philosophy forum?

[barcode_]

we could apply our different thoughts on philosophyical questions. Why correlation to RE any extra angle in RE is helpful and this one will help give us new 'angles' in life when looking at situations so the answers to ?'s will better us by giving us more/newer/better tools to reversin the world so we aren't duped and fed misinformation by mass media and look to ourselves for inspiration(S)? ranting yes? closing post? yes

[Fake51]

While keeping an open mind is generally good, I would probably reconsider the whole idea of applying RE to philosophy. In fact, I would sincerely suggest restricting the use of RE to where it in fact applies. Thinking that RE applies to the world as such, or society as such, is as bad reasoning as thinking that everythings political - a common mistake in the '70s if I'm correctly informed.

Reverse engineering can be used with any process that can be reversed: be it physical, electronical, mechanical, whatever. Thinking that RE applies to concepts such as logic is simple misapplying the concept of RE - the two are not connected. Following the lines of reasoning above, neither is there any RE involved in understanding thoughts, dialogues, reasoning, or the likes. Understanding normal social behaviour and possibly trying to take advantage of it is not a question of RE'ing - you do not reverse engineer anything, since there is nothing to reverse engineer there. There is something to understand, and knowledge that can be used. This, however, is not a description of RE, but of everyday life. RE just happens to fall under this heading.

Now, whether anyone will actually care about the above (which I doubt, seeing that quite a few people of the board seem to think that RE will lead to the sacred, mystical truth - or perhaps even is the truth) I do not know. Not even sure I care. The board seems likeable, with interesting topics - it probably doesn't matter in the end, if the authors think that RE'ing shows the secret side to world, the side that the workerbees never see. RE'ing is a tool, nothing more, and quite a few of the topics here have instrumental value, so why bother.

Fake

[Devine9]

Well I agree with you on some aspects of your post. And judging by your wording I think its safe to say that you group myself in with the rest in saying that I believe that RE is the key to unlocking some secret world. I think you've mis-judged the whole point thats coming across on some of the posts on the forum.

First.. to get barcode's post out of the way.. barcode is somewhat eccentric in that his outlook on things is most commonly not the same as others. Therefore in a lot of his posts you'll notice he comes across as either out in left field or childish in his ideas, but hasn't it been said in the past that there is something to learn from young children that gets lost as the years pile on? Whether or not that person was correct barcode is a part of the team and he does a great service in his area of expertise.

Now.. for your approach to reverse engineering. I don't pretend to be some all knowing person within this field of exploration but I do think that I have good experience with a lot of it. RE in itself holds a different meaning for everyone.. and by all means if you don't think that some of the forums are directed to your own liking then feel free to ignore them.. or to raise argument

Personally.. I find that when I think of reverse engineering I just think of taking something, finding out how it works, learning about it, and manipulating it, commonly by using it to a means that was not _exactly_ its original purpose.. therefore in the end reaching a better understanding of the topic. This can then apply to anything in my mind.. you can take a program.. learn about it.. manipulate it, and use it for something that was not exeactly its intended purpose.. you can also learn about communication with others in the same way.. then manipulate the conversation and use the conversation to entice the other person to do your bidding or to gain information which was not _exeactly_ the original intent of the conversation. Sure, the latter application is a bit out in left field, but I find it interesting..

Anyway, enjoy yourself on our forums, there are many more releases on their way within the other sections of the site though so keep an eye on the news on the main page, we'll post new additions there most of the time.

again, welcome.

Devine Right [RET]

[Fake51]

RE in itself holds a different meaning for everyone

Í would be honestly surprised if people did not share a notion of RE - this is what binds people here together. It is ofcourse trivially true to say that you can't just mean whatever you want with the words reverse engineering. However, you're probably suggesting that there might be slight differences in the way people use the words. Even so, it would be very strange if people couldn't easily find a common point with what they take RE to be.

you can also learn about communication with others in the same way.. then manipulate the conversation and use the conversation to entice the other person to do your bidding or to gain information which was not _exeactly_ the original intent of the conversation. Sure, the latter application is a bit out in left field, but I find it interesting.

My point is this: even though the considerations you apply when learning about communication are somewhat similar to RE, it's just not RE. You might as well call all analyzing RE. In fact, you might as well substitute the word "analyze" in all dictionaries with "RE" on this sort of understanding. Basically, what you're saying is that anything at all is susceptible to RE. This is simply not true. The field of communication between people, or social theory and practice if you want, has nothing to do with RE. The fact that you can analyze how people communicate and use and abuse that system simply does not make that RE. At best, you're misapplying concepts. At worst, you simply fail to understand the meaning of RE and different areas of knowledge.

Now, areas not susceptible to RE are still immensely interesting. They might also have a place on this forum - indeed this seems very likely. The one thing to understand is just that they are not matters of RE - understanding the logic of argumentation is NOT reverse engineering: any other notion is not just a different definition, it's a misunderstanding. You are not reverse engineering anything when you question the logic of someone, or try to figure out how an argument works. Neither are you reverse engineering anything when you figure out how to push someones buttons - the subject is interesting, but it's RE.

So, what I'm saying, is not that those areas are not interesting. I'm just saying that calling them matters of RE is a misunderstanding.

Fake

[Devine9]

So what is your definition then? If it is analysis of windows internals and protection systems, but not analysis of human intercommunication.
You aren't being clear on your definition besides stating your opinion.

Devine Right [RET]

[Fake51]

Reverse engineering can be used with any process that can be reversed: be it physical, electronical, mechanical, whatever.

That seems a lot clearer than the view you just ascribed to me. It doesn't cover topics of social theory and practice, however.

Furthermore, I'm not stating an opinion, I'm trying to clear up the use of the concept of RE, not just by postulating but by arguing too.

Fake

[barcode_]

well i don't know why i'm even addressing this matter but reason i said what i said as RE isn't bound by a specific target thus where does it end? where can it not be applied? electrical engineering is engineering of all that is thus electrical. reverse is just something anything has a reverse. no more need of justification or pushing each others views on others either it was just my .02 but please feel free to contribute to the rest of the forums as they are needing some inquisitive readings and analyzing as you did Fake. If i known ya woulda picked it apart i woulda prepared more time (been sober) when writing it no harm no foul but let's apply our efforts elsewhere?

[Fake51]

No worries there. I just reacted to something I saw as a concept that need some clearing. I have no concerns about the use of methods in RE being used on areas outside of RE. My point is just that the scope and range of RE is limited. Thus, if you want a philosophical part on the forum, the relevant question is whether you want to do philosophy, not whether you can do RE on philosophy - you can't, it's that simple. You can, however, do philosophy using methods that are useful in RE too. So, the real question, should you happen to ask me, is whether the board has a place for philosophical discussions, and whether this board can contribute with something special given it's other areas of interest.

I'm not sure on either points, could go both ways

Fake

[Devine9]

Well this thread has become a clear waste of time as we all have opposing views. Personally I don't much care what your definitiong of reverse engineering is but if there is a whole division of reverse engineering on the internet called Reality Reversing.. then i'm sure your basis of argument just went to shit...

Again however, feel free to brose the rest of the site.. this thread is done.

Devine Right [RET]