Probing questions of my inner Robot

How to get things done do follow certain leads and one is realizing options to create a realistic sensor of what is happening.

And through succinct communication, one can really feel the options been shaped up and moulded.

However, then comes the risk factor. The risk factor when it comes down to cultural differences which can create ambiguity, and also clashing interests or interests that are not met because of communication ambiguity.

To excise ambiguity, and realising the fullest potential of a query, one has to widen the potential factor of options, and diluting risks by following raw logic.

Raw logic can be done through not exactly interrogation but through adamant, spot on questions.

However, asking these targeted against problem-area questions, would definitely need knowledge and experience, but how can a person formulate logic based on human behaviour which can go through the process of human error due to many factors including inexperience, lack of knowledge or a unmarriageable interests.

This needs to diplomacy which is simply an ongoing process of talking and talking to untangle the Understanding which prevails on all levels and can feed from top to down and down to top.

Diplomacy however needs to follow logic, and but can logic fall down to bogus interpretations or multi-faceted interpretations.

Can logic leads to such sway of information deformity?

Also, when it comes to action and conducting the query or the objective, does it need healthy individuals biological and mentally, does the amount of food effect human behaviour?

Who can succeed and who can not?

So when something blurs the logical process to do the logical objective can it go under the risk of taking a risk?

Is that possible?

Is there a perfect, risk-free process?

Is there a perfect conduct, if so, then people should measure their conduct against the complete.

If not, people should measure against the potential or the optimal amount which falls back to limitations such as maximum and minimum.


If it is the later option, where below perfection means taking a risk.

Then the question, is taking a risk an option, a must, or ambivalent and one needs to tap into other routes to dig and unveil the truth to reach the objective.

If it is an option, then the situation is lax and can wait or one has a B plan to fall back to.

If it is a must, then a person is rather screwed and it will fall back under the mercy of probability and the ongoing mental tension. Means I have to take the risk.

If one is ambivalent and has no options of choosing if it is an option or a must, meaning I either have to take the risk or leave it. I duno why I feel it is not the same as number one – option--- I can not name it…since I have no name I will leave it. And no it is not the same as saying a must.


But then the question comes in, dashing me.

Why is it a risk when a person is screwed. Can there be a situation of a person following a succinctly logical process deferring possibilities of going through a risk, still leaves you to have a risk?

Is there such a thing?

How different is the conduct of a person who believes in the Perfect Logical Risk-Free process to a person who under the guise of some unclear divine manipulation such as god to create circumstances beyond our control?

Why is there emotions especially irrational emotions, how can one rationalize irrational emotions?

How can a person create intelligence, sound intelligence to create constructive rational emotions and thinking?

If one is to create rational emotions would not that be equal to thinking such as creating constructive ideas, can an emotion be an idea or can an emotion be stemming from an idea?

Is there such think as an emotion being independent in stimulant ? well there are such things as instincts but are there things beyond that ?

The question is, how much of a capacity are we able to create our paths by using our minds and constructive behaviour, emotions and thinking?

Because I want to be that person.

Be in charge!

Boo hoo.
I would love to be a robot.