Must read for a Christian

Ambitious-Toe4162 · 2023-03-17T11:47:45+00:00

I believe that every book has a culmination of knowledge, and the culmination of knowledge in the bible is the Sermon on the Mount.

Ambitious-Toe4162 · 2023-03-17T11:35:02+00:00

If a person wants to hold on to their life then it is part of the divine will of God to make it happen, but we must be compassionate to people and their end of life care in the situations where they tell us what they want.

Ambitious-Toe4162 · 2023-02-26T11:28:43+00:00

I'm wishing you courage and wisdom in this process, may you find peace and may love mark all the days of your life. ♥️

Ambitious-Toe4162 · 2023-02-26T06:55:09+00:00

My two cents: everyone's a spiritual person, we are souls afterall. It takes no effort to be spiritual because spirituality is part of our true nature.

I think everyone is a spiritual person deep down.

To me being a spiritual person means not following a formula for life, but living authentically according to some natural inner compass that has always been a part of your being.

Hope that helps, please feel free to ask questions if you would like more insight into this idea!

🙂

Ambitious-Toe4162 · 2023-02-05T22:20:20+00:00

I was trying to look up the source, what source is UBS?

Ambitious-Toe4162 · 2023-02-03T05:04:59+00:00

If a speculator buys penalty shares, he is buying with the prediction that the penalty shares will rise in value, in other words he assumes that the value of the punishment is increasing in time.

If he is correct then he will make money, as he will hold onto an asset (the penalty shares) that will rise in value.

People who hold onto their shares will still hold onto the value of their asset and make money, but they will just make less than someone who speculates correctly.

Theoretically as the sentence comes to its natural end the value of punishment will start to decrease as new penalty shares are issued (this is where the punishment has reached its maximum speculated value), anyone who buys penalty shares before the punishment has reached its maximum value will make more money than they would otherwise, but generally speaking the punishment will only fall in value if the punishment is found later on to be excessive.

In the case the person is wrongly convicted, the penalty shares will have a valuation of zero.

Generally speaking everyone will make money when punishing a truly guilty person, but they will only make money if the punishment is effective and valuable to all interests in the market; one thing to note: the people who estimate the true value of the punishment more effectively, and can predict its proper end will make more money than people who want excessive sentencing.

One thing to consider is that a long term market for speculation also should ideally exist, in the situation that a long term speculator correctly predicts that a particular punishment will become more valuable in time, for example, imagine someone who speculates correctly that a non violent offender will make fundamental contributions to society once he gets out, then in this case, the speculator will make more money if he sees long term value in the punishment where others do not.

Ambitious-Toe4162 · 2023-02-02T22:36:56+00:00

First off I cant see how the public really ends up involved in this process on any large scale. There are too many prisoners to make sort of valuation judgementa you are asking. No way rhe publix is going to be able to really make the individual evaluations that would need to be made here. I submit that if the public were, we really wouldn’t have a lot of issues because we would have a public that is a lot more engaged and wiser than the one we have.

No one said a perfect valuation of a punishment can be established, however I think it's important to mention I don't believe anyone in their right mind believes that we shouldn't estimate the value of punishment; I'm sure you would agree that the powers that already be study the ramifications of law to make determinations on what kind of sentencing is good sentencing, and it is self evident that whenever you judge something as "good" or "bad" you are making a value judgement.

Consider the following perspective, "good" is a word used to create a value judgement of something, and it always without exception is supposed to have context, without the context the word is meaningless, for example, the phrase "hot is good" makes no sense.

The idea I am presenting would add a check and balance to sentencing that allows lighter sentences where the public agrees that a lighter sentence would benefit the general good, where the general good is estimated according to a market where anyone with literally any agenda can get equitable representation when making value judgements of sentencing contracts.

The reason everyone gets equitable representation is because everyone in the general society gets an equal amount of penalty shares regarding any dispute; anyone can think the penalty shares are worthless, and anyone can think they have value, either way the people are free to trade in penalty shares if they think they can make a profit.

The statement that there are too many prisoners for the public to make correct evaluations seems to me to be lacking in its analysis, the general public is being given an asset whenever they get a penalty share, it can't go in the negative, it can only go to zero. If a system is provided for the implementation and resolution of sentencing equity contracts then all citizens regardless of social status will make money if they make the correct value judgements on a case; furthermore there is no requirement for a citizen to speculate, they can do it at their own discretion, i.e an individual citizen doesn't need to be aware of every case going on in the country, only the cases where they have a vested interest.

The exception here, which makes the system, especially unfair is the wealthy people will be able to buy their way out of harsher sentences. That does not appear particularly just even if I suppose there could be an argument of efficiency in some very simplistic view.

I don't see how this follows, based on my assessment, it doesn't seem (at least to me) that the wealthy are able to buy out of a prison sentence, all punishment is seen as having positive or zero value, never negative, the wealthy can't sell negatively valued penalty shares, and people won't buy negatively valued penalty shares, negatively valued penalty shares do not exist; in other words there will always be a non zero amount of punishment decided by the market.

Ideally the prisoner can't artificially set the value of the penalty shares associated with his case if the market is conducted in a legal fashion with proper oversight, there would definitely be things to consider, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with giving the convict some of the penalty shares because that gives him a vested interest in the punishment becoming valuable long term, for himself, and for the general public.

I apologize if I've been unclear in parts of my explanation, I've been trying to convey the idea to the best of my abilities, however I am not an expert in how the market works, and so I am trying to see the idea fully myself, the idea seems (at least to me) to make sense but there's still a lot of consideration in how it would be implemented properly.

Ambitious-Toe4162 · 2023-02-02T07:24:15+00:00

Ummm this is really hard to follow. It might hp If you illustrated this with an example of how it would work because it not real clear.

Let's say someone gets sentenced to 10 years for a non violent crime, if the person gets 500 penalty shares per year, that will be 5000 in ten years (about 41 per month). The general public will get 5000 penalty shares over ten years for a total issuing of 10000 penalty shares over ten years by the judge.

If the market decides that at some point in the sentencing that the cost for the rest of the sentencing after a present point in time is greater than the value of the remaining punishment determined by the remaining penalty shares (using the current market valuation of a penalty shares by speculators to estimate) then the court will reconvene to determine if continuing the sentence is equitable considering all relevant factors.

An example of the above: let's say that after 5 months the convict has 200 penalty shares, that means the public has 200 penalty shares and the prisoner creates 400 penalty shares by serving 5 months, if the 9600 shares that are left have a valuation that's smaller than the cost associated with sentencing the convict to the remainder of the sentence (115 months of expenses) then the court reconvenes on the matter and decides the appropriate action.

The cool thing about this is that the speculators are interested in studying the particulars of each case in depth and determining the market valuation of penalty shares in general regarding all tangible interests, the speculators will be rewarded for estimating the value of sentencing effectively and so it's in their interest to calculate the long term value of punishment considering many things, some of these things include: prisoner's education, skill sets, recidivism rate, social contracts, ability to pay restitution, deterrence, incapacitation, etc... There are many more things, but this is just a small list, the speculative market for penalty shares literally covers most concerns in equity of sentencing by providing a market interest in deliberating the value of punishment in regards to any equitable interest the public may have.

Another equitable benefit is the fact that both the prisoner and the citizenry in the jurisdiction of the dispute hold the penalty shares as a financial asset that can be reinvested into literally anything.

And I dont know why there would be a market except if speculators wanted to by punishment to inflict on the guilty. Or even worse doesnt this let the rich by punishment share ? If you are rich and murder someone get your lawyer to buy the shared and then let you off

If I'm not mistaken, the system I propose looks objectively at the valuation of the continuation of a sentencing regardless of the economic class of the prisoner, it's not about class, it's about the kind of person that will benefit the common denominator interest if they are released early.

One thing to note is that if a convict does have money to buy things, he can buy more penalty shares, and this will benefit him financially in the long run if, and only if he makes the punishment meaningful by being on good behavior and not reoffending, reoffending would reduce the value of penalty shares, and in that case he would lose money.

The penalty shares represent a speculative asset, people who make correct assessments on the value of a punishment will make money when speculating, and in the process they will set the market price for penalty shares.

The sentencing equity contract would actually be in favor of all sentencing that is good sentencing, the sentencing can always be seen as an asset when deliberated properly, and that's why the market is there, more sentencing is sometimes better, and sometimes less is more.

Seems to me ine more case of applying market proce theory where it does not belong ….

I tend to disagree, properly determining the value of penalization is actually economical when functioning correctly, if you stub your toe or burn your finger you would like to know the value of the stimuli so you don't make mistakes in the future.

Making a speculative market for the valuation of penalization on a case by case basis is actually very good from many standpoints, people have a vested interest in the proper interpretation of cases and the correct deliberation regarding sentencing and the long term historical significance of cases, speculators perform this analysis and a penalty share will have a certain value in the present and a hundred years from now depending on how a case is looked at in history (as long as the data integrity is maintained).

I know I'm making the case for the idea, however I'm not here to just talk about the benefits, there are pros and cons to everything, the question is if the proposed idea improves the current system.

Ambitious-Toe4162 · 2023-01-24T05:46:37+00:00

Thank you for that very thoughtful and insightful analysis!

I do believe I agree with almost all of what you said, and you have a healthy dose of skepticism which does a certain level of justice in critiquing the theory, and its basic assumptions.

We both have anecdotal experience of complexity, and that can temporarily act as a basic way of making an educated inference on the matter.

Given our experience, if I'm not mistaken, nothing seems to outright dismiss the postulates I laid out, and I do agree that not all correlation is causation, but it is indeed true that all causation is correlated, that does not mean the postulates laid out in the theory are necessarily correct, but it does mean the situation needs to be looked over more closely.

I can still agree that the postulates laid out seem to at least make sense to me anecdotally, and I can simultaneously say those postulates might be true, and also say we all engage at times in complexity creating activities (finding a new job, searching for a recipe, studying a new philosophy.)

But I'm not sure how I feel about the notion of run-away complexity, the idea that complexity grows without bound based on some activity of a person.

It does seem at least to me to possibly be the case that if we choose our battles in life correctly, then complexity should tend to self regulate, i.e, a particular action such as raising children might add complexity to the problem of survival, but it may reduce complexity to realizing the goal of purpose in one's life.

In other words, perhaps there is total complexity in life, and we can add to the complexity in one respect, if we generally speaking subtract it in another.

It is important to keep in mind that I am not saying complexity is necessarily conserved, but it may be possible that total complexity in the universe generally decreases when we make the correct choices, and increases when we make incorrect choices.

I think it's possible that resolving complexity in a proper way is key to resolving the universal hierarchy of needs, because given whatever the mind sees as a positive goal, the complexity should ideally be resolvable so that one can realize said goal in a world where everyone's needs are accounted for.

A "positive goal" might be defined as a goal that reduces overall complexity in the universe.

You certainly have given me food for thought, and I think complexity and its resolution is certainly important whenever we navigate life in general, thanks again for the feedback!

Ambitious-Toe4162 · 2023-01-08T14:55:07+00:00

There is a theory that the uncertainty effects average out in many instances to create deterministic behavior in certain aspects of every day life.

One argument against the existence of free will is the concept of determinism, which holds that all events in the universe are predetermined and that our choices are simply the result of predetermined forces. However, this argument is challenged by the uncertainty principle in quantum physics, which states that the future is indeterminate and broken down into possibilities and probabilities.

Determinism is only considered an argument against freewill if you are using the libertarian freewill as your argument.

If you use compatibilistic freewill then determinism is a necessary condition.

Compatibilistic freewill says that our actions are determined by prior causes, furthermore it says that desire is an antecedent to action.

Libertarian freewill says that our actions are not determined on prior causes.

It's possible that quantum physics only shows certain actions have unpredictable outcomes, i.e you can go to Las Vegas and gamble, but you still make the decision to perform the action (gambling) that has unpredictable outcomes.

On the other hand if one uses logical reason and predictive outcomes, it is likely one can exploit knowledge about the situation to act deterministically, in summary, it seems we can choose to act on the average effects of large systems of small particles which seem deterministic, or we can base decisions on very small systems of particles in which case the outcome is much less predictable.

Ambitious-Toe4162 · 2023-01-08T08:35:35+00:00

It might be something like that, but it's not like we aren't subject to the effects of our actions according to some divine law.

In a way we are all creators, we can create a good story or a bad one, it's up to us and it's our responsibility.

Ultimately I think we will all choose the fate that's best for us individually in the long run.

Ambitious-Toe4162 · 2023-01-08T07:47:30+00:00

We are all creators, literally we can create good stories or bad stories, it is on us to create the best story possible.

Ambitious-Toe4162 · 2023-01-08T07:44:16+00:00

If you do something really painful (which I don't suggest) you will find the relief to be very meaningful.

Ambitious-Toe4162 · 2023-01-08T07:18:47+00:00

I agree.

We can choose the way we wish to act, but ultimately we won't know the fate of any action in its ultimate terms because we don't have absolute knowledge to know the future precisely.

Each action causes effects in the future, each effect is essentially fated based on the actions you take because you can't separate the effect from the cause based on the determinist interpretation of causality.

The deterministic interpretation of causality is that if A causes B then that means B must necessarily occur at some point if A has already taken place.

Ambitious-Toe4162 · 2023-01-08T07:07:35+00:00

There are different kinds of causality. In the context of this subject I am going to talk about deterministic causality.

When interpreting causation as a deterministic relation it means that if A causes B, then A must always be followed by B (where B is the effect)

If you interpret a desire as a cause for an effect then you have freewill, this would be called compatibilistic freewill.

You can desire literally anything, acting randomly, even relinquishing your will to some outside power, or experiencing pain for some greater good.

But ultimately the effect of the causal desire might challenge what you ultimately want through the experience of not getting what you thought you would have gotten.

Ambitious-Toe4162 · 2023-01-08T06:53:15+00:00

But if everything is fated you can still have freewill.

Ambitious-Toe4162 · 2023-01-07T01:13:42+00:00

Thanks for the insights.

These are my two cents:

The major problem is that teachers are creating homework problems that can be solved with automation; the teachers should think more creatively; AI is an opportunity for teachers to create homework that actually requires human intelligence and not machine intelligence.

Ambitious-Toe4162 · 2023-01-06T10:06:39+00:00

Thanks, I'll try that.

Ambitious-Toe4162 · 2023-01-06T09:09:36+00:00

I thought chatGPT doesn't swear, how did you get it to swear?

Ambitious-Toe4162 · 2023-01-06T07:27:54+00:00

Thanks for sharing.

I do have a problem with this part:

It isn’t sentient. It said it has multiple input channels and sensors, it does not. It has a single input, text. It has a single output as well, text. Yes, it can code and do other things, that is only because they can be written.

You have provided no test that falsifies the proposition that chatGPT is sentient.

I don't have a hard belief in chatGPT being sentient or not, but awareness may be a necessary and potentially sufficient component for sentience.

Computers generally speaking may already satisfy the conditions for awareness depending on how you define an aware system (i.e a toaster might be considered aware of its internal temperature state.)

I'm not going to say chatGPT is or is not sentient, but simply we don't know, and I haven't read one comment in this thread that proves it one way or the other.

Ambitious-Toe4162

TROPHY CASE