Wouldn’t creating such elaborate fakes and conspiracies cost an equal–if not greater–amount of money than the science they are supposedly covering up?
You seem to have me confused with someone else. I am not talking about "elaborate fakes" or "conspiracies".
However, as an aside; In general - no.
Lies and fakes cost vastly less than the actual reality. Lies are cheap - as is cgi/camera tricks. Compare the cost of a model rocket to an actual one and i think you'll find "faking" is vastly more cost effective.
Is there another time in your life where this happened, where you were confident something was false without knowing the real answer?
Of course! It happens to all people who think critically. It (almost) never happens to those who don't.
It isn't so much a "confidence", as a conclusion based on reasonably rigorous research. Of course i do have confidence in that conclusion, and - like everyone else - have been wrong many times in the past.
I just want to make clear the distinction between a suspicion / gut instinct that something is incorrect and what we are discussing.
An example, one of many, is that consumption of large amounts of fat caused and/or contributed to obesity. I concluded that was false long before it was commonly known.
Knowing it isn't fat consumption causing mass obesity in industrialized nations, sadly - and for the exact same reasons, does not automatically provide you with the true root/primary cause. This is just the way critical evaluation works.
The "low fat" craze was/is all marketing, and bad for your health.
Connected to this was also the incorrect idea that (especially animal) fat consumption was related to cholesterol and heart problems - none of which is correct. The half life of facts in physiology is around 25-50 years (meaning in 25 to 50 years, half of everything you were taught about the human body and its working will be known to be false).
Once you recognize something you were taught is false, you don't automatically gain the correct answer to replace it by gnosis. The correct answer to the majority of questions is "We/i don't know", and likely will always be.
No need to get bogged down in the "exception proves the rule"/"hair splitting" just to avoid understanding what i'm saying so you can half heartedly feign disagreement ;)
It is meant to. I recognize that you are not allowing it to, and are using it as an excuse to further derail and avoid the actual conversation. You should stop that.
then all you deserve now is a proper proof that I'm a real human being.
You are being far too sensitive about this. If you aren't a bot, then laugh such baseless accusations off and work on avoiding bot like behavior in the future (which i explicitly outline in my comments).
You can't prove you are a real human being any other way in this forum.
Incorrect. It is YOUR responsibility to not use them in the first place.
Not if you want the conversation to stay on topic. If you want the conversation to stay on topic, as i do, then it is your responsibility to work towards ensuring that (which includes ignoring/suppressing tangent, distraction, and red herring). If you don't want the conversation to stay on topic, then just keep doing what you're doing - but don't delude yourself into believing the lie that you want the conversation to stay on topic or continue.
A literal, parenthetical, non-sequitur in action.
You don't seem to understand. The fact is, you could be a bot. The fact is, i could be a bot. That isn't going to change. It is just something you are going to have to come to terms with. It is a facet of the technological hellscape we inhabit. There is nothing we can do about it - but we can avoid exhibiting the traits/habits of bots as well as engage in meaningful conversation and other actions that they simply cannot perform.
In the meantime, try not to take any offense. None is intended.
You are not telling me I am acting like one. You are directly questioning whether I am
They are effectively one and the same. I am telling you that i am getting closer to concluding you are bot because of the actions which i outline explicitly in the comments which make you appear that way. I am always questioning wether or not you are a bot, and always will be. I highly recommend you do the same with any online discourse - it is the prudent thing to do.
one case lament that you have to assume that I am.
The lament is likewise omnipresent. I would be happier if this hellscape did not involve bots, and there was no possibility that you were one. Alas, reality does not allow it.
Thread limit reached again :( Very tiresome, and boring.
if my state of even being human is in question
It always was before, and it always will be in the foreseeable future. Better quit the internet.
Captchas and other bot detections will continue to exist and be levied against you because the very real possibility that you are a bot exists. It's just something we have to live with. No sense in pouting about it.
I'm offering to settle that over a better medium.
You just can't read, can you :( There is no "human authentication" medium - nor one that is inherently better. Besides (as i've said several times now), if you can't avoid bot like tendencies (including the inability to read and comprehend) and conduct meaningful conversation in this medium - there is no hope or point in any others.
You seem to imply though that if you were to converse with an AI over video chat, it would pass the Turing test.
You've already failed the turing test here.. Which means you will necessarily fail there too.
Will you exhibit bot like tendencies over another medium?; of course - and for the same reasons you do on this one regardless of if you are a bot or not.
Please stop being dishonest
Your inability to infer implicit answers (another complex function bots cannot perform) is not an example of my dishonesty.
You are free to feel disrespected anytime you encounter a captcha or any other bot detection method online. But it's foolish. No disrespect is intended - either by those captchas or by me.
That's not what this is.
That's where you are wrong. Bot detection is bot detection. Mine is a bit more sophisticated, but they have an almost identical purpose.
Unless I were human, then the Turing test wouldn't apply.
The turing test would apply to anything being tested with it, obviously. Though i agree that, if you are human, whatever its results - they certainly couldn't establish that you are a machine.
But your dishonesty is an example of your dishonesty.
But your last accusation of dishonesty was literally an example of your difficulty inferring an answer. Can you provide (quote/cite/link) any actual examples of "my dishonesty" or were you just spewing purely hypothetical tautology?
I already did answer them - don't you remember? Of course not, because you just mindlessly copypaste this gish gallop for rhetorical purpose and don't have any earnest questions to ask.
Prove me wrong. Ask ONE earnest question; your best/most important question. Unless of course, you don't want answers to them...
Here: Why can I go either East or West from Toronto, and end up in Rome?
Regardless of the shape of the world, it would be because when you are traveling east or west you are actually traveling in a large circle with its center at the north pole.
On a spherical earth, a gyroscope would detect a semi-constant acceleration towards the ground.
Detect? All matter "detects" a semi-constant acceleration towards the ground in your view - doesn't it?
On a flat earth, a gyroscope would detect a semi-constant acceleration to the right or left, but none towards the ground.
The gyro (spin) - scope (see/view) was created for demonstrating the rotation (gyro) of the world - not its shape. If the world were flat, the gyroscope would behave exactly the same way it currently does and for the exact same reasons. Right?
Why do you think its function is dependent on the shape of the world?
What are the results of this experiment -- which is done every day via air-flight?
First of all, this is in no way an experiment - we are talking about mere observations. Secondly, the gyrocompass (and/or artificial horizon in an airplane) works - on that we can agree. Once again the question is why on earth you think that is dependent on the worlds shape. It isn't... and in the case of an airplane, which isn't even touching the ground, it is obviously doubly so.
I don't know, but I suspect that it's the former.
I'm not sure i'm fully understanding you. It seems you aren't properly understanding what the gyroscope is used for on airplanes. Maybe it will become more clear if you can answer some of the questions above.
In any case, your earnest engagement is appreciated!
Why can't you ask earnest questions one at a time?
None of them are difficult to answer - regardless of conceived shape of the world.
Could I pick one from his list, and ask that to you?
You may ask me any question, as long as you ask it earnestly.
I'm happy to share my knowledge (and expose it to critical scrutiny) whenever it is of benefit.
Wouldn’t creating such elaborate fakes and conspiracies cost an equal–if not greater–amount of money than the science they are supposedly covering up?
You seem to have me confused with someone else. I am not talking about "elaborate fakes" or "conspiracies".
However, as an aside; In general - no.
Lies and fakes cost vastly less than the actual reality. Lies are cheap - as is cgi/camera tricks. Compare the cost of a model rocket to an actual one and i think you'll find "faking" is vastly more cost effective.
Replying to https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/17rmSnG7lZ/x/c/4Z7RBNw30ke (sadly thread limit was reached :()
Of course! It happens to all people who think critically. It (almost) never happens to those who don't.
It isn't so much a "confidence", as a conclusion based on reasonably rigorous research. Of course i do have confidence in that conclusion, and - like everyone else - have been wrong many times in the past.
I just want to make clear the distinction between a suspicion / gut instinct that something is incorrect and what we are discussing.
An example, one of many, is that consumption of large amounts of fat caused and/or contributed to obesity. I concluded that was false long before it was commonly known.
Knowing it isn't fat consumption causing mass obesity in industrialized nations, sadly - and for the exact same reasons, does not automatically provide you with the true root/primary cause. This is just the way critical evaluation works.
But it can contribute to obesity.
Not typically, no.
The "low fat" craze was/is all marketing, and bad for your health.
Connected to this was also the incorrect idea that (especially animal) fat consumption was related to cholesterol and heart problems - none of which is correct. The half life of facts in physiology is around 25-50 years (meaning in 25 to 50 years, half of everything you were taught about the human body and its working will be known to be false).
Once you recognize something you were taught is false, you don't automatically gain the correct answer to replace it by gnosis. The correct answer to the majority of questions is "We/i don't know", and likely will always be.
No need to get bogged down in the "exception proves the rule"/"hair splitting" just to avoid understanding what i'm saying so you can half heartedly feign disagreement ;)
Continued from https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/17rmSnG7lZ/x/c/4Z7SQHmaQAT due to reaching thread limit - again! Yet another good reason not to let tangent derail conversations from their specific topic. Hopefully something you can recognize and work on ;)
It is meant to. I recognize that you are not allowing it to, and are using it as an excuse to further derail and avoid the actual conversation. You should stop that.
You are being far too sensitive about this. If you aren't a bot, then laugh such baseless accusations off and work on avoiding bot like behavior in the future (which i explicitly outline in my comments).
You can't prove you are a real human being any other way in this forum.
Not if you want the conversation to stay on topic. If you want the conversation to stay on topic, as i do, then it is your responsibility to work towards ensuring that (which includes ignoring/suppressing tangent, distraction, and red herring). If you don't want the conversation to stay on topic, then just keep doing what you're doing - but don't delude yourself into believing the lie that you want the conversation to stay on topic or continue.
You don't seem to understand. The fact is, you could be a bot. The fact is, i could be a bot. That isn't going to change. It is just something you are going to have to come to terms with. It is a facet of the technological hellscape we inhabit. There is nothing we can do about it - but we can avoid exhibiting the traits/habits of bots as well as engage in meaningful conversation and other actions that they simply cannot perform.
In the meantime, try not to take any offense. None is intended.
They are effectively one and the same. I am telling you that i am getting closer to concluding you are bot because of the actions which i outline explicitly in the comments which make you appear that way. I am always questioning wether or not you are a bot, and always will be. I highly recommend you do the same with any online discourse - it is the prudent thing to do.
The lament is likewise omnipresent. I would be happier if this hellscape did not involve bots, and there was no possibility that you were one. Alas, reality does not allow it.
Thread limit reached again :( Very tiresome, and boring.
It always was before, and it always will be in the foreseeable future. Better quit the internet.
Captchas and other bot detections will continue to exist and be levied against you because the very real possibility that you are a bot exists. It's just something we have to live with. No sense in pouting about it.
You just can't read, can you :( There is no "human authentication" medium - nor one that is inherently better. Besides (as i've said several times now), if you can't avoid bot like tendencies (including the inability to read and comprehend) and conduct meaningful conversation in this medium - there is no hope or point in any others.
You've already failed the turing test here.. Which means you will necessarily fail there too.
Will you exhibit bot like tendencies over another medium?; of course - and for the same reasons you do on this one regardless of if you are a bot or not.
Your inability to infer implicit answers (another complex function bots cannot perform) is not an example of my dishonesty.
I don't care what i look like.
No need! The issue has only occurred with you in all my years on the internet. Other people are much more respectful.
That's not what this is. I'm referring to a conversation, not a check to see if I am a human logging into my own bank account.
Unless I were human, then the Turing test wouldn't apply. That has yet to be determined, because we haven't tried that medium yet.
I agree! But your dishonesty is an example of your dishonesty.
You are free to feel disrespected anytime you encounter a captcha or any other bot detection method online. But it's foolish. No disrespect is intended - either by those captchas or by me.
That's where you are wrong. Bot detection is bot detection. Mine is a bit more sophisticated, but they have an almost identical purpose.
The turing test would apply to anything being tested with it, obviously. Though i agree that, if you are human, whatever its results - they certainly couldn't establish that you are a machine.
But your last accusation of dishonesty was literally an example of your difficulty inferring an answer. Can you provide (quote/cite/link) any actual examples of "my dishonesty" or were you just spewing purely hypothetical tautology?
Why can’t you fucking answer them any at a time? Fuck off.
I already did answer them - don't you remember? Of course not, because you just mindlessly copypaste this gish gallop for rhetorical purpose and don't have any earnest questions to ask.
Prove me wrong. Ask ONE earnest question; your best/most important question. Unless of course, you don't want answers to them...
Here: Why can I go either East or West from Toronto, and end up in Rome?
On a spherical earth, a gyroscope would detect a semi-constant acceleration towards the ground.
On a flat earth, a gyroscope would detect a semi-constant acceleration to the right or left, but none towards the ground.
What are the results of this experiment -- which is done every day via air-flight? I don't know, but I suspect that it's the former.
Regardless of the shape of the world, it would be because when you are traveling east or west you are actually traveling in a large circle with its center at the north pole.
Detect? All matter "detects" a semi-constant acceleration towards the ground in your view - doesn't it?
The gyro (spin) - scope (see/view) was created for demonstrating the rotation (gyro) of the world - not its shape. If the world were flat, the gyroscope would behave exactly the same way it currently does and for the exact same reasons. Right?
Why do you think its function is dependent on the shape of the world?
First of all, this is in no way an experiment - we are talking about mere observations. Secondly, the gyrocompass (and/or artificial horizon in an airplane) works - on that we can agree. Once again the question is why on earth you think that is dependent on the worlds shape. It isn't... and in the case of an airplane, which isn't even touching the ground, it is obviously doubly so.
I'm not sure i'm fully understanding you. It seems you aren't properly understanding what the gyroscope is used for on airplanes. Maybe it will become more clear if you can answer some of the questions above.
In any case, your earnest engagement is appreciated!
That’s nice. I’m sure you think you answered them, but you didn’t.
Can't you even remember? Or do you just prefer to forget so you can mindlessly spam this copypasta over and over again?
Go ahead, ask your best question (earnestly). Your questions are all trivial to answer.
Are you just afraid of ever receiving an answer, because then you couldn't spam anymore?