The Human O/S

[Charles Savage]

This is a thoughtful article that I was happy to see. The authors make the
statement, "The protocols we use between people have never been designed."
Actually, human communication protocols were analyzed many years ago by
philosopher L. Ron Hubbard. Much of his work was based on that analysis.
You can see the basics of this at...

http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/sh5_1.htm

It has been my experience that this protocol does allow one to, "...reasonably
expect some level of guaranteed transmission and reception."

Expansions of this work move into the arena of organizations and provide
a framework for an effective and scalable organization of any kind. But
the core of it all is the communication protocol.

Charlie Savage
csavage@primenet.com

[anthony kong]

Hi,

My first reaction is: it is an absurd idea. I think the goal that are stated
are so general and board that ANY communication-enabled software (groupware)
can claim to achieve. The question not studied is: how these Human OS/protocol
is going to work?

Human do not just commnicate verbally. We communicate also with body language.
We do not just communicate about work and figures, we also EXPRESS our emotion.
But the article remind me of the Edward De Bono's "de Bono code (tm)", which
wants us to communicate with numbers!

Of course, I am open about this topic, but what I knows tell me that the
pursuit of this is in a wrong direction in order to achive the stated goals.
We can refer to the history of logicism.


Please point out if I understand the idea (human os) wrong.

Regards,


Anthony




"Charles Savage" <csavage@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>This is a thoughtful article that I was happy to see. The authors make
the
>statement, "The protocols we use between people have never been designed."
> Actually, human communication protocols were analyzed many years ago by
>philosopher L. Ron Hubbard. Much of his work was based on that analysis.
> You can see the basics of this at...
>
>http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/sh5_1.htm
>
>It has been my experience that this protocol does allow one to, "...reasonably
>expect some level of guaranteed transmission and reception."
>
>Expansions of this work move into the arena of organizations and provide
>a framework for an effective and scalable organization of any kind. But
>the core of it all is the communication protocol.
>
> Charlie Savage
> csavage@primenet.com
>

[Mafjgbs]

As regards "communication" and especially the scientology description to which
you have referred:

the word itself is composed of morphemes which imply the following:

com: with
unication: unity, identity

so, in essence, perfect communication is the creation of a state of being
in another which is exactly like that in yourself...

transmitting information, on the other hand, which is a more apt word for
what the scientolgists describe, is simply the movement of things (for instance,
bits) which form a pattern, from one source to a destination. How the destination
recognizes or interprets the pattern is completely independent of the source's
recognition, interpretation, or even intent.

this latter phenomenon better describes what computers do, hoever, the recogniztion,
interpretation, and intent is governed by convention (protocol, parsing,
and execution models).

perfect communication is probably rarely achieved, if even possible, though
some intimate human acts come very close.

The ideas of these folks is not patently absurd and the quest is noble, but...I
think the current course is misguided, due to the fundamental misconception
that the transmission of information is somehow the core of communication.

"anthony kong" <anthony_kong@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>Hi,
>
>My first reaction is: it is an absurd idea. I think the goal that are stated
>are so general and board that ANY communication-enabled software (groupware)
>can claim to achieve. The question not studied is: how these Human OS/protocol
>is going to work?
>
>Human do not just commnicate verbally. We communicate also with body language.
>We do not just communicate about work and figures, we also EXPRESS our emotion.
>But the article remind me of the Edward De Bono's "de Bono code (tm)", which
>wants us to communicate with numbers!
>
>Of course, I am open about this topic, but what I knows tell me that the
>pursuit of this is in a wrong direction in order to achive the stated goals.
>We can refer to the history of logicism.
>
>
>Please point out if I understand the idea (human os) wrong.
>
>Regards,
>
>
>Anthony
>
>
>
>
>"Charles Savage" <csavage@primenet.com> wrote:
>>
>>This is a thoughtful article that I was happy to see. The authors make
>the
>>statement, "The protocols we use between people have never been designed."
>> Actually, human communication protocols were analyzed many years ago by
>>philosopher L. Ron Hubbard. Much of his work was based on that analysis.
>> You can see the basics of this at...
>>
>>http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/sh5_1.htm
>>
>>It has been my experience that this protocol does allow one to, "...reasonably
>>expect some level of guaranteed transmission and reception."
>>
>>Expansions of this work move into the arena of organizations and provide
>>a framework for an effective and scalable organization of any kind. But
>>the core of it all is the communication protocol.
>>
>> Charlie Savage
>> csavage@primenet.com
>>
>

[AdamS]

Your statement that "perfect communication is probably rarely achieved, if
even possible, though some intimate human acts come very close." is dead
on.

I suspect that the McCarthy's have spent lots of brain cycles contemplating
this very phenonmenon, in an attempt to identify which mechanisms are in
place for that perfect, intimate communication. The "human aspect" is what
must be understood here - words are important to convey ideas, but they are
like packets; the "connection" itself is the environment through which those
packets flow. For a good human connection to be achieved, there must be
trust, respect, and yes, even love.

If you've ever been involved with a small start-up company (or anything resembling
one), you know that communication between team members seemed to "just happen".
It's tremendously efficient - things get created really really fast! Traditional
project management theory suggests that this effieciency arises because all
of the team members shared a common goal and a common understanding of how
to hit that goal. But the other critical component is the human "intimacy"
that these teams also share. This is the factor that the McCarthys shed
new light upon, in the environment of efficient communication.

Good discussion - keep those cards and letters coming! <g>

-A.




"Mafjgbs" <mafjgbs@feste.elf> wrote:
>
>As regards "communication" and especially the scientology description to
which
>you have referred:
>
>the word itself is composed of morphemes which imply the following:
>
>com: with
>unication: unity, identity
>
>so, in essence, perfect communication is the creation of a state of being
>in another which is exactly like that in yourself...
>
>transmitting information, on the other hand, which is a more apt word for
>what the scientolgists describe, is simply the movement of things (for instance,
>bits) which form a pattern, from one source to a destination. How the destination
>recognizes or interprets the pattern is completely independent of the source's
>recognition, interpretation, or even intent.
>
>this latter phenomenon better describes what computers do, hoever, the recogniztion,
>interpretation, and intent is governed by convention (protocol, parsing,
>and execution models).
>
>perfect communication is probably rarely achieved, if even possible, though
>some intimate human acts come very close.
>
>The ideas of these folks is not patently absurd and the quest is noble,
but...I
>think the current course is misguided, due to the fundamental misconception
>that the transmission of information is somehow the core of communication.
>
>"anthony kong" <anthony_kong@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>My first reaction is: it is an absurd idea. I think the goal that are stated
>>are so general and board that ANY communication-enabled software (groupware)
>>can claim to achieve. The question not studied is: how these Human OS/protocol
>>is going to work?
>>
>>Human do not just commnicate verbally. We communicate also with body language.
>>We do not just communicate about work and figures, we also EXPRESS our
emotion.
>>But the article remind me of the Edward De Bono's "de Bono code (tm)",
which
>>wants us to communicate with numbers!
>>
>>Of course, I am open about this topic, but what I knows tell me that the
>>pursuit of this is in a wrong direction in order to achive the stated goals.
>>We can refer to the history of logicism.
>>
>>
>>Please point out if I understand the idea (human os) wrong.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>
>>Anthony
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"Charles Savage" <csavage@primenet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>This is a thoughtful article that I was happy to see. The authors make
>>the
>>>statement, "The protocols we use between people have never been designed."
>>> Actually, human communication protocols were analyzed many years ago
by
>>>philosopher L. Ron Hubbard. Much of his work was based on that analysis.
>>> You can see the basics of this at...
>>>
>>>http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/sh5_1.htm
>>>
>>>It has been my experience that this protocol does allow one to, "...reasonably
>>>expect some level of guaranteed transmission and reception."
>>>
>>>Expansions of this work move into the arena of organizations and provide
>>>a framework for an effective and scalable organization of any kind. But
>>>the core of it all is the communication protocol.
>>>
>>> Charlie Savage
>>> csavage@primenet.com
>>>
>>
>

[Zane Thomas]

On 25 Oct 2000 20:47:22 -0700, "Charles Savage" <csavage@primenet.com>
wrote:

>Actually, human communication protocols were analyzed many years ago by
>philosopher L. Ron Hubbard.

Actually Hubbard was a liar and a fraud. He babbled for years and wrote
stupid things about space aliens which he later turned into a
'religion'<cough>.

He never performed one single bit of research to support Scien{ce)tology.
A con man, nothing more.



---
Homie Z

You're just mad because the voices don't talk to you.

[Nancy Folsom]

In article <39f8349e$1@news.devx.com>, adams@learnlinc.com says...
>...But the other critical component is the human "intimacy"
> that these teams also share. This is the factor that the McCarthys shed
> new light upon, in the environment of efficient communication.

You must have read a different article then then I saw.

[Michael W]

"Nancy Folsom" <nancy_folsom@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.146a2b68f807ee06989682@news.devx.com...
> In article <39f8349e$1@news.devx.com>, adams@learnlinc.com says...
> >...But the other critical component is the human "intimacy"
> > that these teams also share. This is the factor that the McCarthys shed
> > new light upon, in the environment of efficient communication.
>
> You must have read a different article then then I saw.

I think you two are just using different protocols of communication. :-)