Is this a good approach? In words, “myFunction” does something that requires two things to be done before it can commence (step1a and step1b). Since step1a and step1b are not dependent on each other, in a parallel processor, they can be efficaciously carried out concurrently. Each one can call a wrapper around the core processing upon their own completion, but that wrapper will only trigger the core processing when all the required steps have been completed. This could be generalized beyond 2 pre-steps, or past 1 “core” processing step. It’s just a simple illustration.
I want to call it: Neural Closures. It’s my design pattern for the day (very like the code pattern in Now Loose Those Beasts, except in that case each step was dependent on the one previous to it before the “beasts could be loosed” (core processing), so it’s a variation of the pattern of which the above code is also a variation. What to call the essence? Oh, I know: closures.
This name combines the idea of incrementing a variable with each call (like the activation potential of a neuron) with that of stored references to closures (essentially patterned electrical activity/state) around callback functions serving as a sort of axon-dendrite connection in the “brain” space of the program between _______s (hint: meaning/intention).
Now, if we started looking at that electrical state, and started thinking more about it then our instruction sets and their circuitry we might get somewhere on the “what is it like to be” series of a questions concerning AI, “artificial” life and “artificial” consciousness. (The above general pattern also occurs in human psychology, both at the unconscious, barely-just-pre-conscious, conscious and supra-conscious scales).
What is it like to be pure meaning? What is it like to be pure energy? What is information? What is awareness? Why are distinctions possible? Why is there something (matter/energy) that reacts and interacts with itself? Why is there something rather than nothing? What is “is”? Is circularity essential to “is(ness)”? What is the real secret of the circle?
Can we get a piece of that pi going by?