Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Command Interpreter.

Command Interpreter.
February 27, 2014, 09:59:00 PM
Computers are interesting things. Often in unexpected ways. Built by humans, they reflect the way humans think, and get things done. With all their genius, and all their flaws.
The Command Interpreter sits between the operator and the machine, translating human language into machine language. It is an insert, that comes between the two. Ostensibly to connect the two...

Consider what the result would be if the Command Interpreter was faulty.

I submit that for many humans, their own organic version of the Command Interpreter is faulty.

If this were so, how would the human know? All its input, everything it receives from its senses, would be flawed. But how would it know?

The mind can only juggle what it has to work with. Even an abstract hypothesis can only encompass the raw data it has access to. What if the conduit for delivering that raw data was flawed?

This accounts for the seeming impossibility of successfully presenting to anyone anything that they do not already know. The paradox of modern times. Shut down by an inability to receive new data that does not conform to what is already assumed, what other result would be possible? This is the nature of dogma. Once accepted, it is the ultimate death-machine. Nothing new can enter. Anything yet unknown, can never be known.

Those who recognize this will immediately understand. Those who don't quite possibly never will.

/EOL



Re: Command Interpreter.
February 28, 2014, 04:32:26 AM
The liberal response...

How would you feel if it turned out that your "command interpreter" was "faulty?"  You can't say that about people!1!!

Re: Command Interpreter.
February 28, 2014, 04:33:50 AM
Personally, I'd be damned happy to know about it, and eager to learn of possible field-mods.
I realize, though, that not everyone would feel that way about it.

Re: Command Interpreter.
February 28, 2014, 06:24:08 AM
I think there may be something to your line of thinking.  Sometimes, chance or circumstance or perhaps just naivete finds me in a conversation and the little voice in the back of my head goes off and says, "This is like trying to describe the dawn to a blind man; you'll never make him understand, and it's cruel to even try."

NHA

Re: Command Interpreter.
February 28, 2014, 10:32:14 AM
Quote
I submit that for many humans, their own organic version of the Command Interpreter is faulty.

I'd say they're all faulty, or more precisely: the Command Interpreter is limited, by design, to prevent overload/spontaneous combustion. Some realize this and work around it and some don't.

It seems that at any given time you simultaneously exist in multiple meta-realities, and additionally that the person who you are is actually different in each one. On the one hand you have a "true" physical reality, that you interact with on a purely mechanical level, as a blob of atomic matter and biological cells or whatever. Then you have the subjective reality of your own mind, encompassing the person who you think that you are - "the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves" - which btw, are probably lies. Then you have the person who you think that others think that you are. Then for every person observing you there is an alternate version of you; the person who _they_ think that _you_ are, which is not just _you_, but a projection of themselves onto you - or a mapping of the idea of you, onto their personal subjective reality, that conforms with the structure and expectations of their reality.

Re: Command Interpreter.
February 28, 2014, 02:45:14 PM
^^ That right there is a very interesting observation ^^

I've been thinking about that myself, recently. Realizing that that's how the ego works is the first step in getting it out of your way, I think. As soon as you start to see yourself as a part of reality that's bigger than you, you can begin to find your place in it. Most people don't get past telling stories about themselves, and projecting themselves onto other people. They see the universe as one big stage that sprang into existence the moment they were born, for their lives to be played out, and when they die, everyone else will come up and take a bow and say thanks and then wink out of existence again.

Re: Command Interpreter.
February 28, 2014, 03:46:38 PM
I do think it makes it easier to make like metal or the Hebrew prophets and act as a witness for the prosecution (I do love that phrase!) when reviewing our own lives and behavior.  I think it helps to take up what I like to call 'fail better' hobbies, things that force you to closely examine what you do in order to correct errors and improve.   I'm a fly fisherman, and the cast never lies.   If something doesn't work, it's because I fucked up.  It's a good exercise in sublimating the ego to achieve the desired results.  I imagine things like shooting sports function in much the same way.

Re: Command Interpreter.
February 28, 2014, 04:33:22 PM
Quote
I submit that for many humans, their own organic version of the Command Interpreter is faulty.

I'd say they're all faulty, or more precisely: the Command Interpreter is limited, by design, to prevent overload/spontaneous combustion. Some realize this and work around it and some don't.

Computers are built upon how Boolean logic functions, something prior to and beyond man rather than being built upon how man thinks.

Re: Command Interpreter.
February 28, 2014, 06:03:48 PM
Scourge, I think that crow was talking mainly about the personal computer and especially the PC's interface. Yes, all computers "think" by submitting a query through a series of logic gates but we don't see that going on. Crow's command interpreter is probably comparable to a GUI or command line, as far as I'm understanding. Nothing can really go wrong with simple if/then functions but it's been many a decade since humans have had to input binary code just to get a result out of a computer. The interface lets us get more work done in a much faster way, but the problem is, it can be faulty. Probably because it is so complicated. Maybe what crow is suggesting is that we can bypass our "GUI" (or subjective nature) and dig into the binary functions of absolute reality that underlie the GUI. Why suggest this? Because you can't have ambiguity in a binary context. The more complex a system is, the more susceptible it is to ambiguity, maybe?

Re: Command Interpreter.
February 28, 2014, 06:15:02 PM
That's close.
The parallel with a GUI is a good one. Look at ego as a Windows GUI. It has become more and more fancy, with unimportant stuff being added to the command line interface, almost purely to look good. Almost exactly like ego.
At some point, the importance of pure function gets forgotten and it becomes all about appearance.
The appearance, itself, starts to affect function, and...

Re: Command Interpreter.
February 28, 2014, 07:27:08 PM
That makes sense. The high level interface layer can cause faulty filtration and incomplete information to feed into the bitwise layers. That causes erroneous output. The interface layer is like a user-customized GUI with needless input fields that do not always deliver appropriate data to the underlying program.

Re: Command Interpreter.
February 28, 2014, 07:43:56 PM
That's close.
The parallel with a GUI is a good one. Look at ego as a Windows GUI. It has become more and more fancy, with unimportant stuff being added to the command line interface, almost purely to look good. Almost exactly like ego.
At some point, the importance of pure function gets forgotten and it becomes all about appearance.
The appearance, itself, starts to affect function, and...



NHA

Re: Command Interpreter.
February 28, 2014, 09:06:57 PM

Yea, except 4.4BSD's (what OSX derives from) shell/console environment is about a million times more functional than what comes in a default window's install today. Windows was POSIX compliant at one point too, unfortunately they intentionally crippled it. Good idea from a business standpoint, bad from tech.

Anyway, every time someone uses a computer analogy it eventually ends up distracting from the point rather than illustrating it.

Re: Command Interpreter.
March 01, 2014, 12:34:41 AM
You speak as an individual, possibly a techie, and internet posts are rarely aimed at addressing one-off cases.
I speak as an expert on failing to make anything clear to anybody without extensive use of metaphor.
Using such a technique, I sometimes manage to convey meaning to perhaps three people, rather than the customary none.
This very exchange, for example, hints at a possible malfunction in command interpretation.

Re: Command Interpreter.
March 01, 2014, 11:35:24 PM
Expanding on NHA's point: Given that the human equivalent is genetically/biologically determined in its parameters (or else it wouldn't exist), it would make sense that it has some structurally adaptability, certainly within a social context. In this sense, one could view certain ideologies as hijacking and rewiring the command interpreter.

Example: Some people are given an aptitude test. Group X accounts for 25% of the test takes, but only 5% of those who pass. Observing this, someone notes that Group X must not have sufficiently known the material. Big Brother then informs said observer that such talk is treason. The test must be 'oppressive' and 'discriminatory' against Group X. Unless you recognize this, you will suffer social exclusion, be stripped of an ability to make a living and feed your family, and possibly face criminal charges.
It would seem obvious how said observer's command interpreter might out of sheer need to survive restructure itself to be acceptably insane. One can run wild with thinking of extensions of this example.