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.

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.

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.