Happiness and the Reality Model, a Love Story.

Emotion is a difficult word as people fight over its usage. I am using it as chemical change that is provoked by the brain's reaction to a set of stimulus: loud noise, fire smoke, and the person next to you has an arm blown off. The brain does not like the direction that this is taking at all and a set of chemicals is released that increases heart rate, muscle tension etc. This is noticed right away by the conscious mind that feels 'fear' or whatever 'emotion' has been unleashed on the body. I 'look around' to determine what is going on. It is my conscious mind that is doing this part of it. My use of the word emotion has generated some controversy, not in the concept, but which part of the physiologic process is described by the word. I don't care so long as the the idea has been understood.

The subconscious mind communicates with the conscious mind with emotion, by my definition of 'emotion'. Some subconscious/conscious communications are not 'emotional' in the sense of strong emotion but something has happened chemically or spiritually (for completeness) to get your body to move or even to notice what has happened, beer! This effect may not seem 'emotional' but in my construction, it is by definition emotion, subtle perhaps, but nonetheless emotion.  For example there is a glass of beer on the table in front of me. My conscious mind did not do a logical process to understand that it is beer and it is within arms reach and I want it and that I go for it. This is all automatic it is unconscious. Hell, I might not even be aware that I went for it and drank it. This happens with smokers all the time. Your subconscious brain can indeed control a person's body.

One principal function of the brain is to construct a viable model of the world around it. It includes: the location of objects in 3D space, that one cannot breathe in water, that fire is hot, lightning has the potential to kill me and that I want that woman, and that hamburger is a good thing. The Reality Model, as I call it is this construction of connections between memories. It goes beyond the physical environment. Some peoples brains have decided that people are evil and lazy, for example. Others that people are good and productive. When something is fully integrated into the reality model it is a belief, by my definition. At this point the brain is unwilling to question the interpretation. My brain is not willing to entertain jumping off a 1000 ft cliff because some fast talking salesman says that I can do it. Nope, not willing to even consider it without some sort of external aid like a parachute. My brain believes that if it jumps it will die. Not up for discussion.

This meme about the nature of man is the same way. Once the brain has an idea, it will look for substantiating evidence and often it will find that evidence and the meme becomes more and more integrated to the point that the eyes and ears are on the lookout for that behavior to the exclusion of contradictory information. The difference in driving to school with Grandma instead of Dad is that there does not seem to be any stupid lazy delinquents on the way to school with Grandma, there are only flowers and good looking boys productively making the world a better place. Grandma and Dad actually remember different things about the trip. Dad's brain is looking for confirmation of his memes and finding them, so is Grandma. Each brain chooses to store different memories of the trip; it is the stored memories that are remembered. That is why it is difficult to believe that Grandma and Dad actually took the same road. They are storing different sensory stimulation in their memory banks. They are living in different realities. They really are.

Conservatives store different words into their memory banks than Liberals do while listening to a speech by Barack Obama, for example. They literally do not hear the same things. They live in a different reality. Each side thinks that the other side is dumber than dirt because the evidence in right in front of there face! Yes, but they each stored away different fragments to remember. Different Reality Models choose to keep different information. Our memories are indeed all we have to describe reality. Personal reality is our memory.

Bias to me is mathematical. The information received by the conscious mind is indeed biased, and it cannot be any other way; it has passed through the Reality Model filter. Sometimes the bias is striking and wrong. The table top is an illustration of this; the two tables look as if the table tops are completely and totally different shapes. They are not. Cut them out and put them on top of each other and they have exactly the same dimensions. The brain has misinterpreted the data. It is interpreting the data as if it were a 3D reality but it is not. It is a 2D set of lines on a paper. The reality model gets it wrong and what your conscious 'sees' is NOT what your eyes see, it is the interpretation that your brain thinks it saw; it is wrong; it has been biased by the Reality Model.

Now take the new knowledge that the rectangles are the same dimensions and look at the illusion again. The brain will refuse to present the reality as it is now known; it insists on the 3D interpretation. It will not let go. My brain *believes* that it is seeing a 3D object even though my conscious mind knows that it is not a 3D object. Political interpretations and the good/evil interpretation of the nature of man suffer the same fate as the table top. Many people's brains *believe* the memes. No amount of logic or discussion can convince them otherwise; it is literally all that they see. When the brain is 'confused' it is unhappy, life is not good. That may be a decent way to define 'happiness'. Brains are not confused when their interpretation, their Reality Model is coherent; it might be 100 percent wrong, but it is coherent. Viola! Religion. Happiness. Contentment. Peace.

The Iranian Accord, 2015. Ratify it.

I have been hearing a great deal from Conservative leadership in the United States that, for the safety of the planet, the Iranian nuclear arms deal must be rejected by Congress. I accept that they may have a point but I also respectfully ask that they present their reason for the rejection, as a matter of courtesy. The sum of the reasons for rejecting the deal should demonstrate that the advantages of rejecting the deal more than compensate for the damage caused by rejecting the deal.

The cost of rejection? No country on the planet would ever again take any negotiation with the United States seriously. This includes economic, financial, military, political discussions. How would it be possible to maintain a leadership role in the world while no country takes Presidential action seriously? In addition to this, rejecting the deal removes all direct observational tools that the West would have acquired in the deal, thereby reducing Western ability to monitor the situation within the borders of Iran. I assert that the cost of rejecting the deal is high. I perceive absolutely no fact based logical argument being put forward against the accord, at all. All I see is that we "could have done better" or "the world will end" or "They will kill us". Are all purely emotional suppositions.

Every argument that I have heard in opposition to the accord is nullified with one simple verifiable fact. World leaders, including the power structures of Iran and Israel, realize that, if Iran posed a legitimate threat to world civilizations as perceived by the West, it would be incinerated one fine morning with enough time remaining to prepare a nice dinner. After which, over a pleasant desert, cognac and coffee, the principle parties involved could lament the total destruction of an entire civilization from the globe; one of the greatest civilizations in the history of man, as documented by those that study this sort of thing. An entire civilization obliterated, man woman and child. This outcome is inescapable with or without any treaty or signed or unsigned document of any kind; the West will not die easily. All of the signatories on the accord know this and the military and political power structures of the entire planet know this as well.

The capability to do this is well documented and it would be a shame to have done so without first having given Iranian leaders every chance in the world to encourage their populations and power structures to relinquish anti-social behavior. Every effort to and including financial aid should be offered up. Failure to having done this in advance would perturb the good taste of the cognac, and that would be a shame. We would then be obliged to spend multiple generations inventing stories explaining to our children why we were not just ordinary assholes who, without any attempt at diplomacy or direct contact, vaporized 77 million people and obliterated one of the oldest civilizations on the planet because "they would not do what we told them to do". So, who is supporting the agreement?

The leaders of the US, UK, France, China, Russia, Germany and Iran have, after nine years of negotiation that started in 2006 with economic sanctions on Iran, decided that the best way to proceed with the perceived nuclear material and technology problem with Iran's government is the Iran nuclear deal signed in July 2015. This will lift the Iranian sanctions in exchange for concessions by the Iranian government. They want the US Congress to ratify the accord.

This agreement is supported by the diplomats of those 7 countries. This is to say that the people most familiar with the use of international power have stated that this is the appropriate process and that this will reduce the likelihood of war. These people agree that the agreement should be ratified by the US Congress.

Subsequent to signing the accord

29 upper level U.S. Scientists praise the deal in an open letter to Obama. This includes 5 Nobel Prize winners. These are people that are paid to think about science and technology, at least some of whom are intimately familiar with the research, development and production of nuclear weapons. These people agree that the agreement should be ratified by the US Congress.

Finally, 36 retired generals and admirals also now support the Iran nuclear deal as well. Once again, this is not to argue that they are correct in their assessment. I am noting that a large number of military professionals of high rank have agreed that this is an important step in dealing with the perceived nuclear weapon threat. They do not rule out a military option. They say instead, that this agreement makes the use of a military option simpler and more effective, should it come down to that. They recommend that Congress ratify the accord.

Let me reiterate, These upper echelon military men have stated that ratifying the accord will make the use of the military option against Iran simpler and more effective, should it become necessary.

Weak Sissy Liberals; The Conservative View.

This is in response to an acquaintance of mine that published an article "Conservatives want Universal Healthcare In the US (and don’t know it)". He asked for feedback; he wanted to know if he might be delusional. That is always 'delicate' but here goes.

You are definitely delusional, Frank; welcome to the club. I think you are calling this one wrong and I am guessing that the reason for this is some kind of cognitive dissonance. The world is not how you think that it should be so you refuse to listen when people try and explain it to you. You are going out of your way to show how it just really 'isn't so'. Yes, it is so. What you are hearing is not stupid. It is well thought out philosophy and the truth of this philosophy is there for everyone to see. It is clear and it is concise and it is correct. Yes, the Conservatives are correct. The government must stay out of this 'taking care of the people' business or it will destroy the country. Here is how I know this.

Life is about proving oneself, it is how evolution works, the strongest survive. Any thing short of that compromises the very species. You become strong and prove yourself or … well, you are part of the problem. If you end up dying? Well, that is God's will. This is how it works, period. This was beaten (literally sometimes) into their heads by the time that they were 3 yrs old.

"Prove to daddy that you are strong and independent. It is how it must be and I must teach you to understand this, it is important. No, we will not pick you up just because you want us to. You may cry and scream in your crib if you like. We will not be manipulated like this and we will not allow you to get away with that All babies/people are naturally manipulative. We can see the results of spoiling the children and this will not happen in our house. You have been changed and fed and now it is time to go to sleep, period. It may be painful but you will learn the rules. You MUST learn to be strong and take care of yourself, it is my personal responsibility to make you strong. I am taking my responsibilites seriously, you should too. I love you too much to let you fail. We do not tolerate spoiled children in this household. Scream in you crib all you like but you are going to learn that other people are not here to take care of whatever whim you have. Scream all night if you want, we are not going to give you what you want. We are not going to help you."

If the parents were successful the child has learned by about 3 yrs of age that he cannot count on anyone but himself when he has a need for something. Yes, his parents will feed and change him but that is it. When they want to play, they will play, when he wants to play, well they don't want to spoil him. This is how people are. How can you possible dispute this Frank? Even this 3 yr old has figured it out. He will be strong and he will be independent. He knows the rules. You want something? Well you do it yourself, whatever it takes, whatever it takes. I am giving nothing away for free, now, go cry in your crib. I will not be manipulated by your stupid emotional games. You want to give me something for free? Cool, I'll take it but I will loose respect for you. What are you some kind of Liberal with 'emotions' and stuff? No, I will not do the same for you, I don't believe in spoiling people. 

Yes, many of the most vociferous are those that are on or have been on the 'take' at some point. They are deeply ashamed of this. To offset this proof that they themselves are or were not worthy and to pay for their sins they must push even harder against the 'injustice', against their sin. They double down to teach their children even more fervently the lesson. They do not want their children to be failures, as they were/are. And so it goes.

There is no logic in the world, there is no factual basis in the world that will get these people to change the way they think about this. Why? Because this is indeed how the world works for them, their dad showed them and they are going to demonstrate this to their children, work or starve, yes, they will withholds food and yes they will be beaten. If violence is necessary to teach the child, so be it; it is that important. The children, like them, will find examples of this throughtout their lives, hundreds and thousands of examples. There are lots and lots of people like this and they band together, they know what the rules are, the rules are self evident. Liberals ! What a bunch of namby pambies. Hey, it is just business.

You liberal fantasy world pretty boys, intellectual with all this 'education' and as smart as you think you are can't see this? Pretty silly, if you ask me. No, we will not let you run the show, you live in a fantasy land and you will destroy us all. Survival of the fittest, no free lunch. These are the laws of our species; these are the laws of God. Any idiot can see that.Work or die, be strong, no free lunch, We will not allow it, We will actively stop you from rewarding people that do not deserve it. I will not let you destroy us, we know how things work, you do not. Heck, even one of your own 'smarty pants' guys said this, Darwin. You don't even listen to your own people. Jeesh, and you want us to let you run the country? Are you nuts? I get to keep what I worked for, just try and take if from me you lazy son of a bitch. What about freedom is it that you don't understand? When I was a kid, I had some asshole telling me what I could and could not do, well I am not a kid anymore and I'll be damned if I am going to lets to ruler think he can be my daddy. At least my dad taught me how things are and taught me discipline. He taught me to be strong. He showed me how the world works.

"Obama care", the ACA, propagates;weakness and steals from people. In addition, the people that will get stuff for free are the weak and lazy and we do not want to be a part of the destruction of the species. No, keep the 'government' out of this business of helping people that have not proved themselves, it will destroy us. It is a law of nature. It is harsh but that is just the way it is. There is no free lunch and there should not be any free lunch; it would violate the law of nature. We are the strong, we are surviving, we are not weak. If I mess up well, I will pay the price. I would not not deserve to survive. The government needs to stay out of this entirely. They are inefficient and encourage the weak to survive and they do this by stealing the money that I worked hard to get.. Frankly it is against the most fundamental law of nature. Work, be strong, or die. Hey, it is not my rule, it is God's rule. It is natures rule. There is no free lunch. Yeah, yeah, I know it hurts but we ain't in the business of spoiling people, lie in your crib and cry and scream all you like, we are not going to spoil you. It is the only way you can learn to be strong, like me.

Obama is evil;he goes against the laws of nature actively and with forethought. This is the very definition of evil. Some of the Liberals know this as well and they are evil too. The rest are sheep and incapable of thinking for themselves or even seeing the world for what it obviously is. Why does he actually want to destroy? Because that is the job of Satan. That is just the way it is. I can show you thousands of examples of people bent on destruction for destructions sake, just to hurt people. That is what evil is.

The argument is correct, the evidence is there for;everyone;to see. It is even written in our oldest books. It is knowledge that has persisted for countless thousands of years. It has withstood the test of time and all the forces that have been pitted against it; it is correct. Keep the government out of our healthcare, we don't need them 'taking care of us'. We can do it just fine by ourselves. We don't need some 'daddy' to rule over us and frankly we don't even like the asshole. But he did teach us how the world is. You liberals just want 'daddy' to cater to your every whim. Well, fuck you. We are the strong, you are the weak. You are one of the poor dupes that cannot see that the world is harsh and therefore so must we be, to survive, no we do not want to give away anything for free; it would be a sin.You are wrong. You are indeed 'delusional'. Go back to your crib and cry all you want, we are not going to help you. That is not how it works.  We are not weak, we are strong and you liberals are going to wreck everything and make us weak.