Total posts: 910
This is meant to be the distilled version of techniques from the original six concepts of memory.
The Five Keys to Memory:
- Sensory Memory: Our senses, notably sight and hearing for academic purposes, serve as pathways for memory. We can improve memory by leveraging both sight and hearing during memorization, increasing the number of pathways to recall.
- Pattern Recognition (Concepts): Our brain easily memorizes patterns and identifies them in the form of shapes, sounds, and sequences.
- Existing Memory Association: We can associate patterns in new information with existing information to form a mental bridge. This anchors the new knowledge with rigid memory pathways.
- Desire and Pressure: Memories are prioritized by their emotional impact, which is their perceived impact on our future-self, and they may exist as desire or pressure. We can combine the two by determining the consequences of both success and failure, but remember excess pressure causes the brain to become distracted by potential failure.
- Reinforcement and Erosion: Recalling memories reinforce them, strengthening their neural connections, while unused memories erode, eventually becoming forgotten.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Which is the most moral?Killing a Muslim terrorist.Or not killing a Muslim terrorist.
Based on utilitarianism it is better to kill an active Muslim terrorist, but it may be different given an alternative moral structure.
And what would the Muslim terrorist's moral viewpoint be?
I would imagine it is quite similar to the Christian theology, where we must put our faith in God and do no matter what he asks. The only difference is what they are commanded in their Bible.
And who is actually the immoral terrorist?
Terrorist: defined as a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Based on utilitarianism I would consider the Muslims to be immoral, and the illegal violence they display shows only they could be considered the terrorist. However, given an alternative moral structure it may be different, but they would still be considered the terrorist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I appreciate how your careful questioning has helped me deepen my understanding of morality. I'm certain this will better prepare me to explain morality in the future.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I was referring to an individual being treated consistently by that individual's moral standard given to them by God, which is consistent for that individual. However, the larger picture includes there are many different individuals, which are treated by various different moral structures as demonstrated in the Bible. This shows the inconsistency of morality from the broader lens, I referred to this as the objective view, demonstrating how morality is inconsistent between individuals.
In essence, morality is consistent subjectively, and inconsistent intersubjectively.
Created:
I have worked quite a time to refine everything above related to concepts into the following.
This is meant to be a precise and concise recap:
All knowledge can be classified as concepts or solutions.Concepts are the framework that establish a solution’s validity. Solutionsprovides an immediate solution, but it is only applicable to a single question;meanwhile concepts can solve numerous questions, but it takes time to reach thesolution. Concepts are superior to solutions in cultivating a comprehensiveunderstanding of reality due to their simple yet encompassing nature, but it isoften time efficient to also memorize the solution to repeat questions becauseit saves time solving, such as times tables.
There is a utility hierarchy among concepts, which isdetermined by the breadth they encompass reality. This is because a concept’sbreadth is proportional to its applicability, making some more useful thanothers. For example, the concept “gravity pulls everything together” can solvea near infinite number of questions, relative to “all people drink water,”which can only be used about seven billion times.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
"Objective information" would be incoherent since it would necessitate accumulation and processing information independent of any one individual's being the subject. There's no conceivable method or means to control for information which is independent of a subject's bias. Consensus is no less subject to bias than individual discretion.
Yes, I agree that there cannot be such a thing as objective information. This is because information must be observed and empirically verified, which is against the nature of objectivity. I also agree that all information that is gathered must be subjective, as it must be perceived in order to be considered verifed, and I agree that consensus is not a bases for objectivity, but a collective subjectivity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Can you elaborate on why you believe "objectivity is irrational," and what this implies?
"Objective reality": refers to the theoretical world that exists independently of personal opinions or beliefs. It's the reality shared by all individuals. In contrast, "subjective reality" is influenced by personal opinions, emotions, and perceptions, varying from person to person. It's the individual's unique interpretation of the objective reality.
"Irrational": refers to thoughts, beliefs, or actions that don't follow logical reasoning or are not based on evidence and sound judgment. It contrasts with "rational" thinking, which involves logical and reasoned decision-making guided by evidence and coherent thought processes.
I would agree that it is irrational to believe that the objective realm exists with certainty, but not to acknowledge its theoretical existence, along with its practical implications.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
@zedvictor4
I don't claim to know for certain that any of which I said to be true, it is merely speculation based on the religious text itself, which I presume would be believable for people who believe in the religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I agree, I do not think anarchy would be sufficient to maintain enough power to defend itself and hold together. However, I believe that one nation with complete uniformity is either oppressive or non-ideal as it would cause people who don't align with that political structure to be forced into it. I'm curious as to how many times it is necessary to divide a nation into subsections in order to create the best ratio, balancing power and freedom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The first example shows their actions judging the afterlife are inconsistent as one person doing an action gets a result and another person doing the same action a different result, yet the second example shows how there can still be seen a consistency as all humans go to either heaven or hell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
It's interesting how you pointed out that within inconsistency there can be consistency. Some view that people go to heaven inconsistently based on their actions, yet simultaneously others can say God Judges individuals consistently between heaven or hell. It is in this way that consistent and inconsistent must refer to something. In the first case it was their actions judging their afterlife, and in the second it was whether humans always go to heaven or hell. This demonstrates how everything can be considered consistent in one aspect while simultaneously inconsistent in another aspect, demonstrating that nothing is inherently consistent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I was speaking of the larger picture relative to a subjective view being the objective view, but the term "larger picture" could also be used as you've demonstrated. It's important to consider the context in which the phrase is applied.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I believe that morality is consistent subjectively, but objectively this would be an inconsistency because you're looking at a larger picture. This is why it is so important to specify the lens or scope intended to be captured within our perspectives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I see what you are referring to, though I don't consider this an inconsistency but a pattern that is shown throughout the Bible. Typically, when someone notices a pattern, it is considered a consistency even if it in itself is varying.
Created:
Posted in:
We can sort of see what I had described above as the United States, which are divided into many states, which have many cities, which have many counties, which have many towns and other subdistricts.
Created:
It's crucial to recognize the usefulness of both concepts and answers. Concepts possess the advantage of being versatile tools that can lead to answers, albeit with some time investment. On the other hand, answers provide immediate solutions without the need for solving but are only applicable in specific scenarios. It's clear that memorizing concepts enhances overall knowledge accumulation over time. Yet, for situations requiring quick solutions or frequent solving, memorizing specific answers proves to be beneficial, remembering it is always important to memorize the concept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please challenge my axioms and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.
I see how you distinguish reason from beliefs, but in my framework I see them as the same. I acknowledge that some beliefs are founded with reason and others are not, but I believe it's reasonable to assume anything someone holds to be true is a belief even if it has reasoning. What do you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
It's easier to say "epistemology" than the "study of knowledge."
Are you familiar with the theory of hypersphere universe and what do you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don't believe that cultural norm is much of an indicator on the definition of God because cultural values are always fluctuating, and I believe that God is the way to live life properly, which I believe is not determined solely by cultural values such as hedonism but has a more fundamental concept that is consistent.Consistent huh? Yet you want to nitpick scriptures from The Bible with the sole purpose of trying to demonstrate its inconsistency, perhaps you should be more consistent.
I apologize if I confused you, but I do not recall ever claiming the Bible is inconsistent. I'm merely trying to express my thoughts so that you can take them with a grain of salt and perhaps in combination with your knowledge learn something that neither one of us could have independently. I'm only here to be mutually productive. If you ever feel uncomfortable with my ideas then please let me know and I will refrain from sharing my thoughts with you, but I hope that doesn't happen. I enjoy most of our conversations.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I believe the only negative feedback having thought this through more would be parents dissatisfied with the direction that the students are naturally desiring to pursue due to the differences in annual salaries and job types. However, I believe the overall happiness of the students into their adulthood would be greater overall, along with their success. I believe we would have a significant decrease in college dropouts, since this is evidence that their direction of pursuit has been altered and possibly by realizing what their parents have always pushed them towards wasn't what they really want to do with their lives. Perhaps up to that point they thought it would be worth the finances until the moment came in college where they realized they hated doing the same thing every day and that they could never live with a job related to the schooling there pursuing and then they end up becoming a pet groomer because they realized they have always had a passion for animals. Whereas, if they had been recognized in the schooling system prior, they could have been directed towards becoming a veterinarian with a higher annual salary rather than wasting all their financial resources on college towards a direction that they end up not pursuing. I believe this to be a primary example of the negative consequences of the current schooling system in relation to my ideal.
I hadn't thought about it till this point, but I believe I could develop a much more accurate description of the ideal schooling system. I also believe that if one wants to develop something as complicated as a new political structure, developing a new school system would be a start. Children are never taught how to learn they're just told what to memorize and it's a sink or swim environment. Many things would change for the better with Implementing not only the personalized target schooling but also these foundational philosophical principles listed in my three series. If students were taught How to fear ignorance and desire knowledge along with the 12 traits and how to learn along with what is to follow, I cannot fathom how much the future generation would change in a direction that is more competent, financially secure, passionate about their work, and mentally stable as a result of their pursuit aligning with their subconscious passions.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Some of these techniques are implemented in school, but I believe it's less strategic and more coincidental. I also believe that children should pursue what they like, but only if in a way that is beneficial to their future. If someone likes to cook prepare them to be a baker, if someone likes math prepare them to be an accountant or physicist. It is in this way that these children are more than likely to excel.
It's also important to consider that they are not fully developed and many of their views change however their most fundamental traits remain consistent even at a young age till full development. For myself, my views have changed from physicist to accountant to programmer to data scientist as of now. However, the commonality is I have always loved math and problem solving, and I have been this way since a very young age. I believe it's important that people pursue what they love because it increases the likelihood of their success because they have passion, but it should only be in a means that is beneficial towards their future such as a career.
I think it's also important that children get exposure to new things. if someone wants to become a baker they should learn a bit of math, physics, and about everything else. This way they can learn to like new things, possibly as they discover the world that they have yet to explore. I believe that it should be sort of like majoring in college, but in traditional schooling. in essence, I believe it would be most effective if students, of the 5th grade, could start to major in what they have a passion for. Meanwhile passively working in the other subjects, rather than the equivalent balance being implemented currently. The likelihood that students will pursue a direction different than their passion as a child is highly unlikely and would only occur due to a significant impact that changed their life's direction, so all the work that's put into educating them into many different fields preparing them to excel in whichever direction is mostly a waste of their time.
I believe the most effective schooling system would be to study students from as young as 1st to the 5th grade. Following this they can have personalized training programs that recognize students' passions and ability to be creative along with analytical thinking and other factors, rather than treating them all as equals in every field. Following this they could be strategically trained to major in the category that they are most likely to succeed, being their passion, while passively studying in the alternatives so that in the event they change their passion from a significant life event It would be less of a difficulty to change their major. This would waste less time for students giving them more time to excel in their passions creating more effective professionals in the field and less unhappiness directed towards the schooling system from minors. I believe it to be better in every aspect, and it's feasible.
Created:
The Six Concepts of Memory:
Prepare yourself for the science of memory and how to implement these techniques, I'll keep it concise.
- Sensory Memory: All our senses, notably sight and hearing, serve as essential pathways for memory. Information that we perceive through these senses gets encoded and stored for later recall. For instance, the way we see a letter or hear its pronunciation helps in recalling information related to it. By leveraging both sight and hearing during memorization, we provide our brain with dual pathways to remember information, enhancing our ability to retain it over time. When learning new information, engage both your sight and hearing. For instance, when studying a letter, visualize its shape while pronouncing its sound. This dual approach creates stronger memory pathways.
- Pattern Recognition (Concepts): Our brain naturally gravitates toward recognizing patterns. This innate ability allows us to easily identify shapes, sounds, and sequences. When applied to memory, recognizing patterns in information aids in quicker recall. Songs, for instance, are often remembered easily due to the recurring patterns they contain. Recognizing patterns in various concepts creates mental shortcuts, making it easier to remember and retrieve information. Recognize patterns in your studies, just like you recognize shapes and sounds in the world. Apply this to concepts—find connections between new information and what you already know. These mental shortcuts make it easier to remember.
- Internal Memory Association: The brain's inclination for pattern recognition extends to identifying similarities and making associations between concepts. By linking new information to familiar patterns or existing knowledge, we create mental bridges that facilitate memory recall. Connect new concepts with familiar ones. For example, when learning new words, link them to words you know well. Creating mental associations helps your brain retrieve information more easily.
- Impact and Prioritization (Emotional Impact): Memories aren't treated equally in our minds. Emotional impact plays a pivotal role in determining which memories are prioritized. Events that evoke strong emotions, whether positive or negative, tend to stay in our memory longer. The intensity of emotion is closely tied to the perceived impact an event has on our future. For instance, we're more likely to vividly remember our birthday than a mundane daily activity, as birthdays have a significant emotional impact on our lives. Memories linked to strong emotions stick around. For important events like birthdays, the emotional impact influences memory. Associate emotions with what you're learning to enhance memory.
- Reinforcement and Erosion: Reinforcement and erosion are mechanisms that shape our memory retention. Memories that are frequently recalled and used are reinforced, becoming entrenched in our long-term memory. On the other hand, memories that aren't revisited often can fade away over time. This is why consistent refreshing of memories is crucial to prevent erosion. Memories, like memory foam, need to be pressed down repeatedly to maintain their shape. In this context, reinforcement involves revisiting information, strengthening the neural connections associated with it, while erosion occurs when connections weaken due to disuse. Memories you use often get stronger, while unused ones can fade. Keep memories fresh by revisiting them consistently. It's like pressing memory foam to maintain its shape.
- Utilizing Desire and Pressure: Motivation and pressure are two driving forces for effective memory retention. Striking the right balance is key; excessive pressure can lead to anxiety, hindering focus and memory recall. Combining the duality of impact, both positive and negative, can create a potent motivator. For example, associating success with rewards and failure with consequences can create a balanced motivational framework. It's vital to find a level of challenge that pushes us without overwhelming us, as too much pressure can hinder our ability to concentrate effectively. Find motivation and balance. Create positive and negative associations with success and failure. Use this balanced motivation to drive effective learning, avoiding excessive pressure that might hinder your focus.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Moving on to the subsequent aspect of this discussion, it's crucial to acknowledge the existence of diverse levels of concepts. These levels range from those that encompass broad dimensions of reality to those with narrower scopes. For instance, certain concepts possess theoretical and universal applicability, like mathematics. In contrast, there are concepts confined to specific domains, such as "everyone likes bacon," which pertains solely to my household.
Upon this recognition of varying concept levels, it becomes evident that prioritizing the most all-encompassing concepts is paramount. These concepts hold the greatest utility due to their broad relevance and impact. This is why we should be eager to seek out the most encompassing concepts and construct more encompassing concepts by compiling lesser ones.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
The issue at hand pertains to how frequently we should divide society to create distinct groups based on different characteristics. If we split society into two separate groups, individuals would naturally gravitate towards those most similar to them. As we keep dividing society, there's a scenario where nations align perfectly with individuals since each nation becomes synonymous with an individual. This raises the question: When do we decide whether those who don't fit in should adapt, or should we continue dividing society until each nation represents just one individual?
Created:
-->
@Mps1213
It seems the research suggests it may be probable, but we can't know for certain without further research. Thank you for your insight. I had this idea the other day as it dawned on me that there seemed to be a correlation between the mind's balance of the subconscious and conscious, which after fully considering made sense theoretically. As I understand the subconscious is able to consider more abstract processes and patterns in reality than the conscious, yet it is more erroneous as a result, whereas the conscious is more logical and concise but lacks the level of abstractness of the subconscious. This to me seems correct as the two parts of the mind work together to first generate thoughts in the mind abstractly through the subconscious and then with the limited number of generated scenarios the conscious can logically validate the few options.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Perhaps the perfect moral utopia is actually a united but separate nations? I wonder how many different nations would encompass the various incompatible human differences?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You finished your comment with my thoughts precisely. Some individuals' values and beliefs are incompatible with others', so they cannot all coexist harmoniously.
How would the perfect moral structure accommodate this?
Would the people unwilling to negotiate be outcasts, or unwilling participants of society?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
There is most certainly a limit to the human mind's ability to comprehend information, along with memorize it. I enjoy an external record because things that we do not use often become forgotten as the brain's priority structure intended.
If you're inquiring whether personally written documentation, which can be revisited later, serves as evidence for an objective reality, the answer is no. This is due to the fact that the act of reviewing those documents involves a subjective experience. In contrast, objectivity implies existence beyond personal perception. Consequently, demonstrating the existence of an objective reality becomes challenging since providing evidence involves documenting and experiencing it—both of which are subject to perception. As a result, it's difficult to establish that such evidence exists independently of our perceptions. However, I view the theory of objective reality as quite a practical concept to understanding reality, which is why it is one of the 12 traits, self-detachment.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
That is the concise explanation, but it's crucial to keep in mind that concepts lack universal validation or confirmation beyond their experiential applications. For instance, consider an unprecedented, complex math problem that no computer has solved before – its solution remains theoretical until proven.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
So, I believe you define the perfect moral system as the most desirable by individuals even if it isn't perfect.
How do you measure the most desirable?
Is it by the sum of each magnitude of happiness of the individual?
Is it by the majority vote?
Does it consider a possibly suppressed minority? (I mean actually suppressed as slaves) How does it account for this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Perhaps it is true that some argue to defend their position as I explained, but others instead argue for the sake of bringing chaos out of order. It can be quite entertaining for some, especially if their life is superfluously structured.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don't believe that cultural norm is much of an indicator on the definition of God because cultural values are always fluctuating, and I believe that God is the way to live life properly, which I believe is not determined solely by cultural values such as hedonism but has a more fundamental concept that is consistent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don't believe that cultural norm is much of an indicator on the definition of God. I was referring specifically to the Hebrew Bible, which is closer related to the original Christian texts than many of the others today, which is why I believe it to be a more primary source of reliable information. I'm also familiar with how God speaks to Moses through the burning bush telling him "I am that I am," another example of ambiguity that is necessary to capture the full complexity accurately, yet not concisely.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
@Best.Korea
Here is the short read, but feel free to get more detail above: All knowledge can be categorized as conceptual or answers. Concepts are the reason behind an answer. By understanding concepts, we can know an infinite number of answers, such as the concept of two plus two being addition, we can now solve an infinite number of math problems. Meanwhile, the answer four is only helpful when asking two plus two. By recognizing this distinction, we can immediately know what knowledge is important to memorize.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I often know a lot more about a topic than I say because it's not useful to just state everything at once. Instead, I only explain what is necessary at the moment.
My explanation for the definition of God is from the Hebrew name that translates to English as "is," which means "to be." Ultimately, the definition captures that God exists and nothing more. It has no constraints or clarification whatsoever, leaving God to be an open-ended concept. I was using this example to show that language is able to capture concepts through the implementation of ambiguity that was demonstrated here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I think it's quite the opposite. People don't like to be wrong because of the emotional pain caused from mental realignment, and the likelihood that two people who have evolved their beliefs over two completely independent lives are extremely likely to be different, which necessitates the common disputes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes, I am in my 20s. However, I would be interested in finding out whether my view of greater understanding will continue in my older age. It seems that with Jordan Peterson has retained quite an inquisitive mind in his old age.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I believe some definitions are necessary to be less definitive to capture the complexity of an idea.Well, if an idea is so complex that it can’t be understood perhaps the idea itself is inaccurate.
Perhaps that's why the definition of God is "is." There could be no further explanation. It was a necessary ambiguity in order to fully capture the meaning of God meaning to be without any constraint. However, if a word is able to capture something as vague as no definition at all such as "is," then I think it's reasonable that anything lesser in complexity to God would be definable. In essence, I believe everything is able to be captured within words, but the further we evolve our language the more precisely we can explain these complexities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
It's definitely possible to become frustrated when we realize that a completely comprehensive understanding of reality is unattainable, but I believe that with a proper mentality we will understand reality more than we need. The intention of understanding in the first place is our drive to better navigate reality and live a more successful life. It isn't necessary to completely comprehend reality to live a better life, but just to understand reality more than we did before, which enhances our ability to make better decisions. By doing this I'm always satisfied with learning something new yet dissatisfied because I know there is more to learn. It's sort of like being glad that your life is going to be better in the future but recognizing that it can still be better and continuing to seek a better understanding. It is in this way that I am never frustrated by my inability to comprehend reality to its fullest but instead delighted that my future can continuously grow better than it is presently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If we define the color white as a color on a physical entity it is necessary to leave what the entity is as ambiguous since the moment we say white is the color of a box it now doesn't capture a white ball. This is an example of necessary ambiguity. Similarly, my definition of morality has what I believe to be necessary ambiguity in terms of metric, time frame, and aspect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Are we sure there is a perfect moral structure? How do you define perfect or ideal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I believe some definitions are necessary to be less definitive to capture the complexity of an idea. Similarly, some definition must be more nuanced than others.
A more definite explanation I believe would lose resolution and become inaccurate.
Created:
I believe that all knowledge is in one of two categories: concepts and answers. I believe that an answer is something that we can know to be true, while a concept is the reason behind why an answer is true. I believe that many people do not recognize this or understand the difference, and it is essential for them to acknowledge the greater utility in memorizing concepts instead of answers. An answer could be like three plus three, that is helpful for one thing only, what is three plus three. Meanwhile, the concept for why three plus three equals six would be how to add, and if one understands how to add they can answer an infinite number of mathematical problems. This demonstrates how understanding just one concept can be infinitely greater than an answer. Concepts are not limited to mathematics but extend throughout all of reality. An example would be “all plants need water”, it’s the answer that answers all similar questions. Does this plant need water? Yes, because all plants need water. What about this plant, does it need water? Yes, because all plants need water. You don’t need to memorize every single species of plant and remember that they need water in order to know they need water, all you need to know is the concept and then you can apply this to species of plants you don’t even know, just like the person who understands addition is able to answer addition problems he has never seen before. Another example would be “gravity pulls everything down”, you don’t need to memorize every single thing on the face of the earth to know that it’s going to be pulled down. You just need to understand the concept that gravity pulls everything down. Concepts are in everything around us, we just have to know how to look for them.
Additionally, I believe concepts are unique from answers in a way that they transcend entification. It's sort of a divine answer, the moment you try to represent it you fail because you cannot capture something that transcends form. If you tried to represent the number two, you would merely be showing me two rocks or two marbles, you could not truly demonstrate the concept of two. This is because the concept of two cannot be constrained to a system, it is something that is beyond any entity and is true for all things that consist of the pattern. On the other hand, you could represent a leaf to me by showing me a leaf, I could hold it I could see it and that would be a leaf. As you can see, answers can be shown and represented as an entity whereas concepts transcend the entity into a sort of divine knowledge that is conceptual and beyond form. Instead, the concept or divine knowledge is embodied in many different forms such as two marbles or two rocks, but it can never truly express itself to us without taking a physical form, which is why we can never actually see two as a concept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Please don't make fun. I'm enjoying our conversation and I would not like to end it in such a way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
That is quite a simple yet bold statement and one that I am quite familiar with. Could you elaborate why you believe this?
Created:
Description:
To learn is to gain a better understanding, but how exactly do we accomplish this? Many people believe repetition is key, but I believe this is only the steppingstone. In order to reach your goal you must have a well defined target in which you can aim your bow. Repetition may be great for strengthening your draw and increasing your accuracy but with no target your arrow flies aimlessly. In this section called how to learn I will work on defining a target in order to achieve understanding. Afterwards, I will go over some techniques on how to strengthen your effectiveness such as your aim and strength of your draw.
This marks the beginning of the utmost fundamental and essential concepts to grasp about the world, paving the way to empower your ability to tackle any question with confidence. If you believe a similar topic should be a part of this series, please feel free to address it and If I believe it truly is then I will consider it in as great a depth as I can for another forum of the series. This is meant to be an interactive educational forum to express what I believe to be one of the most necessary keys to understanding.
We will cover the following questions to get started:
What is the goal?
Where is the target for the goal?
How do I improve my aim and strength?
Coming soon on "Cultivating Epistemic Empowerment - The Tools of Reality":
Brief Description: Meant to equip you with the mental tools necessary to comprehend a complex world.
How to Think?
How to Debate?
How to Decide?
How to Simplify?
Looking forward to "Essential Foundations to Comprehensive Understanding - The Blueprint of Reality":
Brief Description: Meant to lay out the foundation concepts necessary to understand complex questions.
What is Reality?
What is Truth?
What is Understanding?
What is Morality?
What is God?
Final and unending series "Demystifying Philosophical Controversies - The Structure of Reality":
Brief Description: Meant to make sense of all commonly decided questions such as the morality of abortion and many others.
Is abortion ethical?
What is the ideal political structure?
How does religious text articulate reality?
What is the best way to live life?
Please help productively refine my understanding and others by using the following guidelines:
- NUMBER 1: Please ask questions and only state a dispute with an example to improve my understanding, this forum is intended to educate with an interactive environment.
- Be open-minded and curious. Do not dismiss or ignore answers that challenge your reality or beliefs. Try to embrace them as opportunities to learn and grow. Try to approach them with logical, critical, and professional minds, and seek to understand the evidence and reasoning behind them.
- Be empathetic and respectful. Do not judge or ridicule other people’s perspectives or experiences. Try to comprehend their viewpoints and appreciate their contributions to the larger and more intricate reality. Try to see how different perspectives can form a more complex and complete picture of the world.
- Be honest and responsible. Always prioritize speaking the truth and avoid making definitive claims when uncertain. Use qualifiers like "about," "I saw," "I think," or "I believe" to convey information accurately.
- Be clear about the source of your knowledge when sharing with others. This fosters a truthful and respectful environment for discussions.
- Be relevant and on-topic. Do not deviate from the main topic of the forum. Do not post irrelevant or off-topic comments and links that aren't productive to the questions being discussed.
- Be constructive and creative. Do not simply criticize or reject other people’s ideas. Try to offer positive feedback, suggestions, or alternatives.
- Be clear and concise. Try to use clear and accurate language as much as possible. To have effective communication it is necessary to speak understandably.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I believe you misunderstand. What I said was moral structure could be defined as using something such as money. An example would be it could be considered morally good to give others a certain amount of money, not claiming it. That would just be benefiting oneself, which isn't very altruistic. The point was that a moral structure has to have something to judge how good or bad an action is. I was just providing some examples.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I suppose I'll provide a bit of insight on my thoughts on morality, but I'll go in much more depth later on my journey after more research.
Here is my definition:
Morality is what is beneficial towards an entity, in a specific metric, considering a time frame, given an aspect,
Immorality is what is harmful towards an entity, in a specific metric, considering a time frame, given an aspect.
Here are the definitions.
The metric could be in terms of health, money, happiness, or something else.
The time frame could be in the immediate present (now), the sum of morality from now till a certain point in future, or the sum of morality from now till forever.
The aspect could be considered as consequentialist (based on outcome), deontological (based on action), or a virtue ethic (based on intention), or a combination of them.
In order to create a moral structure, we would need to find a variation of what we would describe as the metric, the time frame, and the aspect. Then we would plug them in, and we have our moral structure. I wonder if we can have more than one metric. We could but we would have to build a priority structure that determines the priority ratio, which would get more and more complicated the more metrics we add.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Here is how I would explain morality:
Morality is what is beneficial towards an entity, in a specific metric, considering a time frame, given an aspect,
Immorality is what is harmful towards an entity, in a specific metric, considering a time frame, given an aspect.
Here are the definitions.
The metric could be in terms of health, money, happiness, or something else.
The time frame could be in the immediate present (now), the sum of morality from now till a certain point in future, or the sum of morality from now till forever.
The aspect could be considered as consequentialist (based on outcome), deontological (based on action), or a virtue ethic (based on intention), or a combination of them.
Whether your situation would be morally acceptable or not would be dependent on what you choose to define your moral structure. Alternatively, you might be just asking our personal feelings?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Here's the definition I found from research:
Morality refers to the principles, values, and beliefs that guide and govern an individual's or a society's sense of right and wrong behavior. It is the concept of distinguishing between actions that are considered morally acceptable or commendable and those that are seen as unethical or reprehensible.
I believe that by recognizing the different time and cultures will change how people view things as ethical or unethical, and I believe this to support the idea that moral is relative to time and culture and not consistent for all individuals, which would make it subjective. However, I have found far too many definitions to feel satisfied with just one which is why over time I have created my own and I believe it to fully encompass every definition I have come across as of yet.
Here is my definition:
Morality is what is beneficial towards an entity, in a specific metric, considering a time frame, given an aspect,
Immorality is what is harmful towards an entity, in a specific metric, considering a time frame, given an aspect.
Here are the definitions.
The metric could be in terms of health, money, happiness, or something else.
The time frame could be in the immediate present (now), the sum of morality from now till a certain point in future, or the sum of morality from now till forever.
The aspect could be considered as consequentialist (based on outcome), deontological (based on action), or a virtue ethic (based on intention), or a combination of them.
Created: