Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

PsychoDigitalis


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1    The One Who Is

The One Who Is

    Id Quo Est

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,259 posts
  • Joined:22 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Unseen University

  • Your perception might be twisting but reality ain't moving to meet it.

    -sinewave

Posted 11 November 2008 - 12:31 AM

WARNING, SKEPTIC WITHIN

But I swear I'm being serious.


-cough-

Okay, from what I've been noticing, there are numerous similarities among what's required for the methods typically used to "read" people. I've compiled the ones I've seen most often into this admittedly short list.

1) Names
2) Photos
3) Numbers
4) Random events supposedly influenced by psychic abilities
5) Patterns
6) Purpose of the reading

Now, I'm an amateur programmer when I'm bored. And I noticed most of the things in the above list could be incorporated into a basic program which ought to, by rights, "read" people or situations [with a little interpretation from an intelligent being, of course]. So, I wrote PsychoDigitalis. Yes, I know it sounds like "Poison for the Brain." But it also sounds like "A Digital Mind" and "Insane Robot" and "Random Computer Program Dealing With Consciousness" [hopefully]. And no one else took that name yet.

I did quite a bit more research before determining on what parameters to use, and how to spread the influence from each of them to the other for the most balanced nonsensical gibberish readings. The main flow of the program that I have come up with so far is as follows. Unfortunately, I could find no way to analyze photographs. More power to anonymity.

1) A name, a basic situation, and a number are needed. The name can be any connected to the person. No discrimination against aliases here. The basic situation is needed to give a purpose to the reading. The number can be something related to the person, say their favorite one, or it can be completely random. After all, one should theoretically pick the perfect number for the situation no matter what. Even the most stubborn skeptic shouldn't be able to pick an irrelevant number, since the program reads a situation, and stubbornly picking a random number is a part of the situation.

2) The name, a condensed version of the situation, and the number are plugged into the program. They are run through a custom algorithm designed to generate semi-random numbers, and maximize the influence of all of the data on the final result. Even how random the results will be is entirely dependent on the original data.

3) The computer spits out a series of ten numbers carefully calculated in under a tenth of a hundredth of a second.

4) The numbers are compared against a preset pattern of words and phrases, which takes into account the arrangement, value, and individual pieces of the numbers. These results are interpreted based on the situation [rarely, there are double meanings, but it's always blindingly obvious as to which relates to the situation, since they're incredibly discrepant from each other].

5) The final results are then rearranged to make more coherent sense to someone not used to the program. This doesn't change the meaning whatsoever, since everything has been carefully set up to have the same meaning no matter which order specific groupings are read in.

- - -

Yes, this is a goofy experiment. I can deal with being told that.  tongue.gif

I welcome any and all coherent comments, from suggestions on other things necessary for a good reading [after all, I'm a skeptic, not a psychic], to mockery. I'd also enjoy having a few guinea pigs to test this out on and check if it's working right. I don't expect it to right now, but in time I feel I should be able to develop something reasonable.

If you don't feel like being a guinea pig, lab rats are welcome too.  wink2.gif

In various primitive cultures, it was believed that the brain served only to cool the body, being completely unrelated to thought. This is true only in certain people.

#2    Jack Griffin

Jack Griffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,285 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 12 November 2008 - 02:29 PM

The One Who Is on Nov 10 2008, 07:31 PM, said:

WARNING, SKEPTIC WITHIN

But I swear I'm being serious.


-cough-

Okay, from what I've been noticing, there are numerous similarities among what's required for the methods typically used to "read" people. I've compiled the ones I've seen most often into this admittedly short list.

1) Names
2) Photos
3) Numbers
4) Random events supposedly influenced by psychic abilities
5) Patterns
6) Purpose of the reading

Now, I'm an amateur programmer when I'm bored. And I noticed most of the things in the above list could be incorporated into a basic program which ought to, by rights, "read" people or situations [with a little interpretation from an intelligent being, of course]. So, I wrote PsychoDigitalis. Yes, I know it sounds like "Poison for the Brain." But it also sounds like "A Digital Mind" and "Insane Robot" and "Random Computer Program Dealing With Consciousness" [hopefully]. And no one else took that name yet.

I did quite a bit more research before determining on what parameters to use, and how to spread the influence from each of them to the other for the most balanced nonsensical gibberish readings. The main flow of the program that I have come up with so far is as follows. Unfortunately, I could find no way to analyze photographs. More power to anonymity.

1) A name, a basic situation, and a number are needed. The name can be any connected to the person. No discrimination against aliases here. The basic situation is needed to give a purpose to the reading. The number can be something related to the person, say their favorite one, or it can be completely random. After all, one should theoretically pick the perfect number for the situation no matter what. Even the most stubborn skeptic shouldn't be able to pick an irrelevant number, since the program reads a situation, and stubbornly picking a random number is a part of the situation.

2) The name, a condensed version of the situation, and the number are plugged into the program. They are run through a custom algorithm designed to generate semi-random numbers, and maximize the influence of all of the data on the final result. Even how random the results will be is entirely dependent on the original data.

3) The computer spits out a series of ten numbers carefully calculated in under a tenth of a hundredth of a second.

4) The numbers are compared against a preset pattern of words and phrases, which takes into account the arrangement, value, and individual pieces of the numbers. These results are interpreted based on the situation [rarely, there are double meanings, but it's always blindingly obvious as to which relates to the situation, since they're incredibly discrepant from each other].

5) The final results are then rearranged to make more coherent sense to someone not used to the program. This doesn't change the meaning whatsoever, since everything has been carefully set up to have the same meaning no matter which order specific groupings are read in.

- - -

Yes, this is a goofy experiment. I can deal with being told that.  tongue.gif

I welcome any and all coherent comments, from suggestions on other things necessary for a good reading [after all, I'm a skeptic, not a psychic], to mockery. I'd also enjoy having a few guinea pigs to test this out on and check if it's working right. I don't expect it to right now, but in time I feel I should be able to develop something reasonable.

If you don't feel like being a guinea pig, lab rats are welcome too.  wink2.gif



Right here!!! ME ME ME ME ME!


#3    The One Who Is

The One Who Is

    Id Quo Est

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,259 posts
  • Joined:22 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Unseen University

  • Your perception might be twisting but reality ain't moving to meet it.

    -sinewave

Posted 12 November 2008 - 02:32 PM

Paul Wagner on Nov 12 2008, 08:29 AM, said:

Right here!!! ME ME ME ME ME!

So, can you give me a name, number and basic situation, or should I use "Paul Wagner, 5, Excitement"?  w00t.gif

Edited by The One Who Is, 12 November 2008 - 02:33 PM.

In various primitive cultures, it was believed that the brain served only to cool the body, being completely unrelated to thought. This is true only in certain people.

#4    Jack Griffin

Jack Griffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,285 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 12 November 2008 - 02:37 PM

The One Who Is on Nov 12 2008, 09:32 AM, said:

So, can you give me a name, number and basic situation, or should I use "Paul Wagner, 5, Excitement"?  w00t.gif



Paul Wagner, 13, At work.


#5    The One Who Is

The One Who Is

    Id Quo Est

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,259 posts
  • Joined:22 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Unseen University

  • Your perception might be twisting but reality ain't moving to meet it.

    -sinewave

Posted 12 November 2008 - 03:01 PM

Paul Wagner on Nov 12 2008, 08:37 AM, said:

Paul Wagner, 13, At work.

Okay. I put the numbers the that were spit out too just for the heck of it. The program was surprisingly decisive about the fact that you're basically neutral and good with personal interactions.

69, 13, 17, 28, 32, 13, 74, 40, 51, 84

You tend to be neutral in most things, with a powerful mind willing to look at someone elseís view. And youíre also a nice person, not really wanting to see someone get hurt unnecessarily. Because of this, you often try to defuse tense situations, sometimes even before they exist. One of your most developed abilities is being able to take things in a new direction.

You might perhaps want to be slightly more aggressive, empowering yourself further, while still remaining basically open and friendly. But stick with approaching situations neutrally.

I only got a vague feeling about your work. Either you think itís too chaotic, or you think it could be a little more chaotic and less boring. Perhaps both, just related to different aspects of it.

In various primitive cultures, it was believed that the brain served only to cool the body, being completely unrelated to thought. This is true only in certain people.

#6    Jack Griffin

Jack Griffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,285 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 12 November 2008 - 03:08 PM

The One Who Is on Nov 12 2008, 10:01 AM, said:

Okay. I put the numbers the that were spit out too just for the heck of it. The program was surprisingly decisive about the fact that you're basically neutral and good with personal interactions.

69, 13, 17, 28, 32, 13, 74, 40, 51, 84

You tend to be neutral in most things, with a powerful mind willing to look at someone elseís view. And youíre also a nice person, not really wanting to see someone get hurt unnecessarily. Because of this, you often try to defuse tense situations, sometimes even before they exist. One of your most developed abilities is being able to take things in a new direction.

You might perhaps want to be slightly more aggressive, empowering yourself further, while still remaining basically open and friendly. But stick with approaching situations neutrally.

I only got a vague feeling about your work. Either you think itís too chaotic, or you think it could be a little more chaotic and less boring. Perhaps both, just related to different aspects of it.


Hysterical. Thanks. It was actually close to what is going on. I like that it gives opposite answers too. Either you think itís too chaotic, or you think it could be a little more chaotic and less boring.


#7    The One Who Is

The One Who Is

    Id Quo Est

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,259 posts
  • Joined:22 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Unseen University

  • Your perception might be twisting but reality ain't moving to meet it.

    -sinewave

Posted 12 November 2008 - 03:12 PM

Paul Wagner on Nov 12 2008, 09:08 AM, said:

Hysterical. Thanks. It was actually close to what is going on. I like that it gives opposite answers too. Either you think itís too chaotic, or you think it could be a little more chaotic and less boring.

Welcome.

That was actually part of a personal interpretation. What it actually said was something like "chaos is somehow vaguely and unimportantly related to your job." Only in computer speak. but i had to translate that into psychic-speak. XD

In various primitive cultures, it was believed that the brain served only to cool the body, being completely unrelated to thought. This is true only in certain people.

#8    Jack Griffin

Jack Griffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,285 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 12 November 2008 - 03:36 PM

The One Who Is on Nov 12 2008, 10:12 AM, said:

Welcome.

That was actually part of a personal interpretation. What it actually said was something like "chaos is somehow vaguely and unimportantly related to your job." Only in computer speak. but i had to translate that into psychic-speak. XD


It's still kool. Good work.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users