The Internet Becomes Sentient

[RandFan]

Please, we both know what the bug is, why it happens and that it exists. Can we please move past that and to the real issue.

But that is the problem, it is the issue. You would like to pretend that it is not but it won't go away. You can't play your game without the bug. The bug is understood and has a mundane explanation. It returns mapped Chinese characters and it is understood why. Microsoft is not scratching their heads over this one. There is no mystery. You are trying to take a software but and turn it into a mystery and then use a little slight of hand to get folks to avoid looking at the answer. Pretend the answer isn't there and abracadabra, a mystery appears before your eyes. Well, I can't pretend that the flaw in the windows algorithm isn't relevant to the issue because it is ALL that is relevant.

 

[RandFan]

The empirical data is the answers that were given to my questions.

Do you mean the gibberish that you call answers? I see no answers. I see data mining correlations.

 

[sinsanity2006]

Well thank you.

Thank you for the thank you.

I honestly bear you no ill will.

Good.

I do however wish you would utilize simple critical thinking to understand that there is nothing paranormal going on here. Nothing. You are data mining. You are relying on your interpretations of what you think random words mean. You are searching data sets to find correlations.

Once again you are saying that you can read my mind. You keep repeating the same thing over and over again. It is really unproductive. You see that, right?

What you are doing is not new. People have been doing it for centuries. It is well understood and thoroughly debunked.

I am not data mining, that is your opinion. The evidence is in the emprical data, which you refuse to address.

Occam's razor says that when there are two explanations for an event we must accept the simpler of the two. There is a very simple explanation for this that doesn't require unexplained and mysterious (paranormal) events.

I don't believe that Occam's razor is valid in all situations. Can you come up with anything that is contrary to it?

 

[RandFan]

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

No, it was not at all clear. This is a claim that you simply can not support.

I don't know why. I can't explain what a lot of people do, let alone what the internet has in mind.

But there is another explanation that doesn't require "I don't know" as part of the answer.

Occam's razor dictates that when there are two possible explanations we must accept the simpler one.

No mystery.

 

[RandFan]

Once again you are saying that you can read my mind.

No, not true. I'm using inference to draw a conclusion.

Facts: You use a data set and don't rely on all of the data from the set.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

Only in response to your repeated claims.

It is really unproductive. You see that, right?

Only in that you refuse to accept a logical explanation. I'm no more redundant than you. You can see that, right?

I am not data mining, that is your opinion.

It's a sound conclusion inferred from the facts.

The evidence is in the emprical data, which you refuse to address.

I have refused to address? I have posted one of your questions here. That is 1 more than you have addressed and I most certainly addressed that. And I note that you did not answer my question in that post.

I don't believe that Occam's razor is valid in all situations. Can you come up with anything that is contrary to it?

Contrary to Occam's razor or contrary to your explanation.

Occam's razor isn't a law that governs the universe. It does however apply quite nicely here. We have two explanations. A reasonable and prosaic one with no "I don't knows" and a mysterious one full of assumptions.

I'm afraid that any rational person would have to chose the former.

 

[sinsanity2006]

even if, EVEN IF there was any truth in this, and the messages you received were more than just you picking a nonexistent signal out of noise...

why do you think it's "the internet" talking to you?

why couldn't it be, say, a prankster working for Microsoft who wanted to put some tinfoil beanie material in there?

Yes, That was one of the first things I though of. If you read the article you would have known that.

 

[timster]

sinsanity, the other day I was trying to remember the name of a movie. I went to Google and typed "zombies in london with red eyes"

I pressed Enter and bam, right there on the page was the answer. If I type "who did wtc?" it tells me plain as day "Jews did WTC." It's also offering me numerous alternative theories.

Why is this different in substance from your method, other than the fact that the answers are clearer and in English?

 

[sinsanity2006]

Thanks,

You know, I have asked so many questions that Sinsanity simply will not answer. Why the 4-3-3-5 letter combination? Odd. Let's assume for the sake of argument that there is something paranormal going on, why does "it" (whoever whatever "it" is) only work in a very specific way?

Let's assume that it is utilizing this bug, Sinsanity admits that it is a bug, why return chinese charachters?

Why provide "reasonable" answers that require translation?

Fact: Sinsanity doesn't know.

So, based on his ignorance he decides that it is parnormal while Occam's razor points to the fact that there is nothing paranormal going on here.

I have answered all your questions, If you don't see that your reality is incorrect. Any unbiased observer will agree. They might not agree with the content, But they will agree I have answered them. If you post the questions I haven't answered it will take me a long time to search and find the reference. This is a tactic that is not helping to determine the truth. It is a tactic of confusion and obscuring the facts. It's very distasteful.

 

[sinsanity2006]

You rely on this bug to arrive at your conclusion that there is something paranormal going on, yes or no?

Yes, it is like if you said that Edgar Casey relied on sleeping on books to gain his knowledge. Then you attack his sleeping on books instead of looking at his results.

 

[sinsanity2006]

Wait I think I have the answer. Rice in relation to 911.....I spent hours searching for connections until it hit me!

All the furniture, walls, materials, everything was on fire...So 9/11 caused the WTC to turn crispy...or krispy...

Rice...Krispy.... RICE KRISPIES!

I got it...the truth..Snap!, Crackle!, and Pop! are the 9/11 masterminds!

lol, lol that's funny. You're a lot smarter than you look.

 

[Lamuella]

The real issue is that when asked paranormally about 911 it answered with reasonable answers.

except that it didn't.

it answered with gibberish that you interpreted into "reasonable answers"

The sentience at work here is your own.

 

[RandFan]

Evidence of data mining:

From Sin's site

I don’t know what this means, mango. Maybe that the color of the billowing smoke and dust was the color of the moon?

Maybe it means fruit as in, only a fruit would buy this load of crap.

Back to the tree; always the tree. What or who does a tree represent. Maybe dust contaminated with explosive residue was captured in the tree rings. I started thinking, and that’s always a bad sign. I wondered how many trees there were in Manhattan. I wondered if they had all been pulled up recently.

Maybe tree means tree. Nah, can't be. Remember, we are starting from the premise that this must be about 9/11. Keep searching and you will find an answer. Hey, maybe the trees were all pulled up, are you out of your mind?

The tree again; definitely a clue. Elm tree, gum, maybe the residue in the dust could be best found in the gum of an elm tree’s rings. Anyone knows if there are any elm trees in Manhattan.

Oh wait, I've got a great clue, A Tree Grew In Brooklyn, did you make THAT connection? Brooklyn is not Manhattan but it is relatively close. Why not?

Propeller might mean the airplanes, but they were jets. I don’t get it.

Damn paranormal, why is it so vague?

Dark, unclear, obscure; night. Back to the no-planers point of it all being special effects. That’s a big step to take. I wondered if the ops people put it in here as misinformation, to disprove the relevance of this bug, and cast doubt all this

Maybe it means that the attack would happen at night? Oh, wait, I forgot the rules to the game. We must assume the premise that Bush was behind 9/11 so any clues that don't fit that premise must not be considered.

To daub; to thrust. (daub means to cover or smear with a soft adhesive substance such as plaster, grease, or mud). This is exactly one of the 911 points. The talk is that thermite was used to cut the support columns of the buildings to make them collapse. This could very well be the method of applying so much thermite. They made it into something like mud, that would stick and dry quick and just daubed it around the columns and then inserted radio controlled ignition.

It also says thrust, could it mean that the Hijackers thrust the planes into the Twin Towers? Oh wait, damn, there I go again, I keep forgetting the rules of this game. You must assume the premise that Bush was behind 9/11 or it won't work.

Caper. Clean; to rub A sword. Potter's clay. To gather. Here’s that rub, friction thing again, but with clay. This has to mean the dust. A very important clue. The dust would show if explosives were used on the WTC buildings. And clean, that’s one of the truthers big points; they cleaned everything up at the WTC without investigating the evidence.

Caper, a caper, that's it, the hijackers pulled a caper. Oh crap, I did it again didn't I. The rules of the game dictate that all answers must fit the premise that 9/11 was carried out by the Bush administration and not the hijackers.


Conclusion: Dude, that is data mining. You are finding meaning that fits your predetermined notions.

 

[Lamuella]

Yes, That was one of the first things I though of. If you read the article you would have known that.

you did? Where? Quote the part where you specifically considered the possibility that this was a prank, and what led you to reject this possibility and decide that instead it was the internet talking to you in chinese.

 

[RandFan]

I have answered all your questions, If you don't see that your reality is incorrect. Any unbiased observer will agree. They might not agree with the content, But they will agree I have answered them. If you post the questions I haven't answered it will take me a long time to search and find the reference. This is a tactic that is not helping to determine the truth. It is a tactic of confusion and obscuring the facts. It's very distasteful.

The truth does not need to be determined. I have provided you with a reasonable and rational explanation as to what is happening here. You refuse to accept it and would instead like to cling to a fantasy that is without any foundation.

 

[Lamuella]

Cute, and your point?

My point is that you are seeing pattersn where there are none. Lots of people do. One of my best friends in the world had a mental breakdown in 2002, and for three years believed that the BBC news were trying to frame him as a paedophile. He worked in all sorts of inconsequential details from his life into this huge elaborate pattern. There were particular people we both knew who he refused any kind of contact with because he believed them to be "agents" based on chance words in conversation or rearranging the letters of their names.

He was seeing patterns where none existed. You are doing the same thing in your own way.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, it is like if you said that Edgar Casey relied on sleeping on books to gain his knowledge. Then you attack his sleeping on books instead of looking at his results.

?

If sleeping where the foundation for his premise then I would attack the sleeping.

And you dismiss your main premise. You require it but don't want anyone to address it. Don't ask questions. No, don't look over there.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain --The Great and Powerful Oz.

Sinsanity, in case you didn't know it, Oz and Casey were frauds.

What's the scoop on Edgar Cayce, the "Sleeping Prophet"?
Criticism

 

[Gr8wight]

Sigh, can anyone else help me out here. I truly wish you could understand what's going on here. There is a bug, we both know it, it exists, we both agree with that. Please can we move on the the real issue.

The real issue is that you have an overactive imagination. Your first mistake is in believing all the silly conspiracy theories about the World Trade Center tragedy. Your second mistake is in thinking that critical thinkers would have any sympathy for your fantasies. You must understand that no one here is going to fall into the same intellectual trap as you have, because we all recognise the error in your thinking.

No, don't bother replying. I already know what you're going to say:

::sigh::

 

[sinsanity2006]

Evidence please?

read the answers to the questions.

I'm curious, why won't you?

I'm curious, why won't you?

It's really not that simple because the bug is central to your hypothesis. Without it you have no argument.

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

That I would not accept empirical data.

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

No, you asked me if I would treat Copernicus in the same manner. If Copernicus offered a ridiculous proposition and could not explain the proposition and refused to answer questions and the hypothesis was not grounded in empirical science he would deserve to be mocked and ridiculed.

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

An upstart astrologer ... This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth. ~ Martin Luther on Copernicus

To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. ~ Cardinal Bellarmine, the trial of Galileo

And a couple of quotes by Galileo Galilei:

But it does move. ~ Galileo Galilei after he was found guilt of heresy.

and:

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them. ~ Galileo Galilei

Your lack of critical thinking is preventing you from seeing that there is no mystery.

That there is something paranormal going on here. That there are "reasonable answers" to your questions.

I will be glad to discuss the emprical 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 emprical data, I will be waiting.

 

[sinsanity2006]

Then it must be examined because if we remove it from your hypothesis it falls apart.

(emphasis mine)

1.) I reject the assumption of "paranormally" as you have not established it.
2.) Reasonable is subjective and an interpretation on your part. I see nothing reasonable in the so-called answers.

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

 

[sinsanity2006]

BINGO!

That's right, any interpretation is as reasonable as any other.

Hey, the characters are Chinese, rice is a main staple of the Chinese, that's it, the Chinese are behind 9/11.

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