Yeah I’m high, and this probably makes no sense, but whatever.
Let g represent what I want, my goal, where I want to be in the future.
Let a_1, a_2,…a_n be the steps required to reach g.
The nature of g implies that failure at any point a_i results in returning to a_1.
Let x be the amount of pain I feel when failure occurs such that x @ a_i > x @ a_i – 1.
Let y be the amount of happiness I feel, such that y @ a_i > z @ a_i – 1
i.e. the closer to the goal the more happiness/pain that is felt.
Also, x > y at all points a_i.
e_b – is my emotional base line. My state of contentment. Any point above this would be considered a happy state, any point below is considered a sad state. In both cases, the distance from e_b implies the intensity of the happy/sad emotion.
e_t – is my terminal emotion point. A point below e_b where if crossed would cause the impulse and desire to die to overwhelm me. This is the point of no return.
Now that all the variable have been set up, let’s look at how this works:
I start at e_b, I begin the steps, a_1, a_2,…, a_j to arrive at e_b + y_1.
At step a_j, I fail. I’m now at e_b + y_1 – x_1. Since x > y, I am now below point e_b.
Ah, one more variable needs to be defined. Let z_i be the amount of recovery between attempts to reach g. So, in an ideal e_b + y_i – x_i + z_i = e_b. But because of time constraints, us being human and all, returning to e_b after each failure doesn’t make sense, therefore e_b + y_i – x_i + z_i <= e_b. I.e. X = y_i – x_i + z_i <= 0.
Therefore, there is some j where, e_b + X_1 + X_2 + … X_j < e_t.
In English, each failure brings me closer to my terminal point, and I feel I’ve  incurred j – 1 failures already.
So what is left:
1. Attempt again and succeed!
2. Attempt again and fail -> suicide.
3. Wait till I return to e_b before I try again.
The problems with option 3, the amount of time will be quite long. I’m four months into it now. And the last span between attempts was like 5 years. 5 years or more to return to e_b, I don’t think so. Also, returning to e_b doesn’t imply that another failure won’t bring suicide, since there is some step a_i where e_b + y_i – x_i < e_t.
In the end, my life has been consistently below e_b, i.e. depressed, and my goal is still as far as it has ever been, and I’m just getting tired of trying. Why live like this?
14 comments
Hey y do tink like tat ??? U can apply logistic even when you are high well that is sometimg rare but no doubt hillarious…….may be you are away but aware about your goal….give it more time and have sme patience …you will definately achieve what you want……p.s.took me half an hour to understand your logic…..
I’m following your analysis, but I don’t understand why you needed to convolute it
i’m pretty sure “crazy logic” is an oxymoron.
When your crazy it seems logical!
And yes, if I wasn’t high it could be boiled down to, “if I fail again, I’m done.”, but this was more fun to ponder.
Sadly, with my goal there is no place to fall back to, other than back to the bottom if I fail.
Quantitative articulation is beautiful, hats off to you 🙂
i prefer qualitative articulation.
One person’s zero is another person’s ten.
Some people seem to think anything less than 10 is negative infinity.
It’s the mathematician in me. I like to think everything can be logically reasoned out, even emotions. Yes, I know, “they” say there is no logic to emotions. I believe there is, it’s just some people don’t want to dig that deep to find it, or even to admit it, because it can lead to even more emotions.
Sometimes you have to use more abstract constructs for emotional stuff.
But i tend to think Boolean logic can apply to just about everything.
And yes, of course there’s logic in emotions. I think the real problem is that there’s a stigma attached to the idea of logic, and most people who seem to have a problem with it, either don’t really understand what it is, or are theists.
Deductive reasoning can be quite powerful. Life is pretty much a really long multiple choice test (in function, but not in purpose). Eliminate the obviously wrong answers, and if you’re short on time, pick the one that seems right. If you have time, you can finish the work and check yourself. This is part of why i like the concept of heuristics. We don’t really need to solve all the problems… we can usually figure out what we need to know, using cues and shortcuts.
Maybe it’s a stigma. Maybe it’s scary to travel down that path and get to the root of an emotion. It might reveal something about yourself you don’t want to admit or accept. So just pretend the emotion came out of thin air and everything is right with the world. But without finding the root cause, your destined to repeat the same mistakes over again.
Heuristics are great for the little things. Hell, they are even great for the big things assuming you can break it down into smaller things. Yes, they can lead to the wrong action in some instances but for the most part as long as they are constructed correctly based on past knowledge and logic, they work well. Let’s you focus on the big picture, not the minute.
Though, every once and a while it’s good to tackle a little problem the long way, because a shortcut could be leading you astray and you don’t even know it.
“Maybe it’s scary to travel down that path and get to the root…”
Which is the root of virtually all stigmas. ^^
I like the idea of a dynamic heuristic, which automatically identifies the need for closer inspection or scrutiny, but reliably so, in that it doesn’t automatically compel you to deeply analyze every little thing.
Automate the parts that can/should be automated; manual the rest.
I guess what I was saying is that logic itself isn’t a stigma. Well okay, I guess the theists may see logic as a stigma cause it can lead to questioning whatever it is that they believe. So the logical person is in some way flawed as opposed to the unquestioning.
But to me, logic, the tool itself, is not a stigma. All logic can do is identify something within the self that may be a stigma.
I can see how someone might mistake logic as a stigma if it can be used to identify stigmas, but that’s not logical. It’s like blaming a murder on the gun, not the person who pulled the trigger.
no, of course logic isn’t a stigma. I’m saying “there is a stigma ON logic.” Many people are irrationally averse to “logic,” due to that stigma (even while not even really understanding what it is).
And no, i’m not just making this up.
fearing to travel down the path of getting to the root of any problem, is the source of almost all stigmas.
So in relation to logic itself… it’s a recursive stigma: fear of logic is the reason fear of logic exists. lol.
“fearing to travel down the path of getting to the root of any problem, is the source of almost all stigmas”
I wouldn’t say it’s the source of all stigmas. I think that fear of getting to the root of any problem is why stigmas persist and remain unchallenged within an individual or society as a whole.
The source in most cases is religion. Not religion as a whole, but the ideas within a religion that have stayed with society for a long period of time.