Gullibility Test

This topic contains 43 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  t8 3 weeks ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #833577
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 80
    • Total replies 25,176

    This thread is designed to test the gullibility of HN members.  It is an easy test, with only one YES or NO question.

    Do you believe that the man in the wheelchair is actually communicating via a machine with the man doing the interview?  YES or NO?

    #833580
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 63
    • Total replies 10,307

    I don’t do gullibility tests, ha.

    #833596
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 80
    • Total replies 25,176

    Fair enough, Kathi.  But surely you have an opinion on the matter, right?  Do you believe Stephen Hawking was having impromptu discussions with the hundreds of people who interviewed him through the years?  Before you answer (if in fact you do), the following is in Hawking’s own words…

    So, do you think anybody could watch an automatic scrolling program passing by thousands of letters and words, twitch his cheek when the cursor happens over the letter/word he wants, and then repeat the process letter by letter and word by word until one complete sentence is ready to send to the voice box?  Could a person complete this process so rapidly that he can have a back and forth conversation with another person in real time, using multiple sentences in his immediate responses to their questions?

     

     

    #833608
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 63
    • Total replies 10,307

    Hawking probably got the questions ahead of time and wrote up his responses then during the taping he just selected his prewritten response to the particular questions asked.

    #833611
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 80
    • Total replies 25,176

    I can go along with that.  Especially when these screenshots of different times during that video show what appears to be a script on Hawking’s computer – as opposed to a cursor continuously scrolling over letters and words like he described in his article…

    This one even has a paragraph highlighted…

    Perhaps those are the words the machine was going to read next?

    We’ll never know if the answers actually came from Hawking at all, but it seems we agree that he wasn’t answering spontaneously.  And if that’s the case, all of his interviews are staged theater events, and not actual interviews, right?  And that makes all the reporters and media outlets that aired Hawking interviews liars, right? And it also makes Hawking a liar for writing the article about how he communicates spontaneously.  Oh, and this last screenshot from the video shows how far they go to give the impression that the conversation is happening in real time – when we now know that’s a bald face lie…

    See how they’re playing us as fools who believe the guy in the wheelchair is communicating spontaneously?

    So Kathi, had you ever even considered this before?  No?  Me either.  That’s because we’ve all been indoctrinated into believing anything “scientists” tell us – without ever actually questioning it to see if it even makes a lick of sense.  I dropped this one on my son last night, and mind blown.  He couldn’t believe that he’d never even considered it before.  That is what the truth movement has done for me and millions of others like me.  Start questioning the crap they tell you in the mainstream media, and you too will come to the conclusion that 50% of it is completely absurd BS, and backs a common agenda.  It’s propaganda – not news.  Start looking into the things NASA claims, and the BS/propaganda meter levels out at about the 99% mark.

    Anyway, thanks for playing.  🙂

     

     

    #833637
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 900
    • Total replies 18,541

    According to this video, he actually inputted around 15-20% of the text and the rest was inferred using a body of data containing his own writings. So it would be like saying, “The fool has” and you would get the whole thing, “The fool has said in his own heart there is no God”. I imagine there was a key for deleting the inferred text if it was wrong.

    #833665
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 63
    • Total replies 10,307

    Mike,

    you said:

    See how they’re playing us as fools who believe the guy in the wheelchair is communicating spontaneously?

    I think anyone who believes that videos or tv specials or movies aren’t prepared in advance to fit in a time slot by the use of editing or scripting and/or rehearsing and/or having several “takes” is gullible and would benefit from being an extra in a movie or taking a field trip to a news station. I really don’t see what the fuss is about. I would assume they gave the guy his questions beforehand to prepare the answers for.

    #833666
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 900
    • Total replies 18,541

    I agree LU. There is nothing to see here.

    #833678
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 80
    • Total replies 25,176

    Kathi:  I think anyone who believes that…tv specials…aren’t prepared in advance…by the use of…scripting and/or rehearsing…is gullible…

    I really don’t see what the fuss is about. I would assume they gave the guy his questions beforehand to prepare the answers for.

    T8:  I agree LU. There is nothing to see here.

    So let me get this straight…  You guys think it’s normal and commonplace for television interviews to be “scripted” and “rehearsed” in advance – like they are a Hollywood movie?  So when I’m watching a 60 Minutes correspondent throwing some hard ball questions at an unsuspecting cad who has no idea what he’s in for, I should have known that the questions and answers had been scripted and rehearsed ahead of time, and that what I’m seeing isn’t really the news interview I’ve been led to believe it is, but rather just two actors playing their parts in a theatrical production?  If that’s what you’re saying, then you are correct that I was incredibly gullible – because I believed news interviews were actually spontaneous interviews.

    Anyway, back to Stephen Hawking…  Are you saying that during Hawking interviews, he was basically just a prop?   He had been sent the questions, and prepared his written answers months ahead of time, and the actual interview was just a matter of him sitting there doing nothing while the reporter read his lines, and the computerized voice box read Hawking’s pre-written lines after each question?

    If not, please clarify.

     

    #833682
     Ed J 
    Participant
    • Topics started 155
    • Total replies 27,980

    Do you believe that the man in the wheelchair is actually communicating via a machine with the man doing the interview? YES or NO?

    I don’t know – I always had doubts to whether that was really him communicating or not.

    I was ALWAYS willing to answer “Yes” or “No” or “I Don’t Know” to simple one part questions.

    The problem was: you did not ask me simple one part questions,
    you instead asked two part questions. One part you would have right,
    the other part you would use as a springboard to attach your dogmas to.

    So I dare not say yes, as it may appear that I’m affirming your dogmas as true.
    Since I did know, “I Don’t Know” was off the table, leaving as the only choice “No”.
    I would then answer “No”, and you would act like I was disagreeing to the truth in it.

    So the difficulty was in you purposely asking two part questions, which mean to entrap.

    Do I make myself clear? “Yes” or “No” <– please answer

    God bless
    Ed J

    #833700
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 80
    • Total replies 25,176

    Ed: I don’t know – I always had doubts to whether that was really him communicating or not.

    I never really gave it any thought.  They told me he could carry on spontaneous communication through his high tech Intel machine, and I just blindly believed he could.  I’m not that gullible anymore.

    You say you’ve always had doubts… but what do you say now that you’ve given it some thought?  In your opinion, is it even remotely possible for anyone to carry on a lengthy impromptu conversation by twitching their cheek as a cursor randomly scrolls over letters and commonly used words?

    And if not, have we been purposely tricked/lied to?  Or do you agree with Kathi that we should have all known it was just a theatrical production with a machine reading lines that were written and rehearsed ahead of time?

    Because I’m pretty sure the writers, producers and actors who created this interview were counting on the general public believing that Hawking spontaneously cheek-typed the above as a response to an impromptu question asked by the interviewer.  I’m certain they wouldn’t have added this little tidbit to the production if they thought the vast majority of the viewing public already knew that Hawking wasn’t talking in real time with the interviewer.  What say you?

     

    #833764
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 900
    • Total replies 18,541

    They told me he could carry on spontaneous communication through his high tech Intel machine, and I just blindly believed he could.

    Who told you that?

    And doesn’t he have that to some degree even if he only types out 15% of it? I type in website addresses all the time into my browser, but get prompted and do not have to complete it. I still call that spontaneous.

    #833789
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 80
    • Total replies 25,176

    T8: Who told you that?

    Nobody explicitly told me Stephen Hawking carried on spontaneous conversations via his machine.  Just like nobody has explicitly told any of us that Space X rockets landing on floating barges is real.  Here’s how I said it to Kathi earlier in the thread…

    Mike:  …I should have known that the questions and answers had been scripted and rehearsed ahead of time, and that what I’m seeing isn’t really the news interview I’ve been led to believe it is, but rather just two actors playing their parts in a theatrical production?

    So I meant “told by implication” – not by a phone call or personal memo sent directly to me.

    T8:  And doesn’t he have that to some degree even if he only types out 15% of it?

    So then let’s just deal with that 15%, okay?  Let’s assume that this point of the interview falls into the 15% that Hawking is cheek-typing spontaneously…

    Because, after all, they have told us (led us to believe by implication) as much by making it clearly appear as a spontaneous and un-rehearsed answer to a question from the interviewer, right?  I mean, what sense would that response make if we’re all supposed to know that the entire thing was pre-written and pre-rehearsed ahead of time, right?  So can we agree that we were led to believe that this answer was spontaneous, and cheek-typed on the spot by Hawking?

    (Please T8, for the love of God can you remove yourself from the “Must immediately and absolutely disagree with any point the whack-job conspiracy nut is making, no matter what” mindset for a second, and just give the God’s honest truth to that last question?)

    #833794
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 900
    • Total replies 18,541

    Nobody explicitly told me Stephen Hawking carried on spontaneous conversations via his machine.

    LOL. So you are having this conversation with yourself then. I never considered Hawking. I just believed that he was communicating using technology and he is. Never considered how it might work and obviously without even ayong anything, there would have been obvious limitations compared with the way we communicate. Discussion over right?

    #833809
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 80
    • Total replies 25,176

    T8:  I never considered Hawking.

    That was my original point… neither did I.  I just blindly believed that the man could carry on a back and forth conversation using a cheek muscle, because that’s what we were all led to believe.

     

    T8:  I just believed that he was communicating using technology and he is.

    Well that’s what I’m trying to find out, but you keep obfuscating.  Here we go again…

    In your opinion, is it possible for Stephen Hawking to have made the captioned comment above in a spontaneous back and forth conversation with the interviewer – as we are clearly led to believe in the video?  YES or NO?

     

    #833852
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 900
    • Total replies 18,541

     

    Yes, I think it would be possible to type that out. This looks like a line that is already typed out, thus he probably needed to say this once in every interview, so he could have just picked it out among a list of other popular replies with the flick of an eyelash or something.

    #833964
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 80
    • Total replies 25,176

    Do you think it was possible for him to type out that line spontaneously – with his cheek controlling a randomly scrolling cursor – in one second?

     

    #833965
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 900
    • Total replies 18,541

    Probably not in 1 second, but I imagine he would have had in the least, a spell prompter. So when he types Y it comes up with You (if it is the most popular word that starts with Y, otherwise if it is another word, then Yo automatically become You and so on. I’m thinking he doesn’t have to type out all the letters for the words: realize, typing, response, difficult, and correct as a few letters in and it becomes obvious what it is. Further, the joining words might not need to be typed as the program could place them in there logically. I also note that the word ‘realize’ is American spelling whereas Hawking spoke the Queen’s English, so if he manually typed that word out it would have been ‘realise’. But yes, if this is a question that is asked all the time, then it could be pre-written out fully and could take 1 second to post it.

    #833980
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 80
    • Total replies 25,176

    T8:  Probably not in 1 second…

    Well, he gave the response from the screenshot in one second.

    T8:  but I imagine he would have had in the least, a spell prompter.

    Yes, we have them on our phones too.  The difference is that we can hit the “T” and then the “h” and it will prompt “The”, “Them”, “They”, etc.  Hawking didn’t have that ability.  Instead, he had to wait for an auto-cursor to randomly scroll through letters, and then the prompted words.  So imagine watching a cursor on your phone screen just randomly move up and down columns and rows.  You’d have to wait for it to come across “T”, and then twitch your cheek to select “T”, right?  And that means it can’t be moving too fast, because it must pause a little on each letter to give him the chance to twitch his cheek when the cursor was over the correct letter, right?  Because if he twitched on the wrong letter at any stage during the sentence he was trying to compose, he’d have to wait for the auto-cursor to hover over “Backspace” – and then wait again for it to hover over the letter he really wanted, right?

    So let’s say his cheek reflexes were superb, and the cursor only had to hover over each character for half a second.  And let’s say the cursor hits the most common letters and prompted words first, okay?  So the prompter may begin at “T”, in which case Hawking can immediately twitch his cheek to select it.  Now, will the cursor go to another suggested letter, like “h”?  Or will it go through a list of the most popular words beginning with “T” first?  Let’s say it’s the latter, okay?  So he selects “T” in half a second, and the prompter highlights “The” next… and so he twitches again immediately.  In one second, he has successfully selected the word “The”.  What’s the next word going to be?  “Universe”?  “Black hole”?  “Cosmic”?  “Reason”?  “Way”?  “Theory”?

    Let’s say he wants to say, “The universe is vast”, for example.  So he has “The” within a second, but then has to wait – at half a second per character – for the auto-cursor to highlight the letter “U”.  “U” is not a particularly common letter with which to begin a word, right?  So let’s say it’s 10th on the list that the auto-cursor is scrolling over.  Well, that’s another 5 seconds just to get “The u”, right?  And then more seconds for the cursor to hover over an “N”, or over the word “universe”, right?  And then how many seconds until it hovers over “I” or “is” for the third word?  How many more seconds for it to hover over “V” or “vast” for the fourth?

    So can you see how it could take him 30 seconds or more just to type, “The universe is vast”?  Yet if you watch the video that I’m showing the screenshot of, you’ll see that produces that 12 word answer in one second.

    T8:  So when he types Y it comes up with You (if it is the most popular word that starts with Y, otherwise if it is another word, then Yo automatically become You and so on. I’m thinking he doesn’t have to type out all the letters for the words: realize, typing, response, difficult, and correct as a few letters in and it becomes obvious what it is.

    Now put that into practice and think how long it would take the auto-cursor to randomly hover of the “Y”.  And then the “o”.  And then the word “You”.  And then how long to hover over the letter “R”.  And then “e”.  And then “a”.  And then “l”.  And then it’d probably have to scan through common words like “real” in the process – before hovering over random letters again to reach the letter “i”.  So we’re looking at maybe 12 seconds just to type “You realize”.

    All you have to do is think it out.  Put yourself in his position.  Imagine you are strapped to the same exact device, and twitch your cheek for each “accept” like he allegedly did.  It would take you three minutes to type, “Nothing to see here”.  😀

    T8:  But yes, if this is a question that is asked all the time, then it could be pre-written out fully and could take 1 second to post it.

    Not even close.  The most ingenious way someone could devise a program like that would be to have the cursor always begin by hovering over a “Scan Characters” icon.  When he twitches after hearing the interviewer’s question, it will remain on that icon long enough for him to twitch a second time to select that category.  If he doesn’t twitch again within half a second, it will move on to the “Scan Common Words” icon.  If he doesn’t twitch on that one within a half a second, it will move on to the “Scan Common Responses” icon.

    So in your scenario, he twitched on the “Scan Common Responses” icon.  Then what?  Will the auto-cursor just start scrolling through different full responses every half second, waiting for him to twitch and accept one of them?  Or will it start scrolling through letters, so he can twitch on the letter his common response begins with, thereby narrowing the amount of common responses the auto-cursor must scroll through?  If the former, how long until it gets to that “You realize…” response?  If the latter, how long until the cursor hovers over the letter “Y”?  And then how long to get to the “You realize…” response out of all the pre-written responses that begin with “Y”?

    Come on, man… why are you being so obtuse?  Why must you bend over backwards to make sure you’re disagreeing with anything I say – despite how silly and ignorant it makes you look?

     

    #834002
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 900
    • Total replies 18,541

    T8:  Probably not in 1 second…
    Mike: Well, he gave the response from the screenshot in one second.

    Then maybe he didn’t type it out one letter at a time. Pay attention. The line could have been part of a list of common answers that he could select from.

    Or it could have been prompted similar to doing a google search in the toolbar. So maybe he typed out 3 letters and that whole sentence appeared and he hit enter. In other cases if that sentence popped up and was wrong, he continues to type and the next most likely sentence appears, and so on.

    Mike wakeup. The man had a disability and some smart people created a way for him to communicate fast. If you think this is impossible, then it is only so in your own mind because you have not experienced smart technology before because you do not come across it in your work. I work in IT and a group of smart people where I work created an amazing robotic hand and gave a demo of it the other day. Weta Digital is not far from where I work. Man you should see the special effects these guys pull off. They did LOTR, Avatar, Planet of the Apes, Maze Runner, etc.

    Mike we live in the future, that is when I was a kid, I always wondered what the year 2000 would be like, perhaps spurred on by the comic 2000AD. But it is nearly 2020, we have global internet, smart technology, rockets, robots, drones, and advancements in these fields are exploding in growth. Scripture says the knowledge shall increase and that if men spoke one language then anything would be possible for them. Well we are heading back to one language. My father in law who cannot speak English uses his phone to speak to me in English. He scans packaging etc and sees writing in Spanish. And here is you thinking it is impossible for Hawking when he was alive to give an answer in 1 second and for a rocket to land back on its platform.

    Mike, you seem more at home in the Middle Ages when superstition was rife. The Trinity was God, witches were drowned, and technology was evil magic. Yet the weird thing is you were able to see through the lie of the Trinity and now you seem like a paranoid conspiracy guy who cannot reason well. What happened to the Mike who use to be here 8 years ago? He could reason. Did you start smoking Pot? What exactly happened? Old age perhaps?

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 44 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2018 Heaven Net

or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account