Turing test of farcical web sites

RE: 'Internet Black Hole Discovered'

I don't think there is any objective way to decide if Thetus or In-Q-Tel are hyper-nerdly-farce's. That kind of direct knowledge is within the event horizon of the informational black hole. But similarly, your statement that enzymind is not a construct (a hyper-nerdly one at that) is also unverifiable. No statement of a guiding hypothesis is going to change that. We can't tell on what side of the event horizon we are on. The best anyone can do is a kind of Turing Test; have humans look at each site, and from the information they extract assign a subjective probability of whether it is farcical or not. If a concensus decides a site is not a farce, then it is not a farce (or has a low probability of being a farce).

But there is an objective metric for deciding if a black hole exists: if the site is ontologically consistant but has exactly no net meaning, then it surrounds an informational black hole. It does not matter for this decision whether the "surrounding" web language is farcical.

Reply

Security question, designed to stop automated spam bots