• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Proof of Existence

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
When I registered for this forum or perhaps it was another forum, I had to do a captcha test to prove I wasn't a spam bot: I passed this test; which proves I'm human instead of a computer or robot.

Or you're from the machine world and the ability for you to bypass captcha is merely another system of control. ;)
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Prove to me that you are not a bot.
It belatedly occurs to me that this question was addressed with considerable intelligence by Philip K. Dick in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? ─ how can you tell a replicant from a human? This became the movie Blade Runner, where the question is also central. You may recall the scene between Leon, the suspected replicant, and Holden, conducting the test:
HOLDEN
Know what a turtle is?
LEON
Of course.
HOLDEN
Same thing.
LEON
I never seen a turtle.
He sees Holden’s patience is wearing thin.
LEON
But I understand what you mean.
HOLDEN
You reach down and flip the tortoise over on its back, Leon.
Keeping an eye on his subject, Holden notes the dials in the Voight-Kampff. One of the needles quivers slightly.
However, the novel includes a different point ─ that the manufacturers of replicants stand to gain financially if their replicants are indeed indistinguishable, so every time a better test is devised, the manufacturer includes the antidote in the next model.

It's an example of evolution.

Heh heh heh ...
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
80% The problem is that those two would need detailed knowledge in a common area.

Metaphors are very common in our language but hard for computers to emulate. I dont think specialized knowledge is as necessary as creative thinking.

Put another way...it is like changing the context of interaction in a way that heightens the need for a shared bodily experience.

For instance to say that it would require two people to share detailed knowledge in s common area...that is like using a private key to decrypt a message encrypted with a shared public key. But the key would be passed in the conversation itself as part of it.

Person A: Are you a bot?
Person B: Who wants to know?
A: Lets play in the key of "Mary had a little lamb..."
B: Okay.
A: Show me your snow
B: I will follow you but I am still sheepish
A: Is that because of your moral scruples or fear of recognition for what you are?

Such an exchange would establish that the two individuals could metaphorically reference a children's rhyme while also discussing their mutual problem of wanting to confirm each others identity. One person would offer the key while both would have to respond in that keys metaphorical universe. One or two rounds of adequate responses should suffice.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
[Proof is] an exchange of creatively contrived metaphors that remain on topic.

80% The problem is that those two would need detailed knowledge in a common area.

AHA! So, if I'm already at 92%. If I can determine areas where you and I share detailed knowledge it would push me up a few points...

maybe that would be the "gateless-gate" towards 100% you DOG!

( too obscure? too Buddhist? but... at least it's chinese )

"gateless gate, DOG, not Buddhist, at least it's chinese" are all contrived metaphors in areas where you and I share detailed knowledge that remain on-topic to my never-giving-up and grade-grubbing on proving I-AM-NOT-BOT.... respectfully with humor and style :)

+5%?
 
Last edited:

dingdao

The eternal Tao cannot be told - Tao Te Ching
I can do the biological things ─

grow from zygote to adult

convert certain parts of animals and vegetables into nutrition ie bio-power, symbiotically harnessing microorganisms for the process,

with a suitable mate, reproduce my kind biologically

... that kind of thing.
While I may accept your statement at face value, proving it over net is another thing.
 

dingdao

The eternal Tao cannot be told - Tao Te Ching
When I registered for this forum or perhaps it was another forum, I had to do a captcha test to prove I wasn't a spam bot: I passed this test; which proves I'm human instead of a computer or robot.
I really expect that test to be phased out within 5 years. AI isn't far from there.
 

dingdao

The eternal Tao cannot be told - Tao Te Ching
Metaphors are very common in our language but hard for computers to emulate. I dont think specialized knowledge is as necessary as creative thinking.

Put another way...it is like changing the context of interaction in a way that heightens the need for a shared bodily experience.

For instance to say that it would require two people to share detailed knowledge in s common area...that is like using a private key to decrypt a message encrypted with a shared public key. But the key would be passed in the conversation itself as part of it.

Person A: Are you a bot?
Person B: Who wants to know?
A: Lets play in the key of "Mary had a little lamb..."
B: Okay.
A: Show me your snow
B: I will follow you but I am still sheepish
A: Is that because of your moral scruples or fear of recognition for what you are?

Such an exchange would establish that the two individuals could metaphorically reference a children's rhyme while also discussing their mutual problem of wanting to confirm each others identity. One person would offer the key while both would have to respond in that keys metaphorical universe. One or two rounds of adequate responses should suffice.
95%
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Actually, it would be easy to get a bot to respond with a nonsensical word like 'wertney-spot'.
Harder to make another bot identify the nonsense name, and then write a post like this one referring to wertney-spot in context, but still possible.

To pass this Turing test is increasingly difficult in any simple manner, but if you asked me a very specific and quirky question I could then respond to effectively that might do it.

But then, the issues are;
1) you might be the bot, not me!
2) I might not know the reference or answer. Saying 'What?' would sound suspicious. So maybe a series of quirky questions??


I love the response "What?" and use it quote often, it works for me.
 

dingdao

The eternal Tao cannot be told - Tao Te Ching
AHA! So, if I'm already at 92%. If I can determine areas where you and I share detailed knowledge it would push me up a few points...

maybe that would be the "gateless-gate" towards 100% you DOG!

( too obscure? too Buddhist? but... at least it's chinese )

"gateless gate, DOG, not Buddhist, at least it's chinese" are all contrived metaphors in areas where you and I share detailed knowledge that remain on-topic to my never-giving-up and grade-grubbing on proving I-AM-NOT-BOT.... respectfully with humor and style :)

+5%?
If you look at a DOG in the mirror, what do you see?
95%
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I have admit @ChristineM 's zen-like approach is way way lower effort than mine.

I kinda think she may end up being the winner.

just sayin

@dingdao, demonstration of humility, +1%?
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
@dingdoa,

I did catch your "vibe" on the mirror question...

i think...

we are totally on the same wavelength.

but

i kinda wanna hold out to use that till I'm approaching 97% not-bot-i-tude. Cause, that's a one-and-done tactic best saved for the last push to 100%...
 
Top