The Genesis Seal

[Kingfisher2926]

when you first posted this thread half a dozen people rushed to show you that it worked on all texts, not just cherry picked ones. You ignored them all.

now you're pretending that didn't happen

do you understand why everyone is so very annoyed at you or not ?

That's not strictly true. At that stage most posters seemed to think the Genesis Seal was like an extension of the Bible Code, which it most certainly is not. I was shown examples of silly, contrived look-alikes that illustrated 'emergent' words in all sorts of wierd positions that do not begin to match the beauty of the real deal.
I have said I am willing to participate in the sort of test you say would be necessary to prove my assertions either right or wrong. However, you have said that I am too biased to be effective in that role. You have suggested a test, I want a test; what more can I do?

 

[Kingfisher2926]

when you first posted this thread half a dozen people rushed to show you that it worked on all texts, not just cherry picked ones. You ignored them all.

now you're pretending that didn't happen

do you understand why everyone is so very annoyed at you or not ?

Besides, I don't see how I can be accused of cherry-picking by accepting the opening words of the world's best-selling book.

 

[Complexity]

That's not strictly true. At that stage most posters seemed to think the Genesis Seal was like an extension of the Bible Code, which it most certainly is not. I was shown examples of silly, contrived look-alikes that illustrated 'emergent' words in all sorts of wierd positions that do not begin to match the beauty of the real deal.
I have said I am willing to participate in the sort of test you say would be necessary to prove my assertions either right or wrong. However, you have said that I am too biased to be effective in that role. You have suggested a test, I want a test; what more can I do?

Do something else. I don't think a single other person who has posted in this thread has any interest in hearing any more about your silly idea or in helping you test it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I can concede that. But I have doubts that I can persuade anyone on this thread to be a part of what they say is required. I can give it a go solo, but as Marduk said, he would not trust my judgement. In the end, that may be my only option. I just wonder, if everyone wants to prove me wrong, why not do so properly with specific examples of confirmation bias, instead of keep saying it must be done.

OK; I will work on an example, but you have the thing upside down, here:

Confirmation bias is a fact. I'm sure you know this. However, it is not our duty to prove you wrong; you make a claim, and the onus of proof is on you. I will concede that such proof will be difficult to lift, but it is still your problem.

As for examples, there are tons of them already out there: Bible codes, Nostradamus, Jesus pictures on toast, etc. The human mind is constructed so that in any random pattern, it will seek to find a meaning. Evolutionarily, this makes sense, but it will fool us all, from time to time.

Think of it this way: Do you have ANY evidence, apart from your own musings, that your genesis seal has any merit?

Hans

 

[Marduk]

Besides, I don't see how I can be accused of cherry-picking by accepting the opening words of the world's best-selling book.

see again your obvious bias is clear
this is the opening passage from the worlds best selling book

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only

That's not strictly true.

its completely true, you ignored any posts that asked valid questions and just ranted on and on for pages, we get that all the time here, look around you at some of the other threads

At that stage most posters seemed to think the Genesis Seal was like an extension of the Bible Code, which it most certainly is not.

Thats exactly what it's like

proponents hold that it is exceedingly unlikely such sequences could arise by chance, while skeptics and opponents hold that such sequences do often arise by chance, as demonstrated on other Hebrew and English texts

this was demonstrated to you, you ignored it, but the above quote stated in wiki about the bible code also fits the genesis seal, they are exactly alike

I was shown examples of silly, contrived look-alikes that illustrated 'emergent' words in all sorts of wierd positions that do not begin to match the beauty of the real deal.

you were shown valid examples, you are the only person here claiming they don't count while at the same time claiming yours does because its special, I've seen the same types of arguments from children arguing over their toys

I have said I am willing to participate in the sort of test you say would be necessary to prove my assertions either right or wrong. However, you have said that I am too biased to be effective in that role. You have suggested a test, I want a test; what more can I do?

stop proselytising for starters, its sickening

 

[Kingfisher2926]

Do something else. I don't think a single other person who has posted in this thread has any interest in hearing any more about your silly idea or in helping you test it.

You can't very well speak on behalf of everyone else. I shall only ask why others - especially Marduk - would propose running a test if there was no desire for it to take place? Could the explanation be anything other than wilful mischief and time wasting?

 

[Complexity]

You can't very well speak on behalf of everyone else. I shall only ask why others - especially Marduk - would propose running a test if there was no desire for it to take place? Could the explanation be anything other than wilful mischief and time wasting?

I've read every post in this thread.

No one has given you the least bit of encouragement.

Go ahead and ask if anyone wants to learn more about your 'work', if anyone is willing to assist you in testing your ideas.

Marduk (before whom all scrape and bow) is challenging you to put your money where your mouth is - to test things in a meaningful way rather than simply babble on about them.

Many people have tried to show you the error of your ways, but don't mistake this for interest in your ideas. I think a great many people hope you will go off for a long time and 'test' things, piddling away in solitude. Proper tests could be conducted, but you will not perform them, because they would torpedo your fondest hopes and dreams. Enough.

You have provided some entertainment value, but nothing of interest.

 

[Marduk]

You can't very well speak on behalf of everyone else. I shall only ask why others - especially Marduk - would propose running a test if there was no desire for it to take place? Could the explanation be anything other than wilful mischief and time wasting?

the explanation is that the rant you responded to the offer was full of "me, myself and I"
That clearly shows that you wouldn't accept the conclusion of any test set because the only person you value here is yourself.

Arrogance is not attractive unless it is deserved.

I also previously asked you to show some evidence that anyone in history knew about this, you said you needed to present something first so that we'd understand the context. Well you've presented that, time now to put your money where your mouth is
who else mentioned the Genesis square in history
We'd like their names, what they said about it and when they said it please

 

[slingblade]

You can't very well speak on behalf of everyone else. I shall only ask why others - especially Marduk - would propose running a test if there was no desire for it to take place? Could the explanation be anything other than wilful mischief and time wasting?

To get you to see your mistakes, if it's possible for you to do that.

At this point, I am certain it is not possible that you can see your mistakes.
You first must be willing to grant that you might be in error, and then you must be willing to look for errors, honestly and rigorously.

I don't see that ever happening.

 

[Kingfisher2926]

OK; I will work on an example, but you have the thing upside down, here:

Confirmation bias is a fact. I'm sure you know this. However, it is not our duty to prove you wrong; you make a claim, and the onus of proof is on you. I will concede that such proof will be difficult to lift, but it is still your problem.

As for examples, there are tons of them already out there: Bible codes, Nostradamus, Jesus pictures on toast, etc. The human mind is constructed so that in any random pattern, it will seek to find a meaning. Evolutionarily, this makes sense, but it will fool us all, from time to time.

Think of it this way: Do you have ANY evidence, apart from your own musings, that your genesis seal has any merit?

Hans

The evidence is only empirical up to now. That is why, after much cajoling, I have accepted that a proper test would be necessary for the credibility of the Genesis Seal, or its downfall. If the outcome should go against my hypothesis, I would take my enthusiasm elsewhere.

Have you seen all the proposals and counter-proposals for what would constitute a suitable test, and test data? And do you have any other helpful ideas? I would love to help, but am afraid of introducing the sort of bias that could invalidate the results. Please let me know if you want any data out of the Torah Masoretic text. I can supply data, along with a corresponding scan of pages from a published edition. Right now, though, I've just got to get some sleep. Hope your trip to the Far East went well.

 

[EvilQuest]

I think I'd better just go ahead and do that. I've been told it must be done, but that I am not qualified to do so. Catch 22.

I think that if you can show it properly and without bias then some people will at least entertain your points. So far people (myself included) cannot get past the point of your apparent predisposition to select and see what you want to see (possibly subconciously). You acknowledged that you could be doing exactly that recently. ie. introducing bias. That approach would never get past these guys. I'm new here but trust me: these people know their stuff. Any hint that you are being deliberate in selection because of some pre-conceived ideas will inevitably result in immediate shut-down of any potentially positive input. You can't just believe that you are being clean in your dealings, you need to be seen to be clean aswell. There is no Catch22. You can't be unqualified if this is, as you claim, something brand new, since if that's true there can be no existing authority on the subject and that would make you the only one qualified to at least some degree to present this. So do it.

EQ

 

[Complexity]

(I like the new guy!)

 

[Marduk]

You can't be unqualified if this is, as you claim, something brand new, since if that's true there can be no existing authority on the subject and that would make you the only one qualified to at least some degree to present this. So do it.

EQ

he's claiming its brand new
he's also claiming that many historical figures knew about it
so this concept is oxymoronic

(I like the new guy!)

ditto

 

[Jon.]

You have suggested a test, I want a test; what more can I do?

To start with, you have to design the test properly. It's no good saying you're going to do a test unless you (and we) know how the test is going to be run. Specifically, you will need to address at least the following questions before you start:

1. How will you choose your "control" texts? Some form of randomization would be ideal, unless there is good reason not to be random. Including texts from other religious traditions and from non-religious sources should also be considered.
2. How many arrangements of the text should be considered? You have admitted that you tried a number of different arrangements of the beginning of Genesis before you found one that "worked" for you. Are similar multiple "attempts" permissible for other texts?
3. Similarly, what manipulations of the text are permissible?
4. What constitutes a "pattern"? You seem to have applied a number of different "patterns" to the first 64 characters of Gen. 1:1-2. To an outside observer, it appears that you have simply looked for arrangements of letters that looked like "significant" words and then manipulated things to make them look like patterns. You need a rule, or set of rules, for what is and is not a pattern.
5. What constitutes a "significant" word? Is it any identifiable word in the language in which the text is written? One that relates to the content of the text in some way? One that relates to the larger work from which the text is taken?

You will also need to justify your answers to all of these questions in ways that make sense to an impartial, outside observer and do not leave the impression that you're fixing things to come up with the result you want. For instance, the answer to question #1 might be that you would expect texts from other religious traditions to contain divine patterns, so that finding them would not falsify your thesis. In such a case, you might try passages taken from Penthouse Letters or the Dungeon Master's Guide or some other work that you would not consider divinely-inspired.

Finally, you would have to go back to your subject text (the first 64 characters of Gen. 1:1-2 in Hebrew) and subject it to the same arrangements, manipulations, and tests for patterns and significant words that you used on your control texts, and no others.

Only by doing so will you be able to convince any rational observer that there is something special about your chosen text; even then, you may have a hard time, depending on how esoteric your rules for arrangement, manipulation, patterns and significance are.

 

[Dinwar]

I shall only ask why others - especially Marduk - would propose running a test if there was no desire for it to take place?

You've misunderstood the purpose of a test. The purpose isn't to show that you're right--if you're going into an experiment to prove yourself right, you're going to include a number of biases, most of them quite unintentionally (it's one of the bigger occupational hazards in science). You test your ideas to see if they're wrong--not because we don't like you, but because if you learn why you're wrong you can fix it.

Chef Gordon Ramsey often says that at his restaraunts he ignores positive feedback, and looks only at the negative. I have no idea if he actually follows this or not, but it's very good advice and very applicable here. The idea behind the advice is that by learning where we fail, we learn where we can improve, thus strengthening ourselves. It makes no sense to improve the areas you're already stellar at--improving the areas you suck at ("you" here being general, not you specifically) is the fastest way to improve. In anything.

A well-designed experiment is going to show you that you're wrong, because your idea IS wrong. Several have been done--for example, it was shown that using your methods, the first sentence of Harry Potter contains numerous significant words. But a well-designed experiment is also going to show you HOW you are wrong, even in the experimental design itself. I've often found myself thinking along those lines to detect, or to overcome, errors myself. Used to drive professors nuts--I'd write humanities papers in the typical physical science paper format. But that's because a proper experiment leaves no room for individual bias, and thus merely designing the experiment can reveal the baises of the people involved.

Think of it this way: designing an experiment is sort of like picking your starters for a basketball game. Once you realize that your starters are 5'6" max and score an average of 2 points per game each and can't make a freethrow to save their lives, and you're going up against 6'11" monsters who score 20 points at minimum per game, you don't NEED to play the game, you already know you're going to lose. The process of designing the strategy shows how.

 

[EvilQuest]

You've misunderstood the purpose of a test. The purpose isn't to show that you're right--if you're going into an experiment to prove yourself right, you're going to include a number of biases, most of them quite unintentionally (it's one of the bigger occupational hazards in science). You test your ideas to see if they're wrong--not because we don't like you, but because if you learn why you're wrong you can fix it.

Chef Gordon Ramsey often says that at his restaraunts he ignores positive feedback, and looks only at the negative. I have no idea if he actually follows this or not, but it's very good advice and very applicable here. The idea behind the advice is that by learning where we fail, we learn where we can improve, thus strengthening ourselves. It makes no sense to improve the areas you're already stellar at--improving the areas you suck at ("you" here being general, not you specifically) is the fastest way to improve. In anything.
i would tend to agree. improving what you are weak at has proportionately better results than trying to eke out an extra bit of that thing you already know you can do blindfolded.

 

[EvilQuest]

(I like the new guy!)

shucks. i'm trying to find the "blushing icon" now!

obviously i'll feel quite silly if you were actually referring to someone else entirely. no matter. i'm sure i can deal with with the embarassment. hold your head high...

 

[Marduk]

shucks. i'm trying to find the "blushing icon" now!

obviously i'll feel quite silly if you were actually referring to someone else entirely. no matter. i'm sure i can deal with with the embarassment. hold your head high...

wait, so we weren't talking about Kingfisher ?
<<<------this one

 

[EvilQuest]

wait, so we weren't talking about Kingfisher ?
<<<------this one

hahaha

 

[yy2bggggs]

1. How will you choose your "control" texts? Some form of randomization would be ideal, unless there is good reason not to be random. Including texts from other religious traditions and from non-religious sources should also be considered.

One minor nitpick--random text will not do. Specifically, if someone were to demonstrate to me that arbitrary biblical text shows significantly more "special patterns" than random text, given some formal definition of "special patterns", then I've yet to be impressed. Natural language is in itself patterned in complex ways; this could easily contribute to unintended patterns. (For this reason, I cringe when hearing about calculated probabilities.) The ideal control for me in this case would be period-equivalent non-biblical Hebrew text.