Lists Home |
Date Index |
Umm.. The actual trick there is that a system does become self-aware and
begins to direct its own evolution. That is intelligence by definition
(no references to spirituality; just the mechanics of feedback systems
that can alter feedback parameters in response to perceived internal or
external changes). That implies learning and learning implies
observation/measurement based emergence of controls, or component
If you want to compare that to a theory on how the human brain does this
trick, see Hecht-Nielsen's articles on 'confabulation theory' because
gap filling is important (you never have complete measurements and some
are usually noisy). It is also interesting to look at low-energy
transport models in physics because the model enables this to be done
without high investments or energy consumption. The energy budget is
the limit in evolution just as frame rate is the limit for adaptive
hypermedia (the installer isn't adaptive; the human selector is).
Apply the human models, (economicus, reciprocans, parochius, equalis) in
combination. I believe each is some combination with one strategy
emphasized within a human instance and a locale (synergistic). That is
why clusters are important; they enable one to determine the number of
variables in a cluster for optimum payoff.
In a CLAX system, the components loaded are the cluster. Web pages
don't usually allow the user to pick the cluster. If that situation
prevailed in studio tools, I'd throw them away. Fortunately, that is
precisely how studio tools do work with the plugins but the main tool
(the sequencer/track manager) is the organizing agent. You have to
decide which components handle which semantics, for example, choosing a
JMOL-specific 3D display vs using the X3D display. If the CML semantics
are layered out of the 3D objects, you have a choice. If you only want
to work with CML 3D, use the JMOL object. If you use 3D for multiple
tasks, use the X3D.
No free semantic lunch. Just selectors of selectors. If the model is
human, they can be typed as in the set given above. Don't confuse the
type models for truth. They are models for prediction and feedback just
as information ecological models are metaphorical. If they provide
reliable predictive power, bene. If not, select another.
From: Didier PH Martin [mailto:email@example.com]
It is indeed radical because the actual no-classical and dominant
theories are about supply and demand and efficient markets. The former
based on the equilibrium and the latter on rational homo economicus.
It is radical in the sense that most of the economics literature of the
last 100 years is more about wealth sharing than wealth creation. It is
radical in the sense that it poses the hypothesis that wealth creation
is based on three elements: differentiation (new stuff, mutation),
selection (survival of the fittest) and amplification (more of it
because it's more adapted to the environment). It's not that the supply
and demand theory is wrong it is only that it doesn't state a theory
about "how do we create wealth"?
Concrete reality in the XML world.
Where should you invest your time to create wealth for yourself (wealth
being better employability, better business success). XAML, AJAX another
XML based language? Or simply consider that XML is dead and Java will
take the world? How do you know what will win?
Another take is to get real options in a couple of these technologies or
a big bet on a single one. You're in 2010, what is useful for you, what
It is radical indeed; it is future oriented and states the economics as
an evolution system. Off course, some will prefer to believe in
intelligent design mechanism :-)