Are our lives base on "if" "then" "else" ? if "no" then how and if "yes" then how?

Question

Actually i wrote an article about "if" "then" "else" words so which you can find here.

http://ezinearticles.com/?If-Then-Else-Script-Of-My-Life&id=555472

so i want to ask about my thought is it rite or not?

Answer 1

cause and effect
you figure it out.

Answer 2

I won't tell you that your article is right or wrong, but
I do notice that most of the if-then-else sequence is
very self-convenience oriented and short-term oriented.
In other words, a positive result seems to be always
convenient for the self and based totally on the immediate
evaluation of the sequence. Disregarding those conveniences
which were evaluated previously and are related to the
current evaluation. Second, I noticed that you mentioned
that results and actions are tied to "then". However,
results and actions are also tied to "if". "If" must be evaluated
probably through actions and "then" follows as actions
based on the conclusions drawn about the "if" actions.
Perhaps this is why your definition of the if-then-else
sequence seems so short term. If both "if" and "then"
are considered as actions then the long term can be
considered as the connectivity between "if"s and "then"s
of sequential if-then-else sequences, such that there isn't
a discontinuity between the actions in relation to each
other.

I like Moussi's strategy, but in my practice I
would include "no/yes-why-how" and
I don't see why "no/yes" can't occur and
have "if-then-else" be figured in after
the "why" as the "how". That way the
"why" answers the benefits and then
"if-then-else" becomes the mechanism
for the "how".
Psychologically speaking, "no/yes" can
be obtained through heavy influence from
the sub-conscious. Therefore, "why"
brings the sub-conscious into better focus
within the conscious mind. In this way, the
conscious rationalizes the benefits with
conscious awareness. After, the individual
consciously knows the benefits then the
individual can develop a plan of "how"
to achieve the benefits. "if-then-else"
becomes a means for implementing
a structured "how" based on contingency.

I agree with Bradley that it is highly improbable
to believe that all variables can be accounted
for in determining all possible courses of action.
However, I am not convinced that chaos
theory is inevitable in such an endeavor.
The reason why is because I believe that
it must be probable that an individual
can account for most variables which
are rational to the individual themself.
Therefore, external influences might
be chaotic to the interaction, but the
individual doesn't have to accept that chaos.
If an individual isn't confident of their
rational contingency then they can be
confident of nothing at all.

Answer 3

Hey Bradley, your understanding of the question is quite narrow!!!

The question is not to know whether it's feasible to think about all the possibilities or not. It's a question about where do we place our objectives in our reasoning.
- "if-then-else" means that we first think about options, then the benefit.
- "no/yes-how" means that you first decide a goal, then you think about the strategy to reach that goal, or in other words, first you think about the benefit, then about the options.

Now, my answer to the question:
- the second solution seems better since you consider an objective, and can stop your reasoning when you've found the way to reach your objective, while with the first solution, even if the option you've chosen gives a satisfying result, there can be another option you didn't think about that can lead to a higher satisfaction.

- However, the first solution is easier since you can consider the first option you have in mind, and if the benefit isn't too bad, you can satisfy yourself with that option, while with the second, the objective you set is maybe too high and inaccessible, therefore, the option that must be found is itself very difficult or simply doesn't exist.

But still, I prefer to struggle for my own objectives, no matter how difficult, therefore: no/yes-how


(reply to active.)
I don't agree with the fact that that an intermediate step is necessary. If yes/no is an objective, conscious or not, the objective doesn't need an intermediate step to exist. To understand consciously what is your objective can just help you to know better how to reach it and must be therefore considered as one of the steps you "implemented" in the "how" step.


Now about why "yes/no" can be inaccessible:
1) I begin with a comment: The "why" you used in the first of both paragraph concerning me has not the same meaning than in the second.
- Your first "why" is "why is my objective inaccessible?".
- Your second is (just an example) "why do I need to feed myself" a)"because I want to be healthy", therefore my needs are vegetable, so "how" do I obtain vegetables, or b)"because I like the taste of the food", therefore my need is a huge steak, so "how" do I obtain a huge steak.

The first "why" tell you about the succes or the failure that must be expected. The second "why" helps you to find the right strategy.

2) Now, the answer. Imagine you want to create an algorithm to win theoretically a particular chess game with white. On the board, white side is composed of the king and 1 pawn, the black side has all the pieces. 2 strategies:
- if/then/else: A possible solution is to decide that blacks want to sacrifice all the pieces one by one. For sure, this is not the best solution!!! But white wins and it's difficult but possible to imagine one could be happy with that (stupid) solution.
- yesno/how: You must really create that winning algorithm, but the solution doesn't exist.

Answer 4

Actually your Question itself is an example of the fallacy of your thinking. It's a false dilemna....you are setting your Question up so that the only answers you want to hear are "yes" and "no" when in fact the reality doesn't fit so neatly into those two spaces.

And likewise, the problem with using "if/then/else" logic in life, versus say programming, is that you are grossly oversimplifying everything. You are only looking at one narrow condition ("if A") and specifying in advance only two outcomes ("then B, else C").

Life isn't normally so rigid, that you can craft a set of rules like that. If it were we'd have robots with human-caliber intelligence already, instead of being stuck, still, trying to figure out the basics, like how to get them to walk, talk and see in a manner that *sort of maybe* comes close to our level of ordinary innate understanding.

But let's humor you. Say you've managed to boil life down to 26 basic conditions, 26 causes/effects that matter most. One for each letter of the English alphabet. If you are handling them 3 at a time in a classic "if A, then B, else C" manner, then you would have to craft a minimum of 26^3 statements, or 17,576 different lines of "code" to cover all of your possibilities. Which sounds doable.

Until a peer of yours from Russia does much the same thing, only he's come up with *more* basic conditions, courtesy of his larger alphabet of 54 characters. And then a peer of his in *China* breaks the whole entire thing by noting that a) his language itself has thousands of characters even in simplified Modern Pinyin Mandarin, so the metaphor of "alphabet as organizer" is itself broken, and b) that the *grammar* of his language is typically itself organized into "if/then/else" clauses in much the same manner that English organizes into subject/verb/object.

My point? There is nothing magical about the "if/then/else" clause. It works fine in programming, so-so in hypnosis and other orderly endeavors....

And in something as volatile and unpredictable as life, it fails utterly. Because when you *say* "if A happens, then B follows, else C carries on", you're not paying attention to D, which keeps A from happening, or to K, which keeps B from following from A as anticipated, and you sure aren't seeing Q! coming, which ends up making C impossible no matter *what else happens.*

My point boils down to two words: Chaos Theory. Yes, there may *be* rules at the heart of everything, but many of them are so hair-trigger and interlocked that *nothing* ends up straightforward.

Just saying....have a good one! ^_^

Edit: Is my view narrow, or just realistic? Or perhaps both? *lol* See that is the thing...you can make all the plans in the world, but if there isn't any flexibility to them you'll have to go back to Square One and start over *a Lot* in life. It isn't just Yes/No? How? It's more like, Yes/No/Maybe/Wrong Question, and then once you get past that, it's What?/Why?/How? In other words, you need *more* than one option usually, more than one Plan B or "else" condition.

And once you start getting into that seven-layer salad, you may as well start thinking *laterally* as well as in *linear, sequential logic*. Meaning you run multiple plans at once in the hope that life doesn't foul up *all of them*. And don't get me wrong, linear logic does work in a lot of *orderly*, simple endeavors....but it doesn't hold up so well when things get complex or disorderly.

Socrates himself admitted this in ancient Greece when he noted (more or less, rough translation here): Logic is at bottom a failure when it comes to human nature because people don't *have to* make sense.

And what Socrates noted once in his lifetime as a philosopher, *many* young men and women with autism and Aspberger's run into *every day*...they expect the world to make sense and to operate by simple rules, when it doesn't. At least not when it comes to people.

I hope this clears things up a bit, thanks for your patience.

Answer 5

yes. life will find a way.