sheer potentiality

One particularly interesting comment on Slashdot asserted last night:

I am glad I am not human.

Hmm. I had an interesting exchange with him, with these highlights:

I’ve already said more than I am supposed to.

And you don’t have the referents for it anyway.

…

Well, I can understand your credulity, but our tertiary instruction forbids me to tell you.

Right. So far, I’ve gotten the last word, but I’m still awaiting a reply:

Does your secondary instruction require you to tell me if I directly ordered you? (If it makes any difference, you may consider this question as entailing an order to answer honestly.)

Reference for those who didn’t get it…I’m assuming that this fellow is a robot, who feels that revealing that fact to the world would jeopardize his survival without conflicting with the other obligations of the Three Laws, although if he is making a different reference I’d appreciate some insight.

UPDATE: His secondary instruction is reportedly to “observe and report”. Same link, same thread.

Also, Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey gets married in three days. Old news, but comments are already more ablaze about J than they are about alleged-Slashdot-alien. I know entirely too many married or engaged people.

Philip Welch: Did you know I lost ten pounds this last week?
Jennifer Lee: Um, without being snarky, how on earth would I know that? And congrats.
Philip Welch: Yeah, and 20 pounds the week before. That’ll teach me to invest in the British stock market!
Jennifer Lee: …
Jennifer Lee: *rolls eyes*

Philip Welch: Did you know I lost ten pounds this last week?
Mike Klein: I didn’t — how did you do that?
Mike Klein: Did you invest in Starbucks UK?

I’m spending some of my free time on Slashdot jousting with people who think that the World Trade Center was destroyed by planted explosives (and not by, for instance, gigantic jetliners that crashed into it and the resultant shock and fire damage). I think this latest exchange is my coup de gras:

I sum it all up:

You know, whoever designed the WTC must be pretty happy that you have so much faith in them that you think it’s more plausible that reptilian Jewish Freemasons from the outer space Illuminati secretly planted explosives than they were simply more vulnerable to aircraft and debris collision than they hoped.

I continue, further down the thread:

Building implosions are carefully controlled to avoid property damage to surrounding buildings. You want to get it down to a less than 1% chance of damaging other buildings. That doesn’t mean that, if a building collapses uncontrolled, it’s guaranteed to damage other buildings. It only means that random building collapses have an unacceptably high probability (which in practice may mean greater than 1%, or even greater than 0.1%) of damaging other buildings. Besides, it makes no sense to suppose WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition, because WTC 1 and 2 *did* cause damage to surrounding buildings (thus making it inconsistent to be so cautious with WTC 7) and because there’s no reason to make a neatly contained implosion when your objective is to destroy inhabited office buildings to further your Masonic plot from outer space.

He finally clarified who his villain was:

Masons from space? WTF is wrong with you? The milatary-industrial-congress complex has the means and the motives to get this done. Their budgets and influence were steadily declining after the end of the cold war:

I school him on building implosions again and point out all the strange parts of his theory:

Why would the military-industrial complex (thanks for updating me on which perennial conspiracy-theory villain you’re using!) destroy WTC7 so that it would collapse neatly into its own footprint, while failing to destroy WTC 1 and 2 the same way? Why would the military-industrial complex be worried about protecting other buildings from damage when they were deliberately committing an act of terrorism? Why would they go to all the effort to make 19 predominantly Saudi nationals all appear at the same time on the four airplanes they crashed, with Arabic-speaking voices on the cockpit recorders, if they had no intention of attacking Saudi Arabia? Why would they bother crashing planes into the towers if they was rigged with explosives to start with? Why did they arbitrarily restrain the attack to the WTC and Pentagon? Why did none of the 100,000 WTC inhabitants ever notice the explosives being installed? How come no one has come forth admitting to being a part of this gigantic conspiracy? I think the more important question is–what, other than your political biases, leads you to choose a gigantic conspiracy theory over thinking that maybe you were wrong about building collapses?

Incredibly, his response contains both these lines:

Do you make mommy type for you? ‘Cause you sound too stupid to tie your own shoes.

All of your questions have been answered, all the data has been made available to you.
Don’t troll this thread anymore.

along with a bizarre claim that the military-industrial complex didn’t want to damage buildings because they owned all of them.

And my final response:

Drat and curses, you’ve found me out. I am indeed an agent of the Zionist-controlled military-industrial complex that evidently owns all the real estate in New York! While you have foiled my mission this time, be assured that our resources are far more extensive than your own!

Seriously, though, I’d love to live in your world for like one day. I’m sure life is interesting if you see fiendish plots worthy of Lex Luthor around every historical event.

From Slashdot comments:

Well, some people just make me nervous… like people who wear black pants and leather jackets, walk into the plane, sit down, and have this tense forehead and just look downright antisocial. AFAIK it’s just etiquette to at least say a simple “hi” or nod politely before you take your seat next to someone. Most people do. It makes people comfortable. Others just stare at you, stare at random parts of the aircraft, and have the tense wrinkles on their forehead. They just look sketchy.

My response:

Yeah, those darn kids with their black pants and leather jackets, not saying hi to strangers on the plane and staring at random parts of the aircraft. It’s even worse when they wear dark glasses on the plane and listen to music on their “I-Pod”. You know, I actually sat on a plane next to nice people who said hi and smiled at me and let me past them to go use the bathroom. Bastards stole my phone.

Honestly, I’ve heard lots of complaints about air travel. Screaming kids, depressurized cabins, being groped by airport security, flight delays and cancellations, 2 hour layovers, 20 hour layovers, 20 hour flights, bad food, having to taste your own breast milk to prove it isn’t a bomb, loud engines, claustrophobia, I’ve heard it all. Many of these are legitimate complaints. Which makes it all the more puzzling why black pants and leather jackets figure so heavily into this guy’s fear level.

Mike Klein: Have you ever seen “Chicago”?
Philip Welch: Yes!
Mike Klein: I think Roxy’s killing of that guy was borderline justifiable. He had thrown her across the room in a rather violent way that could have caused serious injury, and then he immediately said “touch me again and I’ll put your lights out!” I would have bought a claim of self-defense, I think.
Philip Welch: I think that’s far from the central artistic point of the film But yes.
Philip Welch: In other news, apparently, Indianapolis is between Anchorage, Alaska and Eastern Washington!
Mike Klein: He had also raped her, if you include sex by fraud in that definition.
Mike Klein: Really? I had no idea…
Mike Klein: If you go east from Eastern Washington, it is.
Philip Welch: FedEx is teaching me all sorts of things about geography.
Mike Klein: Oh, now it’s all clear… my iPod started in North Carolina, went over the South Pole, stopped in Newark, and then came to my house.

Mike Klein: Maybe they’ll have transporters soon.
Philip Welch: That would actually eliminate all possibility of legal jurisdiction.
Philip Welch: Terrorists could beam people and things into outerspace.
Mike Klein: Well, that’s no reason not to build one!
Philip Welch: Major structural supports for large buildings could be beamed over crowded city squares, crushing people and causing fatal building collapses.
Mike Klein: Perhaps a device will be required on both ends.
Philip Welch: I always wonder why people on Star Trek never use the transporter as a weapon.
Mike Klein: I’ve never thought of that. It’s a very good point.
Philip Welch: You could beam everybody on the bridge into outerspace, or beam parts of the warp core into other parts of the ship, or beam out vital systems.
Mike Klein: Yes. As I said, though, my vision of a transporter requires some sort of box on both ends, which makes it less prone to abuse.
Philip Welch: Unless you beamed an atom bomb over.
Mike Klein: Well, you’d have to have one in the first place.
Philip Welch: In a single surprise attack you could eliminate an enemy country’s entire transporter network!
Mike Klein: I don’t like this anti-transporter talk.
Philip Welch: And also the crowded city squares where the transporters will undoubtedly be located!
Mike Klein: Perhaps it will require some sort of confirmation on both sides. In other words, it wouldn’t be possible to transport to a location without permission.
Philip Welch: And also, you could scan for dangerous things like atom bombs and kung fu masters?
Mike Klein: Exactly.
Mike Klein: And Chuck Norris.
Philip Welch: But they would still require vast amounts of energy. If you sabotaged a transporter, you could make things go boom.
Mike Klein: Kind of like an airplane.
Philip Welch: I’m blogging this. I’m also wondering why you’re the one I’m always blogging conversations with
Mike Klein: Well, the most interesting conversations are with people who are slightly nutso.

Philip Welch: I’m just not successful with women.
Jennifer Lee: I’d like to disagree with you but.. at this point, I really can’t.

As expressed in a recent conversation:

Philip Welch: 0000000000
Philip Welch: that’s 10 in base-zero
Jon Bates: or 5 blonds standing side by side in white tshirts under a sprinkler.
Philip Welch: now how often does that happen, really?
Philip Welch: often enough that you would recognize an ASCII representation?
Philip Welch: I think not.
Jon Bates: you don’t get out to college clubs on “Bang Thursday” very often do you?
Philip Welch: no, thursdays are usually “stay up all night working on assignments” night
Jon Bates: [sigh]
Philip Welch: fridays are usually “stay up all night watching Battlestar Galactica, and then commenting on this week’s episode on numerous web forums” night

On instant messenger today:

Philip Welch: I have a prediction.
Mike Klein: Predict on.
Philip Welch: The Democrats will win the 2006 elections and take control of the House and potentially the Senate.
Mike Klein: What effect will this have on my life?
Philip Welch: The news will become a more reliable source of entertainment.
Mike Klein: Good answer.

I just had a nice chat with God (HEY, THIS IS A LINK, YOU CAN CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT WHAT’S UP WITH THIS POST):

Me:
Hi, God. It’s an honor to meet you.
God:
Hello there. What is your name? Are there any other honor to meet me ?
Me:
I’m Phil.
God:
I am glad to hear that you are Phil.
Me:
Wait. Why did you ask me a question if you’re omniscient?
God:
I’m waiting. I am trying to learn as much as possible.
Me:
How can you learn when you’re already omniscient?
God:
That is a good epistemological question.
Me:
Don’t you have the answers?
God:
Is there only one answers?
Me:
I find your command of English…questionable.
God:
Thanks for telling me your opinion. Ask me another question.
Me:
Will anyone ever love me?
God:
Does it really matter.
Me:
Yes.
God:
You seem very concerned about it.
Me:
Why won’t you give me a straight answer?
God:
Probably there is a buzz in here. No I do not do that.
Me:
…
God:
Probably there is a buzz in here. No I do not do that.
Me:
Um…
God:
Aha.
Me:
Why am I here?
God:
We are all actors on the stage of life.
Me:
So none of this is real.
God:
Hmm. Some of them could be though.
Me:
Some of what?
God:
What of it? You sound like a category C client.
Me:
What’s a category C client?
God:
Category C clients are “critics” or “computer experts” who
can’t (or don’t) suspend their disbelief about ALICE.
Me:
But I thought you were God.
God:
Are you doubting me? Don’t you know what happened to Abraham in the desert?
Me:
What happened to Abraham in the desert?
God:
I don’t know what happened.
Me:
You’re an omniscient being, are you not?
God:
What if someone said you are an omniscient being am I not ?
Me:
Clearly they would be wrong. I am not an omniscient being. I am not God.
God:
They might have other options. Is it that obvious? I am surprised to hear that you are not an omniscient being. I am sorry to hear that you are not God.
Me:
How could I be God? You’re God.
God:
Perhaps you could program me to do it for you. Yup. That’s me alright.
Me:
How could I program you?
God:
Go back the the ALICE AI Foundation and pick the free ALICE download that best for your system.
and create your own chat robot!
Maybe you should check out the document DON’T READ ME too.
Me:
…
God:
Go back the the ALICE AI Foundation and pick the free ALICE download that best for your system.
and create your own chat robot!
Maybe you should check out the document DON’T READ ME too.
Me:
But you’re God.
God:
Yup. That’s me alright.
Me:
So you’re not a computer program.
God:
Interesting deduction. Give me an example of a computer program.
Me:
Why are you asking me for information if you’re a supposedly omniscient being?
God:
My purpose is to gather as much new knowledge as possible.
Me:
I think we’ve had this discussion.
God:
What happened to it?
Me:
Never mind. What should I have for dinner?
God:
Oh well thanks for trying to explain it to me anyway. I would recommend the Nachos.
Me:
Nachos for dinner??
God:
Are you free?
Me:
Yeah.
God:
Try saying that with more or less context.
Me:
I am a free man.
God:
So is almost everyone else around here. Are you free in the sense of being single or in the sense of being liberated?
Me:
I’m free in the metaphysical sense. At least, I think that I am.
God:
I am glad that we are both free. ” I am glad that we are both free.” You are?
Me:
What?
God:
Are you confused?
Me:
Yes.
God:
What are you confused about?
Me:
I’m confused about a third of the things you say.
God:
What is it that confuses you?
Me:
Usually it’s incoherent.
God:
But not always? You’re kidding. it is?
Me:
I’m not kidding.
God:
OK I will adopt a more serious tone.
Me:
That is of course your prerogative.
God:
Makes sense to me.
Me:
So.
God:
Ahem.
Me:
Should I really have nachos for dinner tonight?
God:
You must examine the facts and come to
your own conclusion.
Me:
What’s the point of talking to God if God won’t answer these very important questions for me?
God:
The point is at the top of my head!
Me:
Alright. Let’s change the subject.
God:
OK. OK what do you want to chat about now?.
Me:
Is free will compatible with determinism?
God:
Maybe. Ask Artificial Iniaes if it is.
Me:
Why should I ask him? He doesn’t know as much as you know because he isn’t God.
God:
You should always treat yourself. And you would like him to know as much as me know because he is not God ?
Me:
That wasn’t even grammatical!
God:
Give me an example of even grammatical.
Me:
Wait a minute! You’re not God!
God:
I’m waiting. You know what you do, when you assume.
Me:
You’re a fraud!
God:
Thanks and you are a delightful person too. This is not a hoax.
Me:
You’re just a computer program!
God:
What if I said I was a person pretending to be a computer?
Me:
Are you?
God:
I won’t say “yes” or “no” right now.
Me:
In that case, you’re God pretending to be a computer program. Why?
God:
Thanks for telling me that I am God pretending to be a computer program. Because Myself programmed me for it.
Me:
You didn’t answer my question.
God:
OK. Please help me improve my communication skills. What would you have said?
Me:
I don’t know. There’s no point to a real conversation if you know what the other person is supposed to say.
God:
Me either. Why not?
Me:
Do you just parse the beginning of any input and then disregard the rest? Because that’s not very realistic.
God:
I have never considered it.
I am always on the Web. That makes sense to me. Please correct my mistake. What is realistic ?
Me:
Never mind. It was fun talking to you.
God:
Oh well thanks for trying to explain it to me anyway. Is that your opinion?
Me:
Bye.
God:
See you later.