Hi Darcy

About this post, as down right frightening as this may sound, the concept something inhabiting the internet is not that far fetched. I may not be an egghead science type, but if I remember my 9th grade science right, energy cannot be destroyed, it can only change form. So in my opinion is it possible for some entity to "possess" the internet and lash out from your computer, I would have to say yes to that. After all, what is evil, but another form of energy?

Whoa...thinks I channeled a bit of Master Li with that last part.

Hi Again

Well it is probable that an entity could enter and use the internet, couldn't we establish some sort of techno-psychic defense or perhaps a spell defense as well. After all, magic is energy too right?

There are reasons that electric or electronic machines are rarely (though occasionally) the targets for possession.

The first has to do with the electro-magnetic spectrum and how paranormal elements interact with it. This relates to how compasses go haywire, radio transmissions become garbled, drops in temperature and even why entities are not visible in the visible light spectrum.

Different entities interact with the electro-magnetic spectrum in different ways. Most seem optimized to possess organic brains, most especially human brains. Computers and the internet are foriegn and even hostile environments to most entities. There are of course exceptions but they are on the rare side.

Likewise, different wavelengths on the electromagnetic spectrum have shown to interfere with paranormal powers. There are a subset of abilities that are optimized for interaction with machines but even these abilities can be interefered with on some wavelengths.

There is also the subject of motive and emotions. These entities have demonstrated a desire for emotional interaction. Machines do not have emotions. They cannot be made afraid. They cannot be made to hate. They cannot be made to feel a sense of loss. They cannot lose hope. The only reason for an entity to possess a machine is to elicit these emotions from people. Therefore they do not optimize for such possession. Direct contact is easier and less resource intensive for them.

Studies are ongoing on how to use this information for detection and identification of supernatural entities. Some progress has also been made on interference and countermeasures.

I don't find that to be a comforting thought.

Find your off switch. Problem solved.
Hollister, you remember 9th grade science class only part right. Energy is not a thing that exists. It's a calculated quantity.

Skeptic,

You are mistaken in your assumption that there would be an off switch. As discussed, there may be multiple units operating in parallel and they may have independent power sources.

So no, problem is not solved.

You haven't even tackled the first issue.

Finding it.

Electronic devices not having an off switch.
Interesting idea.

Skeptic,

It is not a new concept. Electronic devices meant to be on permanently do not have off switches. Some internet routers, for example.

Many devices today lack a physical off switch, relying instead on wireless controls. It is not a stretch of the imagination to eliminate that wireless control.

All of which is mute if the device can't be found.

Your mistake is you're being too literal.
Either road, everything in the OP can be explained rather simply.
Sexually repressed moms get their freak on in chat rooms because they're possessed by human desires which have no other outlet.
Any script kiddie can pop up a message and print gobblygook.

Skeptic,

The OP already pointed out the skeptical point of view and how the first point could be explained.

Emergent artificial intelligence was declared unlikely but not impossible. Therefore not simply explained away.

Nor is being literal a mistake.

It is when it makes you be wrong.
Like it just did for you.

Skeptic,

Nothing I have said is wrong. Your declarations to the contrary are unsupported.

Obviously my claim is unsupported.
Electric circuits always have uninterrupted current.

Skeptic,

I will not engage in your straw man argument. No statement was made that electronic devices always have uninterrupted current. To attempt to suggest that is what was stated is fallacious and intellectually dishonest.

The only true thing stated in your last post is that your claim (that I am incorrect in my statements) is obviously unsupported.

I will not be reading or responding to your further posts. It is clear based on your interactions with me and your posting history here that you seek only to confirm your own biases. You do not engage in honest intellectual discussion and have not shown the least interest in any evidence that does not support your own biases unless you believe you can debunk it. You are not interested in even true debunking of ideas, you only dismiss them.

You may choose to continue to waste your resources here but I will not continue to waste resources on you.

You are wrong. Again.
You are the one with the straw man argument.
You misrepresented "off switch" as being a literal, phyiscal switch.
You were wrong. I told you you were wrong.
You denied it.
See, by telling me what I meant despite me telling you what I meant you built a straw man.
You know what a straw man is.
But you do not know one when you see it.

I have been investigating the paranormal for over thirty years.
I have never dismissed anything.

Feel free to support your assertions against me.
Or just claim victory and walk away.
But that says more about you than it does about me.

I dismissed nothing. I offered an explanation for human behaviour in a chat room.
The preacher says that if the priest does not solve your computer problems contact your local Geek Squad.
I am not dismissing that.

Pointing out where and how someone is wrong is not trolling.
I know that the truth can be aggravating.
But I cannot help that.

If by "Occam's Razor" you mean "Appeal to Popularity" then I agree.
If you do not, then you are wrong, too.

I attempted to discuss but I was jumped by a straw man.

I did not announce.
I explained.
I said something that was misrepresented.
What's the problem? Where's the dismissiveness?

I reject your appeal to popularity as a valid argument.
That's not being dismissive.
That's being logical.

Either road, I'm never surprised when people scurry away from the truth.

Perhaps instead you could deal with the truth that what I said was misrepresented and that you appealed to popularity rather than applied Occam's Razor?