Jump to content

Popcorn Sutton

Senior Members
  • Posts

    989
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Popcorn Sutton

  1. There has to be a necessarily microscopic network of fluctuation correlators communicating with an external device that is capable of saving all the data and using recognizers (like a program using these tiny microphones as input)to dictate to the computer what is recognized with the fluctuation correlators. It's happening very rapidly, and the louder the noise (or the quantity of recognizers increased with one particular fluctuation) the more likely the person will act on that activity. This would be how you can use data to make an argument which is most likely reflecting the subjective conscious activity of the person of interest, but using this method, you can also determine the entirety of context used to subjectively act upon.
  2. http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/obama-signs-end-to-free-speech/There are some judges on facebook saying that they are taking away our free speech as well. Also, here is a fox news video about it. youtu.be/7SGWH3kirzg I'd also like to point out that the government does have the ability to use the secret service as they see fit. So if there is a significant citizen, they could choose to protect them with the secret service. This hasn't happened to my knowledge, but it's easy to postulate. I don't doubt that the military and police are ALREADY protecting certain significant citizens.
  3. It would be unarbitrated. Meaning that you can look at the people with the most votes (voting would be a parallel feature, not necessarily a conscious one) which is also the most statistically significant people and the least significant people depending on the maximal knowledge that they have been recorded to have. The longest sequence pretty much. How long is it and how much significance does it have in comparison with everyone else, literally, everyone else (documented). It's a big search procedure where the most important things are at the top (like the alphabet), and it degrades in significance, but the more that someone utters or writes, the more significance they get. If youre talking about finding these things in context, then, unfortunately, the most immediate answer is that the user would have to know the context. It would be an intelligent system, but I assume that you can access the problems by looking at significance.
  4. I'm sure you could use it in that way, and now that the government is taking away our freedom of speech (which I support because I know that freedom is a false premise), you can classify the data as crime speak, new speak, and good think, which is useful for the governments purposes. But for my purposes, since I'm proposing a quantitative knowledge index, I try to avoid arbitrariness as much as possible so we can just look at the statistics and determine peoples significance.
  5. Heres a revision. The most significant people get an honorable involuntary discharge/relocation because theyre too valuable. People of high significance get an honorable but voluntary discharge because they have the potential to become even more significant where they would then be given an involuntary discharge. People of low significance get a dishonorable but voluntary discharge. People of extremely low significance get a dishonorable involuntary discharge. Where they go depends on the circumstances. The hope is for rehabilitation. All people who require a discharge are considered vicious, but they are separated by being either honorable or dishonorable. John "I'm vicious." Mary "Honorable or dishonorable?l John "honorable" Mary "voluntary or involuntary?"
  6. I'm kind of picking up where another thread of mine left off. On Replacing the Voting System. I'm not talking about people who are already in jail doing the writings. I'm talking about everyone who cares to say something to a machine or to their doctor or to any concerned citizen. Whatever they say, if it's written, it can be analyzed by an algorithm that scores the expressions that they use and compares it with the consensus (or the expressions that are used by a majority of other users). At the top are expressions like "The poor need to be fed," or "I need more money," or "legalize [x]," while at the bottom are expressions like "Kill John Doe's society with a nuclear bomb," or "Make people in the hospital more sick." The list is basically a consensus on priorities. The stuff at the top of the list get recognized and worked on by people who have the power to do something about them. In this case, the number one priority is "The poor need to be fed," where the person who is in a position to do something about it (who has almost sovereign authority) spends their time reducing the significance of the expressions of top priority ("the poor need to be fed"). At the same time, the police, the FBI, the NSA, and any other law enforcing or tragedy prevention agency can look at the expressions at the bottom of the list, the ones that do not appeal to the consensus, and do the same with those expressions (reduce their significance). Well, the expressions at the bottom of the list are not very significant to begin with, but the problem is that they can become viral. So what do we do with a virus? We try to eliminate it or use it for beneficial purposes. So, what I'm saying is that these expressions at the bottom of the list (the list of priorities, the list of statistical significance), however insignificant they are, should still be dealt with regardless of the person who used them's civil standing. I think that it's safe to say that the expressions that occur the least can be labeled as vicious. So what do we do with people who succumb to vice? Right now, unfortunately, we don't do much. If they're lucky, the get treated by a counselor or a doctor in hopes that they will integrate and rehabilitate themselves. Well, I regret to say this, but there are A LOT of cases where these people do not get the attention that they need, and unfortunately, they remain in their environment, which is often an environment that magnifies the vice, and in the case of magnification, the vicious person decides to act upon their vice to the extent of their ability. So what do they do when they act on the vice? They break laws, they cause distress, they hurt people, they poison people, they do these unimaginable things that are detrimental to our well-being as a society and detrimental to their self as well. In the system that I am proposing, we can target these people of vicious intent simply by looking at the expressions that score low significance, and we can separate them from the factors that magnify their vice in the hopes of preventing a tragedy (whether it's economical, lawful, moral, psychological, political, or any other imaginable detriment to our well-being as a whole). We can call the separation an honorable/dishonorable (voluntary/involuntary) discharge. In this case, instead of taking the person of vicious intent and making them mingle with others who are similar (such as being in jail or prison), we can put them in an environment where their vice is even less significant (like taking a potential murderer and putting them in a place where they will be useful, but separated from others, such as waste management). However, in order for this system to work properly, we need to make sure that all the other people who have similar expressions are even further separated so we do not magnify the vice. So say that there are 3 people who want to wage nuclear war on country [x], we do not throw all 3 people in the same environment, we separate them so we can reduce the effectiveness of the mafia principle (power in numbers). I'm saying that the degree of separation can be judged by the severity of the vice (which is also quantified by statistical significance). If we want, we can also determine the degree of separation based on established law. So if person [x] (from the united states) has a vicious intent of [y] which scores only 1 in statistical significance out of 7 billion people who also participate in the process of prioritizing political issues, we can prescribe an involuntary discharge to a country like Cambodia where they can do something useful (such as teach the Cambodians English and learn their native language). They will continue to be required to participate in prioritizing political issues, and if they score higher in significance, then we can prescribe an honorable (voluntary) discharge to a place where they can integrate and make progress. At that point, we can consider them rehabilitated. I am using "discharge" in a different sense than "release" in this case because the person has not already committed the crime and therefor has not been convicted and sent to jail. They are in their own environment, and by being in that position, they are in risk of magnifying the vice. So, under these circumstances, preventative measures have to be taken, such as prescribing them a dishonorable (involuntary) discharge, which would be to a location where their vice will be reduced. An honorable (voluntary) discharge would be like an award for a person who has the opportunity to further integrate themselves and achieve a greater degree of independence. The people who score the highest significance get appointed to an honorable position, while the people who score lowest significance get a discharge.
  7. I'm saying that, in a system like our own but a little more advanced, people write often about how they are coping with their surroundings. A program analyzes the writing and scores what they say with a statistical algorithm. The things they say get put on a priority list where the most common expressions are at the top and least common at the bottom. I'd assume that a phrase like "John Doe needs to suffer, and we should kill him with our forks" would score very low in significance (statistically), and at that point, we can call it a vice. After that, we can notify the proper authority and prescribe them a voluntary (or involuntary, depending on the score) discharge. If the system is global, we can separate them to more extreme conditions (such as placing them in a completely foreign environment). This is one possible, and probably effective, method of reducing risk which results from the use of statistical algorithms to score priority so the people who are in positions of power can make informed decisions. I previously referred to this system as a scientocracy. All low priority statements could be treated the same. So if it's risky economically, scientifically, lawfully, psychologically, or basically vicious in any way, we would have the authority to prescribe an honorable or dishonorable discharge.
  8. It wood be like a giant list where the least significant (and less occurring) entries get scored for higher vicious intent than significant. This would be good for fostering intelligence as well.
  9. It would allow for a much greater degree of independence and a significantly higher rate of integration and dealing with priorities. Say that someone is a felon because of some crime that they have committed. Leading up to that point, it was obvious that they were going to do what they did to become a felon. Who did they tell? Their peers, their doctors, and in their writings. If they have a doctor, or a counselor, they should have the capability to write a prescription for "jail time", which I am using in reference to a separation of the person of vicious intent from those who serve no other purpose than to magnify the vice. It would be like an honorable discharge. Prescription: restraining order.
  10. This is a prescription that doctors hand out regardless of civil standing, however, sending them to different facilities where they are deliberately separated from those who are similar depending on the quantitative method of measuring vice. If the significance level of vice is high, then separate them in correlation with the significance. Significance is determined by priority. Things that are low priority get further separated until they integrate or achieve equilibrium (in significance). This method will maximize our knowledge. Especially if it was integrated globally (best simultaneously). But you can test it individually and amongst peers prematurely. I might write the program.
  11. In light of the recent government shut down, I would like to draw attention to this subject again. Please read over the previous two pages and spread the word. The previous post is very significant in my opinion.
  12. I invented this new term today and provided a definition. Here it is. Unarbitrated Time- (1)The instantaneous access between identical units and the prompting (or contextualization) of proximal units. (2)The physical flow of realizable objects without appealing to a numerical measurement between moments. This term is being used in the technical sense, specifically, at the moment, for computational linguistics.
  13. Ok, will this bit of information may be valuable under these circumstances. In computer science, or more specifically, turing theories, there are two a priori notions. Memory and time. Time can be used in two ways, as a string, or as a dictionary. I would hope that anyone using linear bounded automata make time a dictionary for efficiency purposes. The difference between a string and a dictionary is that a dictionary has two parts, an entry and its corresponding part. If time is being used as a dictionary, then both the entry and its part are strings, but they are seperate and only the entry is within knowledge. Parts of the corresponding part are in knowledge, but if you treat it as a whole, it's highly improbable that it will be in knowledge. If you treat time as a string, then the function that accesses the string has to skip over large portions of the string in order to find the input that is in knowledge that is also in the string. This is highly inefficient. I would say that the difference between treating time as real or as imaginary is the difference in computing time as a string or as a dictionary. There's alot more to say about this but it will take long to write out on my phone.
  14. Well, as with most of my research, it leads to computation. So I followed the path of computation in this particular research endeavor. Imaginary time is preferable to real time for the exact reason stared in the wikipedia article, imaginary time is a property of real space (and I consider it to be this way because it is parametric and has clearly defined areas of segmentation). Imaginary time exists now and only now, but now in this case should not be considered as present. Present, in this case, would refer to what is proximal, however, through statistics, we can show the amount of space you wouls need to travel though to find an exact copy of a sequence of particles (ex. Yourself). Taking these assumptions a step further, statistics can also show how much space you would need to travel through in order to find a future or past instance of a sequence of particles, and this is achievable by a computer. You take alot of data, feed the program an input, and the program performs a recursive function which predicts/performs a relevant output. This goes to say that the concept of now does not necessarily mean "at present". Now is a concept that applies at any given moment in real time, and therefor is a component of imaginary time. I would even say that it is the only component of imaginary time.
  15. I want to say, thank you for introducing me to imaginary time. It has led me on a relatively long bit of research through Wikipedia. I have some comments on it, but I'll put those aside for now.
  16. I wrote the wrong code. It's actually unit = unit + prompt[0] prompt = prompt[1:] These are operations on strings. 0 means the first minimal unit of the string. While the unit is in knowledge, the bits of the string collide, but stay linear. When it's no longer in knowledge, the string ejects. The two ways you can detect an empty variable is either by prompting it or ejecting it. You can see this cognitively either when you fill a variable (with something like a snowman, and then a sunset behind it), or by ejecting it (like when you eliminate the snowman). Sorry if this is contentious, but as chomsky says, theres a dogma against studying these things and it seems unjustifiable, especially if we seek unification.
  17. connect = context.find (poi) Prompt = connect[len(poi):] This is called prompting. When it's recursive, it's quantum prompting. At this point, things are mostly grammatical when it only prompts what is within knowledge. Anything outside of knowledge usually gets ejected and not prompted. While poi in connect and len (poi) != 0: While unit in knowledge: unit = prompt + prompt[0] prompt = prompt[1:] This becomes a part of time, but it's considered output. Output or emerging depending on its location. When it's in knowledge, it's linear. It looks like it's minimal for the most part, but thats only because it's more efficient. If it was maximal, it would acquire knowledge very rapidly, but the efficiency would limit it's capabilities. It's up for debate whether one or the other will have more data.
  18. If time is changes in the position of everything, and the only way cognition is possible is through these changes, you have to assume that knowledge is a sequence of occurrences. When you imagine something, you can maneuver it, the only way to maneuver it is through filling variables. I would have to assume that an empty variable can be filled with a cognitive component, something that is computable. But the question is, how do you detect an empty variable? There are two ways, in my opinion, but I'll wait to hear your responses.
  19. I've often wondered what a variable is. Maybe it is a vacuum getting filled with a new bit of information. Maybe it's the effect of reverse fractility.
  20. To address the OP, my opinion is that time can be reduced to changes in the position of the universe. This is my objective opinion. If you want to be subjective about it, then time is an organized sequence of knowledge.
  21. I know exactly what my problems are, and even though I have overcome them, it still brings me anxiety to think about them and to know that other people can shun me or consider me a bad person because of them, or even worse, that I may fall into those categories again at any moment. My hope is simply that we can identify the source of being impulsive, and suppress it for what it is, and all things that entail from spontaneity can be treated with one simple solution.
  22. I'm talking about attitudes that would cause someone to make what most people would consider "bad decisions", the type of decisions that one would make someone call themself a name with a negative connotation such as an "alcoholic", "drug addict", "kleptomaniac", or something along those lines. I don't think that all "alcoholics" are bad people, and the same goes for "drug addicts" and "smokers", I have my own reservations on "kleptos" and "felons", but we can categorize these people under the superordinate name of "spontaneitics/spontaneics" and choose to treat them with medication and psychotherapy that will help to suppress their impulsivity. This type of category will also help them sustain a positive self image because someone who calls themself a "spontaneic" will be less likely to be shunned.
  23. Find a different point of view lol. You can't With respect to yours.
  24. I'm coining an ulterior name with a positive connotation on this type of attitude. Spontaneosity. I think you guys can draw your own conclusions on this.
  25. It's a very very mad world.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.