Well, as Marcus just argued, hacking comes in different forms, including both the call scammer butchering and the refined (limited cross terms) covert ops.
My only beef in this conversation is the implicit intelligence, intention, and purpose in Nick's incessant use of "epiphenomenon". The 1st and 2nd paragraphs of Nick's trolling text were well composed, nothing with which to disagree. It was the 3rd that triggered me (making me wonder if I understood the 1st 2). Therein, he said "We will argue for a definition of an epiphenomenon as a consequence of a structure’s (or behavior’s) design which has played no part the development of that structure (or behavior)." Every consequence plays a part in the development of the structure. That's, to some extent, what we *mean* by "consequence". I'd be fine if, for example, our chosen measure was that some outcomes (and their generating machinery) dissipate through the iterations. Some dissipate faster than others. We could talk about the half-life of a given consequential pattern. And if the half-life was short, we could call that a less primary effect than those with large half-lives, perhaps even so drastically less as to call it "ancillary" or some other such word. Re: pan-psychism - Sure. The foundations for it that make the most sense to me look like mutual information. And that, also, comes in scales, not atomic categories. While a pure element crystal, like a brick of titanium, may have minimal content, it's still on the scale. 0 need not be categorically different from ε → 0. Maybe it *is*. But whoever argues that point bears the burden of doing that arguing. If epiphenomena are the most secondary of phenomena, then whoever makes that argument bears the burden of the arguing. Otherwise, all phenomena may well be primary, especially under translation to other scaled measures. On 11/29/21 10:13 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > Glen - > > I appreciate your vernacular distinction between "hack" and "crack". I'm of > an age/generation that "hack" still carries over/undertones of things like > "wood butcher" (someone whose carpentry skills/style is anything but subtle), > but am habituated to recognizing it as a generally positive (or at least > playful) mode. > > In the early days of the internet (public version ca 1992), I had a student > intern from NYU's Tisch School of Design who came to the world of > computers/internet from very much an art-design perspective where they had > their own conceptions of adaptive use of design elements and tools. He used > the term "bash around" in a similar mode to the modern "hack around" with the > sense of seeking those potential exploits with an implicit willingness to > risk breaking something in the process. In his case, he seemed to have a > healthy appreciation for the robustness of computer-systems in contrast to > others not-very-computer-savvy who might be afraid to touch the keyboard for > fear they would break something. > > This activity-style takes me back to the "wood butcher" vs the "fine skilled > carpenter"... I have known nominal "wood butchers" whose final work was > highly refined by a certain aesthetic *and* involved a visceral understanding > of the qualities of the materials in use, *derived* by *hacking around* vs > the often more book-larned style of some carvers/carpenters whose > understanding of the materials and tools might be a bit less self-discovered. > > I think your use of the term "exploit"" here adds to the teleological divide > in these conversations... or more to the point exposes it (yet) more. I'm > comfortable in everyday discourse with this divide.... humans > exhibit/experience all sorts of illusions of "free-will" even if our > metaphysics might insist that such things ARE illusions. I even find it > useful (at least convenient) to speak of the intentions of the inanimate > world (e.g. the rock rolling down the cliff crushing the cabin with/without > anyone in it or nearby to care) sometimes, but as with your regular warnings > about excess meaning with metaphorical thinking, I recognize that it is risky > business to *speak* of intentions where there is no evidence there actually > is any. > > Which I *think* offers us the opportunity of the same treatment of this > subject *through* a pan psychism lens? Though we may not want to open up > that complementary can-o-worms. > > - Steve > >> I argue, No. The point of hacking has nothing to do with bugs. It has to do >> with exploits. You can exploit either a purposefully designed in feature >> *or* an accidentally built in bug. >> >> We can put sensitivity analysis and stress testing on a spectrum *with* >> hacking. Penetration testing is on that spectrum, bridging between hacking >> and using the device as intended. >> >> As for the word, itself, I tend to use "hack" to mean anything *playful* and >> "crack" as the exploitation for personal gain. So while a white hat hacker >> tries to find exploits, a black hat "hacker" tries to crack the device for >> exploit/profit. >> >> But to each her own. It's not the word that's important. It's the concept >> and the behavior. >> >> On 11/29/21 9:19 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >>> Isn't the *point* of hacking to discover ways to use "bugs" of an >>> intentionally designed system *as* "features", often in combination with >>> other bugs/features? Maybe *I* impute too much into the idea of >>> "hacking"? (does one impute *into* or *onto* BTW?) >>> >>> I admit, when I follow clickbait with "hack" in the title sometimes the >>> target of the hack is a system *not* designed/built by humans with >>> intentions which the "hack" is overcoming/circumventing/re-tasking... but I >>> don't think of that as a "hack" as much as "thoughtful understanding". The >>> vernacular use of "hack" seems overly broad to me. >>> >>> I suppose the character of Sherlock Holmes is characterized by the overlap >>> of these two abilities (encyclopedic knowledge of human-built and natural >>> systems, along with an acute analytic ability to deduce and infer and and a >>> similar acute ability to synthesize disparate elements of those systems to >>> achieve a specific purpose)? Though I suppose the latter is more in the >>> domain of the Archetype "McGuyver", leaving Sherlock more to the domain of >>> engineering *humans* to admit to or demonstrate their culpability in >>> something or another. McGuyver seems to be intent on breaking or remaking >>> things to fulfill his own current desire. -- "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie." ☤>$ uǝlƃ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
