Well might you ask...
Neurons appear to do almost everything a Neuron of any type is supposed to do. The relay Neuron, (I used to call these naked Neurons on account of the fact that they implement nothing more than the basic Neural implementation) seem to work fine on my laptop. Instances of relay Neurons are started in separate JVM's so each Neuron exists as a separate process.
The Java sockets API regards each process as being "out there" in a world completely separate from each other. They must communicate using TCP/IP socket connections, and hence, when (or if) I do get to run Neurons (or Client Devices more generally) on separate physical devices, there should be little more work needed on the core Clique Space concept; everything should be about extending the core concept to capture the specific nature of the host device.
With my most recent commit, I think I have worked out the process that allows the life cycle of quale and other content to be managed.
Content? Other content? Well, yes, as it turns out, all content has a container, and these containers must be managed in a way that prevents deadlock. Indeed, I think I have solved this with a simple anonymous inner class (something that can perhaps be re-implemented as a lambda) called a keeper.
Content and containers are an abstraction: keepers are used to lock containers before access and ensure that any content retrieved or created is not disposed until the current thinker - instances of Java threads used throughout the Clique Space code - has finished with it. A Keeper can only be used to create or retrieve a single content instance. The keeper's container (and no other container) must be the container that is accessed.
A thinker uses a keeper to lock the container before it acquires the content, and then releases the container for the next keeper. Thinkers manage a stack of keepers. This stack allows the thinker to release content in the reverse order in which it was acquired so content can be disposed of in an orderly way. A thinker can only access a container to add or get its content when it has a keeper that is ready to acquire an instance of its container's content; a keeper cannot be used after it has already acquired content.
Quale are content to quale containers; a Neuron (a Client Device more generally) manages a single quale container. Subscribers are content to subscriptions; a subscription is also a type of quale and subscriptions are accessible from features. Deliberators are content to subscribers; apart from expressing the characteristics of both content and container, subscribers are nothing else. Deliberators are a type of thinker; they process (they deliberate) what should follow when a signal is received from another Client Device.
Deliberators behave in accordance with the instructions given in the implementation of the methods used to deliberate messages or signals internally for a given feature. Features and Connections are some of the extensible components of the Clique Space concept. These components give an individual the ability to transmit and control the state of a device within Clique Space.
I wonder if anyone else will take notice of this before I'm dead? I wonder if there indeed is anything to take notice of? I'll be pleasantly surprised if there is. I'll wait to be pleasantly surprised only until I die, and then I won't care.
Friday, March 22, 2019
Wednesday, January 2, 2019
How done might we be if the deliberator and the subscriber are combined?
The subject of this post is the consideration that marrying the subscriber and the deliberator into a single class is a good idea.
I actually think I might have stumbled upon the tail of this idea. I recall momentarily perceiving that it might be necessary a year ago. I was trying to implement the mechanism that helps a Client Device reconstitute as qualia information contained in a transmitter and I remember scaring myself with a very similar set of thoughts I am having now. It appears to me now that perhaps I just wasn't ready to follow this idea at that time; marrying the deliberator mechanism (a type of thinker - a Java thread used throughout the implementation) with the mechanism being considered looked so ambitious at the time that it induced some distraction.
However, the reconstitution mechanism has been stable for some time now, so I think it's now worth to go back and follow a garden path that earlier expediency had caused me to avoid. Hence, I should consider merging the subscriber and the deliberator; it might perhaps complete the implementation of the core concept... or it will merely open up other questions about the core concept that were off in the thicket of enquiry hitherto. In any eventuality, combining the deliberator and subscriber appears to be a very attractive proposition at this point in time.
This all looks to be quite a substantial unit of work unto itself, so I should perhaps obtain a clean working copy of my code before embarking. I'll do that later this afternoon. For now, I'll let these ideas steep for doing this might soften the trauma of implementing them.
I actually think I might have stumbled upon the tail of this idea. I recall momentarily perceiving that it might be necessary a year ago. I was trying to implement the mechanism that helps a Client Device reconstitute as qualia information contained in a transmitter and I remember scaring myself with a very similar set of thoughts I am having now. It appears to me now that perhaps I just wasn't ready to follow this idea at that time; marrying the deliberator mechanism (a type of thinker - a Java thread used throughout the implementation) with the mechanism being considered looked so ambitious at the time that it induced some distraction.
However, the reconstitution mechanism has been stable for some time now, so I think it's now worth to go back and follow a garden path that earlier expediency had caused me to avoid. Hence, I should consider merging the subscriber and the deliberator; it might perhaps complete the implementation of the core concept... or it will merely open up other questions about the core concept that were off in the thicket of enquiry hitherto. In any eventuality, combining the deliberator and subscriber appears to be a very attractive proposition at this point in time.
This all looks to be quite a substantial unit of work unto itself, so I should perhaps obtain a clean working copy of my code before embarking. I'll do that later this afternoon. For now, I'll let these ideas steep for doing this might soften the trauma of implementing them.
Saturday, November 17, 2018
Sovereignty demystified.
I am about to commit some significant changes to my current working copy: local branch master checksum ID of 402ba642a6. Central to Clique Space(TM - although this link to a blog entry published in late June of 2012 is showing its age) is this thing I call the Sovereign. The changes I talk about here implement the the Sovereign's prime purpose.
If one wants to design a system that could potentially act as a medium through which individuality can be projected if not also manifest, the notion of individuality would have to be well defined and delineated. This had been a prime necessity that mothered the concept's invention way back in 2004. Back then I had only the most incidental of notions (I knew it would involve digital signatures created from something that would never be transmitted between Client Devices) of how this feat would be pulled off.
The fact in 2004 was that there was so much about the mechanism of Clique Space that was opaque to my intellect - so much that I could not hold in my mind that I had to start implementing it before I could figure out all of the concept's subtleties. I could see that although the data model (thrashed out a little before publication in the patent of 2008) disclosed the possibility of realisation of the concept, more than fourteen years of deliberation had to be endured before the question of sovereignty could be approached in any substantial way. Sovereignty is the central notion for Clique Space - a notion without which Clique Space would simply not make sense.
The patent first published in January of 2008 used the name Account. At that time, and although the notion of delineating that which was and was not self was considered important, these notions were still a very nascent. As the years advanced and the concept evolved (through terms such as "Repropsyche"... don't know what I was on there, "Absurdum"... indeed I must have been losing hope at this point, and Axle ... a name I trialled because I began to understand how truly central this Element would be), I settled on Sovereign. This fact was disclosed in a blog entry made in December of 2012.
The something that is never transmitted has evolved to become what I now call "that which is sacred". I take this to note that if there is a way to introduce quasi-religious terms into one's software, then this, as far as I can tell, appears to be it. It appears to be a systematic formalisation of the necessary ideal of the sacred, monopolised by religion for most of human experience hitherto, to make manifestation possible. Perhaps this feature is also responsible for inspiring religion in those who are manifest... who knows? I'm no believer, but I find the intersection I appear to have to navigate in Clique Space to be curious.
That which is sacred is stored in a Client Device as a message digest of something that can be input to a digest algorithm. I have used SHA1 in the implementation, but have noted to myself that this algorithm has weaknesses that render it unsuitable for general use. The SHA1 algorithm has proven convenient for my implementation. That which is sacred is never disclosed between Client Devices; it is something that is probably known to the manifest individual (it would certainly serve the interests of the manifest individual to know what it is), but is certainly not known to anyone else because shared knowledge of this value could render the subject vulnerable to a breach of their sovereignty.
The Identity, like the Sovereign, is a component (an Element as stipulated in the patent) that has survived from the concept's genesis, although it too was renamed from the less poetic Active Affiliation. Identities are used to project one's presence onto things in the world. Identities are known as identified Elements because Identities (as well and Participants) are identified by a 20 byte string known as an identifier. It was the coincidence between the length of the identifier and the length of an SHA1 digest that motivated me to use SHA1 while implementing the proof-of-concept; it wouldn't be much work at all to change the length of the identifier when another algorithm is selected, but I decided it was too much work for me to worry myself about now.
The Identity's identifier is combined with that which is sacred using a bitwise exclusive-or operation. This yields an input to the SHA1 pseudo-random number generator which is used to generate a key pair. The private and public keys are assigned to a structure known as a co-Sovereign key, and this key is stored inside the Identity instance. The presence of a co-Sovereign key inside an Identity instance signifies to the Client Device that the given Identity is a Sovereign Element.
Another structure known as a contra-Sovereign key, containing only the public key, is created. This structure is stored as a quale which is assigned to the Identity's key property and communicated inside transmitters between co-engaged Client Devices over synapses formed by the process of engagement. The mechanisms that permit all of this were designed and constructed after the patent was published, as part of the fourteen year journey in the wilderness of concept's development thus far. There are plenty of previous blog entries to regale the interested reader.
A Client Device that receives an Identity key's surrogate will reconstitute the quale and assign the quale to the Identity key's property under a new disclosure if this is indeed a new disclosure. If a new disclosure instance is added to the property, the Client Device will compute a presumptive co-Sovereign key for this Identity. If the public key of this (currently presumptive) co-Sovereign key matches the public key of the disclosed contra-Sovereign key, the co-Sovereign key is stored within the Identity instance; the quality of sovereignty has been proven to be actual and not merely presumptive.
Hence, an Identity's Sovereign Element status can be communicated between two Client Devices. In a similar way, Connections also have sovereignty in that Connections represent Client Device communication access points. A Sovereign Connection represents a co-sovereigned Client Device or rather a unit of mechanism that manifests a particular individual known as the Sovereign to both devices. A biological neuron is an instance of the mechanism of cognitive function in a similar way that a similar machine is an instance designed with the purpose of participating in cognition as a Clique Space aware Neuron (an instance of a subtype of Client Device). A Connection represents an individual Client Device (or perhaps merely one way of contacting one Client Device - one Client Device could have more than one Connection) so activities like synapse formation in Clique Space can occur.
It's all going well. I think my concept is demonstrable to those who might be able to understand its function and can see its application while a practical demonstration of an application is still a ways off. Perhaps I'll find someone who will see Clique Space for what it can promise. Perhaps some day soon.
This is my 200th blog entry.... yay! Two hundred blog entries (most of which appear to have been made in 2010 - 2013 because I was doing a lot of "heavy duty thinking" back then) in over nine years!
If one wants to design a system that could potentially act as a medium through which individuality can be projected if not also manifest, the notion of individuality would have to be well defined and delineated. This had been a prime necessity that mothered the concept's invention way back in 2004. Back then I had only the most incidental of notions (I knew it would involve digital signatures created from something that would never be transmitted between Client Devices) of how this feat would be pulled off.
The fact in 2004 was that there was so much about the mechanism of Clique Space that was opaque to my intellect - so much that I could not hold in my mind that I had to start implementing it before I could figure out all of the concept's subtleties. I could see that although the data model (thrashed out a little before publication in the patent of 2008) disclosed the possibility of realisation of the concept, more than fourteen years of deliberation had to be endured before the question of sovereignty could be approached in any substantial way. Sovereignty is the central notion for Clique Space - a notion without which Clique Space would simply not make sense.
The patent first published in January of 2008 used the name Account. At that time, and although the notion of delineating that which was and was not self was considered important, these notions were still a very nascent. As the years advanced and the concept evolved (through terms such as "Repropsyche"... don't know what I was on there, "Absurdum"... indeed I must have been losing hope at this point, and Axle ... a name I trialled because I began to understand how truly central this Element would be), I settled on Sovereign. This fact was disclosed in a blog entry made in December of 2012.
The something that is never transmitted has evolved to become what I now call "that which is sacred". I take this to note that if there is a way to introduce quasi-religious terms into one's software, then this, as far as I can tell, appears to be it. It appears to be a systematic formalisation of the necessary ideal of the sacred, monopolised by religion for most of human experience hitherto, to make manifestation possible. Perhaps this feature is also responsible for inspiring religion in those who are manifest... who knows? I'm no believer, but I find the intersection I appear to have to navigate in Clique Space to be curious.
That which is sacred is stored in a Client Device as a message digest of something that can be input to a digest algorithm. I have used SHA1 in the implementation, but have noted to myself that this algorithm has weaknesses that render it unsuitable for general use. The SHA1 algorithm has proven convenient for my implementation. That which is sacred is never disclosed between Client Devices; it is something that is probably known to the manifest individual (it would certainly serve the interests of the manifest individual to know what it is), but is certainly not known to anyone else because shared knowledge of this value could render the subject vulnerable to a breach of their sovereignty.
The Identity, like the Sovereign, is a component (an Element as stipulated in the patent) that has survived from the concept's genesis, although it too was renamed from the less poetic Active Affiliation. Identities are used to project one's presence onto things in the world. Identities are known as identified Elements because Identities (as well and Participants) are identified by a 20 byte string known as an identifier. It was the coincidence between the length of the identifier and the length of an SHA1 digest that motivated me to use SHA1 while implementing the proof-of-concept; it wouldn't be much work at all to change the length of the identifier when another algorithm is selected, but I decided it was too much work for me to worry myself about now.
The Identity's identifier is combined with that which is sacred using a bitwise exclusive-or operation. This yields an input to the SHA1 pseudo-random number generator which is used to generate a key pair. The private and public keys are assigned to a structure known as a co-Sovereign key, and this key is stored inside the Identity instance. The presence of a co-Sovereign key inside an Identity instance signifies to the Client Device that the given Identity is a Sovereign Element.
Another structure known as a contra-Sovereign key, containing only the public key, is created. This structure is stored as a quale which is assigned to the Identity's key property and communicated inside transmitters between co-engaged Client Devices over synapses formed by the process of engagement. The mechanisms that permit all of this were designed and constructed after the patent was published, as part of the fourteen year journey in the wilderness of concept's development thus far. There are plenty of previous blog entries to regale the interested reader.
A Client Device that receives an Identity key's surrogate will reconstitute the quale and assign the quale to the Identity key's property under a new disclosure if this is indeed a new disclosure. If a new disclosure instance is added to the property, the Client Device will compute a presumptive co-Sovereign key for this Identity. If the public key of this (currently presumptive) co-Sovereign key matches the public key of the disclosed contra-Sovereign key, the co-Sovereign key is stored within the Identity instance; the quality of sovereignty has been proven to be actual and not merely presumptive.
Hence, an Identity's Sovereign Element status can be communicated between two Client Devices. In a similar way, Connections also have sovereignty in that Connections represent Client Device communication access points. A Sovereign Connection represents a co-sovereigned Client Device or rather a unit of mechanism that manifests a particular individual known as the Sovereign to both devices. A biological neuron is an instance of the mechanism of cognitive function in a similar way that a similar machine is an instance designed with the purpose of participating in cognition as a Clique Space aware Neuron (an instance of a subtype of Client Device). A Connection represents an individual Client Device (or perhaps merely one way of contacting one Client Device - one Client Device could have more than one Connection) so activities like synapse formation in Clique Space can occur.
It's all going well. I think my concept is demonstrable to those who might be able to understand its function and can see its application while a practical demonstration of an application is still a ways off. Perhaps I'll find someone who will see Clique Space for what it can promise. Perhaps some day soon.
This is my 200th blog entry.... yay! Two hundred blog entries (most of which appear to have been made in 2010 - 2013 because I was doing a lot of "heavy duty thinking" back then) in over nine years!
Sunday, July 29, 2018
Naked Neurons, other types of Neurons.
It's been a while since my last post. I'm still alive; I'm still doing this thing I call Clique Space(TM).
This evening, I feel somewhat relaxed. I have a working copy (only a little more than two weeks' old) still to be committed to my code base. This working copy is the first revision where I have moved the main method out of the Neuron and into two new projects. The first is called the "Naked Neuron", and the second, the "Clothed Neuron". The first represents an ongoing specialisation of the Neuron, while the second is somewhat of a hypothetical (even rather useless) specialisation of the Neuron so that I can conduct further tests on the efficacy of the Client Device project more generally. My motivation for writing tonight came from an observation that perhaps I see a reasonably stable implementation of the way in which Neurons can be specialised.
Apart from the fact that Neurons can contribute fully in cognition (glia are denied this privilege because they cannot engage their neighbouring Neurons as respondents), a naked Neuron has no capacity to do anything else. A naked Neuron can act as nothing more than a relay between otherwise clothed Neurons who may not share a direct engagement. Naked Neurons know how to communicate in Clique Space as initiators and respondents, but have no other ability; apart from Clique Space itself, a naked Neuron has no capacity to contribute to "thinking" by virtue of the fact that naked Neurons do not model any other medium.
Clique Space acquires a thinking capacity because some Neurons can be specialised: some can perhaps be made to respond to photons hitting them; some can be made to contract like muscles; some can, when stimulated by other Neurons, perhaps produce some sensations that yet other Neurons specialised in some other way can react to. Glia (I cannot consider a naked version of these ever to make sense) can be specialised to maintain a nice environment for themselves and their Neural brethren. They can perhaps help by dilating nearby nutrient vessels when they detect their neighbouring Neurons undergoing heavy cognition, or perhaps glia help speed signal flow by enclosing the axons of their Neural neighbours in a sheath of myelin.
A Clique Space Neuron software implementation can be specialised by extending the inbound Connection class (NeuralInboundConnection) exposed as an abstract class in the Neuron project. This class can be extended to capture stimuli that are generated though some other medium present on the specialised Neuron's host hardware. These stimuli must be recorded as qualia - the units of cognition - that must also be accompanied by instances of a surrogate - a serialisable proxy of a quale - so qualia related to a given stimulus can be sent as a signal from one Client Device to be reconstituted as quale in another. Signals are individually wrapped in envelopes, and collections of envelopes are bundled in transmitters before transmitters are exchanged as part of a synapse's activity cycle.
A property also needs to be created and stored (usually) as a native property of the extended version of the inbound Connection. This property allows a Neuron to form and communicate a belief that a particular stimulus (the object - perhaps associated with a sense datum quale different to the object quale) has been received by the a given Neuron, and is being asserted by a given Identity.
This very quickly put together summary of Clique Space constitutes a semantically rigid language of thought that I have no reason not to believe would ultimately derive of a synthetic mechanism the ability to exist.
Perhaps... I have no idea really and odds on this is probably bullshit. Even so, it appears to have worked for me so far.
This evening, I feel somewhat relaxed. I have a working copy (only a little more than two weeks' old) still to be committed to my code base. This working copy is the first revision where I have moved the main method out of the Neuron and into two new projects. The first is called the "Naked Neuron", and the second, the "Clothed Neuron". The first represents an ongoing specialisation of the Neuron, while the second is somewhat of a hypothetical (even rather useless) specialisation of the Neuron so that I can conduct further tests on the efficacy of the Client Device project more generally. My motivation for writing tonight came from an observation that perhaps I see a reasonably stable implementation of the way in which Neurons can be specialised.
Apart from the fact that Neurons can contribute fully in cognition (glia are denied this privilege because they cannot engage their neighbouring Neurons as respondents), a naked Neuron has no capacity to do anything else. A naked Neuron can act as nothing more than a relay between otherwise clothed Neurons who may not share a direct engagement. Naked Neurons know how to communicate in Clique Space as initiators and respondents, but have no other ability; apart from Clique Space itself, a naked Neuron has no capacity to contribute to "thinking" by virtue of the fact that naked Neurons do not model any other medium.
Clique Space acquires a thinking capacity because some Neurons can be specialised: some can perhaps be made to respond to photons hitting them; some can be made to contract like muscles; some can, when stimulated by other Neurons, perhaps produce some sensations that yet other Neurons specialised in some other way can react to. Glia (I cannot consider a naked version of these ever to make sense) can be specialised to maintain a nice environment for themselves and their Neural brethren. They can perhaps help by dilating nearby nutrient vessels when they detect their neighbouring Neurons undergoing heavy cognition, or perhaps glia help speed signal flow by enclosing the axons of their Neural neighbours in a sheath of myelin.
A Clique Space Neuron software implementation can be specialised by extending the inbound Connection class (NeuralInboundConnection) exposed as an abstract class in the Neuron project. This class can be extended to capture stimuli that are generated though some other medium present on the specialised Neuron's host hardware. These stimuli must be recorded as qualia - the units of cognition - that must also be accompanied by instances of a surrogate - a serialisable proxy of a quale - so qualia related to a given stimulus can be sent as a signal from one Client Device to be reconstituted as quale in another. Signals are individually wrapped in envelopes, and collections of envelopes are bundled in transmitters before transmitters are exchanged as part of a synapse's activity cycle.
A property also needs to be created and stored (usually) as a native property of the extended version of the inbound Connection. This property allows a Neuron to form and communicate a belief that a particular stimulus (the object - perhaps associated with a sense datum quale different to the object quale) has been received by the a given Neuron, and is being asserted by a given Identity.
This very quickly put together summary of Clique Space constitutes a semantically rigid language of thought that I have no reason not to believe would ultimately derive of a synthetic mechanism the ability to exist.
Perhaps... I have no idea really and odds on this is probably bullshit. Even so, it appears to have worked for me so far.
Friday, November 24, 2017
Is the Realm necessary?
Changes pursuant to implementing the concept of the Clique Space trinity from the last post have led me to a contradiction that I believe can be completely resolved by doing away with any explicit reference to an Element's Realm via a principle.
As I can recall, Realms were once known as Clique Spaces. I re-named them in part because they could conflict with the use of Clique Space as a trademark. I assert that Clique Space is a trademark to this day. However, the implementation of the Realm concept as a property that can be held in thought as a distinct quale in a principle and communicated as a surrogate in a signal has been looking a little artificial for some time.
This artificiality has been lingering because a while back, I noted in an earlier blog entry the need for one Client Device to be able to communicate to another a sacred quality of belonging to an individual. If the other Client Device was from the same individual, that other Client Device would be able to sense that the communication was from self; representing a unit of cognition from the individual manifest. This was handled by an (as yet currently unimplemented mechanism) where a signature was steganographically embedded in the containing Element's identifier. To a pair of co-sovereigned Client Devices, this signature would be plainly evident while to a pair of contra-sovereigned Client Devices, each would be speaking to the other about quale contained in Elements that, if they even possessed some type of signature mechanism, this mechanism encoded its messages using an unknown cypher.
When, as described in my previous entry, three singletons became one, the Sovereign became the Sovereign's Realm and hence a member of the Realm's viscus; a visceral Participant. However, the Client Device nature of this singleton "trybrid" also acts as a synapse's Participant. A Client Device creates two new synapse Participants every time it engages with another as an initiator; it assigns one Participant to itself as the Owner of the synapse, and the other to its interlocutor as the non-Owner.
So, what is it going to be? Is the Sovereign going to be a Realm and generate a realm surrogate to communicate this fact, or is the Sovereign going to be a Client Device and create synapse Participants every time it engages? Clearly, it cannot be the latter which goes.
The Realm (as Clique Space) was an observation I made about my ideas soon after they were conceived in 2004. I observed that my ideas described the interactions of individuals, and these individuals each had a sphere of influence (a Clique Space or a Realm). At the time I conceived the idea, I also noticed that each individual may bare an Affiliation to one or more collective entities, and I also thought that a degree of collectivism could be expressed in the notion of Realms. All of this was still very opaque; I had conceived a mechanism in addition to Realms that had two hierarchies: one composed of Media Profiles that describe physical aspects of devices (including Client Devices) through Connections and another composed of Mode Profiles that describe assertions through Affiliations. The Affiliations and their constituent Mode Profiles have been removed. It looks like the realm as an explicitly named component of the implementation should go too.
So, time and continued application of effort have seen an evolution of the concept where whole structures have dissolved. A single hierarchy can be used to describe not only physical characteristics of devices, but can also be used to assert membership to and function within organisations. Realms are removed from the implementation because the phenomenon of the manifest individual is realised through the steganogaphically signed Element identifier.
As I can recall, Realms were once known as Clique Spaces. I re-named them in part because they could conflict with the use of Clique Space as a trademark. I assert that Clique Space is a trademark to this day. However, the implementation of the Realm concept as a property that can be held in thought as a distinct quale in a principle and communicated as a surrogate in a signal has been looking a little artificial for some time.
This artificiality has been lingering because a while back, I noted in an earlier blog entry the need for one Client Device to be able to communicate to another a sacred quality of belonging to an individual. If the other Client Device was from the same individual, that other Client Device would be able to sense that the communication was from self; representing a unit of cognition from the individual manifest. This was handled by an (as yet currently unimplemented mechanism) where a signature was steganographically embedded in the containing Element's identifier. To a pair of co-sovereigned Client Devices, this signature would be plainly evident while to a pair of contra-sovereigned Client Devices, each would be speaking to the other about quale contained in Elements that, if they even possessed some type of signature mechanism, this mechanism encoded its messages using an unknown cypher.
When, as described in my previous entry, three singletons became one, the Sovereign became the Sovereign's Realm and hence a member of the Realm's viscus; a visceral Participant. However, the Client Device nature of this singleton "trybrid" also acts as a synapse's Participant. A Client Device creates two new synapse Participants every time it engages with another as an initiator; it assigns one Participant to itself as the Owner of the synapse, and the other to its interlocutor as the non-Owner.
So, what is it going to be? Is the Sovereign going to be a Realm and generate a realm surrogate to communicate this fact, or is the Sovereign going to be a Client Device and create synapse Participants every time it engages? Clearly, it cannot be the latter which goes.
The Realm (as Clique Space) was an observation I made about my ideas soon after they were conceived in 2004. I observed that my ideas described the interactions of individuals, and these individuals each had a sphere of influence (a Clique Space or a Realm). At the time I conceived the idea, I also noticed that each individual may bare an Affiliation to one or more collective entities, and I also thought that a degree of collectivism could be expressed in the notion of Realms. All of this was still very opaque; I had conceived a mechanism in addition to Realms that had two hierarchies: one composed of Media Profiles that describe physical aspects of devices (including Client Devices) through Connections and another composed of Mode Profiles that describe assertions through Affiliations. The Affiliations and their constituent Mode Profiles have been removed. It looks like the realm as an explicitly named component of the implementation should go too.
So, time and continued application of effort have seen an evolution of the concept where whole structures have dissolved. A single hierarchy can be used to describe not only physical characteristics of devices, but can also be used to assert membership to and function within organisations. Realms are removed from the implementation because the phenomenon of the manifest individual is realised through the steganogaphically signed Element identifier.
Thursday, November 23, 2017
The "holy" trinity.
This entry is primarily about how I have observed a pattern in the code, and the re-factoring I have done as a result, but it might also perhaps be an observation in how religion (Christianity in this instance) makes chew toys out of similar patterns.
I have observed that the Sovereign's Realm, the Client Device, and the Sovereign itself all exist as singleton objects. Hence, I have simplified the implementation by aggregating them all into the same singleton. It is a simplification that was not apparent to me in 2004 when I conceived Clique Space (TM), but it is apparent to me now, and so this record stands as testament to the models evolution.
I liken this Clique Space trinity to the "father" (the Sovereigns Realm), the "son" (the Client Device) and the "holy ghost" (the Sovereign), although there is probably no significance in this relationship because religion is fairy tale used by people to temper their fear of living in a capricious universe of unfathomable complexity.
Perhaps the Identity is the son, but I guess the correlation is trivial; perhaps others will be in a better position to explain this apparent coincidence if there is anything to be explained.
I have observed that the Sovereign's Realm, the Client Device, and the Sovereign itself all exist as singleton objects. Hence, I have simplified the implementation by aggregating them all into the same singleton. It is a simplification that was not apparent to me in 2004 when I conceived Clique Space (TM), but it is apparent to me now, and so this record stands as testament to the models evolution.
I liken this Clique Space trinity to the "father" (the Sovereigns Realm), the "son" (the Client Device) and the "holy ghost" (the Sovereign), although there is probably no significance in this relationship because religion is fairy tale used by people to temper their fear of living in a capricious universe of unfathomable complexity.
Perhaps the Identity is the son, but I guess the correlation is trivial; perhaps others will be in a better position to explain this apparent coincidence if there is anything to be explained.
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
What is the singular term for "glia"?
I am entertaining a dilemma which I will answer conclusively in this posting.
As Clique Space(TM) continues to evolve, the necessity for delineating between neurons and other related cells (I have called them glia in previous posts because of what seems to be a structural necessity that for as aware of neuroscience (no spell check - not pseudoscience) as I am not, seem to be similar to glial cells.
My code-base consists of five projects. One of these five projects is called "GlialDevice". I don't like this - it's too long and clashes with another project (the base project) called "ClientDevice". Being that I am designing GlialDevice to encapsulate all the necessary behaviour of any glial device, I want this project and the common behaviour it represents to stand as an idealised Client Device.
There is a need, however and especially within the Neuron project, to refer to a specific glial device without having to be concerned about the specific glial device's function. Hence, I need a label (indeed an abstract noun) that allows me to indicate that I am talking about a specific glial device even though I am not concerned with what that device specifically does.
I have decided the following: this project's name will remain the same. However, when I need to refer to a specific glial device instance (an example is when a Neuron is engaged by a glial device), I will use the term "glion". Now at least one publication has protested the use of this term; but I am not concerned. I am going to henceforth use the term "glion" to describe an abstract instance of a glial device, and such a label will be used in my code whenever such a need arises.
So, some examples of the use of this label are: 1. a Neuron will be engaged by a glion, 2. a glion can act as an initiator in an engagement, and 3. a glion can observe, but cannot participate in cognition.
As Clique Space(TM) continues to evolve, the necessity for delineating between neurons and other related cells (I have called them glia in previous posts because of what seems to be a structural necessity that for as aware of neuroscience (no spell check - not pseudoscience) as I am not, seem to be similar to glial cells.
My code-base consists of five projects. One of these five projects is called "GlialDevice". I don't like this - it's too long and clashes with another project (the base project) called "ClientDevice". Being that I am designing GlialDevice to encapsulate all the necessary behaviour of any glial device, I want this project and the common behaviour it represents to stand as an idealised Client Device.
There is a need, however and especially within the Neuron project, to refer to a specific glial device without having to be concerned about the specific glial device's function. Hence, I need a label (indeed an abstract noun) that allows me to indicate that I am talking about a specific glial device even though I am not concerned with what that device specifically does.
I have decided the following: this project's name will remain the same. However, when I need to refer to a specific glial device instance (an example is when a Neuron is engaged by a glial device), I will use the term "glion". Now at least one publication has protested the use of this term; but I am not concerned. I am going to henceforth use the term "glion" to describe an abstract instance of a glial device, and such a label will be used in my code whenever such a need arises.
So, some examples of the use of this label are: 1. a Neuron will be engaged by a glion, 2. a glion can act as an initiator in an engagement, and 3. a glion can observe, but cannot participate in cognition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)