Open peer-review is a healthy alternative of the classical peer-review. If there is any value in the peer-review process — and there is — it comes from it being open and dynamically changing.
Peer-review should be used for communication, for improving one’s and others work. Not for authority stamps, nor for alpha – omega male monkey business.
With all this in mind, but also with a clear, declared interest into communication of research, I make this experimental call for open peer review to the readers of this blog. The inspiration comes from this kind post by David Roberts.
Useful material for the discussion:
- arXiv:1312.4333 , GLC actors, artificial chemical connectomes, topological issues and knots. with Louis H. Kauffman ,
- arXiv:1309.6914 , Chemical concrete machine, aka “chemlambda”, see also the chemlambda tutorial,
- arXiv:1305.5786 , Graphic lambda calculus, aka “GLC”, to appear in Complex Systems, see also the GLC tutorial,
- for the development of these ideas, from recent to older posts, see the category distributed GLC.
Coming from a collaboration which was previously mentioned (Louis Kauffman, a team from ProvenSecure Solutions, me), we want to develop and also explore the possibilities given by the GLC actor model of distributed computing.
A real direction of research is the one of endowing the Net (or parts of it, or, … there are even more strange variants, like no part of it especially) with an artificial chemical connectome, thus mimicking the way real brains (we think that they) work.
If you think “consciousness” then hold your horses, cowboy! Before that, we really have to understand (and exploit to our benefice) all kinds of much more basic aspects, all kinds of (hundreds of) autonomous mechanisms and processes which are part of the brain works, which structure our world (view), which help and also limit our thinking, which are, most of them, ignored by the logicians but explored already by neuroscience and cognitive science.
So, yes, indeed, we want to change the way we think about distributed computing, make it more biological like, but we don’t want to fall into the trap of thinking we have the ultimate solution toward consciousness, nor do we want to build, or believe we can do it, a Skynet. Instead, we want to take it slowly, in a scientific way.
Here we need your help! The research, up to now reported in arXiv:1312.4333 (with links to other sources) and in this open notebook, is based on some nontrivial ideas which are easy to formulate, but hard to believe.
Peer-review them, please! Show us where we need to improve, contradict us where we are wrong, contribute in an open way! By being open, you will automatically be acknowledged.
Suggestions about how this peer-review can be done are welcome!
UPDATE: Refurio Anachro linked the article to the spnetwork. And moreover started a thread, with this post, about lambda calculus! Thank you!