AtheisticNonduality

Unhealthy Yellow is Leo becoming obsessed with Blue "law and order" nonsense about "this is what we do with criminals" and Babylonian code / decalogue archaisms. Not all murderers should be killed. Some should be kept around for neuroscientific/psychological purposes. And if they are to be killed for economic purposes, then there are other things that need to be reorganized for the same purposes. What would the economic landscape even look like at that point, so who knows whether or not some bones should be thrown to the murderers? And if they are to be killed for retributory/karmic purposes, then it should be done all the way and not dishonest halfway barrenness. If you want to punish them, you should really punish them. Tear them apart. Use fire. Anything to be honest with yourself, for Truth. And the people that want it most of all to happen should be responsible. The fact all this human nature of desire for homicidal revenge is hidden between legalisms and walls of government buildings is just ridiculous. My personal perspective is that I don't care. My greater perspective is that they should be rehabilitated. And the ones that seemingly can't be rehabilitated should be experimented on to see if they possibly can be after all, or if there's something their lives and their brain structures might reveal.

Osama was just protecting his country from the evils of the United States' imperialism, to save the children. Also Hitler was a dog lover who just wanted to lift his nation out of a great economic travesty, and he wanted to lovingly reunite all the countries of Europe under the family roots of Germanic tribes and their sacred ways, to bring about peace and stability through a single superior government.

In my system, torture penalty would receive a lavish budget and render the death penalty obsolete.

How literally though?

Autism?

So he's just trying to appear a certain way? Or he has some conditioning left over?

You see, @Leo Gura, this is what Green looks like integrated.

Does this support the theory that @Leo Gura is Orange and not above Yellow?

That's really good and might be Turquoise. It might also be Green. Really it could be any color, but it seems like you're on the right track. Okay, but not just euthanasia. The original thread is about involuntary killing of a prisoner by the government either 1. as emotional / moral retribution for an act / crime or 2. a means of efficiency whereby the budget and space are freed up, an allocation issue.

Pretty sure you have a large amount of Blue while being Orange-centered with some amount of Yellow at the highest part of your being. Haven't detected any Green, except for your lack of support for the death penalty and your compassion for oppressed Muslims (though the Islamist apologism was off).

I could imagine some "horror stories" though where an "executioner" or euthanizer would carry through with it even if the person was shouting that they were regretting their decision. That's why vetting has to be really high bar and why the other options have to be more conceptually developed if you want to depict what you're suggesting properly. As for the Yellow thing, there are healthy and unhealthy variants of Yellow.

How do you determine if there are options besides euthanasia? The entire concept of killing people for things they've done is Red. It just takes the topic to its core which people are avoiding.

Some percentage of murderers are rehabilitatable, plus some percentage of the convicted will be innocent. And if you say you can execute someone immediately after the trial based on solid evidence, you have to be wary about people who are possibly convicted innocently since their evidence is not as solid, not like with a video tape. This double standard would require a large-scale overhaul of the legal system, which is not going to happen anytime soon. Execution by suicide? Honestly if you really want a shooter or a rapist dead you should just do it yourself and not hand them over to the government for them to deal with.

I hate that guy.

I feel like I have multiple personalities tbh. @Max_V I don't know how you don't remember this, but you get better at skills by doing them. You should be focusing on memorizing more things, literally doing memory exercises and reading more books to retain it all, and however strenuous or dopamine-deprived it (focusing) may be, you'll "stretch out" the memory configuration structures you have access to. Maybe this should've been the first thing I said. If you've done it for enough time and see zero results entirely, then you should consult communities of people with the same attention difficulties and do further research there.

A vast restructuring of reality lol. It has demonstrated itself to be true. You claim human creativity is measurable so that an AI can replicate what it would do exactly. I do not subscribe to this because I understand how simple these AIs are as vehemently opposed to how the depth of the human being and its creativities go all the way down to the instincts and the emotions and all those complexities, all the way into the heights and "heavenliness" of what is superior to the human being, what is the light. I do not have a way of allowing this gross misapprehension/misapplication of what is going on to continue! Anybody that compares the human being to something such an idiot machine can churn out (the "quality" of its "work" is extraordinarily bad and impressing too many people)---then they have no idea what they're talking about. I've also said that if an artificial being is to make actual (not nonsensically inaccurate) art it has to become an actual organism. At that point you would need to simulate EVERYTHING in a human being, and we are nowhere close to doing that, like I said, now or any other time in this 2000s century.

My mathematical treatise has gotten a pretty weak response. "The worker bees."

@Max_V The "working memory" portions of the tests usually have random strings of numbers, insignificant geometric shapes, and whatnot. If your memory can't take in that yet can take in something of the same complexity but with more meaning, more useful associations, then there probably is not that much concern to be had. Theoretically I should have a bad working memory because I scored low on the same sections; practically I have a good memory, both short- and long-term, so the appraisal is unwarranted and certainly grounded in the uselessness of the random strings of numbers, the random shapes, the lists of words forwards and backwards, etc. Memory = information retention. Memorization (as a tried and conscious process) = information retention based on intention/effort. A lot of that effortful intention and intension will come from the importance of memories, so biographical or meaningful imprints on information need to be seen everywhere. There are no longer random strings of numbers but encoded patterns to find, there are no more geometric visual patterns of insignificance but of the highest and most significant light possible to dwell in awareness, and all information is seen to be synonymous with the holding places of meaning and associative direction . . . potentially. Basically there are two routes to take, intellectually. One of them is heavy, information-dense, and immense as a state of maximization. The other is lightweight, efficient, and minimalist. Both have their uses, and you should take yourself to understanding them. Say, the first approach might read by studying cover-to-cover massively developed tomes; the second might speed-read, skim, and pick the most substantial parts out of multiple books per day. The first might train itself to heavily process and render memorized and complete any information and allow it to be eidetically retrievable permanently or temporarily; the second might discard most of the details and keep memorable only the key core points, using those cores to access the other nodes in the web like holding on to the importances like large circular bases and then branching out if at all necessary. The first has more; the second does more. I see wisdom as an emotional filter that sorts through what the intellect brings up.

Basically he means intellect = verbal IQ and memory = performance IQ, which is an oversimplification. But the main idea is that logic and memory aren't the same thing + logic > memory.

No, apophenia is a real incarnation of pattern recognition, seeing patterns where there are none, which is just inflamed pattern recognition. The AI does the same, seeing patterns where there are none. That's why its art ends up inaccurate. This is how there are intelligent paranoid schizophrenic fools that become obsessed with nonexistent patterns and who board up their windows waiting for the coming nonexistent apocalypse. You + zurew, address the arguments. This is true, but it isn't evolving as fast as people are making it out. It hasn't passed my standards. Same as many pieces from history that are "objectively" bad but which are revered anyway.

Conspiracy theorists are good at pattern recognition but bad at pattern interpretation, so this is just wrong. Also try really facing the arguments . . .

I support it on an instinctual level, but there are numerous problems with the legal system, namely innocent people getting found guilty. So it depends if you're willing to risk innocent executions. I understand both sides perfectly well. Really it blatantly has to be a case-by-case basis if we're going down the route of who deserves to die or not. Ideally we'd be talking about 5-MeO injections instead of merely lethal ones.

I'm saying it fails badly at both by not doing one of them at all and therefore being crippled in the other one.

It is your assumption that these are separable. An autistic person with alexithymia cannot create emotional scenery, even if they get a structural understanding of various facial expressions, emotional contexts and their objective associations, human motivations, and such. Granting that the AI we're talking about here has a better memory and complexity, still that is no help, because empathy per se has a wider span of memory and complexity than the AI can replicate without becoming a real organism (it is a portion of reality the AI has no access to whatsoever, except for signs and symbols like trickling streams it can attempt to read). No dissociative mimicry can work since it simply wouldn't know what to do, no matter how many exemplary structural traits you throw into its spinning program machine.

Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I don't think so. I'm thinking in terms of butterfly effects. Even if we have one serious Actualized follower per a few hundred thousand people, the result could be profoundly effective. And it's interesting to see the numbers.