> What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. -- Morpheus

The actor proposition is incredibly interesting.

Take a look at how Logos works:

 1. First, you write a piece of Logos code, and a special program
translates it to bytecode.
 2. This bytecode is then loaded into the Logos virtual machine.
 3. Many actors connect to this virtual machine.
 4. Eventually, they start to communicate with each other.

The Logos code you wrote specifies how actors are supposed to
communicate. Actors, in their turn, can stand for programs as well as
for humans on the other end. They may even don't know which actor is a
human being and which is not! They still reside in the physical world,
but their "minds" are transcending into the virtual reality of Logos.

One popular film attempted to convey the same idea, and I believe you
know the name.

By modelling discourse, we've accidentally created a matrix. By
writing Logos code, you may accidentally become that architect.

Hey,

I can't help but entertain the comparison!

You're making a very good point when you mention that actors are somehow
transcendent with respect to the environment and language in which they
are being displayed.

>They may even don't know which actor is a human being and which is not!

That's right.

They might be well in the dark on who's who, but one way or the other it
doesn't change anything— the rules specify what can and cannot be said
within one of the probable discourses.

However, I wouldn't go as far as to say that simple symbol systems we're
dealing with here in logos are sufficient to model anything remotely
resembling the matrix, because they aren't. In order to do so, you have
to master the semantics of derivative.

And we're very far from that as of now.

-badt