# fg13.memo

Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at lightlink.com
Tue Oct 13 06:06:08 EDT 2020

```

((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))

THE COMPUTER MODEL OF THE MIND

FG - 13
No Date

Copyright (C) Frank Gordon
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes

In his early writings about Dianetics, LRH used the computer
analogy of the mind extensively.  In DMSMH, "The monitor could be called
the center of awareness of the person."  ((To monitor is used in the
sense of 'to direct or control the activity of'.))  At that time,
monitor did not mean a TV screen, but the built-in computer operating
system.  What is now called ROM, the "read only memory" which controls
the basic operation of the computer and the language required to access
it

The simplest computer model of aberration was the "held down seven"
first discussed in "Dianetics The Evolution of a Science (pp.53-54, 1972
edition):"

"Let's postulate this perfect computer ...  What would make it
wrong?  Exterior determinism beyond its capacity to reject.  If it could
not kick out a false datum it would have to compute with it ...  Let's
take any common adding machine.  We put into it the order that all of
its solutions must contain the figure seven."

That would have been difficult to demonstrate in 1950.  In 1992,
however, we can easily do this on a home computer, using BASIC, the most
popular computer language:

10 rem the aberrated computer
20 input "enter a number x ";x
30 input "enter a number y ";y
40 let a=7 :   rem the aberrated im-plant
50 let x=x+a:let y=y+a
60 print "the sum of x and y is ";x+y
70 print "the product of x and y is ";x*y

When this is run, the results are certainly aberrated.  By trying
different inputs, including x=0 and y=0, one might be able to discover
that 7 was being added to each number entered.

But obviously, the simplest way to discover this would be to list
the program, and spot the buggy commands or implants.  However, there
are methods to keep a program from listing (occlusion).  Then we are
really in the soup; particularly if we add an additional complexity, a
random number generator, by replacing line 40 with:

40 let a=int(rnd(0)*10).

Then the "held down seven" could be anything from 0 to 10.  In this
case, it becomes increasingly important that we get at "the program."

Can this implant be erased by sheer repetition, like "running an
engram?"  On a computer, just mechanical repetition or "running" gives a
no-change dramatization.  The "running" then, must include a way to
increase awareness of the underlying postulates.  This is analogous to
finding a way to reveal (or list) the program.

To continue the analogy.  As a kind of obscuring charge, what would
make a program unlistable?  Perhaps postulates like "These are MY things
and you're not going to get at them or criticize them."  Or, I own this
and you are not going to duplicate it."  Many commercial programs have
protective systems to prevent such duplication.

An adult can be assumed to have many of these programs or ways of
handling life's difficulties.  In some cases these programs may have
become so embedded that they are now hard-wired into his Operating
System.

This results, not in a program that can be accessed or listed with
moderate effort; but in an odd way of understanding and acting upon
situations.  So, unless one can locate the proper access code for this
implanted system (or demon) one is apt to be stymied by repeated "SYNTAX
ERRORs."

This can feel like talking to a bureaucrat, whose many hidden
requirements and standards about communication are unknown (unless you
get a copy of the rules he goes by).  To get a communication through,
these requirements (the reality level?) must be discovered.

There is another interesting parallel between working with
computers and auditing.  With early computers, instructions were entered
by wiring a plug-board, and data was entered separately.  Later, a way
was found to enter both data and instructions sequentially into the
memory bank.  To decode this, the central processing unit had to be able
to tell whether a number represented an action command or just
information.

This parallels problems a person can have recognizing that "Get
out!" isn't a command, but just data.  Recognizing it as data
immediately reduces it's command value.  This applies to auditing
situations which tempt one to Q&A.  If the pc says, "Get out!" the
auditor may decode this as a command to do something, rather than treat
it simply as information.

((The key point to action commands in engrams, phrase in engrams
that order some kind of doingingness, is the pc will dramatize them
either in the real world or in the time track itself.  Thus an engram
that has 'Get Out!' recorded in it might cause the pc to want to get out
of where he is when restimulated, but more importantly will cause the pc
to get out of the engram when told to return to it during session.  He
will MOVE ON THE TIME TRACK AWAY FROM THE ENGRAM.  Thus Hubbard stated
that most problems that pcs have of moving on their track came from
action phrases in the engrams on the track which dictated to the pc how
he should move on the track.  Later Hubbard mentioned that only very low
toned pcs (most of Earth) responded to action phrases with regards to
their own time track.))

Handling a provocative comment as simply data is a way of avoiding
a plunge into a game-condition.  Just an understanding "OK," rather than
"Oh yeah!  Who says so?" and the bait is handled.

These are a few of the ways the mind can be compared with a
computer.  Both minds and computers process, interpret, and act upon
data.

Frank Gordon

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Oct 13 06:06:03 EDT 2020
WWW://www.clearing.org