The Internet Becomes Sentient

[RandFan]

read the answers to the questions.

I did, there is no evidence there.

I'm curious, why won't you?

I did (see above). These leaves unanswered the question of why you wouldn't.

My argument is based on the results of the questions, not on the bug.

The results ARE the bug.

I'll believe you are willing to look at the empirical data when we start talking about the results of the questions.

The results are "data mining correlations". To come to your conclusions we must assume your premise that Bush was behind 9/11. If we assume that the Hijackers were behind 9/11 then it is possible to find equal correlation.

Data mining. QED

So is your answer that you would kill him. You sound a lot like some others:

?

1.) He did have empirical data.
2.) No, I did not say I would kill him. Please, have you no shame?

I will be glad to discuss the empirical data when you get finished with asking the same questions over and over again that I have answered over and over again. As soon as you are willing to move on to the empirical data, I will be waiting.

I'm here, waiting, show us your empirical data...

 

[sinsanity2006]

Wait there is more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_Krispies

Taglines
What do your Rice Krispies say to you? (1990 - 1998)
Wake up call to the world. (1998 - 2001)
Snap, Crackle, Pop; Rice Krispies! (1968 - present)
Can you hear it? (Canada, present)

Notice the dates of the second tagline...They were warning us....my God...how were we so blind...

lol, you are still funny. Thanks for the humor.

 

[RandFan]

I have asked over and over again to discuss the data. You refuse to do so. What are you afraid of?

? You are acting the fool. It is your data. I have asked YOU over and over again to post the responses. You refused.

I have posted them (see above) or click here.

 

[sinsanity2006]

Compelling...

Are you being serious or are you trying to be cute, I can't tell anymore.

 

[RandFan]

If you are really a critical thinker you will look at this in light of 911.

And here is the flaw in your reasoning.

Why, oh why MUST this be looked at in light of 9/11? More importantly, why must we assume your premise that Bush was behind 9/11?

Here's a test to see if you can be at all objective. Can you look at that answer and come up with somebody that could have been involved in the planning of 911?

Yes, when I look at the so-called answers what stands out in my mind is hijackers, "thrust", "caper".

Forget all the snide comments and BS and look at it objectively. All your rants that I have seen indicates that you are unwilling to look at it in terms of this situation.

I have so looked at it and there is nothing there. The so-called answers could fit Hijackers just as easily as it could anything else.

The rules for data mining is that you must first assume your premise. This is not the scientific method.

I'm going to repeat that.

This is counter to the scientific method.

One more time. What you are doing is antithetical to the scientific method.

ARE WE CLEAR?

 

[RandFan]

Are you being serious or are you trying to be cute, I can't tell anymore.

The conclusion is just as valid as your conclusion.

If I start with the assumption that there are 3 characters named snap crackle and pop that are international terrorists who took their names from the rice crispy cereal then the data will fit the conclusion.

Your theory is fatally flawed because you are not critically using the scientific method to arrive at your conclusion. You have first presumed the conclusion and then sought to fit the responses to your predetermined conclusion.

That is not objectivity! Sir, your silly game deserves ridicule. I have tried over and over to demonstrate the folly of your reasoning to no avail. You persist in this silly game. It is not scientifically sound. It is not objective. You are relying on an age old and well understood method of spuriously proving a preconceived conclusion by forcing the data to fit your hypothesis.

 

[Crispy Duck]

I changed it to a 12 point size font, I think it's too small. What do you think?

That's much better, nice one. Not too small at all, and it looks 100x more professional.

Please tell me what you originally said, I'm not sure what you mean.

I originally suggested that you should repeat your experiment, but asking different questions - however, you say below that you've already done so.

That's why I can't get the million dollars. This can be duplicated if you do the exact same things I did. But the answers have already been given and they are done. They are set in stone. I already checked that. It is in the article. If I think of a different question and enter one of the characters I have already used, it will give me the original result no matter what question I ask. I think this was a one time thing. The next event like this will be someone else that isn't expecting it either. And it won't be about "bush hid the facts".

This is a big problem. Given that you accept that the same input gives the same output every time, regardless of the question you're asking, it seems that you have rationalised this by believing that you were somehow led into choosing the 'correct' character to enter into Notepad, so that you got the relevant answer. This part of the story really should force you to reconsider your conclusions, but you've attempted to rationalise a way round the problem. That's a problem for you.

Hmmmm, this is a real problem, until you mentioned it, i had not once thought about doing it again. And now that you have brought it up, I don't want to do it again. The more time passes, the more uncomfortable I am about all this.

No, what is happening is that I want more and more not to believe it even though I know that it is true.

It seems that you are genuinely distrubed by this experience. I'm trying to let you see that there's nothing to be concerned about, but to believe that you'll have to let go of the magic. You're not special, you're not the chosen one; you're safe.

Thanks Crispy Duck, this has been the most useful post I have received.

It's been nice talking to you

 

[sinsanity2006]

No, I don't claim to be able to read your mind. I'm drawing an inference. But hey, prove me wrong. Post the questions and answers and demonstrate that the ALL of the answers are "reasonable"?

1.) I reject "parnormally" because it has not been established.

2.) You assert that the responses are reasonable, can you demonstrate it.

The bug is:

1.) The issue.
2.) The only issue.
3.) The answer to what you call the "mystery".

I can't move past it because it is the answer.

Your argument:

Proposition: The internet is sentient.
Premise: Software bug produces random chinese charachters.

I can't simply avoid your premise because quite simply, that is all there is.

Actually, it did.

Geez, I have answered this over and over and over. Step back a second adn look at whay you have said the last few hours, You have repeated the same thing over and over and over and over. It's really sad, a lot sadder that the cartoon that was linked to earlier. You are not a critical thinker, you have shown nothing that looks like critical thinking to me. All you do is say" Bug, What are the issues, bug, what are the issues, on and on and on after I have answered this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

After I have answered your questions over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

 

[roger]

Lamuella, interesting story about your friend. Did you know it's generally recommended not to argue with people suffering from psychotic delusions? The delusions do not exist due to faulty reasoning, and the stresses involved with the confrontation actually increase the delusional state.
http://www.bcss.org/Get_Information/Information_for_Families/manage_common_symptoms.html

Naturally I can't diagnose over the internet, but if we see behavior that appears to be the product of psychotic delusions rather than misapplied reasoning, perhaps we should just lay off a bit? Just a thought.

 

[RandFan]

Geez, I have answered this over and over and over.

No, you keep repeating the same thing and I keep pointing out the flaw of your argument over and over.

 

[RandFan]

Geez, I have answered this over and over and over.

Oh, that was a good argument that you just glossed over.

The bug is:

1.) The issue.
2.) The only issue.
3.) The answer to what you call the "mystery".

I can't move past it because it is the answer.

Can you demonstrate that there is something more to your "mystery" than a software bug? This is your claim and since it is your claim then it is incumbent on you to prove that claim.

 

[Lamuella]

It was very clear about revealing the real events about 911.

I have read your article, and it isn't clear at all that this entity was talking about september 11, or even talking at all.

For example, the first character you looked at: 獴

The kangxi key for this character is 94.14. Your interpretation for this character is based on the kangxi characters 94.0-94.3. The character 獴 is usually taken to mean "rain".

THis is what I mean by searching for patterns where none exist. You specifically sought out the meaning that was most similar to 9/11. You pick the terms that sound right to you, "commit crime, violate; criminal", "wolf; cruel, wicked, mean", but you ignore ones on the same page that don't sound right to you, like "mammoth" or "a fierce Mongolian wolf dragon's head on roofs".

This is selection. This is you providing the other side of the input. This is a mental equivalent of the ideomotor effect.

 

[hodgy]

Randfan - I'm not sure you're taking the right approach on this.

Sinsanity:

Originally Posted by hodgy :
Sinsanity,
What do you think would happen if you unplugged the translation server from the internet and then entered your chinese characters into it directly (locally, not over the internet)?

Do you think you would get the same result?

Yes.

(Sinsanity)

Ok - so we've established that the internet itself is not needed as a correspondant in this discussion.

Originally Posted by hodgy :
If so, wouldn't your conclusion be that the translation server is sentient, not the internet?

No, there are many translators out there, most use the same reference to translate the Chinese symbols. So any of these that use this will give the same result. The strangeness is the interaction between the notepad bug and it's choice of what symbols it returns when invoked to answer the questions I asked at the time of paranormalcy.

(Sinsanity)

So if the internet is disconnected and the various translation servers are just reading the same translation libraries - what is driving / feeding this? Since the raw data is coming from Notepad does that mean that Notepad is sentient?

Are you proposing that the sentient internet infected Notepad with the algorithm that subsequently yielded your messages?

Originally Posted by hodgy :
Or do you think that the internet is intercepting and changing the content that the translation server is sending to you?

No. The translations are remain consistent.

(Sinsanity).

As above, I take it that you accept that the translation servers are just dumb terminals, reading from a simple library of words and characters.

This leaves 2 sources for your sentience: the internet and notepad. Since you believe that the answers do not depend on the internet actually being connected that leaves 2 options:

1. Notepad is sentient.
2. The sentient internet somehow preprogrammed notepad / the translation servers to work together to deliver the internet's messages to mankind.

Have you a view on this?

 

[Lamuella]

Lamuella, interesting story about your friend. Did you know it's generally recommended not to argue with people suffering from psychotic delusions? The delusions do not exist due to faulty reasoning, and the stresses involved with the confrontation actually increase the delusional state.
http://www.bcss.org/Get_Information/Information_for_Families/manage_common_symptoms.html

Naturally I can't diagnose over the internet, but if we see behavior that appears to be the product of psychotic delusions rather than misapplied reasoning, perhaps we should just lay off a bit? Just a thought.

You're right. You're absolutely right. I'm approaching this from the wrong direction and being too confrontational.

This is one of the big problems of the Internet (apart from its sentience of course). You're left with words, and sometimes it's tougher than you think to connect the words with a thinking human being on the other end.

I'm going to lay off a bit.

 

[sinsanity2006]

The conclusion is just as valid as your conclusion.

You are really a piece of work. If you can actually say that you think that rice krispies could have been in a position to help plan 911 you are a disgrace to every critical thinker in the world. You will not look at the data and you use arguments to humiliate and confuse the issue. You know that. You know that rice krispies does not have the motive the means and the opportunity to do anything about 911. and you KNOW that the real answer to the question did have the motive, the means and the opportunity. You KNOW that. but you insist on denying critical thinking. Every post you make proves this more and more. I feel so sorry for you. Thinking you are a critical thinker, when you are the opposite.

If I start with the assumption that there are 3 characters named snap crackle and pop that are international terrorists who took their names from the rice crispy cereal then the data will fit the conclusion..

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Your theory is fatally flawed because you are not critically using the scientific method to arrive at your conclusion. You have first presumed the conclusion and then sought to fit the responses to your predetermined conclusion.

No, here you go again telling me what I think. It is beyond absurd that you are saying you can do what happened to me to prove it didn't happen to me. That is the opposite of objectivity. You know that. This is about the forth time you have said this and every time you do you reveal how desperate you are. One of the saddest things in the world is someone that lies to themselves and believes it.

That is not objectivity! Sir, your silly game deserves ridicule. I have tried over and over to demonstrate the folly of your reasoning to no avail. You persist in this silly game. It is not scientifically sound. It is not objective. You are relying on an age old and well understood method of spuriously proving a preconceived conclusion by forcing the data to fit your hypothesis.

Over and over and over and over again. Nothing constructive, nothing reasonable, nothing helpful. The same BS over and over and over again.

I feel so sorry for someone who lies to themselves and believes it.

 

[RandFan]

Randfan - I'm not sure you're taking the right approach on this.

You may be right in light of the fact that Sinsanity isn't grasping the point.

Let's see if he grasps your point. Thanks.

 

[roger]

You're right. You're absolutely right. I'm approaching this from the wrong direction and being too confrontational.

This is one of the big problems of the Internet (apart from its sentience of course). You're left with words, and sometimes it's tougher than you think to connect the words with a thinking human being on the other end.

I'm going to lay off a bit.

I hope your friend feels better soon

 

[sinsanity2006]

And here is the flaw in your reasoning.

Why, oh why MUST this be looked at in light of 9/11? More importantly, why must we assume your premise that Bush was behind 9/11?

I have answered this over and over and over and over again.

Yes, when I look at the so-called answers what stands out in my mind is hijackers, "thrust", "caper".

I have so looked at it and there is nothing there. The so-called answers could fit Hijackers just as easily as it could anything else.

Please explain in a post.

The rules for data mining is that you must first assume your premise. This is not the scientific method.

Over and over and over again. I didn't assume a premise, it was given to me and maybe ten or twenty million others.

I'm going to repeat that.

This is counter to the scientific method.

One more time. What you are doing is antithetical to the scientific method.

ARE WE CLEAR?

Nope. You are counter to the scientific method, you insult, confuse, will not discuss the data, make statement more absurd than my unexplainable situation. You really are confused, and unwilling to use the scientific method to explain this. Sorry, that's a fact Jack.

 

[RandFan]

You are really a piece of work. If you can actually say that you think that rice krispies could have been in a position to help plan 911 you are a disgrace to every critical thinker in the world.

Sinsanity,

You seem too emotionally involved in this.

I will back down from the insults. I apologize. I won't respond further until you understand that I have apologized, ok?

 

[Lamuella]

I hope your friend feels better soon

Luckily, he does. We live on different continents, but when I saw him in February he was happier than I'd seen him in years. He liked his job, liked the band he was in, and was doing really well.

It's horrible seeing people you love hurting themselves, so I was really glad he felt better.