Models of thought

To closely model thought we have a one dimensional medium. It seems Science is best served by thinking in a stream; So is Art better serviced by thinking in a sea?

The two dimensional media escape all but a few. The ability to draw or present web sites would be good examples of two dimensional media. Anything that leaves an image that is singular in nature during its time of sense.

Three dimensional media escape from thought entirely into new realms of meaninglessness. We find here games, especially of the virutal role player variety where an electronic iconic thing is moving a world about it.

It would seem that the more complex the thought model, the less sophisticated a story it can bear.

These models of reality take more horsepower than - say - a game of chess. But chess, only requiring a sort of two dimensional thought, has more story possibilities than an episode of Dragonball Z.

To try and draw it into two dimensions, we try and watch it in Japanese rather than American as the music is more convincing.

Programming is a kind of four or five dimensional model of thought, and web programming used to be a five or six dimensional model with templates, sql files and all manner of support files.

The more complex the model, remember, the harder it is to be creative with it. Therefore the second generation of web creativity actually slipped into more meaningless complexity. VRML is all very good in the laboratory, but there are few real world applications, except the obvious one, a VRML webcam could be interesting.

Anything that models the human body gives a chess like complexity to strategy games, so we get three dimensional thinking (try to see this is three dimensions of the stuff or media of thought, rather than spacial thinking) occuring in a more complex medium. These games are almost too much for humanity to bear.

They are so addictive that this article could be interrupted by yourself, or already carry the scars of a reboot, because I had to look in to some artificial world.

VRML games, being by their nature complex, are profoundly similar in contexts. There are only so many things you can do when being a viewpoint.

This is why the ASP/PHP model of development is superior.

Applying Fusebox methodology is also brilliant, but is that not using a lower dimensional (mechanical) medium in order to add intelligence to the higher dimensional media?

It works for business applications, but I would rather do a complex interdependent world model using object oriented language than assembler anyday. Reduction of the number of components to work with allows more productivity.

Reduction of the task into smaller tasks allows a more functional and reusable set of working components leaps into new territory. This is not to be construed as an argument for or against Fusebox, but an line of reasoning, to progress to more complex interactions of objects in our thinking.

BTW blogging is a one dimensional media taken to absurd delights.

DISCLAIMER: Views expressed herein are conjecture and do not form part of any particular development strategy.