Member 2664
108 entries

Immortal since Jun 17, 2010
Uplinks: 0, Generation 4
mad-scientist and computer programmer looking for something more interesting than most people accept as their future
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • BenRayfield’s favorites
    From AsylumSeaker
    Christopher Langan
    From Yissar
    Technology Progress vs....
    From XiXiDu
    The Nature of Self
    From QESelf
    View Point Room Argument...
    From Jorgen
    My Paper on Computer...
    Recently commented on
    From gamma
    Is brain a computer?
    From BenRayfield
    Elections should be done...
    From BenRayfield
    The most dangerous thing...
    From BenRayfield
    Why is there no Content...
    From BenRayfield
    How can a set of computers...
    BenRayfield’s projects
    The human species is rapidly and indisputably moving towards the technological singularity. The cadence of the flow of information and innovation in...

    The Total Library
    Text that redefines...

    Start your own revolution
    Catching up with the future. All major institutions in the world today are grappling to come to terms with the internet. The entertainment...

    Proposal for a multimedia...
    A musical mindstorm on the nature of sound, light, space and subjective experience powered by locally produced energy, heralding the ending of the...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.

    I turned Wikipedia into a brain. Wikipedia pages appear and disappear on the screen and communicate with you. You touch the words you want to say. The webpage puts new words on the screen to respond. Repeat to have a conversation.

    Its a new way to interact with text and dimensions, a 6 dimensional space where space and color are used interchangibly during your conversation.

    3 space dimensions: left/right, up/down, in/out.
    3 color dimensions: red, green, blue.

    It can form patterns of shapes and colors and ideas. It can be expanded to contain any part of a website where the colored words are now. You could connect it to a musical instrument through the computer and use the moving words to select between the settings on the instrument or play its notes. Its generally useful for using the mouse to control any complex system, especially a "multimedia playground" or a search-engine or as a democracy system for large-scale communication between any number of people. Theres lots of things you could build with it, but right now its just a brain that uses Wikipedia pages (and links between them) as its brain cells to have conversations (seeing sentences as the order words appear, not where they appear).

    Its a HTML file so anyone can change it using a text editor if you know where to write Javascript code in it. Its open-source (GNU GPL 3) so you have legal permission to build things with it.

    Try it now at:

    Or get the HTML file and text files it automatically downloads (if you copy it all to a website) at:

    I'll have a search box to start the process soon, but my main idea is new. Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc make you look through a list of search results 1 at a time, but I think a search-engine should be more like a "multimedia playground" where things fly around the screen and change color and communicate with you in fun ways. That's how we should search and surf the internet. How can you surf if your words aren't liquid?
    Mon, Aug 30, 2010  Permanent link

    Sent to project: Proposal for a multimedia playground
      RSS for this post
      Promote (2)
      Add to favorites (1)
    Synapses (1)

    The USA government is arrogant and proudly hangs their balls out for all to see, thinking nobody would dare grab them and squeeze the corrupt politicians out. Time to put your pants on.

    This is about a theoretical sequence of legal precedents that lead to ending USA's propaganda games.

    This is 1 of many examples, but I originally wrote this as a response to this video:

    The huge infrastructure and complex laws they have set up make it hard for most people to see why its illegal for them to censor the internet, but if we choose to create our own communication infrastructure (like The Sticker Network) then average people will understand why the USA government can not legally stop us. We have the right to free speech, to not pay for free speech if we do all the work to speak it, and the legal system in USA says that internet communication and speaking with your mouth are both types of "free speech".

    I'll quote from the highest laws of USA, which means if any laws contradict these, we should obey these laws instead:
    Article the third ...... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    If anyone in USA (especially the government and businesses they influence) uses the USA government (lawyers, national security threats, propaganda, etc) to prevent us from creating our own communication network to be used for free speech and free internet access, then such action is treason and I will call the police and/or take other legal action against them. While I'm dealing with such criminals, the infrastructure will continue being built. Anyone who attacks communication infrastructure in USA is a terrorist. Anyone who attacks free-speech in USA is a treasonist. For instructions on what to do when you see a terrorist, please read the USA Patriot Acts. When reading the USA Patriot Acts, please remember that they are lower than the law I quoted which was amended to the USA Constitution. If you find anything in any laws against free speech in any case for any reason, such theoretical contradiction is not really part of the law. In other words, a million pages of laws can not change that 1 sentence I quoted unless they are amended to the USA Constitution. The law in USA is very simple in that way. Free speech is one of the highest laws.

    If we put up our own communication infrastructure, I will not pay any tax to use it, and I will ignore any government instructions to connect it to government systems or censor it, for a very simple reason: I have no legal obligation to pay for free speech or change my free speech so the government can observe it. My authority to build a communication network for free speech and free access to the internet is higher than the authority of the USA Patriot acts, and it is higher than the authority of Congress because such authority comes from a law that tells Congress what to do: " Congress shall make no law...". Congress can not tell me not to build things to do free speech. We're not trying to exclude anyone from our own communication infrastructure. As a decentralized part of the internet (peer to peer wireless network routers), it will not be possible for anyone to censor anyone else or prevent anyone from connecting. Anyone who puts up such a hardware will get access.

    We're inviting all governments to connect as peers instead of masters, the same as everyone else. There are many common goals between governments and non-government people (like efficiently organizing billions of people, having enough food, safety, advancing science, etc), but the normal way governments act as our masters prevents most kinds of cooperation. Starting completely as peers/peers instead of partially peers/peers and partially masters/slaves, in the ways everyone has equal power in a decentralized communication network, I expect that governments and non-government people will think of eachother less as enemies and more as someone to go to when you have a problem to solve. Why hasn't that happened already? Masters have little reason to solve slaves problems, and slaves only have a reason when their masters are watching. As peers (in the decentralized communication network), governments will either start solving our problems or be ignored the same way we ignore most advertisements. Politicians will think less about getting re-elected and more about getting people to follow them on Twitter or communicate with us on this decentralized network. Why are politicians using social networks? This is the next step in that. The master/slave attitude is a problem, and peer/peer communication is a solution.

    Any politician who wants to keep his job should read this and consider his weak position carefully: There are taxes on my cell-phone, internet access, television, and every kind of communication that the government has any ability to control. It is obvious that the USA government's goals include taxing, observing, and controlling communication. This has continued because in cases like taxing phone calls, it can't be proven that its not a tax on the phone system itself. Statistically its obvious that its a tax on communication. To all politicians involved in such taxing/controlling/censoring of communication, we have you "by the balls", because the only thing necessary to prove you are taxing free speech is to prove you will also try to do it for a new communication infrastructure that you had no part in creating and have no business deals with the owner of. If we prove you are taxing free speech, your entire system of control through propaganda would fall like a "house of cards", 1 legal precedent at a time, finally resulting in the defeat of the entire "national security" excuse. You will be accountable for everything you do in the government. So to all politicians involved in taxing/censoring free speech, you still have time to stop corrupting the USA government, but when we find the time and resources to put up our decentralized communication network, it will be too late to deny your involvement in keeping free speech from us. The fact is, if free speech costs any money, those who have less than that much money do not have free speech. If you say you did it for 1 reason but then we prove you did it for reasons against free speech, there will be criminal charges. We have such corrupt politicians "by the balls" because we can start a chain-reaction of legal precedents that includes proving who worked against free speech. It is treason to tax free speech or make it harder to do, especially for the purpose of controlling people through propaganda through the remaining ways to communicate (like television).

    The USA government is arrogant and proudly hangs their balls out for all to see, thinking nobody would dare grab them and squeeze the corrupt politicians out. Time to put your pants on.
      Promote (1)
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (3)
    Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.
    Albert Einstein

    E usually does not equal M C^2. Thats only when its not moving.

    The USA government learned that terrorists keep more secrets and try to have more privacy than people who are not terrorists. Therefore secrets and privacy are bad, so the USA government proceeded to build expensive and complex infrastructure and thousands of pages of new laws so they can now spy on phone calls and lots of other kinds of communication, so they can control the problems: privacy and secrets.

    By oversimplifying the problem (privacy and secrets are bad), they created an extreme amount of complexity. They wanted a simple solution and got the opposite.

    Einstein had simpler ways of influencing lots of things. I'll explain with a simple logical process (which I wrote a small software to do for me):

    Start with the 1.3 million Wikipedia pages with the shortest names (excluding the longer named pages). Each page has X number of pages that link to it and Y number of pages that it links to, only counting links from/to the pages that have not been removed yet. Repeat the following 6 times: Remove all pages where X (links from other pages) is less than or equal to Y (links to other pages) or if X or Y is less than 5 links. Each time, theres around 5 times less pages. After repeating this possibly oversimplified logical process, there are only 16 Wikipedia pages remaining, including

    Repeat it the 7th time and it reduces to these 2:

    Pages with much larger numbers of links were removed, like  was removed in step 6.

    Oversimplified? Or a correct and simplest way to find the core ideas that control our reality?

    Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.
    Albert Einstein

    Anyone can write a book, but a book is rarely as accurate as a paragraph.
    Tue, Aug 17, 2010  Permanent link

    Sent to project: The Total Library
      RSS for this post
      Promote (2)
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (1)

    DARPA is USA's military's advanced technology department. There's a lot of geniuses working there.

    Their goal is illogical in the context of game-theory and would be insane to continue working toward.

    I'm not generally against militaries. If my country was in danger and its military could not handle it, I would do something about it, whatever I thought would solve the problem most effectively for the least resources/cost/effort/problems. But theres a lot of things I don't like about those who control militaries to do certain things, sometimes including the primary purpose of their whole organization, as their website says. This is such an example:

    Quote from

    DARPA’s original mission, inspired by the Soviet Union beating the United States into space with Sputnik, was to prevent technological surprise. This mission has evolved over time. Today, DARPA’s mission is to prevent technological surprise for us and to create technological surprise for our adversaries.

    DARPA’s main tactic for executing its strategy is to constantly search worldwide for revolutionary high-payoff ideas and then sponsor projects bridging the gap between fundamental discoveries and the provision of new military capabilities.

    Like most other parts of the USA government (and most other governments), their individual parts are smarter than the whole government. In general, its a
    problem. Adding more parts complicates it more than its worth, and the whole system diverges into insanity. We see similar problems in computer programming in operating-systems that sometimes are millions of lines of code. Nobody knows how it works except for the few parts they've looked at and worked on. Governments are similar, and their goals are a result of that process that nobody understands.

    DARPA's goal, specificly the "prevent technological surprise for us and to create technological surprise for our adversaries" part, is self defeating. If your goal is to surprise your enemies that way, then anyone who is surprised that way is more likely to think that you think they are your enemy, and to keep your technology surprising to your enemies you have to keep it secret from your enemies and some of those who are not your enemies, therefore those who use a similar strategy tend to surprise you more that way, therefore you label them as your enemies (by symmetry of thinking your own strategy is a good one), therefore your strategy increases in cost and decreases in effectiveness over time, therefore your chance of accomplishing your goal decreases over time, therefore your strategy (except in rare cases) will fail.

    Considering how smart DARPA's people are, its surprising how they can follow a self-defeating goal that completely ignores any deep analysis using game-theory between countries.

    The goal could be improved by trying to not surprise (in that technology way) those who try to not surprise you. More generally, there would be less wars and more efficiency and productivity of the whole Human species if more governments decided to define their enemies as those who keep more secrets. If governments are not doing anything wrong, then they would have nothing to hide. That's what they say to us. Lets say it back to them. Accusations and secret laws about "national security" are a negative-sum-game, and, for example, DARPA is insane and illogical for defining its goal in terms of such a game it has a continuously decreasing chance of winning.
    Sun, Aug 15, 2010  Permanent link

    Sent to project: Polytopia
      RSS for this post
      Promote (1)
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (3)

    Donate money to prove Human life is for sale, legally.

    This can be done in any country or for the whole Earth overall, but its easiest to start in your own country, and mine is USA. I'll write it that way.

    Because of our relatively new ability to organize and count things on a global scale, or at least in our own country, allowing some small amount of error in counting, its now possible to calculate the price of a Human life. The  of killing compared to not saving a life is too small to be relevant, but it is a good legal defense to be on a certain side of that line. The problem with that strategy is the line moved since you looked last, as a result of the economy changing and global politics. You didn't cross the line. The line crossed you. That's what happens when you stand next to an unstable line. But don't worry, because our elected leaders have been expecting this and have been writing laws (every few years) that say killing is legal, in more ways and for less reasons. "National security" is my favorite excuse for not admitting anything. Killing is ok as long as the secret laws say so. The  is good for the economy.

    Most people in USA do not want to know how much money it costs to save the life of 1 random cow (like if some medical operation would have saved the cow's life which would continue until it died of old age, a cow for milking instead of meat).

    Most people in USA do not want to know how much money it costs to save the life of 1 random Human, and I think they don't want to know the Human's price for the same reason they don't want to know about the cow's price.

    People like to say Human life is priceless, but "supply and demand" of how much it costs to save the cheapeast lives in USA prove that there is a money value of 1 Human life. People desparately want to avoid ever thinking that because if they knew the price they would feel guilty about spending that amount of money on other things. Maybe they would see a commercial for a new car that costs 3.2 Human lives, buy that car, and then go to church and act like Human life is the most important thing. Theres lots of ways to be a hypocrite and cause people to die for selfish reasons. At least I know what I'm doing when I buy things at the cost of a fraction of a Human life. The most insane murderers refuse to admit what they did, with the blood still on their hands, they say they were just eating a tomato sandwich or its paint. That's what most people are when they refuse to see that there must be a specific money price of Human life.

    I want to see it proven, to the standards the courts of USA must accept as a fact, how much money it costs to save 1 of the 1000 cheapest Human lives in USA. We will call that COST_OF_HUMAN_LIFE_IN_USA. Its a number of USA dollars, a specific amount of money, and it changes slowly over time as supply and demand of Human life (and medical technology) changes.

    Now I'll explain the subject of this thread: "legal murder charity". The purpose of it is to prove that you can buy Human lives, because if people admit it is happening, more of them will do something to stop it from happening.

    I want to start a government-certified charity. When donations sum to enough money, the "legal murder charity" will, while obeying all laws and paperwork of USA and doing everything in public and with permission of all people involved, pay 1 innocent healthy happy person to kill 1 other innocent healthy happy person only for the purpose of proving that you can legally pay to kill somebody.

    How can you get that to be legal? Its easy. Just use 1 of the hypocritical things about the USA government to logically force them to make it legal... Start with a very simple statement that most people agree with: If the 9/11/01 terrorist attack (which killed around 3000 people I hear) could have been prevented by "1 innocent healthy happy person" sacrificing their life to prevent it, then shouldn't it be legal for them to make that sacrifice? Wouldn't that make them patriotic and/or a good person? Shouldn't it be legal for them to save 3000 lives at the cost of their own? Of course it should, most people would agree.

    So if "1 innocent healthy happy person" chooses to sacrifice their own life to save 3000 peoples' lives in USA, that should be legal. Lets get that in writing, and if they refuse, call them supporters of the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks until they give it to you in legal writing, that 1 can sacrifice to save 3000.

    Because I value Human lives so highly, I am willing to donate some of my own money (like many other people probably would) to prove that its legal (after we get those laws changed and all necessary paperwork signed) to pay money to kill "1 innocent healthy happy person", so I would donate to this charity, and when the charity got enough money to save 3000 lives (exactly 3000 multiplied by COST_OF_HUMAN_LIFE_IN_USA amount of money, as written above), then we legally pay a specific "1 innocent healthy happy person" to kill a specific other "1 innocent healthy happy person" (both volunteered for this purpose), and then we have proven that Human life is for sale, which can have only the effect of people starting to pay attention to such selling of Human lives and results in extremely more Humans not being sold this way.

    Everyone involved chose to be, so all results of the "legal murder charity" are chosen (by people who have the freedom to not choose it) or are positive.

    I would donate money to the "legal murder charity". In general, people who would not are more likely to be scared to know how much it costs to save 1 Human life.

    It would also be very effective to get COST_OF_HUMAN_LIFE (for the average cost of the 1,000,000 cheapest Human lives to save on Earth) proven to be a specific money amount and use COST_OF_HUMAN_LIFE as an international money unit. How much does your new car cost? 3.2 COST_OF_HUMAN_LIFEs? Buy in the next 10 minutes and get 0 COST_OF_HUMAN_LIFEs down and 0.3 COST_OF_HUMAN_LIFEs interest for 3 years, subject to approved credit.

    Or for a different truth that most people desparately want to not know, calculate COST_OF_HUMAN_LIFE separately for each race or country. Prove that blacks and whites are worth different amounts of money according to the standard of supply and demand. I don't think they're worth different amounts, but I don't believe in money either.

    Or do you think war is ok but its not ok if its civilians who choose to save lives at the cost of their own? How is it relevant that I'm playing this like a game? Thats what works. Before pointing a finger at me, read about how much money the  spends on killing people. I'm talking about legally killing 1 consenting person to save 3000 people. Please help create and donate to the "legal murder charity" to save lives.

    Why should killing only be legal for people with money and political power?

    Also, a more practical proposal, to all cogs in the war machine (parts of the "military industrial complex", businesses who build excessive weapons for the government in a feedback loop, a process that expands like a virus, etc)... This is just 1 of many possible strategies based on logic and the propaganda you've got people to believe (like terrorism being more important than saving lives). If some part of your "military industrial complex" wanted to selfishly help itself and save a lot of lives, then it could help people like us find the hidden causes of other parts of the "military industrial complex", and we would have less reason to focus on your specific department's use of tax money to build unnecessary weapons, if you helped us peacefully neutralize other parts of the "military industrial complex".. if you wanted your department to be peacefully neutralized later instead of sooner. Just a proposal. Its your choice, cog in the war machine. That's called a's_dilemma  and this time you're on the receiving end. I'm going to show people how to do that many more ways. In a system where lots of contradictions exist in the rules (like the USA government), its easy to find ways to cause it to do anything you want it to do. Start from "true equals false" and you can derive any outcome. They gave that power to themselves but did not realize they gave it to us too, if we dare to use it.

    Lets throw a wrench into the war machine. Stop 1 cog (in the war machine) from turning, put it out of business or make it lose enough money that the event is reported on the news, and the other cogs in the war machine will know who is really in control. They will defect in the's_dilemma  (which I described above) one after the other, faster each time. You think the war machine has power? Strategy is real power, and I don't see enough people using it.
    Sun, Aug 8, 2010  Permanent link

    Sent to project: Start your own revolution
      RSS for this post
      Promote (1)
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (3)

    Most people do not understand PLUS and MULTIPLY when they see them in things they use almost everyday.

    Choose a random person and ask them: Whats the difference between CONTRAST and BRIGHTNESS in the options of a TV?

    Probably they will answer "Contrast makes the colors more different and brightness makes it more white or more black", or they may answer "I don't know but I mess with it until the TV picture looks good."

    Those are not intelligent answers. They are answers by people who only understand CONTRAST and BRIGHTNESS through "trial and error" which is the second-least intelligent strategy to learn things. The first-least intelligent strategy to learn is "error and error again without the desire to learn" which is what people usually do on most problems until the problems become 1 of the top 5 things bothering the person. For example, if you don't recognize PLUS or MULTIPLY when you see them in your everyday life, then there is little desire to learn PLUS and MULTIPLY until they finish signing up for new cell-phone service which has a monthly cost of the sum of 5 to 10 different fees and taxes, none of which the cell-phone business is able to calculate until you agree to a 2 year contract to pay the 5 to 10 unknown costs. People who do not understand PLUS and MULTIPLY can easily be fooled into paying 50+x+y+z dollars per month because x, y, and z are unknown numbers and anything that is unknown is less of a problem than something that is known. Most people's highest priority (for example, when they're at a cell-phone store) is to agree to pay an unknown cost every month for years on a contract, and the lower priority is to learn PLUS and MULTIPLY which could be used (by the cell-phone business before the person walks into the store, for example) to calculate the monthly cost of the cell phone, but somehow people think its ok to buy something without knowing the price, probably because they have no intuition of math.

    Back to simpler example of BRIGHTNESS and CONTRAST on a TV:

    BRIGHTNESS is PLUS. CONTRAST is MULTIPLY. A TV is made of many red, green, and blue lights. Each light has some amount of light coming from it. That amount of light is something like: BRIGHTNESS plus CONTRAST multiplied by [the original amount of light coming to that part of the screen].

    Why can't people figure that out? Why doesn't this obvious example of PLUS and MULTIPLY come into their thoughts when they're adjusting how the TV screen looks? I can think of only 1 reason: They don't understand PLUS and MULTIPLY unless its written (on paper, for example), and more than that, if most people read this and learned of their ignorance of PLUS and MULTIPLY, they would still have little desire to learn it and would still prefer to pay 50+x+y+z dollars per month for a cell-phone (on a 2 year contract) before knowing what x, y, and z are.

    I don't think bad things about people just because they don't understand math, but I have to hold myself back from insulting people who let their ignorance of math cause problems (higher cell phone prices, where x or y or z is a bigger number, for example) and have little desire to learn basic math and solve such practical problems. Why will most people ignore such easy solutions to big problems? Why don't most people want to know how to add and multiply?

    I'll give another example: Many people think that 2.99 dollars is much less than 3.00 dollars. How do I know this? Because advertisers calculate lots of math and figure out intelligent ways to get people to buy the most stuff, and making most prices (in USA at least) end with 9 (like 24.99 or 3.49 or 2.99) proves that many people, who have had years to figure this out (which would have saved them lots of money for little effort) but did not, are not smart enough to know that 2.99 is almost the same price as 3.00. Why do they buy significantly more products when the price is almost the same? Because they lack intuition of math and have little desire to learn basic math.

    And finally a big one, something most people think can be done easily, but I will prove it can not by offering some money to figure it out...
    I'll pay 1000 dollars (I'll sell something if I have to) to anyone who counts, reliably like a scientist counts and proves things, how many laws there are in USA at any time in the future you choose (like next week at a specific second minute and hour). Most people accept some inaccuracy in counting votes, but it is insane to not be able to count how many laws there are, but somehow it has become normal to think the government should not have the ability to do basic math on the most important things (like laws or votes). You want $1000? Prove the government of USA can do basic math, and do the basic math (with no errors) to count the laws, and its yours. Or if nobody can count the laws (with no errors), I am proven right, that the government of USA can not do basic math (and the people who elect leaders who can not organize a government to do basic math like counting laws). To show how serious I am about this offer, read about the "USA Quantum Law Challenge" I wrote at which is a similar (and more advanced) series of money/counting offers I'm planning to make, when I figure out the details. But for now, its just an offer of $1000 to reliably count the laws in USA any time you want. How many laws? Its an integer.

    Whats the difference between CONTRAST and BRIGHTNESS in the options of a TV? Contrast multiplies. Brightness adds. Maybe next time you see basic math in your everyday life, you will recognize it and think of ways you can benefit from knowing how things work (like a lower cell-phone bill or better government).

    As technology advances, what will happen to people who have little desire to understand how it works, basic math, and other things that could benefit them? Those who do not want to learn will be obsolete, not interesting. Maybe we can leave them all in some place to continue their repetitive tasks as long as they like, while the rest of us move on to more interesting things. People who do not want to understand how things work or improve things are not going to invent faster-than-light starships, but the others can build technology to figure it out for them. The brute-force strategies that people live by today only work because theres not enough global organization and intelligence (of people and of technology) to obsolete those strategies, but things are changing quickly, and it is in everyone's selfish interest to start having a desire to understand how things work. People think I'm crazy when I tell them I expect to be flying on an intergalactic starship in the year 2040 (or before that), but most of those people do not understand PLUS and MULTIPLY, so I expect them to think advanced math (like learning the laws-of-physics and how to use it) is impossible.

    It all starts with a desire to understand how things work.
    Mon, Jul 19, 2010  Permanent link

    Sent to project: Polytopia
      RSS for this post
      Promote (2)
      Add to favorites (1)
    Synapses (2)
    Artificial Intelligence learns what music is and creates instruments you play with the mouse.

    I created this Java software that evolves Java software and uses it automatically. You move the mouse and it plays what it thinks is music, and by telling it "good" or "bad" over a few minutes, as you continue trying to play music with the mouse, you teach it what music is.  (Download the 1 file here, double-click, and the interactive sounds start... also download sample music after it learned what music is)

    Also you can go into the options, in the "create musical instruments" tab, and write Java code (if you know how) to define the musical instruments directly. You and the artificial intelligence (that writes Java code when you click good/bad) have unlimited control over wave amplitude (are the speaker cones in or out at any specific microsecond, and how much?), in stereo sound. By using the red, green, blue, mousex, mousey, left, and right variables, you can output color, output sound, and input mouse position, and use it any way you like to define new musical instruments instantly.

    This is free and open-source (GNU GPL 2 or 3 open-source license), so if you know how to build Java software, you can build more programs with it or modify it however you like. For example, there are many thousands of other softwares licensed the same which you can connect to it for free, at  Maybe some of you would help advance it far enough to compete with those Guitar Hero video games and other music based games? The advantage is Audivolv generates music at wave amplitudes, 44100 times per second, and the video games mix recorded sounds in ways that don't learn. Audivolv is artificial intelligence.

    It stops improving after a few minutes of training it with good/bad buttons, but in later versions, I'll make it smart enough to learn to sound like any instrument, any type of music, and sounds so unique most people can not imagine, controlled by the mouse as instruments of course.
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (4)
    UPDATE 7/2011 See the comment below  about how I'm going to propose this game to the Zeitgeist Movement as a way to experiment with their idea of a Resource Based Economy as a text forum where text and the means of more efficiently producing that text is the resources. This is going to be the most strategic game ever imagined.

    UPDATE: The plan is...

    The game starts like a chatroom. Each player has a name and password and can say whatever they want, until more rules are added by the players. Text is the only thing in the game. New rules can be created by writing certain text. Rules can be anything definable in the text by certain rules that are like a simple programming language. The game starts only with a few rules to define that simple language which lets the players create rules. Most rules will be requirements about what players can say (as text) and requirments about the text that defines other rules. There will be rules about rules, and rules about rules about rules... This is supposed to let the players build their own text-based games inside the game, form groups of players and/or rules, form ways to keep certain text secret from other parts of the game, and form businesses, governments, and other organizations based on all this text and rules and interactions of players. Its a game where the players can make rules to censor the other players or buy freedom from such rules, all defined by whatever rules the players created earlier in that part of the game. The game will be called "Free Speech Just Pay Shipping", which refers to the pattern of advertisements calling things "free" and then requiring money for the "shipping" of the "free" thing, which contradicts the definition of "free". "Free Speech" is about freedom, not price, but the way society is becoming, your freedom to say or write what you want can be taken away and sold back to you or absolutely censored without the option to buy your freedom. In this text-based game, the only way to win is for everyone to get their freedom of speech simultaneously, which was lost in the first part of the game when the players created rules to control each other. Therefore the game must start with some problem for them to solve together, so it is not already solved when it starts. That problem is the hardest thing to figure out about how to build the game.


    Free as in free speech, not as in buy 1 get 1 free just pay separate shipping. If you live in USA, you will recognize some of those words from advertising. Somehow they changed the definition of "free" so much that when people hear it they reach for their wallet. The more times you hear "free" in a commercial, the more it costs. Its statistically true. But "freedom" does not mean it costs nothing to do what you want to do. It means you're allowed to do what you want to do if you have the ability, which may involve paying for the resources necessary to do it. There are 2 kinds of "free".

    Richard Stallman is famous in the free software movement for many things including writing "Free as in freedom, not as in free beer." This game is about that exact subject, how the 2 ideas have merged in society mostly, so there is only 1 kind of freedom left, the kind you buy. The game is also about learning strategies by playing the game that also can be used in the real world to solve global problems, as I explained in the second reply below (and then added this text here).

    Could it be this simple? I've been building open-source software to work against the oppressors. Maybe its time for some reverse-psychology on a global scale.

    People complain about censoring, privacy, secret laws, monopolies, war. Think you could build better system? Prove it in this online game where text is patented/bought/sold/licensed for play money. Writing your offers/plans/etc is built on those costs.

    A simulation/game to demonstrate the flaws in society being organized into hierarchies, like governments, countries, internet service providers, businesses that control cell phones and other communication devices. Could this lead to real world changes after people see how hard this simpler problem is to solve? Can they agree on anything, having the ability to censor eachother by setting the price for parts of text the others want to say?

    If it works as planned, will be the last demonstration ever needed to prove that "the pen is mightier than the sword", the game logic being defined only by a few kilobytes of code, but the game overall being defined mostly by the players' interactions with it. Politicians and billionaires plan the future of Earth as cowards hiding in secret meetings, while the open-source people do the same for everyone to see. Who really has more power? Nuclear weapons they can handle, but they are most scared of a pen. This game will teach you to use one.

    Like real patents, these licensed texts will be made of smaller texts, which are owned by someone else or licensed, based on agreements which are written in the same text, which has the same problems, recursively into insanity.

    The only solution? Cooperation and emergent organization, not hierarchies. At least in theory. This game is going to "go viral". Put it on Facebook/Myspace/etc. The politicians and rich people don't have a chance, once this gets started.

    Its not hard to write the code. Anyone have ideas for more parts of the game?

    I only recently understood why people did not like my open-source softwares (like the artificial intelligence that writes code to create musical instruments that sound more the way you teach it to sound:  ). People will like this "Free Speech Just Pay Shipping" game because it allows them to oppress eachother, to form groups, to hide, to speak publicly, to form governments and committees and advertising organizations... everything thats wrong with our society. It has nothing of value except the free speech you had before you started playing. Its not just a negative-sum-game. All products in its economy are negative. Censoring is the only product, and people will pay (not real money) to do it and pay others to not do it to them and their groups.

    This quote from "The Matrix" movie explains it best:

    "Have you ever stood and stared at it, marveled at its beauty, its genius? Billions of people just living out their lives, oblivious. Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world, where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program, entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world, but I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this, the peak of your civilization. I say your civilization, because as soon as we started thinking for you it really became our civilization, which is of course what this is all about. Evolution, Morpheus, evolution. Like the dinosaur. Look out that window. You had your time. The future is our world, Morpheus. The future is our time."

    An open-ended massively-multiplayer text game so advanced that if we win it, it becomes our reality (by connecting advanced artificial intelligence and other things to it). Jumanji.

    Update: First version will be a website  I'll put up in a few days, including a continuous voting system to elect 2 leaders for each word, still a chatroom where users have some control over eachother. Details:

    Each User has a current text, which is interpreted as a sequence of words, and each word is a Group. Each Group has 2 elected leaders: FOR and AGAINST, which are each a User who was (or still is) in the Group. Each User may change their current text at any time, which changes which Groups they are in, but does not remove them from being a leader of any Group. At any time, any user in a Group can vote for a FOR and vote for an AGAINST leader for each Group that user is in. Each User has some amount of "money" (not real money), but each Group has no money. The only control the 2 leaders of a Group have is done by changing their text. The only interaction a Group has with money is it moves money between the Users in that group, always keeping the total amount of money constant, which requires that a Group consider all Users in that Group before moving any of the money. First, a Group sorts all Users in that Group by their text similarity to the FOR leader minus their text similarity to the AGAINST leader. Using that sorted list of Users in that Group, money is moved from one end of the list to the other end, gradually more as it gets farther from the middle of the list. A user in the middle of the list is not affected. The 2 users at the ends of the list get/lose the most money as a result of being in that Group. This design avoids the need for an explicit rule making system and instead works entirely by 2 elected leaders per Group and the text of each User (leaders are Users). Leaders can not say one thing and do another, because their text literally is their actions in that Group. The user-interface will be a webpage where each user can modify their text at any time, and for each word in their text, they will be able to vote for both of the 2 leaders of that word/Group. In later versions, Groups that have too many Users will be removed or replaced by longer text including multiple words, and other ways of dividing text (letters instead of words, regular-expressions, functions that take string as parameter, etc) may be included instead of defining Group by 1 word each, but the simple design described above should work well. Users whose money becomes too low lose the game, or maybe they will be restricted to say less words per minute. If we want to simulate real society more accurately, votes (for the FOR and AGAINST leaders of any Group) could be bought with User's money, or maybe the log_base_2(total money a User puts into a certain vote) should be used instead of using money as a linear function, which would make it less divergent but still allow votes to be bought. In later versions, I want the user-interface to tell the user how much their text will cost (to broadcast to the other users in this "chatroom") as they type it but before they push ENTER to say it. Costs will change as the leaders of each Group change their text, so it will only be the cost of saying it now. Later, this game can be expanded to use the "Natural Language Mouse Interface" ( also called "the first 3d search engine for text" at  ) to navigate the network(s) of text the other Users typed, and to find Users who think like the current subject they're talking about, to find the conversation they should be in at any one time just by talking about similar things a few seconds ago.
    Sat, Jun 26, 2010  Permanent link

    Sent to project: Start your own revolution
      RSS for this post
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (2)