Within a policy
infrastructure, a set of rules governing interactions can be established.
Remember, these are now rules derived from human cognitive processes. In some
infrastructures, the rules are referred to as law; in others, as codes of
conduct. Along with the rules generally comes a definition of the
characteristics of the interaction process, including how is an interaction
initiated, how is it terminated and what goes on in between. A central
necessity of having rules is knowing whom the rules apply to. As a consequence,
a policy infrastructure must either provide, or have access to, a means of
identification of the members of the social ecosystem. At the termination of an
interaction, there typically is a result. In some instances, the existence of
an interaction generates forensic evidence that it has occurred; in fact, this
may actually be formalized in an interaction record that makes an historical
artifact of all the aspects of what went on. Finally, there are typically consequences
to interactions. These consequences may simply be the result of the
interaction, or they may comprise collateral attributes that naturally follow
from the transaction. In some instances, the consequences may involve sanctions
in the event that the results of the transaction don’t follow the rules.
The function of
the policy infrastructure is to facilitate interactions. The structure of
interactions is interesting in its own right.
The mechanism
through which one entity influences another is termed an interaction. All interactions ultimately are effected through the
four elemental forces of nature that we alluded to earlier. Within a physical
ecosystem, these forces are the root enablers of all interactions. We note that
these elemental forces are infinite in scope; that is, they are continuously in
effect. This infinite extent is ameliorated in many instances by virtue of the
fact that the influence of the various forces can be infinitesimally small over
large interaction distances, where large varies from force to force. Within
social ecosystems, however, we can identify more complex forms of interactions.
Of greatest interest to us are the interactions among people, between people
and members of other species and between people and specific aspects of the
ecosystem in which they exist. Because computers and their subsequent
combinations through networks are in many functions the mechanical extensions
of people, we view them as natural elements of interactions.
If, for the
moment, we limit our consideration to interactions between people that do not
make use of any type of mechanical means to extend their presence or effect
within the ecosystem, then these interactions must occur between entities in
relatively close proximity to each other; close being determined by the
specific physical mechanisms through which the interaction occurs. People can
see each other at significant distances and can interact through visibility
mechanisms at such distances; think hand gestures and signals. Interactions
based on sound will typically have a somewhat lesser extent than visibility
mechanisms. In many environments, people can see further than they can hear,
and their abilities to interact are correspondingly limited; think plains and
deserts. Of course, in other environments sight may be limited and sound the
longer distance mechanism; think jungles or a dark night. Interactions based on
tastes or smells can be of even shorter range. These two senses are highly
interrelated and allow for very subtle characteristics to be addressed during
interactions.
Sight and hearing will typically offer some directionality. “I see a
large animal over there” or “I hear a threatening sound from that direction.”
The sense of touch offers a very close range tactile appraisal of the physical
world nearby. The body is replete with sensors that register a variety of
sensations, from the coolness of a breath of wind on one’s face to the warmth
of the sun on one’s
|