※ 본 게시물의 목적, 취지, 이력에 대해선 맨 밑의 비고를 참조(Please go to the bottom to see the purpose, intention, and prior history of this typed reproduction of an original─& incomplete─contribution by the MetaCurrency Project).
Each receptor has its own coherence context and one significant part of coherence is maintaining the relationships between different atomic data elements. In Ceptr[,] data is stored not in a structured SQL database, but as atomic objects or elements. Scapes are used to manage collections of elements as well as represent the relationship between those elements.
Scapes embody the dimensions of variability that are used for making sense of data. In other words, if you need things arranged by size, or by direction, or by alphabetical order, or whatever the geometry of sensemaking that is embedded in the data, Scapes are encoded to organize the data according to that relational geometry.
There is a deep need for relational intelligence between receptors because it's our observation that natural systems have ways of embodying healthy relational wisdom in many different contexts.
Among the human body's trillions of cells there is also a vast differentiation of roles. In the immune system (1) there is an identification of healthy participants vs. unhealthy participants within the body, (2) bacteria can mutate to fill different niches, and more broadly (3) it seems like there are patterns that help make a “healthy state” and patterns that are unhealthy. What would be the criteria for the body to be able to assess whether something is a bacterial infection that should be filtered or attacked [주]§ or it is helpful? What are the relational dimensions the while blood cells could be using to make a determination of that?
[주]§. Scott Noelle의 코멘트(2016년 6월 18일): Borrowing a flawed metaphor from conventional allopathic medical thinking. Our old friend, the dominator paradigm. In an intro document it's probably harmless, but I hope you're thinking outside the box as you design this software. I like the perspective that the immune system and the bacterial colony form a partnership united for the purposes of balance and sustainability. Reducing it to a battle of good vs. evil or self vs. other is a cultural habit we need to be on the lookout for. We can do better than Daleks. :)
Question: if the priciple of partnership and interbeing are deliberately embedded throughout the software that powers future iterations of the world brain, will it make inevitable the emergence of a global culture of partnership throughout the world?
Eric Harris-Braun의 코멘트(2016년 6월 21일): Good point Scott. I think we should be more careful in the wording, but I think part of the point of "it is helpful" is the acknowledgement of many bacterial "colonies" which live symbiotically in partnership, vs. those which aren't.
Scott Noelle의 코멘트(2016년 6월 21일): My point is that everything is symbiosis and therefore partnership on some level. if a pathogen colonizes my body and trigger a "disease" process, there are two possible outcomes: (1) my body successfully restores balance and is left with a stronger immune system and greater resilience, therefore the pathogene served me; (2) my body is incapable of restoring balance and I die, leaving my species stronger (survival of the fittest). Either way, the pathogen is essentially partnering with me or partnering with my species.
Whether you see a battle or a partnership depends on the active paradigm in your consciousness. My prediction is that the more your software design is informed by partnership consciousness, the more it will be likely to give rise to derivative manifestations of partnership.
Afsaneh Hermann의 코멘트(2017년 1월 13일): 생략.
( ... ... )
Explore.
─. How relationship is characterized by the realm of possible relationships, rather than X to Y[.]
Would that be possible if there isn't a relational scaping happening within the body? That is whay scapes [seem] like a better way to this rather than RDF assertions.
Another profound example that guides our thinking about relations scaping comes from geometry.
─. Ex: Take geolocation data: doing a couch match example. You want to say who is near(web) is that is(web) is that isby? Nearby changes a lot based on certain types of context. When you're out in a rural area in a car, maybe a 25-50 mile radius. In NYC, taking a transit may be a 3 mile radius. Function and mode that makes something “nearby.” But the big point is the context. Depending on the data set density[,] nearby can be very different things [e]ven if you're putting in data that has very meaningful constraints (ex: lat -90 to 90 degrees). You know something about its relational context even when that data isn't in there.
─. The nature of “relationship” → scapes
─. The knitting of texture in collections of data instances / landscape / also like protein folding[.]
─. Scape Algebra
※ 독자 메모(Reader's note):
※ 비고 (This Reader's Remark): 메타커런시 프로젝트(MetaCurrency Project)의 개념과 역사에 대해 탐색해 가면서 아울러 현재와 미래에 걸쳐 동반 탐색자의 출현을 기대하는 공개적인 탐구용 게시물(A personal exploration to learn about something related to the ideas of the MetaCurrency Project and its history, having some hope to find some people interested esp. in Korea though).
