Do Humans Have A Word-Virus?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

I think I have provided enough evidence; you can use yourself to find out how the sound made from our mouths is not mind-equal. It's not lack of evidence, it's lack of effort to reason with evidence.

 

However the membership and staff seems to disagree with you. You use of neologisms and novel usage coupled with a lament that you are not understood should make it clear that it is you who needs to change approach. Please provide answers to question and evidence when requested.

 

In short, I think that's all the evidence I need to suggest that there is a word-virus - there is obviously more evidence, such as thinking with the tongue and treating it as thinking in the head. If posters spent the time to reason with my semantics instead of picking them apart, one, they would be understood with greater ease, and two, a discussion would possibly emerge

This is not evidence - it is a baseless assertion. To become convincing it would need an unbroken chain of logic from first premises that were agreed or it would need empirical and documented observation proof. For instance: do those who have literally lost their tongue struggle in any other areas other than physical vocalisation etc? There will be articles you can link to in Google Scholar or PubMed if this were to be the case.

 

Isn't it pedantic mind control to send me in the direction of work when a strong point has been made already that's been nullified (that is the reason it's not considered strong). The poster I said was good, really considered the semantics and the point at hand. The others have criticized particular parts of my post but never really touched on the main point of a word-virus.

 

If you wish to convince the membership of your outlandish claims you are going to have to work at it. And if you merely want a soapbox to declaim your ideas from then I would recommend a re-read of the rules.

 

I will not repeat, but when I said barks do not equal the mind, I think I provided enough evidence to suggest that humans have a word-virus, because that sort of intelligence is not correct (or natural as I acclaimed).

You have provided nothing that I would consider evidence nor that which I would consider a valid argument let alone a sound one.

EDIT: What I'm really asking is "Prove this wrong" (referring to my barks not equaling the mind statement).

Two problems with this.

1. You have not provided an understandable and manageable idea that can be the basis for opposition and counterargument - a notion such as the above is so nebulous and ill-defined that it defies contradiction by its very vagueness.

2. That's not the way science and, by deliberate imitation, this site works. You do not get to make poorly founded and logically invalid arguments and demand a refutation that satisfies your own standards; it is almost completely the other way around. You are proposing a hypothesis - you need to explain, provide evidence and examples, and then rebut counterarguments.

 

Do not respond to this moderation or any other within the thread - we prefer that threads are not derailed by back-and-forths about the rules. You may report this post if you feel it is manifestly unjust.

 

[Tridimity]

You do not discuss, you insult and nullify what I say. Your response is best left alone, since it only confuses and misleads those like the poster who I said was good (the types a discussion can come from).

 

 

How have I insulted you? I think you may be mistaking criticism of your assertions with a personal attack or insult. My response is best left alone because you have no grounds on which to justify your assertions, and I am directly questioning your assertions. It will mislead you if you are interested only in finding yes-men for your assertions rather than trying to illuminate Truth by way of reasoned argument that is predicated on evidence.

 

The poster I said was good, really considered the semantics and the point at hand.

 

 

Frankly I am relieved that you do not consider me a 'good poster'. You seem not to appreciate that in order for me to give a rat's ass about your opinion I would need to first respect your reasoning and means of generating those opinions - which I certainly do not.

[Strange]

the sound made from our mouths is not mind-equal.

 

Of course it isn't. No one one is saying it is.(Assuming I am correct in thinking these garbled words mean: "words are not the same as thought"). I fail to see how this trivially obvious fact is relevant to anything you claim.

 

 

such as thinking with the tongue and treating it as thinking in the head.

 

I have no idea what "thinking with the tongue" means.

 

 

If posters spent the time to reason with my semantics

The trouble is, the semantic content of most of your sentences is worryingly close to nil.

 

 

a strong point has been made already that's been nullified (that is the reason it's not considered strong)

Ah, I see. The fact that people find your statements incomprehensible and illogical proves that you are right?

 

 

The poster I said was good, really considered the semantics and the point at hand.

 

You seem to have missed the point: he was quoting a lunatic who has been given life imprisonment for multiple murders. As they say: don't be that guy.

[s1eep]

Of course it isn't. No one one is saying it is.

 

This is your semantic content if we consider the main post.

 

I have no further evidence for this, so I'm going to take some thinking time and research my on hypothesis.

[arc]

 

You seem to have missed the point: he was quoting a lunatic who has been given life imprisonment for multiple murders. As they say: don't be that guy.

 

Not that I need to say this but, BINGO you win the prize!

[arc]

A man's mind is silent, are we meant to think in words? Isn't thinking a skill attained by rote-education? (i.e. teaching your tongue to say words and routing their associations in mind). And although I said that words were an intelligent technology, are words of the same intelligence as humans or are they beneficent for human beings and their lives, survival, reproduction, social means and so on - and are there more traditional, and possibly greater alternatives?

 

I have to disagree with A man's mind is silent, our minds may be silent to the outside world but they are quite noisy to the individual. I believe Beethoven would have attested to this.

And I can only in the most inadequate way imagine the conversations that were going on in Einstein's head.

 

 

A bark is referring to a dogs bark, and when a human produces a sound in word form, it does not magically make the sound the same as the mind, where mind-related processes take place. Therefore, when you process the word in mind, you are processing a sound, and it is not equal to intelligence (which is related to the minds capacity). Intelligence would be something attained through the mind, and not via the tongue. Wording something with your mouth is not comprehending something, I'm suggesting you haven't ever comprehended anything, and when you think you're comprehending something it's really nullified non-intelligence. This is because intelligence is to do with the mind and the word is to do with man-made creation. Therefore, words are equal to barks, grunts or whatever it is humans did before they spoke fluent language, but can be repeated which leads them to create the illusion that they are intelligent.

 

 

I don't think anyone has discussed properly the original topic that I posted about a word-virus, and people have simply nullified what I said with pieces of partial evidence. I've provided a good reason for why words are not a form of intelligence, and it supports why there is a word-virus which is the purpose of this thread. When we were discussing barks, I think I made the sound judgement that any word is equal to a bark, but words can be amplified by other words which leads to words having functions; but that does not escape the fact it is not mind-fodder, it is word-fodder. We are more intelligent than the word -- a humans wisdom is above the word. And I don't believe any of the evidence you supplied has any relevance, and all of your replies were wordplay. I can't understand how you can't understand how humans and animals are different because humans use pre-defined words and other animals do not. I don't believe scientists should have reputation for intelligence, but rather, a particular skill. Science is not beneficent for future generations and the prosperity of Earth life (which is key for our survival and reproduction). I think great meaning to life is overlooked and most intellectuals are arrogant and egotistical.

 

Well, I have bad news for you. Our ability to speak is as natural of an embodiment of evolution as is hearing or seeing or that brain intelligence you referred to. Vocal communication is and was a driver for the success of every human ancestor of man. The simple fact is, it is the product of close interpersonal relations within a core group in human ancestry. Its development lead to larger brain sizes and intellectual capacities, which in turn increased comprehension and imagination, leading to innovations such as tools and weapons. It is as integral to our success as an animal as our opposable thumbs. It is no more unnatural than a cough or a sneeze, and without it we would probably be little more advanced than a pack of wolves or maybe a colony of prairie dogs.

 

No, I'm stating that to the mind it is meaningless, you clearly haven't read what I stated properly, you've lost yourself in the copious amounts of wordplay you and friends delivered. How does a bark become equal to the mind for barks to be classed as intelligence? And the word "Sun" is not the actual Sun, and humans cannot comprehend the Sun, we can merely sense and feel with it. These are definite statements you have dodged time and time again. You've rarely responded to the underlying point behind my posts.

 

On the contrary, language is actually greater than just an individuals mind. The development of verbal communication is to early man what the development of the internet was to personal computers. Remember when you sat at home on a computer and could not be connected to the outside world. How do those days compare to our level of information now, our capacity to communicate our ideas and to cooperate across distances. The human mind can only contain so much information, language has wired all of mankind together into an integrated system of unfathomable capacity. What you speak of is really what is unnatural, as if one was to cut out their tongue or God forbid unplug their modem.

[Strange]

 

Our ability to speak is as natural of an embodiment of evolution as is hearing or seeing or that brain intelligence you referred to.

 

Excellent point. Not only is spoken language not man-made (unlike the Internet and computer that sleep seems quite happy with) but the whole "natural=good; unnatural=bad" meme is ridiculous.

[s1eep]

What do you consider advantageous for the human species? I'm aware that humans waste more than any other animal on the planet; we pollute the air, land and waters; we consume many finite resources, resources that will not be around for future human generations; they will pay for the fun we are having in the present. We blockade a natural harmony of life that would have taken place if we didn't create a civilization. We are far from an intelligent species, we are wasteful and egotistical. An example of our egotistical natures, when you said "as intelligent as a pack of wolves", you bathed in your luxuries and put yourself above the wolves, you nullified them like you nullify speeches; let me remind you that the wolves did survive, they are intelligent, and they produce far less waste than humans do. If survival of the planet and Earth-life was key to intelligence, the measly pack of wolves is of far greater intelligence than the whole of mankind put together.

 

I don't believe that the word is an embodiment of evolution, for we are above the sounds we can make with our mouths; they do not evolve with us, they evolve separately to us. We design the dictionary and this is part of the words evolution; but it's not a natural evolution, it's product of our own egoism; we separate ourselves from the rest of nature and use a communication that's human to human only, as if we alone were nature.

 

Why is what's best for us different to what's best for the rest of Earth-life? Why are we not together in the race for survival and reproduction?

 

Questions:

What do you consider advantageous for the human species?

 

Why is what's best for us different to what's best for the rest of Earth-life?

 

EDIT: Another question: How is rote-education an act of nature?

 

Edited November 1, 2013 by s1eep

[Iggy]

You need to elaborate on your post. I have experienced first hand most of these things.

 

And the kind of response where your words are social bound after, are nullification of my words; like you were part of a greater conversation, and there was nothing to see here. Your competition is unfriendly, you do not reason, and you do not state why these things are wrong; for all I know you could say something like "If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair style" which is a false statement, there are others that sound relatively correct but aren't, such as "fight fire with fire", no, you should fight fire with water. The removal of hair is a way to style your hair, it's like having it cut really short, but all completely gone, and that is your style, no hair. It's a style if it's done for style purposes, it is a way you wanted to dress your head, and that's what hair styling is about, dressing your head (unless it's done for other purposes, but it's still dressing your head). It can be conceived as a hair style in certain contexts- you wouldn't say that it was different to a hair style because it had no hair; you would still include it for styles of hair. That was simple wordplay. Atheism possesses all the characteristics of a religion, but it perceives itself from the perspective of it's God, science.

A word-virus isn't a bad analogy.

 

To a healthy cell, a virus doesn't look that bad on the outside. The virus penetrates the cell being perceived as quite normal, but then destroys the cell from the inside.

 

Likewise, some brains might not find these types of words too unappealing:

• non-religion is religious
• non-belief in God is belief in God
• denying the bible is supporting a bible
• not-theistic is theistic

For whatever reason, some people might let those thoughts bounce around in a person's brain as if they mean something -- just like a cell does when it lets in a virus, but those thoughts are obviously so incoherent and illogical, they're bound to destroy a person's worldview from the inside -- just like a virus does to a cell.

 

Luckily, some people have built up immunities to life-threatening viruses, just like some brains have built up logic and reason against worldview destroying nonsense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[s1eep]

unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities

What you do is Religion, and what you believe is No God.

Edited November 1, 2013 by s1eep

[Tridimity]

What you do is Religion, and what you believe is No God.

 

Disbelief in God only exists as a phenomenon, as a default state, because the very idea of a 'God' has infiltrated the human psyche.

 

It's kind of similar to this. Long-necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns. There, I have infiltrated your psyche with the concept of Long-necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns.

 

Now, do you believe in Long-necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns?

 

If not (then by your own logic and not mine): What you do is Religion, and what you believe is No Long-necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns.

 

Do you see yet how ridiculous that line of reasoning is, and how it must make us religious with respect to any and every entity for which there is zero evidence?

 

No doubt you will ignore this because you are unable to challenge it.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Tridimity

[s1eep]

 

Disbelief in God only exists as a phenomenon, as a default state, because the very idea of a 'God' has infiltrated the human psyche.

 

It's kind of similar to this. Long-necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns. There, I have infiltrated your psyche with the concept of Long-necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns.

 

Now, do you believe in Long-necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns?

 

If not (then by your own logic and not mine): What you do is Religion, and what you believe is No Long-necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns.

 

Do you see yet how ridiculous that line of reasoning is, and how it must make us religious with respect to any and every entity for which there is zero evidence?

 

No doubt you will ignore this because you are unable to challenge it.

No I don't, but that's in response to your question. After this, I will not pursue, with a group of others, discussions about long-necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns. You came to me. If you had asked the question to a broader audience, I would have not answered the question. This would truly accredit the fact that I don't believe in them. The alternative is, make a religion about it, but then I would be facing more discussions and debates about it. I guess that would show I had keen interest in the pursuit of not believing in long-necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns, and I would be characterized as this. It's my actions that judge me as religious. Religion is a concept, you make use of the concept to create Atheism. I don't know why Religion is associated primarily with God, it's more the organization of people than it is a belief in God.

Edited November 1, 2013 by s1eep

[Strange]

We design the dictionary and this is part of the words evolution

 

We don't "design" the dictionary if by that you mean that dictionary writers invent language. They don't. They just document language as it is used.

 

Language evolves naturally. We have little control over it. You can see this by studying history: attempts to stamp out or enforce particular languages do not work.

[Tridimity]

No I don't, but that's in response to your question. After this, I will not pursue, with a group of others, discussions about long-necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns. You came to me. If you had asked the question to a broader audience, I would have not answered the question. This would truly accredit the fact that I don't believe in them. The alternative is, make a religion about it, but then I would be facing more discussions and debates about it. I guess that would show I had keen interest in the pursuit of not believing in long-necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns, and I would be characterized as this. It's my actions that judge me as religious. Religion is a concept, you make use of the concept to create Atheism. I don't know why Religion is associated primarily with God, it's more the organization of people than it is a belief in God.

 

The only reason that you get away scot-free with not having to continually outline your reasons for not believing in Long necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns is because, in reality, there is nobody (to the best of my knowledge) asserting that such things exist. Much less is there a very large proportion of the human population who believe in these things and choose to live their life according to the philosophy as determined by the Long necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns. Nobody is going to judge you or to stifle your life choices or attempt to indoctrinate you and control your sexual behaviours and initiate wars and massacres on the basis of the Long necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns. However, the diametric opposite holds true for Christianity and for other religions - we (agnostics and atheists) are constantly having to fight off their attempts at conversion, the judgments that they cast upon us, their subjagation of women, children and homosexuals, their attack on reasoned argument and debate based on available evidence, their attempts to control the behaviour of the populace and to instigate wars while covering up their own crimes against the individual.

 

I appreciate that not all religious people are involved in the above but, the size of the proportion who are involved, is sufficient that agnostics and atheists (who, before religion came to be, were labelled simply 'people') have to constantly defend their position against these people and the negative impacts that they are having on our societies, so of course the status 'agnostic/atheist' is constantly reinforced.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Tridimity

[s1eep]

 

The only reason that you get away scot-free with not having to continually outline your reasons for not believing in Long necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns is because, in reality, there is nobody (to the best of my knowledge) asserting that such things exist. Much less is there a very large proportion of the human population who believe in these things and choose to live their life according to the philosophy as determined by the Long necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns. Nobody is going to judge you or to stifle your life choices or attempt to indoctrinate you and control your sexual behaviours and initiate wars and massacres on the basis of the Long necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns. However, the diametric opposite holds true for Christianity and for other religions - we (agnostics and atheists) are constantly having to fight off their attempts at conversion, the judgments that they cast upon us, their subjagation of women, children and homosexuals, their attack on reasoned argument and debate based on available evidence, their attempts to control the behaviour of the populace and to instigate wars while covering up their own crimes against the individual.

 

I appreciate that not all religious people are involved in the above but, the size of the proportion who are involved, is sufficient that agnostics and atheists (who, before religion came to be, were labelled simply 'people') have to constantly defend their position against these people and the negative impacts that they are having on our societies, so of course the status 'agnostic/atheist' is constantly reinforced.

It doesn't matter if we are discussing what a religion is and how Atheism is a religion, and religion can have meaning behind it, but you don't believe it exists; well, some of you have edged more toward eastern religions.

Edited November 1, 2013 by s1eep

[Tridimity]

It doesn't matter if we are discussing what a religion is and how Atheism is a religion, and religions cause can have meaning behind it, but you don't believe it exists; well, some of you have edged more toward eastern religions.

 

This isn't a coherent or relevant response

[s1eep]

 

This isn't a coherent or relevant response

And you are asserting Atheism is belief in ultimate truth, because it defies the fact it is a religion even though it has the exact same traits; you are asserting science is ultimate truth; how do you know? You could have been silent throughout your whole life and lived, why is it all about knowing? Do you have the experience to know whether or not life is about knowing things? I mean, there could be greater things out there than you; your intelligence may be small in comparison to some things. I don't believe in science, and I have the same traits, why are there not religions against science? I will say Christian probably was a friendly against science religion at some point, but this is because I have no other answer, and I've read metaphors in the bible that make sense and was sort of commanding; it had meaning behind it. Supporting science, but it could be incorrect.

 

This is because you deny you are a religion when you are, and you're trying to recruit people to a certain organization that profits and fulfills social desires by being Anti-God; you are equally "God", because, you were the against response to the question Do you believe in God? (Which is not the assertion you do not believe in belief), In fact, you believe to first become Atheist, you believe in science; but, you are claiming science is ultimate truth, where it is not only above other religions but that it is unique and separate to religions. That we must believe in science too, and religion is incorrect; rather than ignoring it and letting other people who are religious enjoy their discussion. You believe to debate against it, even when it's not forced on you.

 

You're saying you don't believe in the word God, and that it is a blemish on your perception, even when it's discussed with other people. You do not have to listen long, is what I'm saying, you're not somehow following ultimate truth. You have no proof for God, but, what if God existed, then what would things mean? Your intelligence didn't correlate all along.

Edited November 1, 2013 by s1eep

[Strange]

I don’t why you have gone off on this diversion, but …

And you are asserting Atheism is belief in ultimate truth

 

That is just silly. Atheism isn’t a belief in “ultimate truth”. It is just an absence of belief in god(s).

you are asserting science is ultimate truth

No asserts science is ultimate truth. Especially not scientists.

how do you know?

We know the scientific method is effective because it works. The computer you are using and the Internet were developed using science (not philosophy, barks, or religion).

I don't believe in science

No one cares.

Your computer will continue to work whether you believe in it or not. That is the great thing about science; it doesn’t require belief.

[s1eep]

I don’t why you have gone off on this diversion, but …

 

 

That is just silly. Atheism isn’t a belief in “ultimate truth”. It is just an absence of belief in god(s).

 

No asserts science is ultimate truth. Especially not scientists.

 

We know the scientific method is effective because it works. The computer you are using and the Internet were developed using science (not philosophy, barks, or religion).

 

No one cares.

 

Your computer will continue to work whether you believe in it or not. That is the great thing about science; it doesn’t require belief.

I don't think intelligence is based around my computer, and I'm do not necessarily need to be thankful for it.

Edited November 1, 2013 by s1eep

[Strange]

I don't think intelligence is based around my computer, and I'm do not necessarily need to be thankful for it.

 

I didn't say intelligence is based around your computer. I don't even know what that means. I just pointed out that science produced your computer and it doesn't matter if you believe in it or not.

 

You may not be thankful for it, but you seem happy enough to use it (feel free to stop any time).

[Tridimity]

And you are asserting Atheism is belief in ultimate truth, because it defies the fact it is a religion even though it has the exact same traits; you are asserting science is ultimate truth; how do you know? You could have been silent throughout your whole life and lived, why is it all about knowing? Do you have the experience to know whether or not life is about knowing things? I mean, there could be greater things out there than you; your intelligence may be small in comparison to some things. I don't believe in science, and I have the same traits, why are there not religions against science? I will say Christian probably was a friendly against science religion at some point, but this is because I have no other answer, and I've read metaphors in the bible that make sense and was sort of commanding; it had meaning behind it. Supporting science, but it could be incorrect.

 

 

I am not asserting that atheism is belief in ultimate truth; atheism is the position taken by those who recognise that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God. That is all.

 

Neither am I asserting that ‘science is ultimate truth’. That phrase does not even make sense: Science is a way of thinking – the discoveries resulting from application of scientific methodology may or may not be true, but that is another matter. I regard Science as the most effective Philosophy in the discovery of truth. The fact that the scientific approach works is evidenced by any modern technology e.g. the electrical lighting in your house. And in 1880 Thomas Edison said ‘let there be light’. However, I and fellow Scientists will readily admit that it is not possible to reach a point of absolute 100% certainty with respect to truth. Therefore, we do not claim to have discovered absolute truth. Science is a means of modelling reality and attempting to refute hypotheses. Sometimes the model has to be more or less thrown out of the window in favour of a new model that better explains the phenomena, as in paradigm shifts, and that’s okay – actually I think it brings us closer to understanding the ultimate nature of an objective reality – but that is just me and I could not prove that.

 

If you wish to remain silent throughout your life rather than pursuing knowledge than that is your own personal choice and I wish you the best of luck with that.

 

‘There could be greater things out there than you’

 

Well, it depends on what you mean by greater, and from whose perspective that judgment is to be made. Certainly there are people more intelligent than me, if that is what you mean, but I do not see how this is relevant to your ‘argument’.

 

There are probably not religions against Science because:

 

i. Scientists, unlike religious types, do not seek to convert others to their way of thinking – except upon request or as a part of mainstream education, in which case Science is taught alongside Religious Education and alongside other subjects

ii. Scientists, unlike religious types, do not seek to impose their morality upon others and to judge others for failing to live by its rules

iii. Scientists, unlike religious types, do not initiate Wars in the name of their beliefs

iv. Scientists, unlike religious types, do not persecute those of differing belief – as in the Spanish Inquisition

v. Scientists, unlike religious types, do not seek to control the behaviour of others

vi. Scientists, unlike religious types, are too busy finding cures for diseases, attempting to mitigate climate change, inventing new technologies and pushing forward the frontiers of our knowledge regarding the Nature of the Cosmos – for any outsider (excepting yourself) to care very much about opposing Science

 

This is because you deny you are a religion when you are, and you're trying to recruit people to a certain organization that profits and fulfills social desires by being Anti-God; you are equally "God", because, you were the against response to the question Do you believe in God? (Which is not the assertion you do not believe in belief), In fact, you believe to first become Atheist, you believe in science; but, you are claiming science is ultimate truth, where it is not only above other religions but that it is unique and separate to religions. That we must believe in science too, and religion is incorrect; rather than ignoring it and letting other people who are religious enjoy their discussion. You believe to debate against it, even when it's not forced on you.

 

You're saying you don't believe in the word God, and that it is a blemish on your perception, even when it's discussed with other people. You do not have to listen long, is what I'm saying, you're not somehow following ultimate truth. You have no proof for God, but, what if God existed, then what would things mean? Your intelligence didn't correlate all along.

 

 

 

Atheism is as much a religion as is non-belief in Long necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns. Nobody is trying to recruit others to atheism – atheism is the default setting, if you like. It is not possible to be Anti-(something which is non-existent). Nobody is claiming that ‘science is ultimate truth’ – for one, that phrase does not make sense, and I have already addressed this point above – scroll up. Science and Religion are not even really comparable in any meaningful way. The approaches taken by the two are diametrically opposite. You don’t have to believe in Science (I’m not sure you even understand what Science is) however seeing as this is a Science Forum I actually rock up here for the Science – not for the discussions on Religion – which you have initiated and which I have become entangled with because you are pitching the one against the other. If God existed, I certainly would like to ask why cancer, AIDS, poverty, famine, crime, heartbreak, death and all other forms of suffering exist in the world. I have come to the conclusion that there is no interventionist God looking out for us; we must look out for one another. Your last sentence doesn’t make sense – must be the word virus’ antics again.

[Moontanman]

I don't think intelligence is based around my computer, and I'm do not necessarily need to be thankful for it.

 

 

I can't say anything about intelligence being around your computer but I think we can be relatively certain about in front of it...

[ralfy]

The topic reminds me of Burroughs:

 

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_S._Burroughs

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

s1eep, your continued refusal to listen to staff has resulted in the closure of this thread. Consider this your final warning, as the next step will be a suspension.