests that "male intelligence" consists of proficiency in the very areas I am strong, and corresponding weaknesses as well, and as that evidence was the 'inspiration' for the further hypothesis, I have significant reason to believe it. But, like everything else, it is ultimately just a belief. I will probably never understand enough of the science to fully have anything close to a reasonable proof of that conjecture. It's also perfectly possible after all that I am merely crazy.. er, "odd" in exactly the right way to match others hypotheses. That's called coincidence, and I rarely accept coincidence. That allows me to make interesting connections (kinda like that show, except generally not so much about history), and also to come up with vivid imagery and analogies. It also allows me to see things that are not there.
There's a fine line between mental acuity and mental disorder. If indeed there is a line at all, that is. Autism, for example, is highly more prevalent in males than females (something on the order of 8-to-1, I believe), and it's been suggested that this is because autism is an especially extreme form of that male/female differentiation. That autism is an extreme form of "male intelligence" (This is not to suggest, by the way, and I might have done well to mention it the first time I used that phrase, that males are more intelligent either on average or in the extreme.. only that the most common male intelligence is acuity in different specific types of processing. "Multithreading" appears to be one advantage to "female intelligence", for example.) This would seem to be supported by the fact that many autistics are, while disabled in many basic areas, correspondingly gifted in unique, specific tasks. Think "Rainman" if you must. I suspect there are also some advantages to schizophrenia, but I'm less aware of exactly what those might be. Anyway, enough babbling, I am going to sleep now.
I don't think I said a single damn one of the things I meant to express originally. But I'm really more interested in sharing whatever I can than capturing what I meant to. The latter, after all, is an impossible task, because I would ideally (and I tend to think only in ideals) share everything with everyone. I know this would create a whole lot of problems, including probably make everyone in the world hate me. But I'd still do it if I could, because I am what I am, and it's their right to hate me for what I am, if they choose to be [antonym for "understanding"]. Anything short of that is disingenuous. Even though what I think I am, what I'm actually capable of sharing, changes moment to moment and frequently contradicts itself. Despite the fact that I am almost always "sorry I said" everything I have said in the past (It's not really sorry, it's more like.. shame, or simply incredulity e.g. "I can't believe how stupid I was".) That's not really all that strange, when you think about it, though. I mean, I am constantly learning. Therefore, I consistently know more than I did at any given point in the past. While "forgetting" is an option when it comes to specific facts (and "forgotten" generally means what "garbage" does in computer programming terms.. it's still stored in memory, the trouble is that you don't have anything that points to it, so you can't actually access it. Incidentally, human thought seems to work an awful lot like some crazy tree structure. Seems sorted by emotion rather than anything "logical" in my opinion.), it is not really an option in terms of.. let's call it "overall enlightenment". But, anyway, I was going to bed.