I will attempt to be prompt.
*The prime symbol (') will be used as an operator for an action's derivative [here, meaning antecedent] (e.g (eating a sandwich)' = (obtaining sandwich)) #Which means that an event can have more than one correct prime equivalency, but we should attempt to look at only very simple cases.
-(encountering a logical fallacy)'= confusion #Here, we have used the ( ' ) operator introduced above; confusion will be disambiguated shortly .
-laughter= (laughter_genuine) # Which means that the individual is not forcing the laughter or laughing from a nervous habit of some sort.
-happiness = (happiness_laughter) #Since there are different forms of happiness
-confusion = (confusion_"not bad") #The things that defy our brain's logic, and induce laughter are assumed to be a form of confusion that is benign in the reference frame of the individual.
# It can be assumed that the functionality of "confusion" will remain constant if it changes states to adhere to proper syntax (e.g. confused, confuses,confusing ect.)
-In the reference frame of an individual, if that individual encounters something that appears confusing, it may induce laughter.
-When an individual laughs, they are happy
-Therefore: (confusion) = (laughter)'= (happiness)'' , which means that happiness is induced by confusion.
(Axioms (B (Conclusion (Axioms (A))):
-Happiness is induced by confusion
-Happiness holds intrinsic value, and should be sought after by everyone
Conclusion (Axioms (B (Conclusion (Axioms (A))):
-Therefore, individuals should seek confusion #Of course, we are keeping in mind that "confusion" may induce happiness [from "Axioms (A)"], so we are also assuming that an individual should seek out the special cases of "confusion" that, in their reference frame, induce laughter.
What could this conclusion reveal about human nature? Are we happy when presented with harmless logical fallacies, and should therefore seek them out? #Here harmless = (harmless_(reference frame(individual))
I feel as though simply observing what this argument attempts to reveal, could potentially bring about very enlightening discoveries about human nature. Is it possible that we could use a form of inductive reasoning to relate the "confusion" variable here, to other forms of "anti-knowledge," and figure out that when we know less we are happier (analogous to "ignorance is bliss")?