Reality cracking
Getting deeper into reality cracking
Comments about "An Essay Attempting to Justify the Relationship
Between
Code Cracking and
Reality Cracking"
Getting deeper into reality cracking
Comments about "An Essay Attempting to Justify the Relationship
Between
Code Cracking and
Reality Cracking"
I'll leave you now with <predator>'s observations,
read (if I may suggest, at least two times, you'll thank me for this tip) and enjoy (and add if needs be). Of course be aware of the fact that this
kind of reality cracking is the most "philosophical" one, as opposed to the more 'concrete'
anti-advertisement essays, and you may well be one of those skeptical souls
that feel the irresistible impulse to check if their wallet is still there
everytime they hear somebody
speaking about "soul" or "meme" :-)
Just kidding... there is a considerable
depth inside <predator>'s rantings (as well as inside Curious George's original ones) and
when I read this kind of stuff I get the strange feeling that we humble crackers and code
reversers (or
"reversalists" as <predator> calls us) are on the eve of unprevedible
philosophical discoveries... could it be that in this world software and life are
already so indissolubly bound that investigating the first you may find some of the answers for
the oldest questions of our human race?
You may want to read first the
original essay by 
Curious George without
<predator>'s interpolations
And now prepare for a very interesting, intriguing and deep lecture: reality cracking at its highest peaks!
*Submission to +Fravia's Reality Cracking essays.
*Who am I? I am <predator> .:. Reverse the universe .:. Sep 05 1998 (under edit.com)
*I use SuSE Linux and have Mess-dog6.2, I have staunchly refused to run any
*(a)version of M$-gui OS on my box. Commentry intercalated in:
*An Essay Attempting to Justify the Relationship Between Code Cracking
*and Reality Cracking (Why is Reality Cracking Important?)
*by Curious George (11 February 1997)
Courtesy of fravia's page
of reverse engineeringDear Fravia: ...More than that, "Reality Cracking" can be accomplished by anyone with a critical mind. You don't need hours of undisturbed time in front of the computer. You can practice your reality cracking skills all day long, everyday of your life! And you should, lest you be taken advantage of unknowingly... ...Having read all of the Reality Cracking section, and a decent amount of the rest, and being fascinated by the +ORC enigma, I felt compelled to write an essay that covers two topics. First, I discuss reality as a whole. Second, I tried to get into +ORC's mind (funny, me of all people, probably one who knows least about him...) and find an overall motive... hope you enjoy! Best Regards Curious George(Introduction)
All about Reality ~ Appropriate for all readers ~ No difficulty level Why is Reality Cracking Important? An Essay Attempting to Justify the Relationship Between Code Cracking and Reality Cracking written by Curious George
(body)
¿What is Reality Anyway?
*The universe is data, and interactions between data.
*Treat it as data and all will become clear.
Lets start from the very beginning. We talk of Reality
Cracking, but we don't really know what reality is, do we?
*We can never actually know. "We" - our live code, the dynamic data structure
*that we are, our "personality" - exists by proxy, molecularly encoded in a
*biochemically based, massively parallel neural-net processor. Some call this
*a soul or spirit, or persona. The suite of simultaneously-operating
*thought-process daemons in THIS head, which refers to itself as <predator>'s
*head refers to them as... well, just what they said they were at the start of
*this paragraph : simultaneously-operating thought-process daemons. They/we/I
*are a huge, parallel, evolving computation. A self-contained information
*ecology. So, I think, are you too.
I believe (with lots of other people too, like Plato,
and Orwell to name two) that it is whatever you think it is.
*Also correct. It cannot be otherwise in a symbol processor like the brain,
*which emulates and models a perception-derived reality, but cannot experience
*it directly. A processor does not *know* its registers have any particular
*external pertinence, nor does a neuron *know* that its particular state of
*synaptic receptor density, neurotransmitter receptivity profile or axon
*depolarisation have any pertinence or even relationship to anything. The
*relationship is there, but the interacting components in this do not know
*it, even if they represent it. Only in recursion and self-reference do
*systems ever model themselves and thereby "know" themselves, insofar as a
*system can know anything. Read Douglas Hofstadter, "Gödel Escher Bach".
More specifically, there are the models ("Paradigms") that
define reality for those who subscribe to them.
*Correct, although explained from the human's-eye view, from the perspective
*of the processor. You want to get at the _code_, don't you? Here's the deal:
*first learn to understand that the universe and all the processes in it are
*understandable in terms of information systems. Start with the processor:
*the human neural network, codified in 3x10^9 base pairs in the human DNA
*genome, implemented as billions of neurons connected combinatorially in
*trillions of different ways. It has been honed by evolution to act as a kind
*of universal computer - a Turing machine: it can emulate any process, be it
*language, tool use, or abstract information processing. By biasing receptor
*concentration, synaptic neurotransmitter synthesis rates, and indeed even
*growing new transmission links in particular ways, the neural net trains
*itself to do particular tasks, such as pattern recognition, information
*storage, symbol processing, and a lot of other things. It has also evolved
*in such a way as to be connected to inputs of incredible sensitivity and
*large bandwidth; eyes, ears, skin, smell, taste, balance... these detect
*external "real" events... photon capturings, (you perform breakdown thereof
*and analysis of patterns therein, you have retinal neural-net preprocessing);
*audio frequency spectrum analysis, temperature, pressure, acidity, the
*presence of certain molecules dissolved in gas or liquids, etc. The
*detectors, usually G-proteins coupled to molecular signal-gain systems
*(usually catalytic cascades) turn it into "data" by various means, ultimately
*represented by neural firings. These recieved patterns gradually are modelled
*by the human neural net processor. The processor is also connected to
*actuators: muscles, which enable externally-detectable realities to be
*modified, and data to be transmitted.
*In humans, output bandwidth is slow and small, except for the output which
*benefits the genes which code for us - the penis has _big_ output bandwidth.
*Speech is hopelessly slow, making love is hopelessly slow, dancing, writing,
*drawing, sign language, semaphore, typing... compared to the size of the
*data structure that is the human personality, the output bandwidth for the
*expression of human thought is trivial and totally inadequate to achieve
*significant personality transfer without a lot of time to do it.
*Self-awareness comes when the net learns that it can observe the consequences
*of actions it decided to perform. It hears its own voice, or it sees its own
*hand shake in front of own eyes. It comes eventually to recognise that in
*the mirror, as it looks into its own eyes and points these detectors at
*themselves, that there is a time when it is not "looking at other stuff" -
*it has discovered its own chassis. In English, this is explained by
*a phrase like "Yep, I'm looking at me."
*footnote about penile bandwidth from a rant I sent to a fellow geneweaver:
>Maybe I've memed you. I think transmission is simply one component of a
>multicomponent replication system, but a highly critical one nevertheless.
>Transmitting into the aural port of say, a mute quadriplegic or a person who
>speaks a language different to that in which the transmission is codified, or
>into the ear of Dolly the sheep, are illuminating examples of contingencies
>which have to be met for replication, let alone successful transmission.
>For memes, transmission is central to reproduction, because, like viri, they
>need to find a new host into which to propagate. They are obliged to find
>a processor to do their processing for them, since they can't do it
>themselves. Wanking also induces a kind of data transmission and it must be
>pointed out that the sheer amount of code that a functional orgasm transmits
>is quite vast. 1.5x10^9 base pairs per haploid spermatozoon, and hmmm...
>several hundred million of them per ml of ... transmission fluid (grin). I
>think that by comparison a T3 fibre optic cable, at 4.5x10^7 bits per second,
>is left floundering in the dust, dwarfed by the sheer bandwidth of a
>mammalian penis, which also has channel division multiplexing (you can send
>several thousand million of the little data packets up the conduit at the
>same instant) plus there is huge redundancy too. Gives the term upload a
>whole new meaning. I think if my modem could transmit data that fast it'd
>groan and sigh too. :-)
*So much for the processor of interest. There are other processors using
*other languages (cells process information in a molecular form, they have
*mechanisms functionally analogous to the electrical systems which humans
*have built, but that's another rant entirely.)
*You reversalists, the tiny, approaching-zero minority of brains harbouring
*thought processes like those that I harbour.... I promised you the _code_,
*didn't I? Ok, cop this.
*Data is stuff which is changed, by changers which modify stuff. This is an
*obvious tautology. When the changers change the changers you have a chaotic
*highly nonlinear system, such as we are.
*Life is a set of processes which dynamically organise data.
*There is dead code... this is called data. Atoms are data. Charge states,
*photon flux intensities, velocities, positions, size of first girlfriend's
*shoe, etc etc etc... these are data. There they sit, statically related
*to each other, but they don't change much. You can represent these data with
*other data, like ASCII zeros and ones can represent the letter "p", or a
*bucket with eleven rocks in it can represent the number of protons in an
*atom of sodium. Data representation is substrate independant, but some
*forms of data substrate lend themselves more easily to manipulated than
*others.
*There are functional codes... in mathematics, these are called (surprise)
*functions or relations; in physics you might call them operators (like
*Hamiltonians)... stuff data in, and it comes out changed in some way
*dependant on the data and the function and the way the two interact.
*In a system like a cell it might be something like an active enzyme
*modifying a "dead" molecule, maybe changing its stereochemistry or
*ripping off an atom... in programming it might be a function like
*incrementing the x register or comparing what's in the x register with the
*y register. Functional code modifies dead code. Functional code alters the
*links between distinct chunks of dead code. Functional code is special: it
*can use dead code to represent other dead code. This is data emulation, or
*more commonly, symbolism. Computation is what functional code does to data.
*Functional code, very importantly, can turn dead code into more functional
*code. Functional code can turn functional code into dead code, too.
*There are many kinds of functional code, and the chances are good that by
*sheer accident, functional code will arise out of dead code. This never
*happens in digital computing since what the processor gets to chew on is all
*deliberately predetermined. Nonetheless, I think it'd be interesting to
*say, stuff random values into, say, a MESS-DOG program segment pointer and
*see what happens... (this is the computational equivalent of the Miller-Urey
*biology experiments which I'd encourage you to look up). I think you might
*occasionally get a few instructions which accidentally did something useful,
*and even less frequently, ones which replicated themselves. But it would be
*very rare. Give it enough time and clock cycles, it'll nonetheless happen.
*Its all computation and data. "Artificial Life" (Steven Levy) is an
*illuminating tome in this regard, since computation is also substrate
*independant. Conway's Game of Life is similarly illuminating.
*The really interesting stuff happens when these two code systems
*start to interact... you get firstly referential code, like "That cat is
*obese"; then self-referential code, which can represent logical absurdities,
*like "This is not a sentence" or self-definitional truth "This sentence
*has five words"; then self-reproducing code "Copy this sentence", and
*ultimately self-modifying code "Copy this sentence backwards twice".
*"Life" has all of these, and combinations thereof, built out of interactions
*between dead code and live code. Their interactions are the origin of
*evolution. Excellent examples are there in Hofstadter: "Metamagical Themas",
*particularly in Chapter 3, which pertains to memes and viral sentences.
*The replicating data system (human being) is coded in DNA which expresses
*enzymes, which do the functional code stuff. Each enzyme is encoded in DNA
*as what is called a "gene". Genes encode enzymes, cells, organs, organisms,
*ecosystems, to get themselves replicated down the generations. Genes do not
*know this any more than a bacteria knows it has genes. Most humans think
*they're something special, they're wrong: they're just accidentally evolved
*replicators, with brains which occasionally realise what they are. By analogy,
*to genes, Richard Dawkins came up with the idea of the "meme" - a replicating
*thought process data structure. (See "The Selfish Gene, 2nd Ed, Chapter 10")
*Simple memes embody catchy tunes, more complex ones are codified in axioms,
*phonemes, life-protocols, taboos, oral traditions, blah blah etc along with
*hundreds of other replicators, ranging from totally accurate and logical to
*utterly fucking insane, end up forming mutually-self-supporting colonies
*called ideologies, belief-systems, paradigms, weltanschauungs, religions...
*call 'em what you will, I call them meme complexes. Here are some components
*of JARG400.ZIP plus replicator-relevant chunks added in support my stance:
))))))))
Criterion for a lifeform: (von Neumann) - the essence of life is a _process_.
:replicator: n. Any construct that acts to produce copies of itself;
this could be a living organism, an idea (see {meme}), a program (see
{quine}, {worm}, {wabbit}, {fork bomb}, and {virus}), a pattern in a
cellular automaton (see {life}, sense 1), or (speculatively) a robot or
{nanobot}.
It is even claimed by some that {{UNIX}} and {C} are the symbiotic
halves of an extremely successful replicator; see {UNIX conspiracy}.
:memetics: /me-met'iks/ [from {meme}] The study of memes. As of
mid-1993, this is still an extremely informal and speculative endeavor,
though the first steps towards at least statistical rigor have been made
by H. Keith Henson and others. Memetics is a popular topic for speculation
among hackers, who like to see themselves as the architects of the new
information ecologies in which memes live and replicate.
:meme: /meem/ [coined by analogy with `gene', by Richard Dawkins] n. An
idea considered as a {replicator}, esp. with the connotation that memes
parasitize people into propagating them much as viruses do. Used esp.
in the phrase `meme complex' denoting a group of mutually supporting
memes that form an organized belief system, such as a religion. This
lexicon is an (epidemiological) vector of the `hacker subculture' meme
complex; each entry might be considered a meme. However, `meme' is often
misused to mean `meme complex'. Use of the term connotes acceptance of
the idea that in humans (and presumably other tool- and language-using
sophonts) cultural evolution by selection of adaptive ideas has
superseded biological evolution by selection of hereditary traits.
Hackers find this idea congenial for tolerably obvious reasons.
:meme plague: n. The spread of a successful but pernicious {meme}, esp.
one that parasitizes the victims into giving their all to propagate it.
Astrology, BASIC, and the other guy's religion are often considered
to be examples. This usage is given point by the historical fact that
`joiner' ideologies like Naziism or various forms of millennarian
Christianity have exhibited plague-like cycles of exponential growth
followed by collapses to small reservoir populations.
:nanotechnology:: /nan'-oh-tek-no`l*-jee/ n. A hypothetical fabrication
technology in which objects are designed and built with the
individual specification and placement of each separate atom. The first
unequivocal nanofabrication experiments took place in 1990, for
example with the deposition of individual xenon atoms on a nickel
substrate to spell the logo of a certain very large computer company.
Nanotechnology has been a hot topic in the hacker subculture ever since
the term was coined by K. Eric Drexler in his book "Engines of Creation",
where he predicted that nanotechnology could give rise to replicating
assemblers, permitting an exponential growth of productivity and personal
wealth. See also {blue goo}, {gray goo}, {nanobot}.
:wabbit: /wab'it/ [almost certainly from Elmer Fudd's immortal line
"You wascawwy wabbit!"] n. 1. A legendary early hack reported on a
System/360 at RPI and elsewhere around 1978; this may have descended
(if only by inspiration) from hack called RABBITS reported from 1969 on a
Burroughs 55000 at the University of Washington Computer Center.
The program would make two copies of itself every time it was run,
eventually crashing the system. 2. By extension, any hack that includes
infinite self-replication but is not a {virus} or {worm}. See {fork bomb}
and {rabbit job}, see also {cookie monster}.
:sig virus: n. A parasitic {meme} embedded in a {sig block}.
There was a {meme plague} or fad for these on USENET in late 1991.
Most were equivalents of "I am a .sig virus. Please reproduce me in your
.sig block.". Of course, the .sig virus's memetic hook is the giggle
value of going along with the gag; this, however, was a self-limiting
phenomenon as more and more people picked up on the idea. There were
creative variants on it; some people stuck `sig virus antibody' texts
in their sigs, and there was at least one instance of a sig virus eater.
*I have an interesting bilingual version of this virus. The bilinguality
*of the package is probably self-advantageous to the .sig virus when it is in
*Germany or Englishspeaking nations:
*Ich bin ein .signature Virus. Mach' mit und kopiere mich in Deine .signature.
*Don't ask what it means, just put it in your .signature, okay?
:fork bomb: [UNIX] n. A particular species of {wabbit} that can be
written in one line of C (`main() {for(;;)fork();}') or shell
(`$0 & $0 &') on any UNIX system, or occasionally created by an
egregious coding bug. A fork bomb process `explodes' by recursively
spawning copies of itself (using the UNIX
system call `fork(2)'). Eventually it eats all the process table
entries and effectively wedges the system. Fortunately, fork bombs
are relatively easy to spot and kill, so creating one deliberately
seldom accomplishes more than to bring the just wrath of the gods
down upon the perpetrator. See also {logic bomb}.
:phage: n. A program that modifies other programs or databases in
unauthorized ways; esp. one that propagates a {virus} or {Trojan
horse}.See also {worm}, {mockingbird}. The analogy, of course,
is with phage viruses in biology.
:virus: [from the obvious analogy with biological viruses, via SF]
n. A cracker program that searches out other programs and `infects'
them by embedding a copy of itself in them, so that they become {Trojan
horse}s.
When these programs are executed, the embedded virus is executed too, thus
propagating the `infection'. This normally happens invisibly to the
user.
Unlike a {worm}, a virus cannot infect other computers without
assistance.
It is propagated by vectors such as humans trading programs with
their friends (see {SEX}). The virus may do nothing but propagate itself
and then allow the program to run normally. Usually, however, after
propagating silently for a while, it starts doing things like writing cute
messages on the terminal or playing strange tricks with the display
(some viruses include nice {display hack}s). Many nasty viruses, written by
particularly perversely minded {cracker}s, do irreversible damage,
like nuking all the user's files.
In the 1990s, viruses have become a serious problem, especially among
IBM PC and Macintosh users (the lack of security on these machines enables
viruses to spread easily, even infecting the operating system). The
production of special anti-virus software has become an industry,
and a number of exaggerated media reports have caused outbreaks of
near hysteria among users; many {luser}s tend to blame *everything*
that doesn't work as they had expected on virus attacks. Accordingly,
this sense of `virus' has passed not only into techspeak but into
also popular usage (where it is often incorrectly used to denote a
{worm} or even a {Trojan horse}). See {phage}; compare {back door};
see also {UNIX conspiracy}.
:worm: [from `tapeworm' in John Brunner's novel "The Shockwave Rider",
via XEROX PARC] n. A program that propagates itself over a network,
reproducing itself as it goes. Compare {virus}. Nowadays the term
has negative connotations, as it is assumed that only {cracker}s
write worms. Perhaps the best-known example was Robert T. Morris's
`Internet Worm' of 1988, a `benign' one that got out of control and
hogged hundreds of Suns and VAXen across the U.S. See also {cracker},
{RTM}, {Trojan horse}, {ice}.
:quine: /kwi:n/ [from the name of the logician Willard V. Quine, via
Douglas Hofstadter] n. A program that generates a copy of its own
source text as its complete output. Devising the shortest possible
quine in some given programming language is a common hackish amusement.
Here is one classic quine:
((lambda (x)
(list x (list (quote quote) x)))
(quote
(lambda (x)
(list x (list (quote quote) x)))))
This one works in LISP or Scheme. It's relatively easy to write
quines in other languages such as Postscript which readily handle
programs as data; much harder (and thus more challenging!) in languages
like C which do not. Here is a classic C quine for ASCII machines:
char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main()
{printf(f,34,f,34,10);}%c";
main(){printf(f,34,f,34,10);}
For excruciatingly exact quinishness, remove the interior line
breaks. Some infamous {Obfuscated C Contest} entries have been quines that
reproduced in exotic ways.
))))))))))
*Why are representations and computations substrate-independant? Because it's
*_all_ data! The universe is a computation. Only the scale varies.
These
Paradigms have two properties:
their strength grows directly with the number of people
subscribing to them, and they
are self reinforcing.
*Correct, but again, not detailed enough. The first comment is an observation
*about epidemics of replicating systems, be they for(k) bombs, bacteria, or
*any exponentiating data set in what is known as "log phase" (logarithmic
*growth). Sales of records and particular styles of clothing can be pushed
*into log phase by propagating memes about them via the Media. The second
*comment usually applies, though in some cases the meme complexes kill their
*hosts... various suicide cults have demonstrated this.
For example, there is the "western culture" paradigm
that the once was centered in
Europe, but now (unfortunately?) has re-centred to the
USA is, and other nations follow
to a greater or lesser extent. The Media (with a
*Correct. Its primary epidemiological vectors were mercantilism and
*colonialism, which loosely translated mean ripping off resources and
*metastatising, as other replicating systems (e.g. tumor cells) do to their
*host organism. Western culture is metastatic, necrotizing, and will
*eventually poison and starve the Gaian ecosystem from where its hosts
*derive foodstuffs.
capital "M") both creates/ preaches/
and echoes this reality and the
*the global media is almost totally owned by ten large corporations. These
*coporations are immortal, as Adam Smith suspected that corporations were,
*even back in the late 19th century before corporations became what they are
*now : they're sprawling, replicating data colonies, competing for energy and
*resources, just like biological organisms, and daemons in multiprocessor
*systems do. Good replicators are those which act to bring advantages to
*themselves. Corporations do just that, utterly ruthlessly.
*"That is what he does. That's all he does!"
* -Kyle Reese, Terminator (I).
TV-zombies suck it in
and live it. Western Culture and
the Media are just two Paradigms. There are others...
*TV-zombies are not that way by accident. They exist because society has been
*very carefully crafted by corporations to turn people into isolated robotic
*consumer-units. I have attached here, in its entirety, my file memeroot.doc
*with small bits left inside from my geneweaving mate demarked ##.
*The transcripts of radio interviews with Noam Chomsky are instructive here.
----------------------------------------------------------File:
MEMEROOT.DOC
Contents: Theoretical explanation for the controllability of western people.
===Child rearing - insertion of logic bombs into chidren for later control====
Question: Why do otherwise normal people go totally fucking crazy?
First a few definitions:
Meme: an idea considered as a replicator. See Ch 11 Dawkins, The Selfish Gene.
Culture: A growth of a single type of replicator upon a fuel/substrate.
Eg: -a group of bacteria on a growth medium
-industrial society on petroleum-derived energy + mineral wealth
-memes on language-using sophont data storage media (brains)
These can be broadly considered as evolved, geographically-confined group
social parameters. Hence you have things called "Work Ethics" and
"Corporate Culture" and so on.
"The Big Three" Immortal Meme Colonies.
(Ignoring territoriality, gene superiority memes, etc).
Religion: Organised, hierachial behaviour-controlling belief system.
Hooks: Avoidance of biological death for adherents.
Avoidance of alleged eternal torture for adherents.
Supposed post-mortal reward for particular "good" behaviour
God Is Observing You And Will Spank Your Arse When You Die
(etc etc etc etc etc)
Fuel: human dislike of mortality and fear of punishment.
##This stuff is GREAT!
Corporation: Literally "Embodiment".
Organised, hierachial behaviour controlling belief system.
Hooks: Transfer of purchasing power ("Free Energy" tokens)
to satisfiers of particular demanded requirements.
Exclusive source of want satisfaction by laying
claim to all resources used in want satisfaction
(eg: corporate ownership of Sooooo Muuuch Land)
Fuel: Organisation of satisfaction of diversified needs.
Thermodynamic drive from the "Next Best Thing To A Free
Lunch", cheaply extractable and usable energy which can
be used to perform need-satisfaction-directed work.
##Hmm - a little obscurely put, but still good.
Bureaugovernment: Departmentalised behaviour-controlling belief system.
##Woohoo! LAWS!
Well, we all know the things which run the world. Corporations, governments,
religions and cultures, in approximately that order. They are all immortal,
information-based life forms growing in the interconnected hardware/software
substrate of language-compatible human brains. Yet they all depend on a
commonality of persona in the substrates in which they reside. If you like,
an operating system. This "OS" is the collection of "strings" attached to
a persona during childhood, which get pulled later on, to bring about desired
behavioural effects (obedience, submission, etc) in people. These strings are
woven into the fabric of a child's psyche at an early age, before the child
realises what is being done.
The child, a Turing system (capable of emulating any process given enough
time) develops autonomy in approximately the following order.
1) Child learns operation of basic body functions. Eyes, larynx, arms, legs,
head (etc). This takes about a year or two.
2) Once the neural net has learnt how to deal with stimulus (input) and
invoke useful output (response) on more than a reflex level, environmental
manipulation can commence, since the discovery is eventually made that
particular manners of direct physical interaction evoke changes to the
personal world. Aversion to certain things is associated here, such as
fire, cold, and physical damage stimuli. This also takes only a couple
of years.
3) Syntactic structures are deduced and gradually an abstract-capable meme
and data transfer medium, language, is learnt. This process drops out of
the child in the late teens, hence the difficulty of learning new
languages from the late teens onwards.
4) It starts to learn to transmit information by vocal or other gestures, and
learns that such information transmission can modify the surrounding
environment in order to meet particular local needs, in a directed way,
eg: being fed, kept warm, touched and held, etc. This process continues
for the life of the individual though at a much reduced rate after the
mid-teens.
5) The kid now has crude, nonphysical remote interaction with objects other
than oneself. Soon comes mobility, directed experimental manual
manipulation of objects, then purposeful, goal-oriented complex action.
This includes building of a world-model : the deduction that magic does
not work, certain thought processes are self-contradictory, that there
is a relationship between certain actions and behaviours, and between
particular causes and effects. The world-model is subject to continual
lifelong environmental modification, though with training induced
early enough, it can be stopped in its tracks.
(is it possibly entirely arbitrary that we have states "childhood" and
"adulthood" Or is it like "L" plates for a few years, then a full
license?)
##YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!
Here, the memes install themselves, at the behest of their current carriers -
parents and educators - before the child has a chance to analyse them for
raving inconsistency. The severity of the installation is often shocking.
Kids are beaten senseless in some cases, merely because they're crying
about something they fail to understand. But it works.
M-S.D.O.S. Meme-System Destruction Of Singularity
This is my (: name for the meme-set initially installed in small children.
It is the behavioural profile upon which rests the huge subsequent edifice of
ideological replicators.
Theory = When you possess an idea.
Ideology = When an idea possesses you.
So:
Answer) You can pull core coding, the "Kernel", out of pre-1970s child raising
and parenthood manuals. They are designed primarily to make life easier for
the parents at the cost of inhibiting the growth of the child. The hidden
irrational memetic tenets to be adhered to, are these:
1) Adults are the masters of the (dependant!) child. They're not its servants.
2) Adults are infallible. Their edicts are quite literally rules-by-decree.
3) Adults get angry due to some fault in the child (not the adult's fault!).
4) Adults cannot bear their own weakness and thus must not be told of it.
5) Adult autocracy is threatened by child vitality.
6) Adults MUST break the _child's will_ as soon as possible at all costs.
7) Adults must implement these tenets before the child realises they're fake.
What are the memes which actually enable these tenets to be fulfilled?
An incomplete list, which gives a flavour of the components, is below:
Some Paradigms to be Aware of
*You're certainly on the right track, but you need to be very clear about
*this. Ask yourself what these things are in terms of information theory...
*are they data, live code manipulating data, processors/substrates or are
*they transmission systems?
Western
*is a "culture", which is a meme colony superset.
the Media
*is, epidemiologically, a "vector", a transmission/propagation system. They
*are distinct from the particular -lifestyle- which they portray, which I
*think you could call consumerism, itself a co-evolute with corporations.
*The corporate media harbours many filters and censorship (etc).
Science
*is unusual in that it self-checks for internal and external validity, but is
*also a meme colony with data validity testing and lie-detection
Islam
Christianity (esp. fundamentalism)
*Both religions, which have a epistemological-fringe meme - a "god" meme
*component in them. When rational inquiry fails, invoke god.
others...?
*Corporations. From the Latin, "corpore", meaning an embodiment. But an
*embodiment of what? Corporations are the functionally-expressed, physical
*representation of a huge, parasitic, self-reinforcing thought-process colony,
*a massive distributed data set, evolved solely for the purpose of gathering
*financial, resource and energy advantages towards itself and its hosts.
*Two common ones which pervade most of TV-zombie-planet
* Anamism. (Meme) Since animals are alive, therefore rock, water, sunlight is too.
* Teleology. (Meme) Since some bio-things function so well as to appear
purpose-designed, then obviously they were designed, and
this implies a designer (see God).
*English has replicator-state-active flag suffixes: here's a couple for you
*to keep an eye-out for if searching for colonial thought-process replicators:
* -ism -ology -hood (less often) -ity -inc/Pty.Ltd/GmbH
#'s 2, 3, and 5 all are aspects of 1. I list these as
separate, because for some people
they are strong enough to become the principle model of
reality with the others simply
being general cultural factors. i.e. a MD has the
strongest affinity for 3, and 1 contains
2 and 5 for him. A reporter on the other hand has the
strongest affinity for 2, and 1
contains for him 3 and 5.
*I too have found it hard to classify these in terms of each other, and I
*realise that each meme colony we might name will have significant homology
*with another meme colony, much in the same way as some bacterial genes have'
*similarities with human genes, pointing to a common precursor.
On That Elitist Group Who Declare to be Truth Seekers
*in general, they have no idea - truth is a moving target.
What is "news?"
*in my experience, mostly crap. Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" is the
*absolutely, must-see, cash-in-of-your-reality-cheque video on this subject.
Most of it is FICTION believe it or not. You know all
of those "scientific" discoveries
/polls/etc. that They cite? Most of them are
observations (correlational) rather than
experimental (cause/effect) and they haven't
*correct... they never let the truth stand in the way of what they percieve
*to be telling of a story which will show up the media, or the corporations
*who own them, or other corporations like them, in a self-favourable light.
*"University tests prove... that university tests don't prove anything."
been
confirmed yet (and probably never
will be). Also, the reporters are forced (through no
fault of their own) to pick and
choose what they report, which is determined by what
they are interested in, and what they
are interested in is what they believe, and they
believe the news that they hear...so the
set of what the Media reports is a biased sample of the
true set of what is actually
happening.
*Australian journalist George Negus meme-sculpted the Oz media in the early
*1980s with his Carlos scam. See: Sagan, Carl: "A Demon-Haunted World."
*A tremendous reverse-job if you ask me!
Then we get to the problem of humans'
inability to write objectively, as well as
the dominant "view of the self," (60's American
political liberalism mixed in with resurgent
Puritan values stripped of religious significance and a
healthy dose of materialism) an
aspect of the Western
Paradigm.*BING! My -ism detector just went off twice there. See? A great reality
*flag search tool.
Other reasons why news is fiction? Well, forgetting the
objectivity part, reporters
PURPOSELY misrepresent the 'facts'. Yes that's true. I
can't count the number of "moles"
within the Media who've openly admitted this
to me.*None admit it to me, but in my dealings with the media it is transparently
*obvious. There has been a sustained and highly orchestrated media character
*assassination of a politician (Hanson) in Australia, who dared to show up the
*political lies and bullshit for what they are. I find that even relatively
*bright people are quite heavily infiltrated with shallow, knee-jerk media
*opinions, and when questioned, can't deal with it at all.... they take it
*personally when you criticise their gullibility.
One
particular person related how by
peer pressure the editors select bad photos of some
people and good photos of others,
sometimes completely out of context. They constantly
manipulate the words, images, etc. to
be artificial creations representing their own
opinions, so much that when They are done,
the result is far from what "really" happened...
But many of *correct... some politicians know this and, for example, never wear a funny
*hat in public, since they know that the Media will haul out the photo of the
*politician in the funny hat and use it in derogatory way.
them don't realize this (but
the especially cynical ones do and continue doing
it...) because they live within the reality
model that They help create and reinforce. They think
that They are being professionals
objectively stating "the Truth". And of course we
started this whole thing asking "what
is reality?" For the people who share the "Western"
paradigm, THE NEWS
IS REALITY.*Many people here in Oz are incapable of seeing otherwise. It's quite pitiful.
*But the competition is hotting up. I imagine that, wherever you are, the main
*stream media demonise the internet? Supposedly because you can get info
*on drugs, pictures of humans replicating, instructions for explosives
*manufacture, compressed MP3's of sound recordings for which you would
*otherwise have to cough up A$30 to some multinational record company (eg:CBS)
*etc etc etc... but this is peripheral, and you can get all that at libraries
*anyway. The TV/radio/newsprint conglomerates hate the internet since 1)
*they can't censor it; 2) they don't make profit out of it, and 3) it is the
*natural enemy of their fake-info industry, since it can propagate actual,
*unedited truth, much as does +ORC.
(if you didn't see it on TV, it didn't happen. This
isn't on TV. This isn't happening. You
are dreaming. When I say "asparagus" you will wake and
not remember anything that has happened
to you in the last
five minutes...)*ROFL very hard! Tinged with the sadness of truth. Nothing to see...
* ;-) ...Ever played a video game which said: "You will lose twenty cents" ?
Another One
Science is formed on some basic assumptions, and even
though the
scientists can point these assumptions out, they don't
live
them. *such as? So far, you are kinda compelled to live out your life according to
*the laws of thermodynamics, regardless of what you believe or even if you
*know them. Some scientists amazingly run parallel and contradictory opinions
*in their heads, some are religious (believers) yet do science (nonbelievers)
*which strikes me as kinda strange.
We all know that there
are things in the world that science
can't explain (yet?). *Science has killed most of the other delusions which you could test... like
*spontaneous generation, like flat earth, like ESP spoonbending, etc etc etc.
*Many of those inexplicables are around because science _can't_ attack them.
*Why can't science attack them? Cause they evolved to avoid attack by science.
*They have no shred of reality upon which science can base an attack. These
*are most commonly existance-of-god type memes, usually untestable hypotheses.
*Since these inexplicables exist in our minds, it is there which they must
*be attacked. Not for what they evolved to appear to be, but what they are:
*meme colonies evolved to avoid prima facie logical analysis. I think
*information theory pretty much has these delusions by the balls. See Daniel
*Dennett's recent works for additional amusement.
Some scientists are so involved
in their model that they, from within the model, claim
that nothing else exists! Well we
know that's
absurd.*Do they? You said at the start that reality is whatever you think it is.
*Wether scientists believe it or not, they are, by their nature as scientists,
*compelled to test their beliefs. Religions demand that their hosts do NOT
*test their beliefs. Therein lies the difference. There are, of course, a lot
*of religions which evolved under the selection pressure of scientific testing
*to either become totally untestable or which evolved to look like science.
*$cientology, and the Church of Christ Scientist, are ones which come to mind.
*The Ha'dith is a referencing system in bloodthirsty, misogynist Islam which
*enables, much like scientific journals, the tracing of a memetic lineage.
*Jehova's Witnesses also claim to scientifically reference things (they also
*print a massive amount of "documented `fact about their religion" which is
*propaganda, and what I have read of their literature is flawed too.) That
*$cientology is absolute insanity (I found some of their texts at a bookstore
*one day, I had not faced such incomprehensible gobbledegook in my life) is
*irrelevant to the hosts who carry it; $cientology does have one
*powerful observation in it: that is, "To control someone, lie to them."
*Well, actually, from your point of view, you can't say its absurd, unless
*you go and test their model. Science invites, no, demands that knowledge
*earns its stripes by submission to testing.
Almost everybody can point to an
unusual experience and say that it
happened, but they are afraid to because it isn't
"normal" and therefore it
is wrong..*Normality is a statistical artefact, and non-normality doesn't invalidate
*an experience. In this society, where we are systematically denied the tools
*to form our own opinions, (See: John Taylor Gatto: "Dumbing Us Down"; Alice
*Miller, "Thou Shalt Not Be Aware"), we have been trained to deny things
*which are non-standard, and attack what we do not understand.
Religious miracles are one way of interpreting
happenings unexplainable in scientific
terms in an accepted Paradigm. We all know that there
are other things in the Universe
that we haven't begun to understand (at least in a
scientific
sense). *The things we _have_ described would, if you understood them, make you crap
*your pants with amazement. Try quantum electrodynamics, or for a more
*information-flavoured thing to investigate, read up on the amazing DNA error
*correction systems in your own cells.
A "miracle" may be
a freak occurrence; statistically possible, but not
probable...it may be a mistake in one's
perception...such as experiencing REM sleep while
awake..."miracles" can be explained many
ways, one way being in a religious context...even the
most tenacious scientist will admit
that there are things that his theories can't explain
(satisfactorily at least) and that
describing these things with religion is valid at least
until he can "disprove" that
interpretation with scientific findings...take
evolution
for example. *Invoking god or magic does not solve the problem, nor make predictions,
*which is what the process of scientific hypothesis aims to do and often
*successfully does.
Some people used to believe that every type of animal
was created simultaneously by God...
now we believe in evolution. Evolution disproved a
literal interpretation of the Bible for
that particular section. (Unless you are a
fundamentalist, in which case you would argue
that science is just a way of viewing the world, and if
it conflicts with what the Bible
says, science is wrong.) Until the theory of evolution
came along, the previous notion was
perfectly valid because they had no evidence to the
contrary. *You are confusing proof of absence with absence of proof. Evidence was there
*all right, they just ignored it. In some cases religious meme-hosts actively
*suppressed the evidence. I find it wryly amusing to bet that the
*Scientists will be the ones to discover whatever it is which might supersede
*science - it wont be the Mullahs or the Cardinals.
Don't misunderstand me, science is a powerful tool. The
problem is that (at least so far) it
can not describe everything in our world, and people
are so intoxicated with its success thus
far that they begin to think that they indeed have
succeeded in describing
everything...*Science has worked pretty well so far. It has problems modelling things in
*human minds, because science is a system for explaining the physical world,
*not the virtualised and frequently flawed versions of it operating in various
*brains. This is where information theory can chop away the crap. The down
*side of science is that it doesn't provide any comfort against the nasty
*realities of the universe. It says, when you die, you're dead. It says that
*the universe was not created for us, and that we are accidents. These are
*not comforting words for the average chimp to hear.
We must remember that much of what we have are
THEORIES. Even though we have stuff that works
and is based off of the theories, the fact that the
stuff works doesn't necessarily mean that
the theory is a correct representation of an aspect of
the Universe.
*If you'll permit me... it nevertheless explains much more than everything
*else, and if experimentally testable reality supports the theory, that tells
*you the theory is on the right track.
Have you ever stopped to marvel at the fact that your
computer actually
works? *I certainly get this feeling when I see a Wintel Win98 P200 running. ;-)
When you consider
all the issues as a whole, it seems that it must be a
ridiculous mistake. Microprocessors:
the "wires" are so close together and so thin that the
travel of electrons can actually make
the wires start to move...electrons can
jump...transistors don't have nice distinct spikes...
it is more like a curve...when the voltage is reduced,
this problem gets worse. Then we have
fluctuations in the power source...what about hard
drives? The data is packed so closely on the
platter that it merges together...to bastardize the
problem, a 01110 could end up looking like
1 to the head...the computer must essentially puzzle
out what is really stored there...if you
look at it directly it would look like white
noise...the new HDs will have their very own Pentiums
to deal with this
problem...*Crude, compared to the data processing occurring right now in every
*cell in your body. Every cell you are comprised of has 3x10^9 DNA base pairs
*in it - a complete biochemical blueprint of how to build and run you. The
*underlying laws of mathematics are the same for digital signal processing
*and molecular information processing.
So, if you ask a physicist, he will say that our
computers shouldn't work. But somehow, we've
tricked the Universe into letting us make them...But I
am on a
tangent.*you're also wrong. Ask a good solid state physicist and he'll tell you
*they should, and then he'll tell you how they do, and maybe he'll even
*tell you that we modify silicon _nuclei_ to do it. Solid state physics is
*no trick. It just looks that way if you can't handle the math, and we've
*been subtly conditioned to think that sufficiently advanced technology is
*indistinguishable from magic.
An Appeal to Authority
I mentioned Plato and Orwell above. Let me support
those assertions.
Remember Plato's
cave?*I had this trick pulled on me by a catholic priest, I've waited a long time
*to have a shot back at it. Suck my 50-calibre, Plato, I've had a long time
*thinking about this one....
Suppose there is a person who is
sitting inside a cave and watching
shadows dance on the wall of the cave. This is the only
thing that he can perceive. For that
person, because the shadows form the whole of his
perception, that is Reality. But because
his perception is false and limited, he fails to
realize that just above and behind him there
are other people dancing around a fire which casts
shadows onto the wall below that he is
looking at.*It irritates the hell out of me that people just say "Plato said X" and
*that this is automatically seen as an excuse to not think the situation thru.
*Humans are more than a set of eyes, and they can test their own perception.
*Gendankenexperiments are there for the doing. In the glimmer of the reflected
*firelight, he'd see the shadow of his own thumb on himself, its shape slowly
*changing as he moved his thumb around relative to his chest upon which the
*dim shadow of his moving, illuminated thumb would appear. He might think
*that the laws governing these shadows were similar, unless, of course, he
*is Plato and too stupid to think of these obvious reality perception tests.
*Yes, our perceptions have limits, and they are often false. This does not
*require of us that all the deductions we make about them be necessarily
*false either. Especially if we get a clue about what to look for from other
*systems running the same physical laws. Modelling is not always a first
*derivative.
*The cave sitter could certainly have sussed out something like the inverse
*square law by, say, looking at how much of his field of view his thumbnail
*took up depending on how far away from his eye it was. Try it now: close up
*thumb looks huge, far away thumb looks small. Thumb _feels_ same, so maybe it
*didn't change size. Maybe my perception of my thumb is governed by some rule.
*Oh and look, the shadow my thumb casts is very similar to thumb size the
*closer it is to the surface on which the shadow is cast. Shadow grows when
*thumb is closer to the light. Shadow moves when I flex my thumb. Hey, what's
*going on is there's some light source, and somewhere between it and the wall
*there's something moving. My thumb shadow looks pretty wonky when I throw it
*on my toes, which are lumpy, but the shadow looks like my thumb when it
*lands upon my flat chest.... does this tell me that the wall over there is
*somehow wonky like my toes, and thus it messes around with shadows, so I
*know what's going on but I can't view it any better down here in the
*cave... the flickering light and the lumpy damn wall's messing it up.
*Sure, we do not see in ultraviolet, cannot detect earth's magnetic field.
*This doesn't mean we are forever condemned to remain ignorant thereof.
*BTW, there are animals which can do this (bees and pigeons, respectively).
This is not a direct support of what I'm
saying, but it is pretty damn close.
Basically he is talking about the Realization that
humans can have that what we see is a
product of what we think we know.
*Of course. It is only when an information system understands the nature of
*information - not whatever information it happens to be processing, but the
*nature of information in general - that it becomes enlightened, and able to
*self-debug and self-recode. Most will never do this. It is from here that
*detachment from one's thoughts becomes possible. I think this has some
*significance for +Fravia's allusions to Zen, or at least straight Buddhism.
In 1984 Orwell explicitly mentioned the Paradigm
concept. In the novel, he constructed a
"giant conspiracy" in which the elite imposed their own
Paradigm on the world. People who
live outside the accepted Paradigms are in powerful
positions...and consequently they have
enemies...anyway, the story takes place a long time
since the conspiracy was implemented.
Basically the story is about the conspiracy's
self-regulation method kicking into effect.
There will always be humans who question, and in this
situation they were betrayed and crushed.
But the "big bad guy"
(name?)*Emmanuel Goldstein, and I don't mean the dude at 2600 magazine ;-)
*It is interesting to note that deliberate conspiracies, as well as
*any systems which accidentally bring advantage to themselves, towards
*the same endpoints - increase of power, size and influence.
tells the hero the truth
about the conspiracy right before he is
crushed. The hero learns that life wasn't always like
it is now, and that the whole situation
was constructed to keep the world in stasis. He learns
that occasionally people like him begin
to question Reality, but they are easily discovered by
the Betrayer and his ilk.
Anyway, the ideas I present here aren't mine. I've
gleaned them from other writers, etc.
Possibly make take on the issue is new. There are all
sorts of philosophers who are basically
restating the same thing in
different ways...*You've done very well. You're *waaaay* up the smart end of the Poisson curve.
On Cracking
Below I attempt to unearth an underlying motive for why
+ORC is so interested in Reality
Cracking. Why did he wait for so long before bringing
this topic up? Why mention it at all
(as opposed to sticking with "pure" cracking)?
Shall I be vague and fictionalesque for a
moment?*virtual reality mode (on)
Enjoy:
So, there's this website that I've found that's really
wonderful. There are some people who
think like me and they're also computer experts. They
"crack" things...but the cracking thing
isn't the truly special part. Cracking is an awesome
skill, and doing the exercises will
certainly help become a better Reality Cracker in
general, but I've never been one for doing
exercises...so why is this site so great?
Well there's this "entity" who is a master. His amount
of skill demands that he hide himself
thoroughly. He wants to share his knowledge with
others (lonely to be alone?) so he gets some
students. They are his most advanced and he only talks
to them occasionally and sporadically.
They don't know who he is. So anyway this entity writes
some tutorials for his students. They
learn and become really good. They create a whole
"virtual" (ack! Media word. :) academy where
they discuss and feed off each other. He is happy with
this but it is taking a life of its own. *a phrase diagnostic that you have some awareness of the nature of information.
*It isnt taking a life of its own... it --IS-- a lifeform, using him for the
*purpose of exploration and the others in the group as a data source.
What he really wants to do is get people to think like
him. *From the meme point of view: his memes wish to propagate but they need him
*to build a funnel to catch prospective adepts (this site), and sieve them
*for adeptitude (the strainers). Or perhaps just to trawl for those who
*already do think like him. We are rare in this world.
How do I know this? Well he is writing/began to write
letters to his (principal?) students (who
published some of it) where he is talking about the
same stuff. The cracking thing was just a
way to get there. (a necessary way? I don't know.)
Why did the master choose cracking? Well computers/
Internet can be viewed as a metaphor for
Reality. Say that what exists on the internet (the set
of Omega) is the true reality. *"Push technology" happened, accidentally, in biology. Chloroplasts poisoned
*many organisms to extinction, but provided a fuel for new organisms. That
*poison, that fuel - was oxygen. You are living on the waste products of
*plants. The breakthrough technology was photosynthesis, which uses quantum
*tunnelling to achieve charge separation, getting energy from light. It was
*beneficial to some organisms to be able to make energy from light,
*but the ecosystem didn't know this, nor did the bacteria who could do it.
*Where do the crackers fit into this? They're live data structures which seek
*to understand and benefit other data structures. Most of you understand the
*informational nature of your own being, I suspect, although by proxy, and in
*the languages of Assembler, or C... not the language of molecular signal
*processing or gene regulation or neural net systems of which you are
*comprised.
*Moore's Law, like any law which says growth is infinite, will eventually
*cease to hold true. Microsoft will eventually die, though this might take
*a long time... there are corporations out there, such as Rothschilds,
*which have lasted 500 years... there are other memesystems, like Islam,
*and Judaism, which have existed for a couple of millennia. There are
*copies of sequences of DNA which have existed since the dawn of life...
*we find them in the oldest, simplest organisms. These codes did not protect
*their hosts from eventual obsolescence, but the code remains.
*Had the soon-to-be-extinct anaerobes been able to comprehend this, they'd
*have been disgusted too. But this was all a blind, accidental process.
*Computer technology evolution, regardless of how "purposeful" it appears,
*is precisely the same. The best systems are not always the ones which
*survive... remember the Lisa from Apple? The 80n8sux segment:offset address
*architecture is a spectacular example of fuckwitness, yet it prevails in the
*marketplace. (There is a good book you should read, Accidental Empires by
*Robert X Cringely.) Why? It does something useful for lots of people. It,
*like biological life, need not be elegant, it need only work, and work better
*than things with which it competes on several criteria. Humanity has dead
*code in it... we get scurvey because our copy of the gene for making vitamin
*C is broken. We get folate deficiency for similar reasons. We age and die
*because our cell-copying mechanisms are lossy, chunks of our chromosomes
*(which contain DNA coding for the enzymes which do important chemical
*functions) get lost with each cell copy/iteration. Only our gametes (sperm
*and eggs), as well as particular immortal tumor cell types, possess
*Telomerase, which stops this degradation. The data in our genes doesn't know
*or care that the carriers it builds are programmed to rot, regardless of the
*suffering that entails... and you thought Micro$oft was crippleware!
Say that
what we see in the Western Paradigm is what is given to
us through Yahoo, CNN, Micro$oft, and
Pointcast (especially. The whole idea of push
technology is especially revolting). Say that
when one cracks one is performing the act of seeking
the Truth.*yes... seeking one version of some truth...
For example, this web site teaches how to search the
web well, more specifically, it shows the
reader that there are other methods besides www search
engines to do it. It doesn't actually
TEACH you how to search. (that seems to be changing,
however.) Why? Because the author is
struggling with the question of how obvious he should
make his material. He seems to have
settled on the idea of a "brain activity pre-requisite"
but that level isn't defined and thus
it fluctuates depending on what you read. *I mentioned the seives...
Anyway, the results you get from each different way of
searching the web are like different
Paradigms. They all overlap somewhat and to find
interesting results you perform "set
operations" on the results. The only way this works is
to be outside any particular Paradigm so
that you know that the others that don't overlap with
yours exist at all.
Now lets look at cracking more specifically. There are
the creators of the program, there are
the crackers, there are the programs themselves, there
are the protection schemes, and there
are the cracks.
Going back to the Orwell example, the programmers are
the conspirators. Their program is the
Paradigm. Their protection method is the
self-regulation scheme (thought police). The crackers
are the heroes. The cracks are what Orwell didn't have;
the heroes were destroyed in his book.
In his world, the heroes started off at a lower level
than the crackers of the academy. The
heroes had to first recognize that there was a Paradigm
at all, then they had to crack it. But
in this situation Orwell created the "uncrackable
protection scheme" and the heroes were crushed
before they began the actual crack.
Now back to cracking as a metaphor. Every exercise that
is published, every essay written, and
every strainer is a metaphorical exercise for cracking
a Paradigm. You have to search through
the various programs until you find a new protection
method. Then you use the skills and intuition
that you've developed thus far to crack this new
method. The mentality required to solve these
types of problems is EASILY mapable onto the real
world.*Yes
IMHO this is why the master chose cracking as the way.
(besides the fact that he is damn good at
it and it is especially appropriate for our
contemporary situation.)*I am nevertheless curious what s/he/it seeks...
*The zen you seek is not the True Zen. The True Zen is not the destination,
*it is revealed on the journey to the destination.
On Those Who Seek the Truth
There are people out there who've completely quit the
mainstream reality model and are living on
the outside. (+ORC being one of them). They actively
try to keep as open as possible, that way
hoping the be in a receptive enough state to get a
glimpse at the "Truth."*Also I, though I keep my meme-filters up. In many ways, I'm caught in the
*machine, strapped to the same biochemical rails as all the other humans out
*there. Eating shits me. Sleeping shits me. I wish I didn't have to maintain
*this carcass, house it, clothe it, and shut it down for a quarter of its
*operational time. The rareness of serious intelligence shits me. All my
*neighbors are dopey... they are into V8 engines, or TV serials, or Sports
*Illustrated. NONE of them even possess the vocabulary to understand computing.
*One of them reckons you can eradicate a virus by turning the computer off...
*he also reckons that injecting powdered rocks from the moon will cure AIDS.
There are various established Ways to seek the truth
that one may use. Many of the religions
that have become Paradigms in themselves once were
effective ways.*Religions often deliberately hide truth, and for many people that's not a
*bug, that's a feature. Religions evolved to solve implicitly nasty questions
*with uncontestable answers, some of which are really ridiculous. Why are
*we susceptilbe to this sort of stuff? Because truth hurts. Mortality, for
*instance.
Some still can be, but when
the religion is part of the larger paradigm, it is
pretty hopeless. Some methods include first
breaking from the Paradigm before seeking the truth
(like Zen monastaries), and others such as
cracking + reality cracking only concern themselves
with breaking away from that Paradigm.*It's hacking the Self. It all exists in the head, matey, and it is there
*that we must self-trawl and patch the code which makes us up.
Is it built into our natures to be limited so we can't
see it and only catch glimpses and shadows,
or can we actually get the truth? (There are people in
the past who've gotten as far as we can
get, say Buddha, Jesus, the Zen masters...you know, the
founders of the great religions).*Not entirely correct. History has warped the story in these cases, which are
*often not explicit in their teachings (thereby increasing their audiences)
The true question that (I think) the master is leading
them toward is to tackle the question,
"Is it possible for humans to know the Truth?"*Yes. We _create_ it. We discover representations of it, but ultimately,
*it's an artefact in our heads.
So, before beginning on this question, he must first
get his students to remove the gauze
from their eyes that humanity puts on itself, so that
they may see with the maximum ability
that humans can see with. It is like when a Zen student
goes to the monastery and the brothers
let him stay and mediate...that is us now, and when the
brothers grant him fellowship, that is
breaking from the paradigm...and when the brother
reaches Zen that is the ultimate goal...for
as we have seen before, all the philosophies and
religions that humans come up with are just
different approaches spawned from that culture/time
which are ways of attempting to reach the
Truth.
finis
*A very perceptive and forward thinking proposition. I'll be most interested
*to see what the +sensei(s) have to say about my rant. Probably chuck it in
*the good ol' /dev/null oblivion hole. Anyway, for the record: I'm merely a
*molecular geneticist, but I want to reverse my *own* DNA one day. Nature also
*has her protection systems, and she worked them out long before we appeared.
*She does tricks with data which turn my eyeballs funny. She uses compression,
*she uses intercalation-of-code-with-junk to prevent theft, and selective
*removal of junk code to yield functional code. I can't begin to tell you how
*amazing biochemistry is, but you probably have an inkling of it from hacking,
*I think. I was once 65C02 ASM weenie. Noone writes anything for the old 6502
*now do they? It's all stoopid 80?86 (tho the 68000 series had a kinda similar
*instruction set, MAC interfaces got in the fucking way all the time!) I gave
*asm and puters the arse for a while, then I got into synthetic organic chem,
*now I'm playing with the chemistry which powers the brain cells which
*think about the chemistry which powers the brain cells which think about the
*chemistry which powers the brain cells which think about the chemistry which
*powers the brain cells which think about the chemistry which powers the
*brain cells which
(c) 1998 Curious George & <predator> All rights reversed
homepage
links
anonymity
+ORC
students' essays
academy databasetools
cocktails
javascripts wars
antismut CGI-scripts
search_forms
mail_fravia+Is reverse engineering legal?