Your experience

What would you like to share?

Your ideas

How would you improve your experience?

My dear friends:I hesitate to add my voice to this august discussion, but I couldn't help it in the 5th grade and I am certainly too old to hold back now. By the way, due to inflation the cost of such interference has risen from the old "putting my 5 cents in" to "a dollar". Here is my dollar's worth of thoughts.<!--break--> 1. An 'evolving system' is first and foremost an 'informational phenomenon' (IP).2. Aside from its capacity to magnificently acquire, relate, manipulate and produce data, it has a major limitation compared to any human when seen as an IP.3.A human IP is capable of seamlessly transforming any of the 3 types of Information (at least) into any other type. 4.The three types of Information are: (1) Material (MI) data, input, output, etc.; (2)  Physical  (PI) causational - leading to any change in status, and(3) Eidetic (EI) cognitive-emotional we are well familiar with.<!--break--> {N.B. I also postulate existence of a fourth type - Deatic Information - an ideal information, but let's keep this out for now}<!--break--> 5.The fundamental aspect of the three types is the no-hassle morphing of one type into another thus creating a number of outcome trees (scenarios). Call me a bad name and  I slap you back and you can take this open-ended transformation sequence of MI to EI to PI  to EI anywhere you want.<!--break--> What is my concern and objection?<!--break--> The focal point in EC DG festivities is to enable only two morphings, that is MI to PI and PI to MI. I may be unfamiliar with efforts to make the systems "feel". Given my outsider status, I should be forgiven for taking your time but I suspect that these efforts, if any,  bypass the key role of Emotional-Cognitive Information within the informational triade.  <!--break--> Let me try a slightly different track.<!--break--> 6.Human behavior, seen as an informational output, is actually a result of ad hock negotiations by and between three decision-making scales - A, B and C.7. An A scale is the old familiar "Right-Wrong" binary choice:  8. A B scale is the one we use but dislike in others: "Want-Do not Want".9. The C scale is the fuzzy one - "Good - Bad";10. Regardless of individual criteria the outcome of any situation of choice always depends on (at least) two sources of Eidetic information provided by the B and/or C scale.11. In human IF's the end result of 'negotiation' is in fact a product of multiple transformations of EI into PI  or MI and back and sideways.<!--break--> And I am not even adding the "Presence of Others" dimensions to this discussion.<!--break--> My point? The fundamental anatomy of 'evolving systems' is still a one-scale binary foundation. Without modelling an evolving system capacity to operate with Eidetic information, no system will 'evolve' benignly. No matter how many 'brakes' are provided, it would remain unable to transform data into good or bad.<!--break--> Presently such an endeavor lacks proper conceptual cellular anatomy (like units of good or units of want) but failure to start with looking for one will inevitably lead to HAL-like situations and faster than we think.<!--break--> One possible approach might be to design a Universal Eidetic Matrix with scalable modular array linked to universal Relational Spheres, but I am running too fast too  far.<!--break-->