Sensory -> Motor :: client collaboration's Clique -> Agent Collaboration's Clique

Don't get too hopeful, but this mechanism may be the final necessary functional addition to the implementation. Once implemented, the concept might be proven.

In this entry, I briefly covered what appears to be a phenomenon which emerged as a side-effect of the progress to a functional implementation: one appears to require two Cliques in order to properly model and control collaborative activity in Clique Space(TM). Again, this mechanism arises due to the necessity of Clique Space being able to construct an environment in which a self can be extended into cyberspace; an act which must necessarily be self-referential. This mechanism might appear to be analogous to sensory and motor homunculi - a feature of complex nervous systems such as our own.

The mechanism appears to operate in the following generic way.

Clique Space siphons the state of connected devices and measures this raw device state against Limiting Constraint characteristics of the corresponding Clique's Participants; this Clique is the client collaboration Clique which models the external collaboration. This Clique, its Participants, the Participants' Limiting Constraints, and other Participants' components and can be viewed or persisted as Limiting Constraint affinity permits by any individual, possessing sufficient constraint affinity, regardless of whether they are participating in the external collaboration or not. Hence, this Clique might be seen as a type of sensory homunculus because it gives an individual who can view the collaboration as a Clique, a sense of what is going on in the collaboration the Clique is modelling.

The Agent Collaboration's Clique might be likened to a motor homunculus. This Clique permits Participants' modelled state changes to be distributed throughout the Agent Devices which are siphoning the state of the devices participating in the external collaboration.  In addition to the participating devices, Agent Devices which siphon and serve devices which can view, or persist, or even control device activity are also Participants if any connected devices with these capabilities, having sufficient Limiting Constraint affinity, intend to view, persist or control activity of the client collaboration's Clique.

There appears to be one specific exception.

The Agent Collaboration's Clique is a model of itself. This model is completely trivial and unsustainable without a client collaboration's Clique; modelling one Agent Collaboration's Clique with another promotes infinite regress. Viewing or persisting the activity in an Agent Collaboration's Clique might be thought of as acts of philosophical introspection. Perhaps attempting to control the Agent Collaboration's Clique might be seen as a kind of evil, and may be prohibited in a Clique Space administered by individuals who may find attempts to directly control an Agent Collaboration's Clique ethically questionable. Taking control of an Agent Collaboration's Clique would be like someone taking control of your own limbs through stimulating various areas of the motor homunculus of your own nervous system; you may find your body behaving in strange ways, and you might be further confused as to the intentions you had when performing these actions.

The reader is not seeing things. The term "client collaboration" is not capitalised whereas the term "Agent Collaboration" is.This is because the client collaboration, although mentioned in the patent, was considered by me as more of a context (a client collaboration as the collaboration going on in the device manufacturer's media and being modelled as a Clique by virtue of the fact that each of the member devices' state, connected to Clique Space through zero or more Agent Devices, is, provided the external device is connected to at least one Agent Device, being siphoned off by these Agent Devices and replicated in the Clique) than as anything structurally relevant to Clique Space.

This perspective can be contrasted with the Agent Collaboration, which was, at the time the patent was published, thought to have structural relevance even if the Agent Collaboration is perhaps more refined now (an Agent Collaboration is any set of Agent Devices involved in both siphoning state from the devices involved in the client collaboration and serving the view/persistence/control devices interested in this same client collaboration) than it was when the patent was published (an Agent Collaboration being merely the model of the set of Agent Devices participating in a particular Clique Space - what can now be considered a client collaboration in the mechanism disclosed in this entry). Maybe in the future I'll decide to capitalise the term Client Collaboration... maybe that time will be as soon as I implement the mechanism I have disclosed here.