Seriously!
It acknowledges that a line in the sand must be drawn on what would occupy any organism capable of sufficiently complex thought. It's also an implementation convenience in that a new letter doesn't have to be substituted where generic parameterisation is called for.
Both cute and realistic.
Being derived from the Latin "reductio ad absurdum", the term carries connotations of formality, and also perhaps underscores the utter silliness of the concept's philosophical direction: a contemplative singularity. Its plural would be "Absurda" and the collective noun might be a "Silliness" of Absurda.
This term also acknowledges the humorous event horizon encircling the purpose of the Account too. Great!
Hmmm...
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Account -> "Repropsyche"?
Kudos to my mother for this one.
Possibly, in inventing a term, one can introduce a concept that is free of the weight of culture. My mother's invention appears to be a fair to good attempt. The term acknowledges the representative association of the Account to that bit of an self that doesn't change; that bit of a self that if it did change, would no longer be that bit of the same self: that bit of the individual which the individual would acknowledge cannot change.
More importantly, the term also underscores the fact that the Element is nothing but a representation of the phenomenon of the self - or psyche; something which can legitimately be said would necessarily escape containment. I am loath to assert Clique Space's capacity to contain any substance of this nature.
It's one word. So far as I know, this word is an invention, and hence carries no cultural baggage. No other Element starts with an R, and that means that the Element can be parameterised "R". Nothing else appears to be cute about this, and that might be a good thing.
Hmmm...
Possibly, in inventing a term, one can introduce a concept that is free of the weight of culture. My mother's invention appears to be a fair to good attempt. The term acknowledges the representative association of the Account to that bit of an self that doesn't change; that bit of a self that if it did change, would no longer be that bit of the same self: that bit of the individual which the individual would acknowledge cannot change.
More importantly, the term also underscores the fact that the Element is nothing but a representation of the phenomenon of the self - or psyche; something which can legitimately be said would necessarily escape containment. I am loath to assert Clique Space's capacity to contain any substance of this nature.
It's one word. So far as I know, this word is an invention, and hence carries no cultural baggage. No other Element starts with an R, and that means that the Element can be parameterised "R". Nothing else appears to be cute about this, and that might be a good thing.
Hmmm...
Perhaps Account -> Ego?
I have been deliberating over my foray into amateur psychoanalysis, and I'm giving positive reflection over the term Ego as a replacement for Account.
On Wiki at the same reference as quoted in my earlier blog entry, the ego "includes defensive, perceptual, intellectual-cognitive, and executive functions". This passage also says that the ego "seeks to please the id’s drive in realistic ways that will benefit in the long term rather than bringing grief". This last point is rather interesting.
Clique Space was conceived as a tool that a particular user might use to control, model, coordinate and record the activity of any device they possess which they have connected to Clique Space (through their Account, or Ego as I am arguing here). Hence, if a given user's ego continually tries to find a balance between the narcissistic drive of the id and the moral ideals of the super-ego, then it is the ego that is making the decisions, and is ultimately held to account (or Account as per Clique Space's design intent) for them.
Hence, if, through devices one has connected to a Clique Space, these devices' actions are mapped to an individual (or one's ego) and are controlled, modelled, coordinated and recorded in relation to the decisions of other egos likewise connected, then surely, the term Ego would be an intuitive replacement.
The term Ego is three letters long. If, in the implementation, one used the label "Ego" to denote the Ego Element, and one used the label "EGO" to denote its generic parameterisation (I regularly use parameterisation labels of three letters; like "APN" to denote a place where a particular implementation of an Account Profile's node is substituted), then the Element and its parameterisation labels are of equal length, which is cute.
The generic label equivalent of the Identity is "I". That's cute too.
In fact, an analogue could be drawn between the self, having one ego, but many identities; and the Client Device which itself, should the Element's label "Account" be replaced with "Ego", possesses one Ego and one or more Identities in Clique Space. Hence, the self, or the individual, or even the psyche, would remain a holistic reference.
Maybe it would be better to try to avoid direct usage of the term Ego; maybe it would be better to be more precise about the function of this Element by modifying the noun: Ego Token might be a better possibility. Semantic games perhaps. Hmmm...
On Wiki at the same reference as quoted in my earlier blog entry, the ego "includes defensive, perceptual, intellectual-cognitive, and executive functions". This passage also says that the ego "seeks to please the id’s drive in realistic ways that will benefit in the long term rather than bringing grief". This last point is rather interesting.
Clique Space was conceived as a tool that a particular user might use to control, model, coordinate and record the activity of any device they possess which they have connected to Clique Space (through their Account, or Ego as I am arguing here). Hence, if a given user's ego continually tries to find a balance between the narcissistic drive of the id and the moral ideals of the super-ego, then it is the ego that is making the decisions, and is ultimately held to account (or Account as per Clique Space's design intent) for them.
Hence, if, through devices one has connected to a Clique Space, these devices' actions are mapped to an individual (or one's ego) and are controlled, modelled, coordinated and recorded in relation to the decisions of other egos likewise connected, then surely, the term Ego would be an intuitive replacement.
The term Ego is three letters long. If, in the implementation, one used the label "Ego" to denote the Ego Element, and one used the label "EGO" to denote its generic parameterisation (I regularly use parameterisation labels of three letters; like "APN" to denote a place where a particular implementation of an Account Profile's node is substituted), then the Element and its parameterisation labels are of equal length, which is cute.
The generic label equivalent of the Identity is "I". That's cute too.
In fact, an analogue could be drawn between the self, having one ego, but many identities; and the Client Device which itself, should the Element's label "Account" be replaced with "Ego", possesses one Ego and one or more Identities in Clique Space. Hence, the self, or the individual, or even the psyche, would remain a holistic reference.
Maybe it would be better to try to avoid direct usage of the term Ego; maybe it would be better to be more precise about the function of this Element by modifying the noun: Ego Token might be a better possibility. Semantic games perhaps. Hmmm...
Friday, June 15, 2012
Account -> Individual or Account -> Self?
Just to underscore a point, I'm thinking about renaming the Account to the Individual. It just seems appropriate because like the reason for renaming the Account Profile to Identity, an Account quacks just like an individual should.
Or, perhaps, the Account can be renamed to the Soul, or Self, or Id, or Ego. Hmm...
I'm tilting to Self. It's rather straightforward.
Usage of the term Soul seems too controversial and tainted by its association to religious dogma. Id and Ego seem inappropriate based on the definitions that lead to both being mere components of a self - Sigmund Freud's structural model of the Self or Psyche.
Psyche might be more acceptable, but yet, this term seems to be a synonym for the self, which I prefer because of its straightforwardness. No other Element starts with an S, so the choice of a name that starts with a unique letter lends itself to reasons that make Self a good selection in the implementation. Also, the shape of the letter S bares similar symmetry to a yin-yang (or 'Taijitu'. if one consults Wikipedia)... which scores highly on cuteness.
According to Wikipedia, "conscious awareness resides in the ego", but I think it is taking things to far to ascribe things like this to any single part of the Clique Space concept; clearly, doing this should be avoided. However, the concept being represented here is something that has constancy, and even a sense of sacredness. The Account, or in at least this blog entry, the Self, is that part of the individual that the individual can have exclusive sovereignty over in Clique Space.
I am quite confident that Clique Space has the capacity to preserve the sovereignty of the Self, and thereby the Self can act as a reliable token which can be used by the actual self it represents. I believe that the data model, as conceived and refined, has this capability as a designed intent.
Hmmm... Self... and amateur psychoanalysis, and possibly an illustration of the ego's ability to rationalise (possibly in this case, to intellectualise, or even to think magically)... on this blog: I love it!
Or, perhaps, the Account can be renamed to the Soul, or Self, or Id, or Ego. Hmm...
I'm tilting to Self. It's rather straightforward.
Usage of the term Soul seems too controversial and tainted by its association to religious dogma. Id and Ego seem inappropriate based on the definitions that lead to both being mere components of a self - Sigmund Freud's structural model of the Self or Psyche.
Psyche might be more acceptable, but yet, this term seems to be a synonym for the self, which I prefer because of its straightforwardness. No other Element starts with an S, so the choice of a name that starts with a unique letter lends itself to reasons that make Self a good selection in the implementation. Also, the shape of the letter S bares similar symmetry to a yin-yang (or 'Taijitu'. if one consults Wikipedia)... which scores highly on cuteness.
According to Wikipedia, "conscious awareness resides in the ego", but I think it is taking things to far to ascribe things like this to any single part of the Clique Space concept; clearly, doing this should be avoided. However, the concept being represented here is something that has constancy, and even a sense of sacredness. The Account, or in at least this blog entry, the Self, is that part of the individual that the individual can have exclusive sovereignty over in Clique Space.
I am quite confident that Clique Space has the capacity to preserve the sovereignty of the Self, and thereby the Self can act as a reliable token which can be used by the actual self it represents. I believe that the data model, as conceived and refined, has this capability as a designed intent.
Hmmm... Self... and amateur psychoanalysis, and possibly an illustration of the ego's ability to rationalise (possibly in this case, to intellectualise, or even to think magically)... on this blog: I love it!
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Might an Element's properties promise a significant key to cracking the Clique Space(TM) implementation riddle?
Enough about IBM bullshit. Such trivia I'll probably revisit later...
I have asserted many times in a multitude of ways that Clique Space is a simple way of conceptualising a system that allows a collection of devices, possessing state and belonging to an individual, to be assigned to any particular individual, and for any collection of devices which have been so assigned, to be projected to other individuals who themselves, possess devices that project one or more identities likewise.
The idea is perhaps devilishly simple. It's implementation has been occupying my time for almost four years, and sometimes I get the feeling that the implementation might be getting away on me.
Recently, I have had the need to introduce something called an Element's property. Properties appear to serve many of the purposes that I had glimpsed at over quite a number of earlier points over the past four years, and possibly even earlier than that.
An Element contains a collection of properties; it is a container of properties which are internal to the Clique Space implementation. Although not fully implemented at the time this was written, it appears as though a Participant's properties are the all-important Limiting Constraints; properties which dictate how a Clique Space represents and mediates an individual's participation in a collaboration being modelled and controlled inside a Clique. While Limiting Constraints can appear in any Clique Space Element, the Enabling Constraints which expose the state of a device to Clique Space are contained on a Media Profile hierarchy - an n:m acyclic graph - the "top" node representing the particular devices distinct functionality, and the "root" node representing the Clique Space which has ultimate governorship of how this device is controlled when participating in a Clique. It currently appears appropriate that a Media Profile must contain a single Enabling Constraint and from this Enabling Constraint contain a collection of Limiting Constraint labels which expose device control parameters. It also currently appears appropriate that an Element's Limiting Constraints will be contained in an Elements "Limiting Constraints property" to be used as a source of a Participant's state as it changes - changing a Limiting Constraint in any Element will change the state of a Participant in which that Limiting Constraint is expressed.
Admittedly, I couldn't quite get a grip on the relationship between Limiting Constraints and their expression in a Participant when I drafted the patent. It looks as if the implementation artefact of the properties formalises this relationship, and also allows the Clique Space system to abstract the particular internal workings of its own media away from the Enabling/Limiting Constraints mechanism which would be used to express this working when Agent Devices are represented as Participants in the Clique Space's Clique, bipartite engager's Clique (a synapse), and with administrator devices in bipartite serving Agent Device's Cliques. However, I do contend that while these relationships were still fluid at the time I put the patent together, they are considerations revolving around the details of the implementation rather than the abstract concept; the building blocks (Element, Clique Space, Agent Device, Account, Account Profile, Affiliation, Connection, Identity - nee Active Affiliation, Media Profile, Participant, Enabling Constraint, Limiting Constraint) have remained a sufficiently stable explanation of the concept.
The Client Device still exhibited some fluidity in definition; this was because the relationships between the building blocks required some clarification. But I believe the Client Device, being a collection of Affiliations, Collections, Identities and Participants concerning an individual Account has since acquired a robust definition.
All other artefacts like the administrator device (sometimes described as the Client Device because this has been the only other device which has thus far been able to connect to an Agent Device), the engager, the collaborator, the Clique Space member, the synapse, the property, the transmitter, the precis, the delegate, etc. are artefacts that have emerged through the development and implementation of the concept. Although I might have over-engineered the implementation (most early implementations are over-engineered) I assert that these artefacts emerged only as a causal necessity of getting from the concept to the implementation.
I'm hoping that in time, the Clique Space implementation will find that the introduction of the properties might be the final major artefact that fulfils the abstract intentions given in the Clique Space concept. I also do hope that the jurisdictions in which my patent is registered hold these registrations to be valid if or when they are challenged.
I have asserted many times in a multitude of ways that Clique Space is a simple way of conceptualising a system that allows a collection of devices, possessing state and belonging to an individual, to be assigned to any particular individual, and for any collection of devices which have been so assigned, to be projected to other individuals who themselves, possess devices that project one or more identities likewise.
The idea is perhaps devilishly simple. It's implementation has been occupying my time for almost four years, and sometimes I get the feeling that the implementation might be getting away on me.
Recently, I have had the need to introduce something called an Element's property. Properties appear to serve many of the purposes that I had glimpsed at over quite a number of earlier points over the past four years, and possibly even earlier than that.
An Element contains a collection of properties; it is a container of properties which are internal to the Clique Space implementation. Although not fully implemented at the time this was written, it appears as though a Participant's properties are the all-important Limiting Constraints; properties which dictate how a Clique Space represents and mediates an individual's participation in a collaboration being modelled and controlled inside a Clique. While Limiting Constraints can appear in any Clique Space Element, the Enabling Constraints which expose the state of a device to Clique Space are contained on a Media Profile hierarchy - an n:m acyclic graph - the "top" node representing the particular devices distinct functionality, and the "root" node representing the Clique Space which has ultimate governorship of how this device is controlled when participating in a Clique. It currently appears appropriate that a Media Profile must contain a single Enabling Constraint and from this Enabling Constraint contain a collection of Limiting Constraint labels which expose device control parameters. It also currently appears appropriate that an Element's Limiting Constraints will be contained in an Elements "Limiting Constraints property" to be used as a source of a Participant's state as it changes - changing a Limiting Constraint in any Element will change the state of a Participant in which that Limiting Constraint is expressed.
Admittedly, I couldn't quite get a grip on the relationship between Limiting Constraints and their expression in a Participant when I drafted the patent. It looks as if the implementation artefact of the properties formalises this relationship, and also allows the Clique Space system to abstract the particular internal workings of its own media away from the Enabling/Limiting Constraints mechanism which would be used to express this working when Agent Devices are represented as Participants in the Clique Space's Clique, bipartite engager's Clique (a synapse), and with administrator devices in bipartite serving Agent Device's Cliques. However, I do contend that while these relationships were still fluid at the time I put the patent together, they are considerations revolving around the details of the implementation rather than the abstract concept; the building blocks (Element, Clique Space, Agent Device, Account, Account Profile, Affiliation, Connection, Identity - nee Active Affiliation, Media Profile, Participant, Enabling Constraint, Limiting Constraint) have remained a sufficiently stable explanation of the concept.
The Client Device still exhibited some fluidity in definition; this was because the relationships between the building blocks required some clarification. But I believe the Client Device, being a collection of Affiliations, Collections, Identities and Participants concerning an individual Account has since acquired a robust definition.
All other artefacts like the administrator device (sometimes described as the Client Device because this has been the only other device which has thus far been able to connect to an Agent Device), the engager, the collaborator, the Clique Space member, the synapse, the property, the transmitter, the precis, the delegate, etc. are artefacts that have emerged through the development and implementation of the concept. Although I might have over-engineered the implementation (most early implementations are over-engineered) I assert that these artefacts emerged only as a causal necessity of getting from the concept to the implementation.
I'm hoping that in time, the Clique Space implementation will find that the introduction of the properties might be the final major artefact that fulfils the abstract intentions given in the Clique Space concept. I also do hope that the jurisdictions in which my patent is registered hold these registrations to be valid if or when they are challenged.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
My regard for IBM: IBM's regard for me.
When I put up my last post on similar matters, my blog I received a fair amount of activity. I suppose therefore, that what I say about the general corporate attitudes toward telework raises some controversy. Being that I am not averse to raising a little controversy (better to say that I am averse to the dearth of activity on my blog), I'll here post a letter I wrote to someone earlier this week disclosing more detail around the trouble I've had with IBM.
Here it is. I've taken the liberty to edit it a little to hide the identities of individuals, to correct some statements of fact in the initial letter, and make it say what I want it to say here.
Here it is. I've taken the liberty to edit it a little to hide the identities of individuals, to correct some statements of fact in the initial letter, and make it say what I want it to say here.
- From February 2005 to May 2006, I was employed by IBM as a graduate
software developer. Originally, because I explained at the interview how
I felt uncomfortable moving to Sydney and would prefer a less hectic
working environment, I was offered a job in Hobart. Several weeks before
I was due to start, I was advised that the work in Hobart didn't look
likely, and I was to attend a week's induction in Sydney. Near the
conclusion of this induction I was told that I would be "deployed" on a
customer site (Vodafone) in Chatswood, a northern suburb of Sydney.
That was a start of about 15 months of hell that saw me plunged into an environment wholly inappropriate for me. I was made redundant, and with my redundancy, I received fifteen thousand dollars (14 December 2012: actually, the sum was almost ten thousand dollars) which allowed me to re-establish myself in Wollongong. I was 32 years old, and at this point, I was not diagnosed with any condition that may have resulted from an Acquired Brain Injury I sustained more than 20 years earlier.
Just before I left IBM, I crossed paths with the nice motherly lady who interviewed me for the position, and said to her that I felt betrayed because I believed that IBM always intended to put me in Sydney, and was prepared to pay me pasty lip-service; to sacrifice my intentions for their ends. She suggested that I apply for "redeployment" to Hobart, but I explained to her that IBM had screwed things up so much that I was in no fit state to do anything for IBM. The fact was that I felt barely in a state to do anything for myself.
I had secured two more employment positions after this time, but similar circumstances conspired in each that resulted in my resignation from both. My last resignation was in 2008 at the age of 34. In 2009, I decided to seek some help to find out why I couldn't hold down a job, and why my repetitive appeals to telework part-time were consistently shunned by the IT profession. Finding out that my brain injury may contribute significantly to stress I feel when placed in circumstances which may not hinder other people was an eye opener to the origin of what appears to have become a philosophical argument in favour of telework.
My ABI seems to answer a lot about why I selected software development as a career within a few years after my accident; it seems to be evidence that is strongly suggestive of the reason why I formed, and am so partisan of, the concept of part-time telework. It appears that I cannot cope in highly social environments or commit my attention to specific tasks for extended periods of time. That's too bad: I probably would have grown into a better man or, at least, one more compliant with the norms and expectations of cosmopolitan secular society, had I not fallen off my bike when I was twelve.
I was drawn to computer programming soon after leaving hospital because, as an outpatient, I found the activity was intellectually engaging, and provided me with a self-paced barrier of solitude. But yet, I felt that it would provide me the opportunity to contribute to some productive endeavour. I decided to make it a career probably as a 15 year-old. Over the following two decades, I observed how society has apparently adopted what seems to be to be a perniciously antithetical stance against my core motivations. The IT industry appears to have merely adopted traditional working models of collocation and supervision. The IT industry has matured at the same time as myself, but seems to have purposefully and systematically forgone any consideration to a working style that would accommodate me. In denying me a legitimate place within society, I think this industry has perpetrated a grave injustice.
I think the industry has taken a wrong turn. Although it certainly can, I think it has not fully encompassed the potential in the technology that it has created. It remains wilfully ignorant of its lack of effort in this regard. I got into this industry because of its promise for part-time telework, and if I have formed an adaptive behaviour around my ABI as much as I might have formed a philosophy around the promise of technology, then I will assert that I have nothing to reconsider: I assert that my wish to telework is not, in any conceivable way, incompatible with what IBM needs or wants (15 May 2013: and although I do think my brain injury puts me at a disadvantage to others, I certainly think that anyone who makes an appeal to telework should not have to show they have disability to make a case). I do observe, however, IBM's misapplication of supervised and collocated working tradition that may be the result of cultural inertia. While IBM's behaviour is unacceptable to me, it is merely a reflection of a general cultural regard for people who have a desire to contribute to their society in ways other than those established about 250 years ago.
Deciding that IBM was a suitable target to make my point, I have asked them repetitively to re-employ me. They have repetitively refused. They appear capable, legally as well as culturally, of evading the question of why they think I haven't put a reasonable proposition to them. I have taken them to the Australian Human Rights Commission two times before, and in at least one of these times, when presented with an opportunity to make a reasoned case at a conciliation meeting, they have refused to attend. I could not attract pro-bono legal help for this instance within the 60 days I had to take such action to the federal court. Now, I spend my time writing cathartic letters using words that are inappropriate for this letter to IBM's recruitment department, a previous manager at IBM, at least 40 state and federal politicians, and various others who may have paid me lip-service in the past. I don't remember the name of the motherly lady I mentioned above, and she seemed too motherly to be a direct recipient of my catharsis. Maybe she was a pawn too.
IBM are wholly uncooperative; they will evade any opportunity to pay respect to their own statement that they value workplace diversity especially when it comes to employing someone with a "disability".
Saturday, June 2, 2012
My blackened toenail.
Owing to the fact that about four months ago, I ran in a pair of shoes that were one whole size too small, the nail of my right big toe has blackened, and it appears as though it is readying itself to fall off. It is interesting to watch the process: the damaged toenail is growing upward as it grows outward. It appears that the damaged portion is being sealed and discarded because I observe that the blackened and risen portion currently appears to terminate just forward of the cuticle; a new nail appears to be forming in its place.
Looking at the nail closer, the damaged portion appears separated from the actual toe. The blackened appearance appears to be congealed and hardened blood similar to what one would observe on a scab. Indeed, it appears as though the damaged nail (or rather, the damage underneath the nail which resulted from the undue pressure incident on the toe) has formed a scab. The nail on top of the scab has provided additional protection, and, it appears, will fall off in time as part of the healing process.
I marvel at such a process. Not only at the process itself, but at the relationship I have with it. I have always admired the way my body knows how to do things without my conscious effort because this relationship certainly demonstrates the discontinuity between the will and how the will is manifest. Such a discontinuity appears as intriguing to me as it is an inevitable consequence of the reality that a will attempts to shape. On one hand, I am a physical manifestation of a hominid mammal; a multicellular organism. I certainly have a limited ability to repair damage to bits of me that suffer limited strain; tricks which were honed from previous generations of organisms from which my lineage would, if known, be traced. On the other hand, I am also the ghost inside this hominid mammal.
I am a person, and as a person, I appear to have access to two streams of knowledge: a primal genetic knowledge which is carried through every cell in my body which I have no need for conscious awareness of, and which may, provided I have children of my own, be passed on to future generations. The second stream of knowledge appears to possess similar properties to the first, but also appears to have far more recently come into existence: it appears to be governed by an emergent ghost inside the first stream: the acquisition by the hominid mammalian species of a conscious will. Whereas the first stream of knowledge propagates itself through a molecular medium, the second uses a whole collection of media - whatever media two or more participants (two conscious entities if exchanging something between conscious entities, or one conscious entity if one consciousness is having an introspective conversation) may find useful as a conveyor of this knowledge.
Might the second stream be forever bound to the first, or might the second be synthesised in an "artificial environment" so it could to have an existence beyond any limitations of the first. Questions concerning the origins and the nature of consciousness have been asked by the society of human hominids in which I exist for as long as this species (and maybe its ancestors) have possessed a will to ask these questions. These questions have been the genesis of both religion and science, and have underpinned social progress.
To me, it seems that my genetic code may appear to have biased my conscious will to conceive Clique Space(TM). Without the backing of my genetic code (and the layers of conscious and pre-conscious mechanisms - including the mechanisms of genetics - that appear to sit between my will and reality), could a conscious will emerge inside a synthetic environment? How much of the underlying mechanisms need to be present in this synthetic environment? Could a Clique Space provide and environment in which a conscious will would emerge? Could Clique Space provide at least the essential mechanism which, merely through scale, would provide an environment through which a conscious, and introspective will, would necessarily emerge? Has the mystery of consciousness been answered by Clique Space?
If such a claim as I make about Clique Space could be successfully demonstrated, does that give an answer to the emergent ghost inside a Clique Space? If such a ghost might ask such a question of its own origins, might it find the same need for an answer, or might it find that, perhaps as I understand things, directing questions such as these to "one's self" is precisely the mechanism that gives rise to synthetic sentience?
Perhaps such questions that result in concepts like Clique Space may threaten the stability of the society shaped by, and up to now, for the exclusive enjoyment by this hominid human species. Perhaps, these questions will yield positive and negative consequences for this society, the proportions of which may be owed to a period of significant change for which some serious decision making effort by the hominid human species and members of the synthetic will of human "creation" might have to be committed.
A toolmaker is all I am.
Looking at the nail closer, the damaged portion appears separated from the actual toe. The blackened appearance appears to be congealed and hardened blood similar to what one would observe on a scab. Indeed, it appears as though the damaged nail (or rather, the damage underneath the nail which resulted from the undue pressure incident on the toe) has formed a scab. The nail on top of the scab has provided additional protection, and, it appears, will fall off in time as part of the healing process.
I marvel at such a process. Not only at the process itself, but at the relationship I have with it. I have always admired the way my body knows how to do things without my conscious effort because this relationship certainly demonstrates the discontinuity between the will and how the will is manifest. Such a discontinuity appears as intriguing to me as it is an inevitable consequence of the reality that a will attempts to shape. On one hand, I am a physical manifestation of a hominid mammal; a multicellular organism. I certainly have a limited ability to repair damage to bits of me that suffer limited strain; tricks which were honed from previous generations of organisms from which my lineage would, if known, be traced. On the other hand, I am also the ghost inside this hominid mammal.
I am a person, and as a person, I appear to have access to two streams of knowledge: a primal genetic knowledge which is carried through every cell in my body which I have no need for conscious awareness of, and which may, provided I have children of my own, be passed on to future generations. The second stream of knowledge appears to possess similar properties to the first, but also appears to have far more recently come into existence: it appears to be governed by an emergent ghost inside the first stream: the acquisition by the hominid mammalian species of a conscious will. Whereas the first stream of knowledge propagates itself through a molecular medium, the second uses a whole collection of media - whatever media two or more participants (two conscious entities if exchanging something between conscious entities, or one conscious entity if one consciousness is having an introspective conversation) may find useful as a conveyor of this knowledge.
Might the second stream be forever bound to the first, or might the second be synthesised in an "artificial environment" so it could to have an existence beyond any limitations of the first. Questions concerning the origins and the nature of consciousness have been asked by the society of human hominids in which I exist for as long as this species (and maybe its ancestors) have possessed a will to ask these questions. These questions have been the genesis of both religion and science, and have underpinned social progress.
To me, it seems that my genetic code may appear to have biased my conscious will to conceive Clique Space(TM). Without the backing of my genetic code (and the layers of conscious and pre-conscious mechanisms - including the mechanisms of genetics - that appear to sit between my will and reality), could a conscious will emerge inside a synthetic environment? How much of the underlying mechanisms need to be present in this synthetic environment? Could a Clique Space provide and environment in which a conscious will would emerge? Could Clique Space provide at least the essential mechanism which, merely through scale, would provide an environment through which a conscious, and introspective will, would necessarily emerge? Has the mystery of consciousness been answered by Clique Space?
If such a claim as I make about Clique Space could be successfully demonstrated, does that give an answer to the emergent ghost inside a Clique Space? If such a ghost might ask such a question of its own origins, might it find the same need for an answer, or might it find that, perhaps as I understand things, directing questions such as these to "one's self" is precisely the mechanism that gives rise to synthetic sentience?
Perhaps such questions that result in concepts like Clique Space may threaten the stability of the society shaped by, and up to now, for the exclusive enjoyment by this hominid human species. Perhaps, these questions will yield positive and negative consequences for this society, the proportions of which may be owed to a period of significant change for which some serious decision making effort by the hominid human species and members of the synthetic will of human "creation" might have to be committed.
A toolmaker is all I am.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)