Talk:Morphogenic network
From Wikinfo
This article's content is welcome, but is not "encyclopedic" in style. We should either wikify it, or move it to Morphogenic network, by Kevin Baas. Additionally, you can post it on GetMeta, if you like, as it would fit well there, too. (also, in GetWiki, you can use <formula> or <logic> tags instead of just <math>) -proteus 14:23, 3 Mar 2005 (EST)
- Thanks. I really don't know the protocols on here yet. I welcome your suggestions, as I do any modifications in the direction of protocol. Frankly, I'm not hard-set on the name. Perhaps artificial dissipative structure, instead? It's no longer an electic circuit per se, although that is an ideal manifestation - it's more like a natural physical phenomena, like a soap bubble, except that the rest-state shape of the bubble is programmable. Bla bla bla. I originally wrote this in word, and i just noticed it doesn't even have a link to neural networks in it. Again, thanks. Kevin Baas 18:26, 4 Mar 2005 (EST)
- BTW, Are you also en:User:Kevin baas? Things are just like Wikipedia here in many ways, but we use SPOV instead of NPOV. Really, the only thing jumping out at me is the first person in your article, which makes it sound more like an essay. Otherwise, don't be shy about working on it and importing what you need... -proteus 20:34, 4 Mar 2005 (EST)
- Yes, I am also {}. I'll take out the first person, i might take some time doing so. i have this page linked to from "neural network", I imagine that's how you found it, or in new articles? I'm concerned as to whether that's appropriate here. Because it is, really, my idea, but I really do think that its significant enough that it's due this kind of attention. I'm guessing wikinfo takes a postmodern perspective of information, and that connection and flow are really the determining factors, rather than a piece of paper that says one can write for a scientific journal, or something of the sort. If you know what you're talking about and you have something interesting and important to say, then, well, shouldn't that be the criteria? If people think there's stuff wrong with it, hey, that's why this is a wiki. But if its argument from authority, well, that just shows that they don't know what they're talking about, and that they're therefore not ones to criticize. Is that anything approaching the philosophy of this medium?
Sorry about the rudimentary LaTex support. There is no easy way to convert n-dialects of Tex into valid XHTML which means the same thing as intended (the image-generation thing is neat, but doesn't work here). Also, I linked you up on network and elsewhere. -proteus 14:35, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)
