탐색: 메타커런시 프로젝트를 찾아서 7 - Ceptr Revelation 읽기

hsalbert (48)in #metacurrency-project • 6 years ago (edited)

※ 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).

3.2 Relational Scaping

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[.]

What is relationship? It seems [that] when you think of it as two things, it seems arbitrary. This is southeast of that, it's heavy, etc. arbitrary relational desc [description ?]. The problem with traditional semantics / what they are doing with RDF etc. is that they're just making arbitrary assertions. What is missing in that picture for real sensemaking you don't want just making arbitrary assertions, you want to understand what differences make a difference, the dimensions of variabilities that matter.

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.

Data Geometries: sequence (nth/index, len), list (prev, nex, len), map, hash, array, tuple (x, y), tree, enum
Process Geometries: set (logical) membership, Lat/Long (map x,y to a sphere)
More at this link←url: 액서스 요청이 승인되면 이메일이 온단다. (another doc also exists with more details on scape 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 thing that gives you the sense making is the context of the range and dimension of change that matters, not the item themselves in the data set. So in the RDF (done with triples) item + item = relationship (defined) between them. So RDF has to explicitly declare the relationship between (every) elements in a data set instead of naming or identifying a range of variability within the elements and then being able to evaluate an element according to that relational context.
This is the need for scapes. The sense making with trad.[traditional ?] semantics is not identifying contexts, ranges, and variability in that range.

─. The nature of “relationship” → scapes

─. The knitting of texture in collections of data instances / landscape / also like protein folding[.]

I think DNA ─ we have names for different types of chromosomes(염색체) because of the shape the DNA takes in that form of chromosome (the way it folds on itself). Wondering if there aren't similar kinds of layers of encoding and complexity that you can get out of scapes that is sorta like protein folding or you have a number of relationships that when folded into another relationship folded into another relationship you get these emergence of higher orders. It seems like we need an architectue that will relate that sort of relational sophistication.

─. Scape Algebra

We think it is going to be possible to perform a kind of “scape algebra” where you have crossing and intersections and topological mapping using scapes. Think of in the context of couch surfing. Where you have a whole bunch of criteria. You have a “comfort scape” how well does the place fit your comforts? Allergies-privacy [...] A range of compatibility, as well as location, as well as social compatibility. When you [get a ?] return [of ?] results on a search[,] you want to be doing a kind of blending, crossing, intersecting (algebra) blending.

※ 독자 메모(Reader's note):

여기까지가 3.2 소절이다. 전체적으로 텍스트가 미완성 상태에 머물러 있다.
2018년 2분기~4분기 동안에는 Holo Network 출범에 정력을 투여하느라고 이 부분은 오랫동안 미완성 상태일 것으로 보인다. 3.1 소절의 후반부와 함께 서술의 구조가 크게 바뀔 것으로 예상된다.
다음 소절은, 3.3 “Semantic Coherence” 다.

※ 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).