Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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 intelligence. 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. len From: Didier PH Martin [mailto:martind@n...] 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 survived? 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 :-)
|
