To extend the analogy, a user interacting with the GUI may think they are interacting with the operating system, but that would be incorrect. They are, instead, interacting with just another program whose duty it is to protect the operating system from the user and the user from the operating system.
Once we realize that we're only dealing with another abstraction layer, then we can better grasp how to use what is in front of us or take up the task of working closer to the kernel. On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Bill! <[email protected]> wrote: > Anthony, > > I didn't say a GUI represents a chaotic system. I said a GUI represents a > very complex system. There is however virtually no difference in the > perception of a chaotic system and a system that is so complex that it is > incomprehensible. > > A computer GUI shields the user from a virtually incomprehensible system. > It does so by only presenting a small sub-set of the system in a > easy-to-work-with package, but in doing so only allows access to a small > subset of the system's total functions. > > Illusions perform that same function for much the same reason with the > same limitations. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote: > > > > Bill, > >  > > GUI cannot represent or control a digital system in chaos. So that is > not a good analogy. > >  > > Anthony > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Thursday, 3 November 2011 6:14 PM > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > >  > > Anthony, > > > > Your recent spate of posts interrogating me about my description of > `illusions' have caused me to think more about it, and I think I've come up > with a better analogy. > > > > Illusions are to reality as a graphical user interface (GUI) is to a > digital computer. > > > > The digital computer is at its most basic level just a collection of > electric switches or gates. These switches are either on or off, open or > closed. Today's computers have billions of these gates. In and of > themselves the state of these gates have no meaning until given meaning by > the operating system. At any point in time (called clock cycle)) all these > gates are in one and only one of the two possible states, so the computer > is constantly changing configuration depending on the operating > instructions it is given. > > > > The switches or gates can be represented by the binary digits 0 and 1. > These binary digits are called bits and can be grouped into 4 (byte) and > represented by decimal number 0 thru 9 or a hexadecimal number 0 thru 9 and > A thru F. So the switch configuration of on-on-off-on can be represented as > 1101 (binary) or 13 (decimal) or D (hexadecimal). The switch configurations > are usually grouped > > into 2 bytes called a fullword and represented with 2 hexadecimal digits > â€" like 4D. A fullword can represent 256 different configurations. These > fullwords can be used to represent numbers, letters and other symbols, > addresses within the computer operational instructions. The lowest level > operational instruction is machine code and it is written in hexadecimal. > The next level up from that is assembler language. It has a one-to-one > relationship with machine code but is expressed in letters and numbers. The > next step up > > from that is a compiled language like COBOL or BASIC. The expressions in > a compiled language have a one-to-many relationship with machine code. In > other words one BASIC command generates many lines of machine code. > > > > There can be many steps after this but one of the highest levels is a > graphical user interface (GUI). An example of this is Windows or the > Macintosh GUI. There are other interfaces besides graphical ones. Touch > screens as a variant and voice activated interfaces are examples of these. > All of these help the user interface with the computer, but all limit the > user's ability to access the resources of the entire computer. You have to > give up functionaly for convenience. > > > > Illusions are like GUI's. They sit on top of reality and conceal it. > They probably evolved for the same reason GUI's were developed â€" to hide > the complexity of reality from you and to give you some limited access to > reality by presenting reality in a more understandable context. That is > illusions present parts of reality to you within a restrictive framework of > logic. Just as a GUI gives you the ability to do some simple things while > restricting your access to the complete power of the computer because it is > to complex â€" illusions give you a nice, comfortable interface with > reality that has been cropped and modified to fit within a logical > framework while cloaking the chaos that is reality. > > > > How's that? A better explanation/analogy? > > > > …Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > Anthony, > > > > > > That is essentially the case but I'd need to change the wording > somewhat to make it more correct: > > > > > > Reality and illusion do not operate in parallel. There is only > reality. Illusions are like a contorted, make-believe add-on. > > > > > > Reality is not a system since a system has rules and forms. Chaos is a > good word for it - or emptiness. > > > > > > Illusions can have rules and forms. I suppose there could be illusions > that don't, but the ones we usually have are illusions of duality and logic > so we can create them with rules and forms. You can conct business or play > chess with an illusion of predictibility based on the rules and forms you > think apply, but these rules and forms are illusory, which means they are > ephemeral and impermanent, so the results are not really predictive but > only probabilities. In the best case the illusions we create have rules and > forms that approximate reality - like a structured sequence of pixels > approximate a curved line - a digital representation of an analog shape. > > > > > > Just think logic = digital and reality/chaos = analog. It's kind of > like that. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > >  > > > > I am continuing my attempt to understand you. At this moment, I > assume you have two systems in parallel: > > > >  > > > > 1. Real system with no rules or cause and effect. In other words, > complete chaos. > > > >  > > > > 2. Illusions with rules and cause and effects, where you can conduct > computer business with predictability and play chess to try to overwhelm > your rival. > > > >  > > > > Is that right? > > > >  > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are > reading! Talk about it today! > > MARKETPLACE > > Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - > Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. > > > > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use > > . > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
