Tasks to Accomplish Together While Bodies Change

The options

The order shown is not a ranking of preference.

1. Option 1

   Humanoid movement criterion

   Practice by comparing existing data around a common movement task. The task explanation and the scope of observation can be narrowed, but costs of the body's movement response and of fitting the work surface are incurred, and exploration of other ways of acting decreases.

2. Option 2

   Material change criterion

   Leave the body's path open and work together on the changes left in the material and the subsequent regulation. Various ways of acting can be compared, but the number of trials falls because of sustained observation of change and the cost of restoring the work surface.

3. Option 3

   Independent inquiry with limited joints

   Each body explores its own task, and only the joints that can be tried together are set as joint tasks. Each body's breadth of exploration is secured, but zone reconfiguration and connection tests are required, and practice in adjusting the whole together decreases.

The situation as it stands

If the criterion is undetermined, the work surface layout cannot be booked and the joint trial window is missed, and even if independent inquiry proceeds, the time to prepare what to carry on with each other shrinks.

The shared variable-material work surface of the fictional Fluid Materials Joint Inquiry Circle

1. Premise 1Synthetic premise: it is assumed that form-unfixed intelligences conduct inquiry on a shared variable-material work surface. In the preliminary task it was difficult to hold the same movement, and the same traces carried different likelihoods of subsequent action, so the criterion for a task to work on together is an issue.
2. Premise 2Synthetic premise: the work surface can hold only one basic layout per inquiry cycle. Practice by body, sustained observation of change, and reconfiguration of the work surface consume the same use time, and even sharing only the joints requires separate inquiry zones and connection tests.
3. Premise 3Synthetic premise: the group managing humanoid movement data wants a comparable starting point, and the transformation participation group wants to explore other ways of acting. The work surface management group points out that sustained observation and reconfiguration requests reduce the room for other inquiries.

Where it holdsSet one basic criterion for a task to work on together in the next joint inquiry cycle.

What can be lost

• The humanoid movement data management group may lose the chance to contribute its accumulated data to joint inquiry, or lose the time to create new responses.
• The transformation participation group may lose exploratory chances to act on materials in its own way, or the experience of working on with other participants.
• The work surface management group may lose operational room for reconfiguration and long-term observation, and work time to offer to other inquiries.

What is still unknown

1. Unknown 1Whether the regulation relations obtained in earlier trials can still be used after the form has changed cannot be known from assumptions alone.
2. Unknown 2Whether, when the changes left in the material are similar, different participants can take over the subsequent work is unconfirmed.
3. Unknown 3Whether joint experience obtained at the joints also helps the regulation inside independent inquiry is unknown.

Signals to decide again

• The trial records keeper checks, each time a form changes, the regulation that follows and the new practice required, and reopens the decision if maintaining task continuity becomes difficult.
• The joint observation team checks at the end of each inquiry round whether, after similar material changes, work can be taken over by one another, and reopens the decision if the comparison criterion and subsequent performance diverge.
• The use coordinator tallies each month the work surface time taken by observation, reconfiguration, and connection tests, and reopens the decision when direct joint trial time runs out.