It is known that the common "machinelanguage" of mammalian brains is not yet discovered. The selfmetaprogram language is some individual variation of the basic native language in each specific human case. All of the levels and each level expressed in the selfmetaprogram language for selfprogramming cover very large segments of the total operation of the computer, rather than details of its local operations. Certain concepts of the operation of computers, once effectively introduced into a given mindbraincomputer, change its metaprograms rapidly. Language now takes on a new precision and power in the programming process.
- John C. Lilly, Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer
Let's explore the nature of the selfmetaprogram language. In what ways might it parallel conventional programming languages, and what ways might it differ? How can the selfmetaprogram language be expressed in the English language? Does the human biocomputer rely on a language composed of ordinary words, or archetypes?
Perhaps some sort of distributed hash table exists within each human mind, which serves the purpose of correlating keyword-archetype pairs. At a glance, these word-idea pairs would not seem to be relevant to each other, as there may be several layers of abstraction (i.e., a metaphor about a metaphor) between the keyword and the respective archetype. Because of the inherently abstract nature, I would imagine a counter-intuitive relationship between the instructive keywords and the subsequent metaprogram creations/invocations. To what extent is the human biocomputer vulnerable to external programming? This now enters the realm of general semantics.
General semantics is an educational discipline created by Alfred Korzybski. Its basic assumption is that “language ‘enslaves’ us by conditioning our brains to perceive a false reality”
Korzybski’s central goal was to attain a "consciousness of abstracting," or an awareness of the map/territory distinction and of how information gets deleted/distorted in the linguistic and other representations used. He considered sporadic and intellectual understanding of these concepts insufficient and argued that full sanity can be achieved only when the consciousness of abstracting becomes constant and a matter of reflex.On the most literal level, one may create or invoke a (supra(self))metaprogram using ordinary sentences. One may phrase their sentences in an absolute manner, i.e., "x is y" Imagine the brain mindlessly obeying commands and absorbing opinions -- this is the most extreme example of susceptibility.
- Wikipedia on "general semantics"
However, we are not all so influenced by absolute statements which are contradictory to our beliefs, or lack thereof. There is a variable element of suggestibility which must be taken into account. Other elements include the complexity/abstractness, pervasiveness, entity-specificness (specific to a certain entity-group's "hash table", assuming some level of variability in the "selfmetaprogram language") and possible some synchronistic (payload is relevant to environmental cues) aspects of the linguistic payload. For example, a particular payload may only enter a being's perceptions a handful of times, but due to its complexity in abstraction and specificness, have a substantial effect. Inversely, a very unspecific but pervasive payload may be used as a sort of "shotgun" or "brute-force" method of delivering the payload. Linguistic payloads of sufficient complexity may infringe upon the number of entities which are vulnerable, due to a certain level of complexity required in the entity herself.
Reducing susceptibility to such payloads, in the most primitive form, would consist of mentally refuting something known to the observer to be false. This could be in the form of a sub-vocalisation, mental visualisation, or otherwise. However, one must first effectively deconstruct the payload before attempting to defuse it. Literal and absolute statements are the simplest. To effectively neutralise ambient invocations of *metaprograms, simply communicate otherwise to the self. For example, you overhear someone say "I don't like to read." If you do like to read, you may instinctively compare this statement with your own beliefs, and effectively deconstruct and perhaps defuse the payload. However, if you don't really have an opinion about the subject, then you may not take the liberty to communicate "They do not like to read. Not me." to yourself. If you're not regularly in a state where you're able to mentally refute this information, then you're vulnerable to involuntary *metaprogram creation/invocation. Freedom is eternal self-vigilance.
If these payloads are not deconstructed and defused, this creates a hole in defenses. If one payload allows a logical fallacy to be regarded as true, then this will be exploited and used as a means to introduce more harmful payloads in the future.