Hi everyone!
Here again ruminating over more Clique Space(TM) cud. This time, it looks like, with the implementation fairly robust and the core concept seemingly all but proven, my focus seems to have naturally drifted toward working out how to dispose of content that seems no longer to be important to the Client Device.
In Clique Space land, a Client Device - a Neuron or a Glion (see what I did there?) - needs to delete (the official term is dispose of) content (another official term) from its container (another official term) when that content seems to bare no purpose for continued deliberation (all these official terms...) and has to be removed so things do not pile up for the Client Devices. If content is created but never disposed of, the consequent memory leakage incurred by the poor Client Devices would eventually cause them to stop working. The unfortunate Clique Space neural network would fall apart, and no one would use Clique Space because it wouldn't do the thing it is supposed to.
So, content that no longer appears to have a use (orphaned content like deliberatorless subscribers, subscriberless subscriptions, subscriptionless resonances etc) would need to be disposed of so to keep the Client Device from running out of memory. The trick is working with the edifice of the current implementation to drive this end wherever it may be.
It seems like "this end" appears to me must be an expression of the phenomenological beast that Clique Space is. Secrets reveal themselves through this evolving hypothesis if one lets it speak. I am trying merely to listen attentively to what it is trying to say. I'm not a fast worker, yet I try to accept the ways of this Clique Space beast so to bring something I certainly cannot contain in my own mind to life in code. It has been nearly twelve years since I first glimpsed it; perhaps the mechanism of content disposal is one of the last major mysteries to slay before this phenomenological beast is finally manifest in any true form.
So, the title of this post alludes to the mechanism I currently have in mind; deliberators are not the thinkers that can be responsible for disposal of content they might have created. The reason for this seeming logical maxim appears to stem from how they create and use content.
Okay. Deliberators are a type of thinker called an acquirer. There is one other type of acquirer: the marshaller. The marshaller, like the deliberator, creates and "acquires" the content it creates. An acquirer needs merely to acquire content that already exists. Content acquisition is a necessary step in tracking when content has become eligible for disposal. The marshaller is different from the deliberator in the following way: deliberators represent streams of thought while marshallers underlie the synaptic mechanism that facilitates the exchange of deliberations about the world between Client Devices. A marshaller coordinates a synapse's inbound and outbound transmitters, and takes the processing load imposed through the reconstituting of deliberators from their deliberations away from the coupling and receiver thinkers. The coupling and receiver are the two thinkers (also known as motors) responsible for maintaining a synapse - they have to be quick: the interlocutor Client Device that initiated the engagement is impatient for more transmitters. A synapse is created when a given Client Device engages another. A Client Device may manage many synapses at a time because a given Client Device, being a member of a neural network, may be engaged with many of it's co-Sovereign kin at a time.
So, perhaps the deliberator should not be the candidate thinker responsible for disposing content; perhaps the marshaller should do this. Although the marshaller itself creates and acquires content, it has a more cyclical nature than does the deliberator. The marshaller currently creates (creation implies acquisition) or merely aquires content before handing the task of deliberating this content to the newly started deliberator which has been created for the task of deliberating what the content implies. After all deliberators are created and started, the marshaller can then perhaps turn its task to disposing of any deliberators which have finished (another formal term that also includes engagement initiators and other types of thinkers including the anonymous respondent); in turn disposing of any nested content instances (subscribers, subscriptions, resonances or qualia) which are no longer the subject of any finisher (deliberator included) that has indeed finished. Perhaps a marshaller should only be responsible for disposing of content if a particular content instance, eligible for disposal, was referenced by a particular finisher created by that particular marshaller.
Deliberators (as well as most other finishers) act in a linear fashion. They do some task (whether that be deliberation of a notion, or the establishment of a synapse, or something else that is relevant to the particular Client Device instance) while marshallers spin in circles - sharing time between tending to deliberations received from and to be sent to a specific interlocutor device, and disposing of content which is eligible for disposal. The marshaller seems like the natural place to perform content disposal as part of its cyclic nature. After the marshaller deals with setting up inbound deliberations, it sweeps through earlier started finishers, disposing these finishers and any nested content instances that are also made eligible for disposal as a consequence.
Sounds promising...
