Controversial

It is quite simple, actually. What makes it work is productive interaction that is visible to the machine. Take for example this message. It might be useful if another person hears, or better yet, understands it. Scale that up to include many. So far we have a message that has -potential- to create positive change on a large scale. 

Now take a slightly different concept, a transaction implying valuable information that is more than one way, a synchronous conversation so-to-speak. Scale it up. Not an easy task. Or, at least, it sure was difficult until recently. The machine is recursively creative now because it reflects the success of key components of biology. In a word, it is becoming more 'organic'. And now we have something that can put the highly successful 'design' of biology to work, but less constrained than in the case of biologic media's speed limitations.

Fast Forward ...

"What is it? You start in the middle of something and then leave us hanging."

"That part was not my idea"

"How so?'

Back to the mathematical 'poles' that suspend concepts in the ether. We speak of abstractions that are not intended to be in any way concrete. Not to confuse.  Precisely the opposite. To illuminate … enlighten. This dialog is just like many others that can be viewed in at least two disparate ways:

1) You are just confusing me. This is not helpful.  I'd rather hear from people who think like me.

2) What you are saying is fascinating.  I am not sure I agree, but I would love to see it more clearly …

Open and 'accepted', maybe an introduction would be appropriate. The first word of the last sentence is underlined.  Should I click it?