So, yet another teevee episode that conjured ideas we've discussed here. This time it was Law and Order: SVU. It guest-starred Robin Williams as this audio engineer who was quite adept at manipulating people. He knew how to exploit their weaknesses to get them to do what he wanted them to do, even the cops. Anyway, he gets arrested for a conspiracy to get this other guy to molest an underage girl, he goes to trial, represents himself, and is able to hoodwink the jury into finding him not-guilty. He then starts this movement based on the ideal of not being a sheep and bowing down to authority. Authority in this story not being just the government and police, but others in society who are given pedestals and power like physicians. So he was able to find many people who could identify with this message, who wanted to rail against authority and be non-conformist, but he was really doing this for his own sick pleasure and as an elaborate rouse to avoid arrest and prosecution.
Anyway, it just got me thinking about while there are many Sheep in our society, who do blindly follow authority, it seems there are probably also ample Black Sheep in our society, who thirst to rail against authority, but not necessarily for the right reasons (that is, the reasons that are right for them personally). It's like they leap-frog right over the idea of "Think For Yourself, Schmuck" and allow others to tell them how to think when it comes to non-conformity. I guess the common denominator would be laziness. They know they want to go in a different direction, but they really don't want to be bothered too much to come up with their own path, and they certainly don't want to go it alone.
I'm thinking, a neat, sort of marketing idea for these folks is to send them a box. We call it the "Complete Tool Kit for Freedom: Everything you Need to Be Yourself and to Guide YOUR Destiny" They open the box, it contains only a mirror at the bottom of the box.
That resonated with the idea that doing the opposite of something, just because it's popular, isn't actually being independent.
What if you don't conform to the Black Sheep by being a regular sheep?
relevant South Park clip:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154495/?tag=Nonconformist
I think that might be like the idea we've talked about before, regarding BIP, where someone is able to see the BIP, and their cell within it, yet, elect to remain in their particular cell. So, they see the other possibilities, the other options, but in the end, they are happy or content to remain right where they are.
Quote from: Kilgore Trout"Dear sir, poor sir, brave sir: You are an experiment by the Creator of the Universe. You are the only creature in the entire Universe who has free will. You are the only one who has to figure out what to do next--and why. Everybody else is a robot, a machine.
"Some persons seem to like you, and others seem to hate you, and you must wonder why. They are simply liking machines and hating machines.
"You are pooped and demoralized. Why wouldn't you be? Of course it's exhausting, having to reason every time in a universe which wasn't meant to be reasonable.
"You are surrounded by loving machines, hating machines, greedy machines, unselfish machines, brave machines, cowardly machines, truthful machines, lying machines, funny machines, solemn machines. Their only purpose is to stir you up in every conceivable way, so the Creator of the Universe can watch your reactions. They can no more feel or reason than grandfather clocks.
"The Creator of the Universe would now like to apologize not only for the capricious, jostling companionship he provided during the test, but for the trashy, stinking condition of the planet itself. The Creator programmed robots to abuse it for millions of years, so it would be a poisonous, festering cheese when you got here. Also, He made sure it would be desperately crowded by programming robots, regardless of their living conditions, to crave sexual intercourse and adore infants more than almost anything.
"He also programmed robots to write books and magazines and newspapers for you, and television and radio shows, and stage shows, and films. They wrote songs for you. The Creator of the Universe had them invent hundreds of religions, so you would have plenty to choose among. He had them kill each other by the millions, for this purpose only: that you be amazed. They had commited every possible atrocity and every possible kindness unfeelingly, automatically, inevitably, to get a reaction from Y-O-U."
Should we really suppose that all machines are capable of independent thought and action without a major overhaul to their programming?
an aversion to authority indicates a healthy desire to control your own destiny and shape your own situation.
but it can also indicate an unhealthy desire to be the authority you despise - to not know when to stop wanting more control over "your situation," which is a concept sufficiently elastic to include almost anything.
the question is, where does the individual end and the collective begin? it is the same question that spawned discussions on the Machine.
do you buck the system because it has wronged you? do you buck the system because it is ugly or ineffective? do you buck the system because you cannot control it? all of these are good enough motives at first, but they are fundamentally flawed in that they assume there is such a thing as a Perfect System. Once you are in control, you assume you have arrived at such Perfect System, but no system is perfect for everyone, so you become what you fought, and someone else becomes what you once were.
So, personally, like George Mallory, I buck the System because it is there. There is no system that exists that does not fit that description.
Quote from: vexati0n on May 14, 2008, 04:55:04 PM
an aversion to authority indicates a healthy desire to control your own destiny and shape your own situation.
but it can also indicate an unhealthy desire to be the authority you despise - to not know when to stop wanting more control over "your situation," which is a concept sufficiently elastic to include almost anything.
So, personally, like George Mallory, I buck the System because it is there. There is no system that exists that does not fit that description.
Or do we buck the system because we're "system bucking machines"?
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 14, 2008, 04:35:29 PM
Should we really suppose that all machines are capable of independent thought and action without a major overhaul to their programming?
Capable? No.
Is the potential there? Yes.
Tthe keyword is programming. Is it really the system we are bucking or the programming we have undergone? Or are they one in the same?
It probably should be more of the latter, but gets confused when too much focus is put on the former. Because really, it probably isn't realistic or practical to disavow the entirety of The System. As The System generally contains entities that we kind of need in some sense or another, like healthcare for example.
However, I think the ideal is to find a way to operate, at least partly, within The System, (the parts that we seem to need to survive) but in a way that makes us happy. So it's kinda like operating within The System, but on our own terms.
that works too. i'm not particularly interested in forcing the notion that there is any meaningful way to completely rise above one's programming. i'm not convinced that there is any way to have a fully original thought in the first place, much less to perform a fully original function.
Quote from: Khara on May 14, 2008, 05:03:46 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 14, 2008, 04:35:29 PM
Should we really suppose that all machines are capable of independent thought and action without a major overhaul to their programming?
Capable? No.
Is the potential there? Yes.
Tthe keyword is programming. Is it really the system we are bucking or the programming we have undergone? Or are they one in the same?
Oh ho! Now that seems like an interesting question to me!
It seems like there may be many possible answers, depending on how optimistic (or full of shit?) we tend to be.
1. All humans have the potential to be FREE and Think For Themselves. However, X stops mosbunal of them from acting on this potential. (Where X = their Programming or The System)
2. All humans are pre-programmed robots doomed to act out their programming. Some programmed machines give the appearance of sheeplike obedience, some programmed machines give the appearance of complete independence, other programmed machines do what they're programmed to do and appear in line with their program. This is what makes The System.
3. Some humans have the potential to be FREE, some humans don't. (Programming and Systems be damned)
4. All humans ARE FREE, most humans just actually like being part of the tribe. (They consciously or subconsciously program one another and build the Machine)
5. All humans ARE FREE, most humans just don't realize it. (Fnord)
Maybe there are more options...
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 14, 2008, 05:12:11 PM
Quote from: Khara on May 14, 2008, 05:03:46 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 14, 2008, 04:35:29 PM
Should we really suppose that all machines are capable of independent thought and action without a major overhaul to their programming?
Capable? No.
Is the potential there? Yes.
Tthe keyword is programming. Is it really the system we are bucking or the programming we have undergone? Or are they one in the same?
Oh ho! Now that seems like an interesting question to me!
It seems like there may be many possible answers, depending on how optimistic (or full of shit?) we tend to be.
1. All humans have the potential to be FREE and Think For Themselves. However, X stops mosbunal of them from acting on this potential. (Where X = their Programming or The System)
2. All humans are pre-programmed robots doomed to act out their programming. Some programmed machines give the appearance of sheeplike obedience, some programmed machines give the appearance of complete independence, other programmed machines do what they're programmed to do and appear in line with their program. This is what makes The System.
3. Some humans have the potential to be FREE, some humans don't. (Programming and Systems be damned)
4. All humans ARE FREE, most humans just actually like being part of the tribe. (They consciously or subconsciously program one another and build the Machine)
5. All humans ARE FREE, most humans just don't realize it. (Fnord)
Maybe there are more options...
All humans have the POTENTIAL to be FREE, most humans just actually like being part of the tribe. They prefer the "pack" mentality. (They consciously or subconsciously program one another and build the Machine)
I like those options, but I'm thinking along the lines of the above. #4 with a couple of changes. So taking that, anyone who is outside the "pack" is a rogue which is usually a loner. When the rogues begin to group together, are they not building yet another machine?
Who was it that said "It's not wise to learn new things too quickly"? Or, something to that effect.
There's some truth there.
Also: Rat... Breakfast of Champions Trout for the win!
Quote from: Khara on May 14, 2008, 05:29:02 PM
All humans have the POTENTIAL to be FREE, most humans just actually like being part of the tribe. They prefer the "pack" mentality. (They consciously or subconsciously program one another and build the Machine)
I like those options, but I'm thinking along the lines of the above. #4 with a couple of changes. So taking that, anyone who is outside the "pack" is a rogue which is usually a loner. When the rogues begin to group together, are they not building yet another machine?
Maybe.
I suppose only an outside observer would truly know... How do you find the difference between a really, really well programmed "Rogue Robot" versus a really, real rogue?
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 14, 2008, 05:41:05 PM
Quote from: Khara on May 14, 2008, 05:29:02 PM
All humans have the POTENTIAL to be FREE, most humans just actually like being part of the tribe. They prefer the "pack" mentality. (They consciously or subconsciously program one another and build the Machine)
I like those options, but I'm thinking along the lines of the above. #4 with a couple of changes. So taking that, anyone who is outside the "pack" is a rogue which is usually a loner. When the rogues begin to group together, are they not building yet another machine?
Maybe.
I suppose only an outside observer would truly know... How do you find the difference between a really, really well programmed "Rogue Robot" versus a really, real rogue?
The lulz.
Quote from: Hoopla on May 14, 2008, 05:37:42 PM
Who was it that said "It's not wise to learn new things too quickly"? Or, something to that effect.
There's some truth there.
Also: Rat... Breakfast of Champions Trout for the win!
You mean, "do not understand me too quickly"? I believe it was André Gide.
I didn't think that was the phrase, but mine's not bringing anything up, so let's go with that.
Quote from: Khara on May 14, 2008, 05:45:06 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 14, 2008, 05:41:05 PM
Quote from: Khara on May 14, 2008, 05:29:02 PM
All humans have the POTENTIAL to be FREE, most humans just actually like being part of the tribe. They prefer the "pack" mentality. (They consciously or subconsciously program one another and build the Machine)
I like those options, but I'm thinking along the lines of the above. #4 with a couple of changes. So taking that, anyone who is outside the "pack" is a rogue which is usually a loner. When the rogues begin to group together, are they not building yet another machine?
Maybe.
I suppose only an outside observer would truly know... How do you find the difference between a really, really well programmed "Rogue Robot" versus a really, real rogue?
The lulz.
Are lulz not programmable?
if (cat == long) then { lulz; }
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 14, 2008, 06:33:58 PM
Quote from: Khara on May 14, 2008, 05:45:06 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 14, 2008, 05:41:05 PM
Quote from: Khara on May 14, 2008, 05:29:02 PM
All humans have the POTENTIAL to be FREE, most humans just actually like being part of the tribe. They prefer the "pack" mentality. (They consciously or subconsciously program one another and build the Machine)
I like those options, but I'm thinking along the lines of the above. #4 with a couple of changes. So taking that, anyone who is outside the "pack" is a rogue which is usually a loner. When the rogues begin to group together, are they not building yet another machine?
Maybe.
I suppose only an outside observer would truly know... How do you find the difference between a really, really well programmed "Rogue Robot" versus a really, real rogue?
The lulz.
Are lulz not programmable?
Possibly.
But... if it is truly a really real rogue, he would have control of his emotions and only laugh, cry, rage when he chose too, not when expected. With that, a really real rogue would have "new and surprising" lulz as opposed to ummm memes. 8)
Quote from: Khara on May 14, 2008, 06:43:24 PM
he would have control of his emotions and only laugh, cry, rage when he chose too, not when expected.
That sounds strangely robotic.
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 14, 2008, 05:12:11 PM
Quote from: Khara on May 14, 2008, 05:03:46 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 14, 2008, 04:35:29 PM
Should we really suppose that all machines are capable of independent thought and action without a major overhaul to their programming?
Capable? No.
Is the potential there? Yes.
Tthe keyword is programming. Is it really the system we are bucking or the programming we have undergone? Or are they one in the same?
Oh ho! Now that seems like an interesting question to me!
It seems like there may be many possible answers, depending on how optimistic (or full of shit?) we tend to be.
1. All humans have the potential to be FREE and Think For Themselves. However, X stops mosbunal of them from acting on this potential. (Where X = their Programming or The System)
2. All humans are pre-programmed robots doomed to act out their programming. Some programmed machines give the appearance of sheeplike obedience, some programmed machines give the appearance of complete independence, other programmed machines do what they're programmed to do and appear in line with their program. This is what makes The System.
3. Some humans have the potential to be FREE, some humans don't. (Programming and Systems be damned)
4. All humans ARE FREE, most humans just actually like being part of the tribe. (They consciously or subconsciously program one another and build the Machine)
5. All humans ARE FREE, most humans just don't realize it. (Fnord)
Maybe there are more options...
You forgot the most important Kilgorian option: We're really only here so the bacteria can reproduce.
Safety nets.
It's fine and dandy to want to strike out your own path, march to your own beat, try to walk away from the trappings of The System.
But what happens if you pick a dark path, that leads to a dangerous trap or pitfall?
If you are walking your path alone, this could lead to a bleak outcome.
So you want to join a band of merrymen to take the journey with you.
So you can share stories
and strategies.
And have that safetynet of fellowship, in case it doesn't seem to work out.
Loneliness is a big fear for many.
And may be what keeps the sheep close to the herd, even if it's the herd of Black Sheep.
The question of determinism vs. free will is one of the first questions I ever tried to really figure out... I only stopped when I figured it must be the wrong question. So I vote option 2 AND option 5. We're programmed to be free, or something. It doesn't make sense, but neither option alone makes any sense either.
Quote from: Verbatim on May 14, 2008, 07:41:26 PM
It doesn't make sense, but neither option alone makes any sense either.
Thus NON-sense!!
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I'm gonna borrow from maybe logic, and say that in any given situation, there is a sliding scale of probability whether or not a human will act with what can be observed as "free will".
In some situations, they will react as if following a programmed set of instructions. In others, they will react as if they were in complete control of their own thoughts and actions.
Only through extended observation can any measure of successful prrediction be made.
Quote from: LMNO on May 14, 2008, 08:05:04 PM
I'm gonna borrow from maybe logic, and say that in any given situation, there is a sliding scale of probability whether or not a human will act with what can be observed as "free will".
In some situations, they will react as if following a programmed set of instructions. In others, they will react as if they were in complete control of their own thoughts and actions.
Only through extended observation can any measure of successful prrediction be made.
And even then, we may just be observing machines or predicting machines...
LAWL O' Five's and all that
I think more to the point, free will and determinism just aren't necessarily two different things. Both seem true in a sense and untrue in a sense, but I can think of the two in a way that they are one and seem to make sense. It's something like this: free choice exists if you're an entity that seems to act freely, but when observing such an entity it seems not to exists. Like, I have free will, even if I can't prove it, even if when I see YUO I think, 'you're probably just a machine'. You think the same of me and we both have free will.
Except it doesn't make sense to me when I write it out. Bah.
Nobody is a robot all of the time. Sometimes the robots change programming, frequently with very little persuasive influence, sometimes the robots *have* to think for themselves, simply because they are presented with a problem that requires it.
"Truman prefers his cell" -the Truman Show
-or-
I've been considering lately that the inherent flaw with democratic government is related to the conflict between high value placed on individuality and self reliance -vs- rule by popular vote.
Quote from: Requiem on May 14, 2008, 09:38:44 PM
Nobody is a robot all of the time. Sometimes the robots change programming, frequently with very little persuasive influence, sometimes the robots *have* to think for themselves, simply because they are presented with a problem that requires it.
I like to think that this concept is true.
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 14, 2008, 10:08:36 PM
Quote from: Requiem on May 14, 2008, 09:38:44 PM
Nobody is a robot all of the time. Sometimes the robots change programming, frequently with very little persuasive influence, sometimes the robots *have* to think for themselves, simply because they are presented with a problem that requires it.
I like to think that this concept is true.
But that is pretty much a given. I mean no programming can prepare one for every possible scenario. Aren't the ones who change either rogues or potential rogues?
Quote from: Khara on May 14, 2008, 05:03:46 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 14, 2008, 04:35:29 PM
Should we really suppose that all machines are capable of independent thought and action without a major overhaul to their programming?
Capable? No.
Is the potential there? Yes.
how can you be so certain?
Quote from: Khara on May 14, 2008, 10:13:10 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 14, 2008, 10:08:36 PM
Quote from: Requiem on May 14, 2008, 09:38:44 PM
Nobody is a robot all of the time. Sometimes the robots change programming, frequently with very little persuasive influence, sometimes the robots *have* to think for themselves, simply because they are presented with a problem that requires it.
I like to think that this concept is true.
But that is pretty much a given. I mean no programming can prepare one for every possible scenario. Aren't the ones who change either rogues or potential rogues?
Well, let's not confuse the model and reality... in reality we aren't programmed robots at all. We're humans that have imprinted certain behaviors, based on experiences. It seems to me that 'a robot' versus a 'rogue' is really discussing the people that accept their imprinted behaviors, or a person that has enough introspection to see the imprinted behavior and maybe effect changes in that imprint.
But, maybe that act, in and of itself could also be based on imprints.
Assuming, of course, that humans actually do imprint behaviors based on experiences... since I'm not a psychologist, I don't know if that's true in any sense, or if guys like Leary were nuts, or both.
Not to mention that "imprinting" is also a model.
Quote from: LMNO on May 16, 2008, 03:37:24 PM
Not to mention that "imprinting" is also a model.
Yeah, I just figured that the question might be better answered with a model that didn't use the "programmed" metaphor.
BUT I totally should have said "let's model it as..."
Quote from: triple zero on May 16, 2008, 12:42:04 PM
Quote from: Khara on May 14, 2008, 05:03:46 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 14, 2008, 04:35:29 PM
Should we really suppose that all machines are capable of independent thought and action without a major overhaul to their programming?
Capable? No.
Is the potential there? Yes.
how can you be so certain?
Because if we cannot believe that the machines are capable of reprogramming to the point of independence, then Operation: Mindfuck loses much of its purpose and we Discordians are resigned to fucking with the system just for the hell of it.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, but several of us, I think, are programmed to hope that individuals can be persuaded or tricked into becoming independent thinkers.
Quote from: Cainad on May 16, 2008, 06:09:03 PM
Quote from: triple zero on May 16, 2008, 12:42:04 PM
Quote from: Khara on May 14, 2008, 05:03:46 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 14, 2008, 04:35:29 PM
Should we really suppose that all machines are capable of independent thought and action without a major overhaul to their programming?
Capable? No.
Is the potential there? Yes.
how can you be so certain?
Because if we cannot believe that the machines are capable of reprogramming to the point of independence, then Operation: Mindfuck loses much of its purpose and we Discordians are resigned to fucking with the system just for the hell of it.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, but several of us, I think, are programmed to hope that individuals can be persuaded or tricked into becoming independent thinkers.
So then you believe that you're programmed to believe that humans can break their programming?
I love this rabbit hole ;-)
Persuaded? Tricked?
How about when life requires it? Either think for yourself or die?
Quote from: Khara on May 16, 2008, 06:57:29 PM
Persuaded? Tricked?
How about when life requires it? Either think for yourself or die?
When does life require it?
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 16, 2008, 07:05:26 PM
Quote from: Khara on May 16, 2008, 06:57:29 PM
Persuaded? Tricked?
How about when life requires it? Either think for yourself or die?
When does life require it?
In life threatening situations, of course... :lulz:
Quote from: Khara on May 16, 2008, 07:06:36 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 16, 2008, 07:05:26 PM
Quote from: Khara on May 16, 2008, 06:57:29 PM
Persuaded? Tricked?
How about when life requires it? Either think for yourself or die?
When does life require it?
In life threatening situations, of course... :lulz:
ROFL
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 16, 2008, 06:44:35 PM
Quote from: Cainad on May 16, 2008, 06:09:03 PM
Quote from: triple zero on May 16, 2008, 12:42:04 PM
Quote from: Khara on May 14, 2008, 05:03:46 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 14, 2008, 04:35:29 PM
Should we really suppose that all machines are capable of independent thought and action without a major overhaul to their programming?
Capable? No.
Is the potential there? Yes.
how can you be so certain?
Because if we cannot believe that the machines are capable of reprogramming to the point of independence, then Operation: Mindfuck loses much of its purpose and we Discordians are resigned to fucking with the system just for the hell of it.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, but several of us, I think, are programmed to hope that individuals can be persuaded or tricked into becoming independent thinkers.
So then you believe that you're programmed to believe that humans can break their programming?
I love this rabbit hole ;-)
Assuming that I am human, I would say yes, because I do believe I have broken my programming. I could be wrong.
Now, machines, on the other hand... how does one convince a cabbage to be something else? I dunno, just leave me alone in my optimistic fantasyland!
QuoteNow, machines, on the other hand... how does one convince a cabbage to be something else? I dunno, just leave me alone in my optimistic fantasyland!
Convince them to be a different kind of cabbage.
Or convince them to be a salad.
What if the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is correct? What tools can we then use to create a true Mindfuck, if language by its very nature eliminates much of that concept? I think non-linguistic art is probably the best bet, but Jabberwock-like or scramblespeak writing might also work.
Quote from: Cainad on May 17, 2008, 03:12:59 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 16, 2008, 06:44:35 PM
Quote from: Cainad on May 16, 2008, 06:09:03 PM
Quote from: triple zero on May 16, 2008, 12:42:04 PM
Quote from: Khara on May 14, 2008, 05:03:46 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 14, 2008, 04:35:29 PM
Should we really suppose that all machines are capable of independent thought and action without a major overhaul to their programming?
Capable? No.
Is the potential there? Yes.
how can you be so certain?
Because if we cannot believe that the machines are capable of reprogramming to the point of independence, then Operation: Mindfuck loses much of its purpose and we Discordians are resigned to fucking with the system just for the hell of it.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, but several of us, I think, are programmed to hope that individuals can be persuaded or tricked into becoming independent thinkers.
So then you believe that you're programmed to believe that humans can break their programming?
I love this rabbit hole ;-)
Assuming that I am human, I would say yes, because I do believe I have broken my programming. I could be wrong.
Now, machines, on the other hand... how does one convince a cabbage to be something else? I dunno, just leave me alone in my optimistic fantasyland!
LOL... Personally I like to think that we can too. :)
But, I disagree that O:MF loses its value if we don't have the ability to break our programming.
That is, a robot may not be able to reprogram itself, it might be a trusting machine, or a nonsense machine or a killing machine or a hating machine or a greyface machine or a 9-5working/suit-tiewearing/cubicle dwelling machine. Maybe it can't, not be a machine, but maybe O:MF can give the machine a new program. So maybe it will turn into a thinking machine, or a not-quite-as-serious machine, or a discordian machine, or maybe it will break their programs and let them think for themselves.
I hope its the last one.
Quote from: PeregrineBF on May 19, 2008, 09:57:04 AM
Or convince them to be a salad.
What if the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is correct? What tools can we then use to create a true Mindfuck, if language by its very nature eliminates much of that concept? I think non-linguistic art is probably the best bet, but Jabberwock-like or scramblespeak writing might also work.
I think the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis supports the idea of mindfucking through language. That is, it holds forth that the individuals perceptions are heavily influenced by language. By manipulating language, we should be able to manipulate perception. IE reprogram...
Maybe.
True, but to what extent can the language be manipulated without becoming nonsense?
Also, what if we really can break our programming? Might we segfault? That would be bad, but very interestiKERNEL PANIC. NO CARRIER ++ATH0
Quote from: PeregrineBF on May 20, 2008, 07:36:13 AM
True, but to what extent can the language be manipulated without becoming nonsense?
Also, what if we really can break our programming? Might we segfault? That would be bad, but very interestiKERNEL PANIC. NO CARRIER ++ATH0
Well, since this is all metaphor anyway, I would say that perhaps people do break their own programming (or someone breaks their programs for them), everything from psychotic breaks, to brainwashing to Stockholm syndrome... maybe.
Also, I think that words alone may quickly become nonsense... most O:MF's that I've been involved in tend to have some physical manifestation, not just vocal/semantic stuff... hrmmm.
OMF is awesome even if all it does it teach people that words are nonsense. The memebombs at least are for that.
Heisenbergs uncertainty principle seems to me to suggest that every atom in the universe has free will and thinks for itself, but a brick has too many atoms in it for their individual free will to have any effect on a brick whatsoever. ie, Brick atoms appear and disappear, but a brick is very fucking static.
The brain is closer to the size of a brick, but maybe conscious thought is more the size of the pineal gland, or even a single molecule.
we're programmed by everything, some things from childhood are more powerful, some recent things change us more. I discovered Eris a year or so ago, and her program (ridiculous as it may seem, it's a program) helped me break SOME other programs, as did books by Leary and RAW. I don't believe in free will, or free thought, unless our 'consciousness' is in a single atom (independent?), and even that I'm skeptical of.
I am a computer, I have been fed programs all my life, and I'm lucky enough to have been fed more bizarre and interesting programs than most, that have led me to seek out new programs and break others that don't seem to help my thinking out. If you could break all your programs then you wouldn't react to any external stimuli, instead you would permanently act completely randomly or not at all.
Despite hating when artists say "everything's been done before" I don't really believe in new things, I just think old ideas can be mixed in different and better ways, brought back. Greg and Kerry didn't come up with new things, except for all the nonsense. Eris was OLD. Memes evolve, faster than genes but they don't just 'pop' out of thin air. Or maybe they do.
Bones, seeing a new poster produce actual, interesting, thoughtful content right off the bat is so refreshing I don't even know what to do with myself. I don't even know what to say except thank you, and welcome to PD.com!