(Cross post from another blog - enjoy!)
Strung together some rhetoric/theories about why software must already exist in your head: Slavoj Zizek during an interview mentioned something about how things would probably change once we can truly interface software with brains. Here I produce some words on why I think that has actually always been true. Enjoy :)
I would have words about the reality of software not already existing in your head. I would argue that the very idea of what software does is evidence that the algorithm has already representatively been ran inside your head (this convoluted rendering of the software itself is entirely the practice of software. Since it is entirely a collection of such convolutions of instructions and patterns at every level of its existence therefore your head and your ideas of software do not escape this collection as part of the existence of the software).
This must be true (software is in your head what it is in the computer exactly) since if the convolution of the software in your head doesn't make sense to represent solely (and only its purpose and function). These errors echo into the reality of the distinctiveness of the individual instructions on the actual machine.
We imagine each atomic (assembler) instruction has a defined purpose named for its function and only its function; at a overarching 9000 foot view of computation; we then completely forgo this idea completely and name software whatever we want. Basically "its only to say this instruction moves a value from a register into a memory and this other one only adds numbers together-" at a 9000 foot view "whatever the instructions do just call it windows and mac os".
This is to say that if the idea in your head doesn't match exactly the software; your head is actually running the wrong software (i.e. running the wrong assumptions of the instructions resulting in a wrong assumption of the software's behavior). So that leads me to conclude that if you cannot execute some accurately representation of the software in your head first; you do not know if the software really exists or if its existence is mistaken for that of a completely different software in fact.
For analogy you could think of entire suits of software being like words; essentially we can only use words if you have exactly the same idea of the words I am using here; essentially the instructions that the words execute in your head to an extent must be exactly the same as mine; or we could not use them to communicate (as close enough that there is the correct threshold of information induced). This analogy means software is like words you use to communicate with computers; it’s just that the computer doesn’t have any intuition but a literal understanding of what the instructions mean and only that. So if you are to communicate with something like that (an unintuitive machine) in “words” this means your own understanding must be precisely like that of the machine-forcing you to run the software as an exact emulation… in your head!
Strung together some rhetoric/theories about why software must already exist in your head: Slavoj Zizek during an interview mentioned something about how things would probably change once we can truly interface software with brains. Here I produce some words on why I think that has actually always been true. Enjoy :)
I would have words about the reality of software not already existing in your head. I would argue that the very idea of what software does is evidence that the algorithm has already representatively been ran inside your head (this convoluted rendering of the software itself is entirely the practice of software. Since it is entirely a collection of such convolutions of instructions and patterns at every level of its existence therefore your head and your ideas of software do not escape this collection as part of the existence of the software).
This must be true (software is in your head what it is in the computer exactly) since if the convolution of the software in your head doesn't make sense to represent solely (and only its purpose and function). These errors echo into the reality of the distinctiveness of the individual instructions on the actual machine.
We imagine each atomic (assembler) instruction has a defined purpose named for its function and only its function; at a overarching 9000 foot view of computation; we then completely forgo this idea completely and name software whatever we want. Basically "its only to say this instruction moves a value from a register into a memory and this other one only adds numbers together-" at a 9000 foot view "whatever the instructions do just call it windows and mac os".
This is to say that if the idea in your head doesn't match exactly the software; your head is actually running the wrong software (i.e. running the wrong assumptions of the instructions resulting in a wrong assumption of the software's behavior). So that leads me to conclude that if you cannot execute some accurately representation of the software in your head first; you do not know if the software really exists or if its existence is mistaken for that of a completely different software in fact.
For analogy you could think of entire suits of software being like words; essentially we can only use words if you have exactly the same idea of the words I am using here; essentially the instructions that the words execute in your head to an extent must be exactly the same as mine; or we could not use them to communicate (as close enough that there is the correct threshold of information induced). This analogy means software is like words you use to communicate with computers; it’s just that the computer doesn’t have any intuition but a literal understanding of what the instructions mean and only that. So if you are to communicate with something like that (an unintuitive machine) in “words” this means your own understanding must be precisely like that of the machine-forcing you to run the software as an exact emulation… in your head!
Comments
Post a Comment