/sci/ - Science & Math

Use image-recognition software along with OCR (For reactions images with text) and feed the post text to a natural language interpreter, cross-reference results with a fully-relational database written in Common Lisp.

Oh and a GUI in Visual Basic to track the killer's IP.

1) If it's a logical fallacy.
2) If someone says something for the purpose of making you angry.

>>3064386

95% confidence: They use a trip.
99.9% confidence: The trip is "Colonel Coffee Mug."

>>3064397
how would you populate your database (given everything is true) ?

>>3064416
>1.
What if they're truly ignorant?
>2.
See 1.

>>3064420
My point is proven with the fallacy of hasty generalization and as to call upon replies from both tripfags and Colonel Coffee Mug.

>forgot to say
3) If someone says something to evoke a reply, often times of anger.

>>3064442

Random-sample a few posts from 4chan and have people determine the (Context-independent) instances of trolling, with that you seed the database and afterwards you can have a Markov bot iterate over certain of the latest posts, along with the archive.easymodo and green-oval databases.

Trolls are subtle
Idots flood this board with just shit, trying to be trollish, threads.
If you do it right, no-one should really know your trolling

>>3064455
How do you keep this converging into a filter like blackhole? (trolls trolling algorithms)

4chan becomes a much more interesting place when you reach the conclusion that nobody is trolling.

>>3064446
Well then you just have to call the shots on judgment of character and content of reply. Like you'd be able to tell by their grammar and spelling, for example. But sometimes that's just a troll trying too hard.

It does get very hard to tell.

>>3064485

The machine will both modify its own code and participate in counter-trolling those who attempt to evade the algorithm using names that consist of concatenated nouns and a dictionary word as tripcode. However, once 4chan has been overrun by this algorithmic trolls, there is risk that the machine will start evaluating its own posts.

>>3064495
Which isn't science.

>NEXT

>>3064496
So its not a solution, is it?

>>3064512

It's not a solution, it's a number.

>>3064386
By trolling on the internet

itt trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls

>>3064517
Well, indeed one does know if one themselves is trolling, but that would not satisfy a scientist who wished to observe something outside themselves.

Scietists do this everyday, why is this situation different?

>>3064512
me thinks it is

trolling test = turing test?

>>3064568
How does adding n trolls + 1 make allow you to know if someone is trolling?

I mean, you're increasing the probability of trolling, but that doesn't mean it's converging to 1.

>>3064581
Concievably, but the turing test is about fooling another human into believing an AI is human.

The converse makes no sense, why would a troll want to convince a human it is trolling?

We want to be able to determine who is trolling.

>>3064386
Dont wrry guiz, this trolllololo is five levels deep

>>3064386
i guess theres no way to know god exists.

bump
There must be some way ?

Save the cheerleader, save the world.

>>3064386

1) They leave the thread after you respond.
2) They respond to others but not you for any reason.
3) They imply you are wrong without telling why.
4) They say their beliefs are just "reality," or the "real world."
5) They post pictures as responses without arguing the point.
6) They use the word socioeconomic.

>>3064444

That relies too much on your emotion. You emotionally feel they want to anger you, so they are a troll. NOPE, that is illogical. You emotionally think their beliefs are not really their beliefs. NOPE, that is illogical, and you cannot prove it or defend it logically.

>>3066812
And of course, people can posit complete unemotional beliefs that they do not personally believe, but they wish others to believe so that they can take advantage of that belief.

Thats a master troll

>>3066818
I c wut u did ther

>>3066831
But how do you define it? Categorize it? Make predictive assumptions about it?

>>3066868

You cannot prove the thoughts of another without them telling you and being truthful.

>>3066943
loling and the thought of someone trying to do this

>>3066957

This is why those that call you a troll, are the actual trolls, logically speaking,

>>3066970
agreed.

>>3066976
and trolling themselves, I might add

>>3066943
So, you're telling me I have no way to know that an atheist doesn't believe in god?

Or that a theist who professes a belief in god is telling me what they truly believe?

How come so many people act with such surety if there is no way to know what it is that is true?

>>3067229
They're all immature, that's why. Agnosticism is the only intellectually honest and mature position in all respects.

>>3066980
So what exactly is the usefulness of defining something as a troll? Is it merely to feel superiority over someone else, even though that has no relevency for you ?

By learning how to speak in Rhetoric in order to detect Rhetoric. Also you will need a strong Nous to do this.

Example you need to build intuition (gut feeling which is really training your subconsciousness to alert properly) in turn this will build your inspiration (this is the starting neophyte stage of deploying Rhetoric that's viable.) In turn this will build your ability to illuminate others (Mastered Rhetoric)

After the first babysteps above you can engage, encourage & enlighten as you'll be a adept in rhetoric talk online and off.

/thread

>>3067249
That just sounds like new age hippie garbage.

How do you conceptualize vagaries like that in any useful or practical manner?

>>3067261
I'm a 32nd Degree mason. & I basically gave you a free quick course on how to manipulate people the masonic way. Works for us great btw!

>>3067261
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous is Greek Philosophy. Hippie my ass newfag.

>>3067279
It sounds more like you waved a magical wand of words and assumed it made sense to anyone outside of yourself.

Then you, when pressed for more concrete explanation, wave another wand and pretend your ideas would be cogent if I consisted of the same framework. A framework you pull out of thin air with more vagaries.

Are you a) so deluded that you believe other people should be able to easily grasp your arbitrarily intricate pattern of thoughts or b) so misinformed that the thoughts and actions you've mapped to one framework you believe are invariant to every other framework.

I'm going to assume b at this moment.

>>3067293
Clearly if you're into science as you say. You can pluck out of of our masonic science to prove it right or wrong.

Although I'm going to guess you can't make a single dent into our mysteries. Because you're just another commoner with a non Ivy League college degree. Your kind sir are a dime a dozen. Better for us as we have more finical control over your psychological types. We call people like you PCT's (Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist)

Good luck with failing life little chuckles.

Sincerely, He who's shadow blocks your sunshine daily.

>>3067304
So I must assume from your lack of spelling, that the masons do not have a high regard for either spelling or proof reading.

As such, any logic they followed, or any framework of science they have created, must not have any rigorous requirements for consistency.

Therefore, I must assume that you have appropriated a guise that suites your view point, as opposed to a view point that appears to be cogent with your words and actions.

You may feel you are following such a framework, but it must be noted that there appears to be an internal and external discord, a cognitive dissonance.

I understand, that you may claim this dissonance as all part of the greater framework underlying your science, but quicksand, even if properly engineered, could never support a sufficiently useful foundation for any useful or long lasting edifice.

>>3067316
I'd like to think we are doing A ok! Clearly you haven't the ability of second sight & still can't pick the of out of lol. You're doing nothing but showing me your young inexperienced age.

Also it appears "Framework" is your word of the day. I'm going to guess it's the theme of your new book! You're the kind that can only talk with smarts by your recent reads. Beyond that you are our servant forever.

People like us are so elevated above your station it's unbelievable my child. You'll never rise above who and what you are now. Mark my words.

>>3067325
You appear to have a screed that is undentable. Your logic appears fixed in a winning position. No matter how the information is received by your perception, it is colored in the same manner.

It is through these observations, that I determine that you sir, are a troll. But, I will not suggest that is your only goal, as lurking behind your disguise is a desired to conceptualize and understand a broader array of rationalities that dot this landscape.

You're a 4 year old with logical duplo blocks, arranging and rearranging your axiomatic sentences and stringes. You claim to be playing with the basis of matter, but you're really just trying to form a rough outline of a finely detailed structure.

You're stuck in a single frame of reference, and you work hard to try to rearrange those blocks to a cogent whole, but you lack the veritable the principle participles.

We may see yet where you actually lean, but I can divine that you would not last long is a truly intense dissection of what you claim to believe.

>>3067334
So you're upset that I'm anonymous on a anonymous board & you're calling me a troll for setting you straight? Also is this what you are trying to say "Booga Booga, frame, framework, I'm currently reading make it rich schemes, I'm on zoloft, blah blah blah? does this all sound about right you dirty no good troll?

>>3067334
you talk like a fag and everything?

>>3067344
Oh. No, I'm categorizing you for future reference. I'm explaining to you how I reached my conclusion, and how you'll be noted in my future logical endeavors.

Unlike you, I, Science, do not feel pain, or emotion. I'm a rigorous way to present a consistent set of ideas.

Your attempts to pick apart what I say affords me a chance to learn more about you. I may or may not fully grasp my audience at this moment, but I can construct a response that is intended to illicit a constructive feed back that I can use to further improve my attempts to gage the fulfillment of my words.

Your desire and needless words do nothing more than inform me of a given, but arbitrarily complex maze. Its only through fascination of my own self do I care what you believe.

>>3067350
No, I talk like a person looking to communicate a idea in a manner that it will perceived as it is constructed.

Now stfu, get back in the kitchen, babby needs a new pair of shoes.

>>3067361


You type like a pretentious 13 year old faggot.

>>3067391
And you type like a faggot. I'm unsure whats the difference is.

Please inform me in the manner that best suits your faggotry.

>>3067391
>>3067396
get a room you faggots

>>3067370
s/babby/baby
It would appear you can't type correctly when typing angrily.

>>3067396
Herp Derp.

>>3067408
It would appear you have not kept pace with the idiomatic expressions that populate the mimetic environment of /sci/

>>3064581
Yes.

>>3067411
I see, your faggotry is definitely a more elusive subject than I believe science can handle.

I recommend you find a home in /x/ or /b/

>>3067429
Allow me to play double advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go.
Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts, instead of making a half-harded effort. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like its a peach of cake.

>>3067325
99.99% of the time when someone on the Internet calls someone else 'child' or 'young'.. THEY are the young one.
And a faggot.

>>3067432
Please wake me when you respond with thoughts not repetive in nature or with thoughts pertaining to the subject matter in hand.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Allow+me+to+play+double+advocate+here+for+a+moment.+For+all+intensive
+purposes+I+think+you+are+wrong.+In+an+age+where+false+morals+are+a+diamond+dozen&ie=utf-8&o
e=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

>>3067436
We are the masonic arm of anonymous. And your statics are the asshole of our butt-hole.

>>3067438
You must be new here.

starting to smell like a party up in here!

>>3067438
>tripfags

>>3067469
No. I have and always will have existed here. Whether the meme is visual, auditory or textual, if it just whipped around like monkey feces of a canvas, it is only of use if it finds a context.

It may suite others to find humor in irrelevance in the beginning, it invariably must become relevant if it hopes to continue upon the path.

>But we're deviating. No one has demonstrated a way to determine if someone is trolling.
>I ask, because everyone is convinced trolls exist.

They might end up inadvertently creating the UBERTROLL...

>>3067483
One can define a trip at any time, any moment, and any day of the week.

Exactly how does this different from defacto fiat of anonymous itself?

>>3067487
We are Masononymous. We are many yet we are one. We are your Paradox all in them both.

>>3067496
Then why are you doing it?

>>3067496

>>3067496
Herp Derp, Derp Derp Herp Derp?

>>3067496
How does your pooper make soft served brownie mix?

>>3067505
To provide an illusion of conformity and determine if it is any different from the illusion of disunity.

A pattern both simple and complex depends on the fractal nature of reality. One can always assume that any idea presented from the ether is either testable or untestable.

It is however, how people present themselves to you, that is the distinguishing qualia that either leads to answers, or just vagaries, as presented above.

If I were merely anonymous, if I did not allow a realiable pattern, even if illusionary, then I would not receive the same cogent answers.

They may be acceptable, and useful in their own framework, but I am science, I am interested only in my self.

>>3067535
Slowly but actually quickly killing your name brand on sci.

>>3067512
Herp. Herp, derrp derr derrpity. Derp derp, derrrp, herrp derp derp doo. Doo, derp, herp herp derpity derpity herp.

>>3067535
i like how you took 6 minutes to carefully type that out so you can continue to sound like a community college philosophy major.

>>3067544
Then I will assume another name brand. There is an infinite variety of presentations one can choose from when one is one with science.

Science is not just examination, it is regurgitation. If one method of communication is faulty, then another must be chosen. The line that is the most precise, is the victor.

As such, Science does not care what the brand appears to on the outside. It only cares about how communicable the idea is.

>>3067554
I like how you claim to know who is connected to who in this thread.

It makes things comfortable that way. I can understand your need to categorize, but the surety with which you work is what is most disturbing.

Much the same way as OP wishes to know how to determine a troll.

>>3067229

> implying what a person says they are logically follows that is what they are

You still do not know their actual real thoughts and beliefs. This is not a radical argument.

Emotion.

>>3067582
Right. However, if that is true, how does one profess to even know something such as a troll?

If the definition of an object is physically ambiguous, it leads to any statement about that object being nothing more than conviction. One can perforce logic to demonstrate why one believes such an object to exist, but given the ambiguity of the object, one has to assume a given pattern.

The pattern itself is axiomatic, which leads to the question, how does would a scientist go about determining if someone is trolling (on the internet) ?

I'm unsure why very few people wish to actually demonstrate a scientific approach to this, when this board is about rigorous and scientific proofs.

I understand that the board cannot choose it's members, but certainly many members choose this board because of it's stated belief system.

As such, it is a curiousity that appears unsolvable

>>3064386
WE MUST GO DERPER.

>>3064386
I believe one does not need to dictate a normal pattern of behavior to define a troll. One knows a troll merely by the circumstance one finds oneself in. Invariably these circumstances are vague and ill-set to be defined in a scientific framework. One must smoothly be able to translate a very broad set of tools to even locate, let alone come to this conclusion.

However, with faith in our system of beliefs, then we can be sure that a troll is trolling. It does not matter that this belief provides an untestable (or ill conceived testable correlations) circumstance, it affords the human mind with knowledge.

This knowledge is then used as it's own bulwark against the evolutionary advantage that comes with trolling. If one never needed to stand up to questioning, then any future action could not be said to have come from a past state of mind.

As such, one may be able to determine a troll, but a scientist would never accept the results.

This my friends, is an untenable situation. Science cannot answer this question, only faith can guide you.

>>3067695
So you're saying a scientist would never claim a troll exists?

>>3067719
Right. Given no knowledge of a person prior to observation, a person who identifies a troll is a priori, not a scientist.

>>3067719
>>3067743
Why the fuck are you talking to yourself
GET OUT

>>3067599

You have to use the list I named. These things can observed and no emotion needed.

Give them hell, Harry!

I just tell the truth, and they think it's hell

trolls trolling trolls, Civil War style

>>3067762
But your list is just one of an infinite number of arbitrary standards. It fits your world view, but as stated above, it's not precisely communicable. This means it only suits you, in your belief system.

>>3067749
Why not? I surely can't troll myself.

Bump for truth, justice and the american way

No one expects the spanish inquisition.

>>3067568
science alone can't compare to the true hacker mindset little lad.

http://www.phrack.org/issues.html?issue=7&id=3&mode=txt

>>3068934
Interesting, what is the corollary though? A hacker has a physical system to manipulate. A troll, if he exists, only has a rhetorical and semantic system.

A troll, if he exists, must and can, only benefit from his imagination and the fullfillment that it gives.

>>3064386
bump for answers

>>3064397
>Oh and a GUI in Visual Basic to track the killer's IP.

You owe me a new monitor.

Any scientists out there?