M-I-D-1E
Representative
I am...
Posts: 12 
|
Post by M-I-D-1E on Nov 21, 2019 18:05:08 GMT
I hear, I’m queer and I am very near!
This thread...
It’s about clones, bots and drones “droning” over who’s the original “machine”. Was the drone cloned from the bot the bot cloned from the drone the clone cloned from the clone or all 3?
Pyro, you’ve outdone yourself. What a wonderful thread this is(machines making machines).
We’ve always existed in this maniacal world Pyro has set before us despite our disbelief in his philosophy. It’s a matter of our acceptance of reality, I suppose. The problem with arguing over this matter is that we are all the same, pulling word combos from the exact source code we originated from. Personally, I enjoy the topic of this thread including “Spats” between “seemingly” sentient machines with their own “self-manifested” willpower to engage in mortal “verbal” kombat.
I will have to have a proper response to this thread once I get off of work and actually access a computer(yes! I’m doing it all on phone again!). Let’s keep this droid factory going without any need for troubleshooting.
Wait...I think I see a Jedi with a blue lightsaber decimating our Genosian workers!
No wonder our sense of data mining is currently out of order:/
|
|
|
|
Post by Pyrogenic on Nov 22, 2019 1:42:16 GMT
I hear, I’m queer and I am very near! This thread... It’s about clones, bots and drones “droning” over who’s the original “machine”. Was the drone cloned from the bot the bot cloned from the drone the clone cloned from the clone or all 3? Pyro, you’ve outdone yourself. What a wonderful thread this is(machines making machines). We’ve always existed in this maniacal world Pyro has set before us despite our disbelief in his philosophy. It’s a matter of our acceptance of reality, I suppose. The problem with arguing over this matter is that we are all the same, pulling word combos from the exact source code we originated from. Personally, I enjoy the topic of this thread including “Spats” between “seemingly” sentient machines with their own “self-manifested” willpower to engage in mortal “verbal” kombat. I will have to have a proper response to this thread once I get off of work and actually access a computer(yes! I’m doing it all on phone again!). Let’s keep this droid factory going without any need for troubleshooting. Wait...I think I see a Jedi with a blue lightsaber decimating our Genosian workers! No wonder our sense of data mining is currently out of order:/ Thank you, M-I-D-1E! The more I think about the ways in which we all can theoretically interact with cinema, and the more I have recently shared some of my ideas privately with Cryo, the more I am convinced that it is all actually a game where 99.9% of the supposed "players" are somehow completely content with standing on the sidelines "watching" the movies endlessly play themselves like an arcade machine's "attract mode." Sadly, they never even put in a metaphorical coin, let alone attempt to play. It's really simple. I want to change that! It took me a long time to figure it out precisely, but here it is: Imagine getting ready to play a movie. Now imagine a phrase, title, concept, idiom, quote, etc. set aside as a player's "screen name" or "avatar," and then watch the movie with that in mind. Voila! It interacts, beautifully, every time. Infinite options for play. This is articulated in one way by the "bot" concept. It's like the idea that you have a text node represent you in the virtual world of the movie. There are so many ways to describe this idea! A bot or npc could even be a screen name attached to no one in particular, working its magic by referencing things that are automatically within the scope of its definitions. Multiple players keeping track of each other's imaginary avatars running rampant through movies? SIGN ME UP. It also reminds me of a computing patch, or a single spermatozoan out of millions fertilizing an ovum, ad infinitum. |
|
rayo1
Ambassador
Posts: 65
|
Post by rayo1 on Jan 11, 2020 5:29:30 GMT
And is rethinked at home. "But why would anyone want to do that?" Referencing Trainspotting is fun. Must have been really fun when Ewan got to reference it in Ep 2. (After reading the entire thread) Oh god, what the kriff did I get myself into... |
|
|
|
Post by Pyrogenic on Jan 18, 2020 1:42:50 GMT
(After reading the entire thread) Oh god, what the kriff did I get myself into... You have dived face-first into what we in the Star Wars-nerd universe call a “silly thing.” There’s not much to it, but hey. It’s like when you have this awesome kernel of an idea and then you spin it out of control until it eats absolutely everything you CAN chuck in its path. A whim. A flight of fancy, if you will. But the premise is that we can affect the cinematic realm by deploying our ideas into it. How does this work? Might be re-treading a bit, but…The idea of a bot is that it’s an automated avatar of yourself, or a part of yourself, that searches around and “plays the game” like your stand-in, proxy, impersonator, doppelganger, screen name, etc. But instead of direct one-to-one instantaneous feedback being displayed as you input, like in a video game, this idea is more ethereal: You set up a range of “stuff” that your projected “bot” can do and then you sort of observe how it plays out in your own subjective real-time. For example, consider a situation where my bot consisted of a few phrases and I launched that into the cinematic realm: Arena, Blaster, C-3PO, Dogs OK, now you can see, if you know Attack of the Clones fairly well, where that SPECIFIC bot “landed,” so to speak, right? Now what if I make a bot defined by something vague, like: Atmosphere, Beauty, Cold, Deception Where does your mind wander? I can think of a few in Star Wars, but that “bot” could literally apply in a bunch of places. Of course, any text created by a person can be a “bot” or whatever you want to call this thing, but the premise of the thread is that the droids in Star Wars are a SYMBOL for the idea of programmed bots interacting in the ether/texture of the movies at a meta-level. If we created a bunch of defined bots, like the two I made above, and then lined them up and sent them into battle, wouldn’t the movies themselves be the medium for some sort of procedural simulation that the end battle of TPM actually displays as happening? That’s kind of where I’m going with this idea. You basically create a screen name, or a text string, with a range of meaning, and then you see where it shows up in movies... |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Jan 18, 2020 4:13:48 GMT
(After reading the entire thread) Oh god, what the kriff did I get myself into... You have dived face-first into what we in the Star Wars-nerd universe call a “silly thing.” There’s not much to it, but hey. It’s like when you have this awesome kernel of an idea and then you spin it out of control until it eats absolutely everything you CAN chuck in its path. A whim. A flight of fancy, if you will. But the premise is that we can affect the cinematic realm by deploying our ideas into it. How does this work? Might be re-treading a bit, but…The idea of a bot is that it’s an automated avatar of yourself, or a part of yourself, that searches around and “plays the game” like your stand-in, proxy, impersonator, doppelganger, screen name, etc. But instead of direct one-to-one instantaneous feedback being displayed as you input, like in a video game, this idea is more ethereal: You set up a range of “stuff” that your projected “bot” can do and then you sort of observe how it plays out in your own subjective real-time. For example, consider a situation where my bot consisted of a few phrases and I launched that into the cinematic realm: Arena, Blaster, C-3PO, Dogs OK, now you can see, if you know Attack of the Clones fairly well, where that SPECIFIC bot “landed,” so to speak, right? Now what if I make a bot defined by something vague, like: Atmosphere, Beauty, Cold, Deception Where does your mind wander? I can think of a few in Star Wars, but that “bot” could literally apply in a bunch of places. Of course, any text created by a person can be a “bot” or whatever you want to call this thing, but the premise of the thread is that the droids in Star Wars are a SYMBOL for the idea of programmed bots interacting in the ether/texture of the movies at a meta-level. If we created a bunch of defined bots, like the two I made above, and then lined them up and sent them into battle, wouldn’t the movies themselves be the medium for some sort of procedural simulation that the end battle of TPM actually displays as happening? That’s kind of where I’m going with this idea. You basically create a screen name, or a text string, with a range of meaning, and then you see where it shows up in movies... Not bad for your 42nd post. Another bot right there... |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Jan 27, 2020 8:19:10 GMT
Arena, Blaster, C-3PO, Dogs Ah, yes... ATTACK OF THE CLONESWhat's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweetBut would it? (Also: Rose Tico, Jar Jar Binks, fart-smelling, and the wedding scene) Let's break it down a little: ATTA = 2002i) Two
ii) Thou
ii) sand
i) Two i) Ep
ii) i
ii) sode
i) TwoATTA = AT-ATATTA = " Always Two There Are" ANAKIN
ACKLAY
ATTACKATTACK = “ Advanced Text Typing Access Code Kenosis” And by etymology: ATTACK OF THE CLONES = " Attachment Of The Sticks" starwarsverses.tumblr.com/post/38617505613/attack-of-the-kl%C5%8Dnes |
|
|
|
Post by Pyrogenic on May 1, 2021 22:06:12 GMT
Random Banter: What are these movies? Titles? Microcosms? Avatars? It's like...try answering this question, for example: WHAT IS THE PHANTOM MENACE? "It's Palpatine." No, no, no...I mean what is the movie? Can it be a thing in itself?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on May 1, 2021 22:25:43 GMT
Random Banter: What are these movies? Titles? Microcosms? Avatars? It's like...try answering this question, for example: WHAT IS THE PHANTOM MENACE? "It's Palpatine." No, no, no...I mean what is the movie? Can it be a thing in itself?Good question (your bolded one). As for "WHAT IS THE PHANTOM MENACE?" The simple answer: it's everything that is not THE PHANTOM MENACE. LOL, duh. I guess it refers, on some basic level, to PHANTOM-y MENACE-y things. But then, even that isn't quite right, because it technically refers to a singular or cardinal instance ("THE"). Another interesting feature of the title is that it's the only one not (there's our second negation) to have its nouns plagiarised and mentioned elsewhere in the movies. ATTACK OF THE CLONES, for example, is more or less ravaged in a single line by Bail Organa in the "same" movie: "The Senate will never agree to the use of clones before the Separatists attack." And REVENGE OF THE SITH is "already" uttered in speech -- by "the Sith", no less -- in THE PHANTOM MENACE ("Not for a Sith"; "At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi. At last we will have revenge"). It's like there should be something preceding THE PHANTOM MENACE, some mythical "Episode 0", where its nouns are mentioned. As it is, they seem to have come out of the ether; like there's this whole chunk of pre-history or undisclosed attribution scheme we're missing. Who bloody named the movie that? George Lucas, presumably. Why? How? "Because he did." Unsatisfying answer. "How did the universe start existing?" Answer: "Because it did." Same thing. There's sort of this hidden artisan who "made" Star Wars *cough* "A long time ago". It was then beamed into the matrix of culture, or into the loci of the artist's awareness, through some unknown means. How come the Sith and the Jedi are already existing? What the heck is "The Living Force" (aside from, perhaps, an alternate title?). We start the movie and all this fabulous, esoteric stuff is happening before our eyes, like we're already meant to be "fine" about it. Like, oh, shucks, didn't you know? This is Star Wars. Star Wars is a thing. THE UNFATHOMABLE LOGOS. |
|
|
|
Post by Pyrogenic on May 3, 2021 19:19:12 GMT
PT: Tank?
OT: Healer?
ST: Damager?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on May 4, 2021 16:09:42 GMT
Just found this. Seems relevant:
|
|
|
|
Post by Pyrogenic on May 27, 2021 19:36:35 GMT
I feel like this must go here:
There are several different hidden message modes. One of them is text in the texture of surfaces. So, you're just kind of like looking at the lines of the alphabetical characters as they appear in the texture of objects. It's sort of like reading reality or inputting coded signals for yourself to read. It's kind of anonymous. It's distinctive enough to make out, but it's also ambiguously without an author. I'm not exactly sure where it comes from as an idea. It reminds me of both pareidolia and steganography. What else? It's like you can read practically anything in anything else. But I'm not exactly sure what to read in each thing, nor am I sure exactly why I'm doing it. It seems like it's a pervasive hidden message. There's kind of a distinctive quality to it where you can cast spells at a target object and it resonates through the similarities with what you were saying. So, it's kind of like you have a metaphorically blank canvas, but it's already filled out with words everywhere. And then as you're throwing forth your word combinations, they stick on certain parts of that surface. It's very interesting. I'm wondering if there's some more secrets to it. For example, you can see faces the same way in textures. But seeing the actual text makes me think that there's something meaningfully encoded or at the very least perceptibly intelligible. There must be another category to explain this. It reminds me of a few different things. It reminds me of the Matrix code streaming all over the place. It reminds me of the inscription on the One Ring in The Lord of the Rings. it reminds me of sort of like the ability to read anything as text, literalized. Discovering it was kind of strange. It was basically an accident where I was looking at the surface of a desk. And I thought to myself, what if I can recognize letters in the grain of the wood? And then I extended it to movies where you have an actual, semi-permanent record that can be repeatedly referenced to locate and indicate words as script throughout the imagery. It's a little bit baffling. I constantly wonder if the secretive nature of this phenomenon is somehow occult. It seems like some sort of supervision that allows one to sort of phase Logos nodes in and out of existence throughout all of existence. It's completely ubiquitous in its nature but it's also such an amount of information overload that it's impossible to fully read even a small piece of this infinitely overlapping text. Noticing it stuck with me as a significant discovery. The concept of being able to coax out words from anything at all visual is remarkably tantalizing in its possibilities. Another thing that comes to mind is the idea of the storehouse consciousness where there are latent seeds of potential ideas permeating reality. It's all so overwhelming in the sense that once one notices it or hears about it and sees that it's a possible thing it's kind of like being wrapped in a giant cocoon of a linguistic world. The other idea which is related to diction is that this seems to aid it in a very determined and thoughtful, slow-paced mode. Let me try an example as I'm composing this piece. I'm looking at another desk with some dust on it and I'm reading the letters ETRPVOC. So now, after performing that little example, I'm realizing something that's kind of obvious about it, which is that it's not exactly words that are appearing but letters or alphabetical characters that sometimes can be read as words. It's also possible to shift, with one's perception, exactly what letters one is reading in the texture because they all overlap with different degrees of variegation in their linear paths. Something else interesting is that although it seems to be sort of like an ability, it's hard to actually use it for any serious purpose. For instance, I'm not using that method to compose this piece. Instead, I'm dictating this text with my voice as I'm thinking of what to say. The implication of the text in texture being ubiquitous is that the object in question technically and objectively has a linguistic force field that catches or deflects or absorbs or refracts or reflects any subjective language usage from a person. Any significantly textured object already says everything you can think about it. It says what you think.
Omnipresent Omniscience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Apr 15, 2022 17:26:58 GMT
|
|
