[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
And so we are back to the entropy discussion, or information
value. Again, you have a set of states and at each transition,
you choose the next state. Grammar, as your friend observes,
eliminates some of those choices. Note the ones it doesn't
eliminate (right grammar, but wrong) which says that the grammar
has information value but isn't systemically sufficient. So
the RDF grammar can eliminate bad RDF constructs, but it can't
by itself, produce a valid relationship. That requires rules
for transitions.
I'd say there may be a grammar and there may be a protocol.
Both will emerge as the effect of interaction. That's a
second order cybernetic effect.
It isn't luck but intension that drives interaction. You
can start randomly, but after some number of plays given
any self-awareness (and yes, non-living systems can be
self-aware - see alife), intension will be observed. I
don't need a grammar or a protocol to have intension.
I will create one by the actions I take to fulfill that
intension.
Step away from the machine for a moment and ask, how do
market grammars and market protocols emerge? Trades.
Another model for that is "discourses".
1. If you don't start with a grammar, you will create one.
2. If you don't start with a protocol, you will create one.
No evolution without feedback. This has no relationship
to justice by the way. Violence is a form of discourse
and creates a protocol and a grammar.
That is exactly what the cyberneticists will tell you,
and then it is a matter of first order, second order and
third order systems. (Feedback, feedback on feedback,
the feedback on the feedback you are feeding back. The
third order actor is likely a consultant: he helps you
strategize on your strategy for managing your feedback.)
http://www.oikos.org/discourses.htm
len
|
