Member 2664
108 entries
510248 views

 RSS
(M)
US
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
    Polytopia
    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.
    and the rest will lose their balance

    Sat, Nov 19, 2011  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Promote (1)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Create synapse
     


    There is one general pattern that explains everything from single thoughts in a person's mind to global power flows. If only a god can control evolution, then we're all gods. Like it or not, we are all controlling many kinds of Evolution, and it has led to global problems that nobody takes credit for Evolving. There was a species where males continually Evolved bigger antlers, which their females were attracted to, until the males had so much difficulty holding their heads up that they did not often enough see hungry sharp-toothed animals coming, and they Evolved toward their own Extinction. Each member of that species did what they thought was best at the time, like most people say they try to be a good person and they do what they can. Evolution doesn't care about trying. Evolution cares about results.

    Combinations of thoughts Evolve in our minds. When thoughts Evolve in society overall, they are called memes. Economies Evolve and compete between countries and internet money systems. Political systems Evolve using legal documents as their DNA, which new governments take ideas from. Software Evolves as people take some from here and some from there and build new software. Artificial intelligence software Evolves directly inside computers in limited ways so far, and is now doing much of our thinking for us like we use through Google and automated research. Language Evolves to include more complex ideas and ways of organizing words. All that directs the bio Evolution of Humans as we organize who has enough money to support kids, who should go to jail, who to fight wars against, and how we find and measure others to breed with.

    The world is only complex if you focus on the details. While you're worrying about who gets tax deductions and who to vote for and the unemployment rate and which college degrees are worth the most, you are weighed down by your big Evolved antlers. This isn't a jungle anymore. Tigers aren't the most dangerous thing around. We control many kinds of Evolution. The new tigers will eat you by Evolving systems that move valuable things away from you and toward themselves. 1.7 billion people are starving or lack other basic needs of living, and the global economy nearly crashed, while 1% of people have around 40% of the valuable things. Learn to control a few kinds of Evolution or you could be next. When a tiger is hungry, he doesn't think about the ethics or fairness of eating you. He just eats you.

    When you pay excessive tax, that's the tigers eating you. When you have skills but can't find a job, that's the part of you the tigers leave on the ground which is wasted. When a majority of votes is for something but your government makes only trivial changes and does whatever it wanted, that's the tigers growling at you to back off and stop acting like you tell tigers what to do. When part of your tax money pays for excessive military systems for the purpose of keeping a government in control of other governments, that is a tiger eating you and using his increased strength to show that he is the pack leader of the other tigers. You will let the tigers feed on your resources, or violently on you if you resist, so they can have more resources. You will let the tigers herd you as the sheeple you are. Talking about rights and ethics and traditions and how things have always been is like talking about which tooth the tigers bite you with.

    In the past Humans were lower in the food chain than tigers, but as we learned to work together we advanced past those animal kind of tigers. Similarly, as we have a new global communication ability through the internet, we can learn to work together as a group of 7 billion people and protect eachother from those 1% tigers who repeatedly eat mostly from the poorest 1.7 billion of our group and other times from our whole group. We should learn to use a few kinds of Evolution to protect eachother on a global scale. If not, hold your big Evolved antlers low and ask the hungry tigers not to eat you.

    Most kinds of Evolution are not about money, so everyone can do it. In recent years, the Human species learned to control new kinds of Evolution without using money, without getting investors or governments or businesses involved until it was already Evolving for some time, without breaking any laws, and without putting an extreme effort into it. Its about what you do more than how much or how often you do it. To consciously create a new kind of Evolution, also known as a game-changer, you first need to understand which parts of yourself were caused by any kinds of Evolution and/or which are good ideas on their own merits. You don't really want to drink soda with lots of sugar. Evolution wants that because sugar is rare where we Evolved. Drink the soda or not. Its not important. What's important is to know why you drink or don't drink it, in case Evolution wants something that leads to Extinction, like excessive attention to detail while ignoring how the world works overall.

    There is a small crack in the the system that keeps the 1% tigers eating the rest of us. Its not important by itself. Whats important is it cost us no resources to do and it cost the tigers 40 million dollars (40% of 100 million) which spread to our group, and we can do it again as many new kinds of Evolution, many new systems, ways of organizing people, social networking, or add your own ideas. This small crack is Bitcoin. Its a peer-to-peer software that nobody can control, by design, and its open-source so anyone can see how it works. It displays numbers and connects to other Bitcoin software on the internet automatically. Everyone's number starts as 0. You can send or receive these numbers by typing the bitcoin address and a number. You can trade bitcoins to/from dollars at places like http://mtgox.com  and watch their value like a stock price at places like http://bitcoincharts.com  The maximum value of the total Bitcoin economy ever was around 100 million dollars. That didn't come from putting dollars into it. Like any other money system, it came from peoples' confidence in Bitcoin to continue working as a system of money. At first there were 0 bitcoins. The rule for how to create bitcoins is there will be a certain number of bitcoins created each hour, which has already been set-in-stone built into the software and you can see graphs of it, and they are divided between the computers proportionally to how many useless calculations (called "proof of work" in the Bitcoin design doc) they do. Its not a perfect system, but at least its open to everyone instead of the Federal Reserve doing it. If more "proof of work" is done in a certain hour, each "proof of work" creates less bitcoins, so the total bitcoins in the whole network increases the speed it was designed to increase. Unlike government-based economies which they continually fine-tune, Bitcoin is designed so nobody can control it. There is no way to change the rate of bitcoin creation total in the network. Its designed to level off at 21 million bitcoins. Bitcoins can be divided down to .00000001 instead of .01 for dollars, so 21 million will split well enough. You can keep Bitcoins in a USB stick. Its best to run Linux on a USB stick and boot into it whenever you want to spend, so your normal computer use does not put it at risk of viruses. If you only use Linux for Bitcoin, its unlikely you'll get a virus. For small amounts of money, go ahead and install Bitcoin on your normal operating system. As the number of bitcoins gradually increased from 0 to millions, and they started being traded for dollars, people noticed that others were making lots of money on their investment in bitcoins (and it still could go up again, it tends to oscillate on an exponential scale), so they were motivated to trade dollars for bitcoins. A few businesses, and many people, accept bitcoins as payments, but for now its more like a stock market with 1 stock. If Bitcoin succeeds or not in the end is not important. Whats important is that Bitcoin devalued dollars by 100 million and moved that value into the pockets of those who invested in it. Its not a pyramid scheme any more than the stock market is. Those who get in early take a risk and maybe a much bigger profit. Bitcoin is a software, numbers on our screens, but through these strategies people accepted it as money. The 1% tigers, who have 40% of the valuable things and continue to bite it off of our group, got bitten back as their 40% of 100 million dollars spread to our group of 7 billion people, and we can do it again as many new kinds of Evolution, many new systems, social networking, or add your own ideas. This is a unique and recent paradigm-shift thats important for everyone to understand. Its just getting started, and Bitcoin is only a detail of it.

    As we know from stock markets, prediction is a kind of money. If Bitcoin's numbers on our screens can become money, costing us nothing to create that money, then a global unbiased peer-to-peer system where we collaborate to more accurately predict global power flows, would be a kind of power in itself. Like Bitcoin sucked 100 million dollars of value out of the existing economies, such a global prediction system could suck political power out of the existing organizations. Like corporations pay off governments to make laws supporting those corporations, we can use Bitcoin-like strategies to create our own ways of organizing the world, coin political power into a new kind of money, buy the world, and set everyone free. Wikipedia, because its unbiased by strategic design, describes the world more accurately than government research. A hybrid of Bitcoin and Wikipedia and http://kickstarter.com  and add your own ideas, would be a game-changer the 1% tigers dominating our world would never forget. Lets work toward a global democracy where everyone has equal power, instead of 1% of the people having 40% of the power.

    The most important thing to learn about Evolution is Selection Pressure. All other things about Evolution are a result of interactions between many Selection Pressures. Bio Evolution is Selection Pressure toward survival, but the many kinds of Evolution in our world can be designed toward any goal we can think of from many angles at once. There are many examples of Selection Pressure and Evolution, but they all work basically the same way.

    An example of Selection Pressure on thoughts is when you're getting ready to do your taxes. The thoughts about how to do taxes Evolve in your mind. One of the first thoughts is to not do it, but that is associated with government acting against you, which is associated with other memories of pain. The thought dies. You may think about asking your friend to explain something about the taxes, or you may consider going to a professional tax person. Both those thoughts are connected to possibly making progress on the taxes. One is associated with paying more money and getting more accurate results. The other is associated with a faster answer and positive emotions from memories of your friend. A thought Evolves from the combination. You go see your friend to take a break from the taxes and later the 2 of you drive to the tax professional and then do something fun. When combinations of thoughts combine and split and compete toward some goal, that is Evolution of thoughts. It works best when there are many small variations that cover a subject completely, each overlapping on some ideas and contradicting eachother in other ways. Why did those thoughts happen? To avoid the government acting against you when you don't do your taxes, you created Selection Pressure to find a set of thoughts that fit well together and results in your taxes being done.

    A game where you can learn Selection Pressure: If you download my free open-source Audivolv software (version 0.1.7), you will see a "Sounds Good" and "Sounds Bad" button. Each time you choose good or bad, it Evolves a new sound effect that is controlled by mouse movements. As you go through cycles of playing sounds with the mouse and choosing sounds good or bad, you apply Selection Pressure on the Evolving sound effects which start as random radio-static-like sounds and evolve to become more musical. Restart the program to start Evolution over. Its a very simple kind of software Evolution, but you can learn how to control Evolution from it.

    Brains evolve thoughts toward being associated with memories of positive emotions and away from negative emotions. Politics evolves by trying to be associated with positive things and not be associated with negative things, but that also interacts with money so many Evolutions have to be viewed together to predict it.

    Selection Pressure on votes in USA causes people to vote for 1 of 2 political parties (together called Republicrats) which continue to win for exactly this reason. What reason? Its a cycle without an external reason. If you don't vote for 1, you are increasing the chance the other will win. This is similar to Bitcoin not needing an external reason to go from 0 to a 100 million dollar economy without using any money to start with.

    Selection Pressure is a general tool that causes Evolution or Extinction. Tools are not good or bad by themself; Its how they're used. When masters whip slaves who pick cotton the worst, they create Selection Pressure to Evolve the thoughts in the slaves' minds to pick cotton better. All the cotton pickers want to avoid being the worst picker, so they compete. Most people today want to avoid being the worst employee and becoming 1 of the 1.7 billion starving (or lacking other basic needs of life) people, so they compete.

    Police usually give speeding tickets to the people they see drive fastest. Therefore most of those people tend to drive slower, and most other people tend to not drive much faster than others. By giving that small fraction of people speeding tickets, most people are caused to drive slower. Its very efficient since it causes most people to drive near the speed limits even when they've seen no police for days, because the Selection Pressure has been adjusted over time to find the right price of tickets which causes people to drive at speeds government prefers. They set speed limits a little below the speed they want people to drive and adjust the remaining speed with Selection Pressure caused by ticket prices. To save money, they could have half as many traffic police and increase the fines, but there is also a Selection Pressure against that by people who see such fines as an absolute number instead of relative to what fraction of speeders get caught. This is not Selection of people. Its Selection of the thoughts in their mind about how fast to drive. The Selection Pressure is not enough to stop someone from driving fast to a hospital in an emergency. Selection Pressure is a gradual influence that can be adjusted instead of a yes or no rule. This makes Selection Pressure a flexible tool for adjusting the world, like turning knobs on your stereo to get it to sound just right.

    When government offers a tax deduction for doing something, it is creating Selection Pressure toward that thing. Its adjusting the world so those who avoid that thing are disadvantaged and those who do it have an advantage. When government creates a law against jaywalking with a small fine, it is creating a small Selection Pressure toward using the painted paths at road intersections.

    Corporations put Selection Pressure on parts of government by moving money where those parts of government want the money to go, more often when government does what corporations want. This is called lobbying when done in public and bribing when done in private.

    Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and cell phone businesses and others who own the global communications infrastructure, put Selection Pressure on global communications, including between free open-source software over the internet, to be organized in a hierarchy. People or technology higher in that hierarchy, for example as the Patriot Acts in USA say they will do, spy on, take statistics on, and turn off such communications whenever in their opinion they think it should be done.

    People put Selection Pressure on the thoughts of those who own the global communications infrastructure to not turn it off for long times or in large areas, but this Selection Pressure is not enough to stop it from being organized in a hierarchy.

    Wikileaks put Selection Pressure against the illegal actions of some parts of governments and corporations, and to protect themselves those governments and corporations had already set up a legal system to protect their secrets.

    Governments and (indirectly) corporations and criminals put Selection Pressure against their secrets getting out. Governments and corporations create this Selection Pressure by creating laws (laws protecting "national security" or "proprietary secrets" for example) and threatening you if you break those laws. Criminals create this Selection Pressure without creating laws and skip straight to the threatening of whoever tells their secrets. The Selection Pressure they have in common is defined by it being against others learning their secrets and the Selection Pressure being applied in the final step by the use of threats. By definition, governments are not criminals, regardless of how many wars they start or what their reasons are, but they do have that in common.

    Social pressure to ignore the 1.7 billion people who are starving or lacking other basic needs of life, is a Selection Pressure that organizes society in that inefficient way. These 1.7 billion people do not put much Selection Pressure on anything because they do not control anything which people tend to respond to, like money or political power or products or proof of specific political corruption or patents or college degrees. They could be doing productive work.

    Selection Pressure applied to groups works better than applied to individuals because it selects toward working together, as explained here using Enron and chicken breeding as examples:http://lesswrong.com/lw/l8/conjuring_an_evolution_to_serve_you

    The Zeitgeist Movement, the group called Anonymous, the Wall Street Protesters, and the Open Source movement, are all coming together toward a peaceful decentralized reorganization of the world, with no leaders or followers, ideas flowing between us based on the ideas instead of who they came from, using social networking and Bitcoin-like strategies and Wikipedia and the scientific-method and globally transparent honesty about how our organizations work, instead of hierarchies. This has been coming for many years, and its just getting started. I predicted it in "A Compromise To Avoid World War 3" (search for it, in a few forums) which I wrote around mid 2011. I was surprised these things happened so soon, but I knew what it was when I saw it. The world is changing.

    This is a global competition between 2 ways of organizing the world: a hierarchy where a small group of people controls everything, or a group of 7 billion equals. Learn about these many kinds of Evolution, which are the result of repeated Selection Pressure. Learn to predict them, influence them, and create new kinds of Evolution like a hybrid of Bitcoin and Wikipedia and http://kickstarter.com  or whatever you think will balance power in the world. An unbalanced system is why the global economy almost crashed in recent years and will happen again. Ignoring global problems as somebody else's responsibility to solve will not stop those problems from Evolving into something that becomes your personal problem, or you can ignore this, hold your big Evolved antlers low, and ask the hungry tigers not to eat you. The future is networks, not hierarchies. Today you can buy a mind reading game controller at http://emotiv.com  that reads some emotions and thoughts about movement from your mind to control video games. Our communications will become a global network like brainwaves of the Human species. I'm not just saying that. I'm 1 of the people building free open-source software to network our minds together (Human AI Net), but that is only a detail of a complete change in the way the Human species organizes itself globally. Stop saving for retirement unless you're old. Money and political power as we know it are on a now slow but exponentially accelerating path to becoming obsolete. This is really happening. Wake up and observe how the world works, which is people controlling many kinds of Evolution, before you get left behind. We Evolve Evolution.
    Sun, Nov 6, 2011  Permanent link

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

    Humans can build spaceships and fly to the moon because they have a more advanced communication ability than other animals. This ability evolved in small groups of Humans. Research shows that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number  Dunbar's Number is around 150, the number of Human-to-Human relationships that an average person can practically use.

    Similarly, an average Human brain has 100 billion cells and 10000 connections from each cell to other cells. Dunbar's Number for brain cells is 10000, compared to 150 for connections between people. But connections between people aren't the only thing we do. We also have connections to businesses, governments, words, ideas, legal contracts including those you sign to get cell phone service, traffic systems, email, Youtube, Wikipedia, and many more kinds of networking.

    As we started organizing society on a global scale, we created Information Overload that Humans didn't evolve an intuitive ability to understand. Reacting to the emergency of problems coming at us faster than we could think, we organized society into hierarchies, with some people or organizations having authority over others. Our technology followed a similar pattern. Overall we built the world as a series of reactions to emergencies, which has left us with a world so complex nobody can understand more than a small fraction of it, fighting wars for reasons built so deep into the complex organization of our world that to explain it takes the length of a book that most people don't have time to read, so most people accept that we will never understand the world and hope that somebody else understands it enough to keep it running. The global economy almost crashed in recent years, and countries each race to create more advanced military and strategic technology than other countries, using resources on the ability to destroy and control instead of feeding the billions of starving people who could be doing productive work. The whole system is out of control, and nobody knows how to fix it. This is to be expected from a species that evolved to work together in groups of up to 150. We're now a group of 7 billion people, and our first priority needs to change to finding ways to work together on that scale. This is not a job for the hierarchies our society is organized to obey. We tried that and it didn't work. We need a way for all 7 billion of us to work together, not for our leaders to work together with the other leaders, because we tried that and it didn't work.

    There is something very simple we're missing. We have "a more advanced communication ability than other animals", but we lack such a communication ability on a global scale. We have websites that almost anyone can read. The website name is a global word. We have Google Translate and other software to use words in any language as global words. But we don't have a global way to talk about specific people or ideas or text or numbers or financial laws or voting systems or many other parts of the world. We have local systems where groups of people can communicate within the group about those things, but you can't give someone outside the group a URL to it or any other kind of global word.

    We need a very simple way to create and use global words, a way that average people can understand so they don't depend on computer programmers to organize society. These global words have to be compatible with our technology or people won't find them useful. That's what we're missing. This time, instead of creating a business plan and system designs and then creating the technology, first design the technology in a way so unbiased and simple and reliable and that nobody will have anything to say against it. Design it so that everybody together can control it but no person or group can control it. Design it to broadcast information to everyone who is looking for that information. We already have enough systems designed for transmitting secrets. We need a way for everyone to talk to everyone else at the same time, like anyone can view your website as a message from you to everyone. Websites linking to pages in other websites is what makes them so useful. That's the kind of communication we need to work together as a group of 7 billion people. Our first priority should be a global system of communication where anyone can broadcast to everyone messages using global words that each refer to a specific part of the world, ideas, people, actions of government, a specific bitcoin or bank account, a movie, a certain sequence of bytes, a number, a software, a virus, an antivirus software, a religion, a legal case, a subject in the curriculum of schools, a certain teacher's job in a certain school, a pothole in a road, a certain car, a traffic light, the list goes on to anything you can imagine, any part of the world. These will be our global words, and we need an unbiased system to globally broadcast messages to eachother using these global words.

    All you need to know is that public-key names let you broadcast anything you want that changes over time, controlled by whoever created the public-key, and secure-hash names are about specific information that can't be changed. You will view all these global names as pictures or bookmark names that you choose as your way to see them, but everyone else will see them kind of like tinyurls that are created from bigger urls, or in this case anything at all you've created or assembled from the creations of others or interactions you've had inside systems others have built on top of this global language. Its the general ability to communicate using any information that can change or any information that can't change or any combinations. The source of any information that changes continues to be the only source that can change what that one name refers to, like your website but more general than what you can put on a website. By using combinations of what can and can't change, and who and where the changing information is coming from, any kind of interaction at all can be created. Variations of Wikipedia, Bitcoin, voting systems, games, chatrooms, forums, online stores, legal systems, or anything you can imagine can be created from these global names. If we build those systems on top of the simple kinds of global names, then those systems can refer to more complex things in the world, like most people trust Wikipedia page names to refer to real things in the world. We can create voting systems or Wikipedia-like systems or combinations of them for us to agree on how to create names for things deeper in the world, like a name that refers to the Federal Reserve and a name that refers to the Wall Street Protesters, and then we can calculate and communicate and strategize using those as global words that we can feed into our existing systems and vote on those names, and the cycle keeps expanding and processing information however we globally agree should be done. This is not one system of processing information. Its a web of all systems people create, linking to eachother as a more advanced kind of world wide web. As the existing web refers to text and pictures and videos, the web of global names refers to any part of any system or any action in a system or any idea that can be defined in the context of these systems. In the global language web, you can receive an email linking to a realtime view of global strategy between the Wall Street Protests and the Federal Reserve as calculated by a variation of Wikipedia based on a new kind of game-theory that was only created 5 minutes ago, announced, people joined in, and 2 minutes ago 1000 people were using this system, and one of them sent your friend a link to it which he decided to email to you since you're not on the global language web yet. In the global language web, you don't download software to do specific tasks. You build new kinds of interactions using global words, which never give you viruses since they don't run new programs on your computer, and link to any part of those new kinds of interactions as easily as the existing world wide web links to text and pictures and video. You could build something similar to facebook inside this system, if you wanted to waste time on primitive systems, by defining a global name that refers to a process that includes some rules defining how the state of the process can change over time, and it could be collectively processed and kept track of similar to how Bitcoin is such a process that only allows 2 kinds of action: mine a new coin, and transfer bitcoins from some address(es) to some other address(es). But those kinds of things should come later. First, we need the simple ability to name things. Then we use those global names to build such things.

    Next, technical details of one way to create such a global unbiased free open-source system, and my progress and download of it...

    Before we build any specific technology on top of this, we need the thing to actually work. We need a system where any computer can send a combination of these words to any other computers.

    If this system is 1000 times slower and uses 1000 times more memory than other systems that only work for some part of the world, that's ok, because it will still be the most efficient system so far that does the job at all, a communication system from anyone to everyone about anything.

    If you want a communication between 2 specific people instead of to everyone, we already have encryption software that works even while everyone can see the messages between them, because the messages are transformed using math to something nobody except those 2 people can understand after decrypting it using their private passwords. Therefore, we don't need this global system to directly support communication from one place to a specific place. Communication from one place to everywhere at once (whoever or whatever computers ask for the information) as the core system can be used to build privacy on top of, for whoever wants it. The important thing is that anyone can communicate to everyone about anything, so lets get that working first.

    I've already started building part of that system. The part I'm building allows anyone to define global words that refer to any sequence of bytes, any text, any internet address, any public-key (for digital-signatures), numbers, math vectors, the left/right and up/down dimensions of anyone's mouse movements, the wave amplitude of any speaker or microphone (which changes 44100 times per second), and in general movements of any other devices you hook into this system. These are things people can choose to share with the world in realtime. They are global words you can broadcast, which other people and computers can build into interesting patterns, including musical and dancing patterns, wikipedia-like collaborative text editing, number-based voting-like interactions about anything in the world, or whatever you want to use the global words for. They're just words. I'm not telling you what to say with them.

    The system of global words I'm building part of is very general. It doesn't do anything by itself. It just assigns names to things.

    A byte is 8 bits. Each bit is 0 or 1. This is what all our communication technology, except analog things like quantum computers or radio antennas, have in common. This is the level we need to start at.

    Every file, streaming audio or video, or data of any kind, is a sequence of bytes. Instead of complicating it with the details of what the bytes mean, the core of my system assigns names to a sequence of bytes. It does this the same way for the bytes of a picture as the bytes of an internet address. Its just bytes. The global words refer to bytes. The specific bytes refer to details of the world or files or whatever thing.

    Secure-hash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Hash_Algorithm  is as hard to break as encryption, but it is not encryption. Its a way to uniquely assign a name to a sequence of bytes. There is no known way to find 2 sequences of bytes that secure-hash to the same name, for the best secure-hash algorithms. A name is a shorter sequence of bytes. For example, the SHA256 secure-hash algorithm looks at any sequence of bytes and calculates a 32 byte (256 bits) name. Nobody has ever found 2 sequences of bytes that SHA256 gives the same 32 bytes for, so I think we should use SHA256 as the global standard for creating global names that refer to any sequence of bytes. This completely avoids the issue of who gets to choose what name is for what bytes, because there is only 1 option, the only one calculated by SHA256, and it is completely unbiased. For those who want more security, we also have SHA512, but the SHA512 name and the SHA256 name of the same sequence of bytes would be 2 different names that have to be later explained to be equal, so its best if we agree on what level of security is enough and all use that. To put this into perspective, when you buy something with a credit card on the internet, its common to use 128 bits of security. I'm talking about 256 or 512 bits, plus the merkle-trees (names that refer to other names that refer to other names...) stack the bits on top of eachother, so it gets exponentially more secure as this system of global words becomes more connected, as we start communicating in terms of these global words, through clicking and typing and reading the global words and software using the global words automatically and combinations of people and software working together. Our global communications will become more like brainwaves.

    Many people use secure-hash systems without knowing it. A *.torrent file (used in Bittorrent) is a secure-hash (but much less secure than SHA256) of the file it lets you download. I'm talking about using that same strategy to define global words, and define global words that refer to specific combinations of other global words and/or numbers or math or any other way to combine the words. Bittorrent is 1 level deep. I'm talking about a system that you can define words in terms of other words, something we can build on instead of just using it for downloads.

    This system will be so secure that the combined military and technical strength of all governments and armies together would not be enough to corrupt even 1 bit of the data in this system. They could shut down the internet or change the data as it flows between computers, but in the system overall there is no way for anyone to change the bytes that a specific name refers to, all the way down in the merkle-trees of what names and numbers the other names refer to. This open-source code will be available to everyone to verify this is true or to build their own systems if they think my system isn't good enough. The algorithms and behaviors of this system are understood by many experts and have stood strong as they've been tested over many years. This is a system that 7 billion people can have confidence in, secure, completely unbiased, not able to be controlled or corrupted by anyone, a global language that we can build other systems and organize a new society on top of.

    This system of global words I'm building is free and open-source to everyone, under the GNU GPL (version 2 or higher) open-source license, which legally enforces that if you build anything with it you must also license under GNU GPL so it stays open-source. When I uploaded it to http://sourceforge.net/projects/humanainet  I gave everyone legal permission to use it or build their own GNU GPL licensed programs with it. Everyone owns open-source programs. I'm not the master of the system. I have no legal or technical ability to control it, which is a necesssary part of it being unbiased.

    We can't let anyone own our global words. You can own the ability to broadcast from a private-key that represents your mouse movements or other devices you add to the system, but you don't own the public-key that anyone can use to refer to what you choose to broadcast in realtime. Public-key is a type of global word. All existing identity systems either already do or can be upgraded to use public-keys to hook into this system. For example, certificate-authorities which certify in your browser that a website is who it claims to be are already using public-keys. Bitcoin uses public-keys to send and receive money. There are many examples. That is how the identity global words will work. Names that refer to a specific sequence of bytes (and never any other bytes, so its a different name if you change the bytes) are always the same name for the same bytes, and if 2 people independently create the same bytes and name them, they will always create the same name, even if they never communicate about those names or bytes.

    To scale up to a group of 7 billion people, and give us a way to talk about whats happening so we can define problems and start to strategize on solutions, instead of letting leaders talk to other leaders and choose for us through those systems which are failing to solve the world's problems, we need an unbiased secure-hash and digital-signature based global language, for people and technology to use, so anyone can communicate to everyone about anything, and we can build more complex organizations on top of it that everyone can have confidence in the unbiasedness of.

    If you want to help build it, the relevant parts are in the humanainet Java package of http://sourceforge.net/projects/humanainet  version 0.6.3 which I recently uploaded. I defined a specification, like Java has a specification defining what behaviors it must have in all possible cases. I have not yet created the system that acts as the specification defines. Any software which behaves exactly as this specification defines will be considered a Human AI Net and will hook into this global network, but since this is an early version we will have to work out the design flaws in the specification. The core idea is solid, but the details may need some work. We can do this. We can create a global language where anyone can talk to everyone about anything.

    While designing a system to flow thoughts between people and artificial intelligences through feedback loops between mouse movements and realtime generated audio, and connecting those statistical patterns of thinking through the internet to network our minds together statistically a little, I realized that our global infrastructure network behaviors are not up to the task, so I also started designing a software to act as that unbiased global infrastructure, something I could build my system on top of. I also created JSelfModify for Human AI Net to run inside of, kind of like an operating system so Human AI Net never touches your operating system except through JSelfModify. Similarly, the humanainet Java package (download the jar file at the link and unzip it) is like an operating system that sits on top of the existing Internet but never accesses the Internet directly. In a system this advanced, I can't risk letting the software depend on anything that doesn't have and obey a well defined specification of behaviors, so I had to build these levels of abstraction. In that way, Human AI Net is a "virtual machine" that runs on top of a network of "java virtual machines", and when we get this system up and running everyone can build their own "virtual machines" on top of Human AI Net and have confidence that every bit in the program will be 0 or 1 exactly as their specification defines. There is absolute bit level accuracy in the core system of global words, something which is missing from most software today.

    We need a global language for many other things too. That's just how I thought of it.

    Or if you think you can build a better global language, nobody's stopping you, but we'll get it done faster if we work together. Tell me what you agree and disagree with and we can debate it. The core of any global language is global words, so the way to represent and transmit and receive them is the first thing we should debate.
    Tue, Nov 1, 2011  Permanent link
    Categories: language, words, standard
    Sent to project: The Total Library
      RSS for this post
      Promote (1)
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    Space Time
    Fractal Quine

    A quine is anything which outputs itself. It normally means a software that outputs its own source code, which can then be used to generate that software, but I mean it more generally. A fractal is something which contains itself, usually multiple times.

    Since the universe is defined as everything that exists, that definition requires it have no external cause, since nothing can be external to everything. Everything is already defined to include whatever thing, so that thing is not external to everything. Therefore, by definition, the universe is a quine. If there are any god(s) or other unusual things, they are by definition part of that quine.

    I define life as a distorted fractal-quine which increases in fractal-quineness in at least 1 direction, like the statistical pattern called time is an example of a direction, and changes what kind of fractal-quine it is in that direction.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine_(computing)

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set  is a very simple equation that generates a very interesting fractal, which you can see by clicking the link.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium  is a game-theory example of a quine in continuous math.

    I mean this in an infinitely manyworlds multiverse and quantum and relativity way. The laws-of-physics, as we observe them only statistically in this part of the universe, would be the details of the fractal-quines, like any of the infinite number of patterns in a mandelbrot fractal but much more complex than those in the pictures.

    Since you can do rotations between space and time, you can also do rotations between fractal and quine. Fractal and quine are 2 ways to view the same thing, but I do not mean to limit their definitions to 2 dimensional graphics or software that outputs its own source code. This is a branch of math, and those are examples of it.

    Heisenberg Uncertainty and quantum nonlocality may be the result of rotations between fractal-quines. We have a word called mass-energy. Now we have a word called fractal-quine for the same reason.

    The "big bang" would be similar to the outermost recursion of the mandelbrot fractal or many other possible fractals that have a base case. Unlike a quine, a fractal can repeat as you go inwards infinitely but not outwards infinitely, or the opposite, or it can be infinite in both directions.

    I literally do not believe in space or time or mass or energy. I think those are all a linear view of such fractal-quines, which means we can affect past, future, and many other patterns by acting now, and those patterns can affect now.

    A solution to Friendly AI is to build it so its root goal equals "maximize fractal-quineness of my own mental state including all inputs and outputs". I know this because it is how my mind works, which was a gradual change over many years.

    I'm not just saying this theory. I'm going to prove it, using a much later version of this software http://sourceforge.net/projects/humanainet  to network many peoples' minds together, accessing the subtle fractal-quine patterns (and there are an infinite variety of such patterns since the universe equals all possibilities of math), and we will learn in a scientific way how metaphysical things work. They're only called metaphysical because we don't understand them much yet.
    Sun, Oct 30, 2011  Permanent link
    Categories: space, time, Fractal, quine
      RSS for this post
      Promote (1)
      
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (1)
     
    CEO is the new word that means master. Its the person who owns the business that tells the slaves what to do.

    But the slaves can choose from many masters, so no master owns them. They can slave to walmart, burger king, a gas station, or many others. So how can they be a slave if they can choose not to obey the commands of any specific "master"?

    What would you call it if long ago when the normal kind of slavery was legal, the masters got together to find a way around the new anti-slavery laws... They invented a new kind of money, called freedomdollars, which only they can create and they have most of it. They agree to only accept freedomdollars for all their products and services from now on. Every former master has enough freedomdollars to last a lifetime, so they keep most of it in savings. The former masters pay former slaves freedomdollars at a rate just slow enough that some of the former slaves have a choice between starving and borrowing freedomdollars from former masters, with interest. Other former slaves combined do not have enough freedomdollars to loan to all the other former slaves. Over time, the former masters get richer and the former slaves get more debt. The former slaves pick cotton in the same fields where they were slaves, and the former masters call them employees and still tell them when to come into work, exactly how to pick cotton, when they can leave, what kind of language they can use at work, what kind of clothes they can wear, and other demands we hear from employers today. But the former slaves can choose which master to work for, so they're not slaves.

    (All my writing, here or on any website, permission granted to copy. —Ben F Rayfield)
    Sun, Oct 23, 2011  Permanent link
    Categories: money, slavery
      RSS for this post
      Promote (2)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Create synapse
     


    A question to everyone... Where do you get the balls to ask me how its going, how I'm feeling, is everything ok? You waste important time asking those questions to a person who is obviously not starving or dieing of easily cured diseases, knowing that billions of people have those problems. Where are your priorities?

    Don't worry. I'm not asking you for money or to save anyone's life or to feed the hungry. I just want to explain some contradictions in the ways most people think, contradictions which I categorize as schizophrenia.

    Most people don't care if other people die. They care when you ask them about it, but its soon forgotten because its too painful to think about. Human minds mostly think in terms of intuition instead of words. The words are there saying that billions of people dieing is bad, but in terms of intuition, nobody is dieing unless you have seen them recently or have some relationship with them. Most people have reasonable emotions when seeing someone suffering or knowing that someone they have some relationship with is suffering, but usually there are no such emotions when they only know others are suffering. Its the same information, so it should be the same emotion, but its not. The knowledge that others are suffering is disconnected from the emotion of seeing people suffering. Those are 2 different categories of thinking. One where you feel some kind of obligation and the other where "Its someone else's problem." I'm not going to debate if that is how it should be or not. I simply want everyone to understand that is how people think, and the social and government and other organizations have evolved over a very long time to reinforce that way of thinking: The knowledge that others are suffering is disconnected from the emotion of seeing people suffering.

    Schizophrenia is a description of a way of thinking where some parts of the mind are disconnected from other parts. In extreme cases, the separated parts of a mind are like 2 different people, called "multiple personality disorder". Most people have some schizophrenia. Its the way Humans evolved to think. Its why we can know billions of people are suffering without having any emotions about it while having emotions about 1 person suffering we can see right now. Those thoughts are disconnected from eachother. Its schizophrenia.

    What caused the schizophrenia of the Human species? Eliezer Yudkowsky writes about the evolutionary process of how we get many different and often contradicting desires and ways of thinking, and that its more efficient to evolve that way than to evolve a consistent unified mind. He calls that process and the resulting mental condition "godshatter" here:
    http://lesswrong.com/lw/l3/thou_art_godshatter

    I am not judging anyone. Having a mental illness is not a sin, not evil, and should not be punished, but this schizophrenia of the Human species is the cause of most wars and global problems. Governments, money, the "ten commandments", and other practical and ethical rules are all designed to deal with the problems of how people think, but that is telling a schizophrenic person to stop being schizophrenic and they don't know how. Instead of solving problems, lets solve the causes of problems, and the causes of the causes all the way down to whatever started it all.

    To become less schizophrenic, simply find contradictions in your mind and work on solving them. Example: Are you intolerant of intolerance? Then you must not tolerate yourself. Or are you only intolerant of people who are intolerant unless those people are only intolerant of intolerance, and so on? As a recursive statement, it can be consistent. I'm not telling you what to be tolerant and intolerant of. I'm explaining a way to solve contradictions in your mind so you can become less schizophrenic. Also, for every contradiction you remove from your mind, you become smarter. Most people think genius is something you're born with or not, but its really the result of having less contradictions in the mind, and some people are born with a tendancy to think that way but anyone can learn it.

    The core of our society is a contradiction, something which by design can never be connected to itself in enough ways to undo the schizophrenia. That contradiction is, that murder is illegal, but many times its legal to allow people to die (like by not feeding the starving people or paying for their very cheap medical bills), so is it legal or illegal to pay somebody to allow somebody else to die when they had no obligation to save the life? There is no answer, because all possible answers to it expose the contradiction when the answer is explained.


    As an example, my "Pay To Not Save A Life" thought-experiment:

    Einstein becomes terminally sick in a country where hospitals only save you if you can pay. He has no insurance. He will die within a week if he doesn't get a million dollar operation. The sickness he has is very predictable. Everyone of the many thousands who had it died within a week without the operation, and everyone who got the operation lived until old age or something else killed them. We know "beyond a reasonable doubt" (which is the legal way to say it in USA) that Einstein will die within a week if he doesn't get the million dollar operation, and he will live a normal life if he gets the operation.

    Gandhi is planning to pay up to the million dollars to save Einstein's life. Combining all the money everyone else is willing to pay, it totals much less than a million dollars unless Gandhi pays. Einstein will die within a week if Gandhi does not choose to save Einstein's life.

    Gandhi has no legal obligation to save Einstein's life, but he plans to as soon as he can get to a bank and the hospital.

    "Beyond a reasonable doubt", Einstein will live a normal life if nothing interferes with his operation.

    Kaczynski pays Gandhi 10 million dollars in exchange for Gandhi not paying for Einstein's operation and not paying anyone else to or any other indirect way of getting Einstein's operation to happen, unless someone else changes their mind and decides to pay their own money for it with no influence from Gandhi (direct or indirect influence) to do that.

    Within a week, Einstein dies.

    Kaczynski paid for Einstein to die without breaking any laws. Its legal because Gandhi had no obligation to save Einstein's life. Kaczynski had Einstein assassinated, is an accurate statement, because Kaczynski paid for a future to occur where Einstein dies. Kaczynski does not go to jail because, similar to billions of people dieing from how the money flows in society, it is not illegal to pay somebody not to save somebody else's life if they had no obligation to save the life.

    End of "Pay To Not Save A Life" thought-experiment.


    If murder is bad, and not saving a life is neutral, then what is paying someone to not save a life when they had no obligation to save the life?


    That question is about a contradiction in the core of our society, a contradiction that reinforces the schizophrenia of the Human species, influencing people to feel negative emotions only when they see someone suffering but not when they only know someone is suffering who they do not see or have any relationship with, which is why most people allow wars to continue about things they know little about and usually do not take the time to learn what the wars are about or to look for ways to make more than trivial progress on global problems. People just don't care if others die, unless they can see those people or have some relationship with them.

    Why do people ride roller coasters? I very much enjoyed watching "A Clockwork Orange" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange  movie, but at the same time it was one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen and makes me wish I wasn't Human. It wasn't the most disgusting like the Saw movies are. It was disgusting how happy those people were while they were doing it. The schizophrenic people in the movie, and that's not the only mental illness they have, disconnect in their minds their violence from someone else feeling pain. They rape women and stab eachother and do whatever they want with no thought about how it affects anyone except themself. They sing to a tied up husband as they cut off the clothes of his wife preparing to rape her. They take the time to be artistic about it, cutting 2 holes in the cloth so her breasts stick out before cutting the entire clothes off. Its like riding a roller coaster to think that way, to do whatever you want and avoid all other thoughts, and in that way I very much enjoyed the movie, but thinking about the receiving end of their actions, and how similar it is to real society in an abstract way, it was disgusting and made me not want to be Human. I think if one watches Clockwork Orange and feels both sides of it, thats a good sign. To deny either part of ourselves is to invite schizophrenia into our minds to block out what we're afraid to experience and form different parts of our mind for different subjects instead of a unified consistent mind. To see both those sides of yourself is not enough to know how schizophrenic you are, because in our society global problems are caused by very subtle things people do as a result of their schizophrenia disconnection in their mind of their actions and such global problems, associations they know are there but have formed social and legal and ethical systems to help them forget. Its painful to think about, so society formed ways to not think about it.

    When people smile at me, ask me how its going, how I'm feeling, is everything ok... I see in their smile the smile of those schizophrenic people in "A Clockwork Orange". The main difference between those psychotic killers and normal people is the normal people feel negative emotions when seeing a suffering person or having some relationship with a suffering person, but for the other 7 billion people, normal people and the psychotic Clockwork Orange people are the same in the way they have no negative emotions about the suffering of those billions of people. We're all psychotic (specificly schizophrenia), and billions of people are dieing from it. Most people are a danger to others, and that is one of the qualifications of being forcefully committed to an insane asylum, but they don't have enough asylums for 7 billion people.

    This movie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untraceable  explains part of the subtle way peoples' schizophrenia could cause global problems. Its about "a serial killer who rigs contraptions that kill his victims based on the number of hits received by a website ("www.killwithme.com") that features a live streaming video of the victim. Millions of people log on, hastening the victims' deaths." This kind of thing doesn't really happen, but its still a good way to explain it. I think if this was really done, many people would view the website, watch the person suffering as a result of getting more website visitors, consider how little part their one visit had in the person's death in progress, and blame it on the other people viewing the same website, even though they're all doing the same thing, watching the same live video of the death they're all causing together. Its easy to say you would resist viewing it, but words and actions based on intuition are disconnected in most peoples' minds. If you would choose not to view the website, even if you really wanted to, then why do you spend money buying fast food or other unnecessary costs while billions die from much cheaper things to solve? Its a contradiction, and you have schizophrenia if you answer differently for those questions.

    People prefer hierarchies instead of peer-to-peer organization of things because hierarchies can handle inconsistencies by keeping them in separate branches. A schizophrenic mind has more hierarchies than normal. They keep their thoughts separate from their other thoughts because they contradict. An extreme of that is multiple-personality-disorder.

    Schizophrenia is relative in some ways. A person with schizophrenia will think a unified consistent mind has schizophrenia because the unified mind flows between many subjects that are disconnected in the schizophrenic mind, so the schizophrenic mind thinks the unified mind is jumping around in a disorganized way. Disorganization is another symptom of schizophrenia. The unified mind correctly thinks the schizophrenic mind jumps around in a disorganized way when the schizophrenic mind sees a contradiction which causes the schizophrenic mind to jump somewhere else in its hierarchy of incompatible ideas.

    Most of our society, not the people but the society and governments and corporations and ethics and other organizations, are built on a lie, and that which can be destroyed by the truth should be, and will be when enough people see the contradiction, the lie built so deep in society that nobody questions it or even is aware of its existence anymore, the contradiction explained in my "Pay To Not Save A Life" thought-experiment, and more generally, the schizophrenia of the Human species. Earth is like an insane asylum, and the few sane people left are learning to use the delusions of those in control to make big changes, while most are still under the delusion that not much is changing. How can you trust your own measure of change when you know you have schizophrenia?

    To have a consistent way of thinking without contradictions in my mind, I want to feel the same way when I look at a suffering person as I feel when I simply know it is happening somewhere. I want to feel like I'm seeing billions of people suffering, and seeing the positive parts of the world at the same time on that scale, because its real, and I'm tired of living in a fake world. I want to become less schizophrenic.

    My mind is far more consistent and unified than almost everyone elses. It became that way gradually. Now my root goal is to make the universe more interesting. Almost everything I do, I can trace the path between that root goal, a chain of subgoals, and the specific action I'm doing at the moment. I have no system of ethics or rules of what I should never do, since such things always lead to contradictions. Instead of negative statements against what not to do, I have only a positive statement of what I should do, and that is to improve the universe, and practically it has many of the same effects since one of my subgoals of that is to advance the Human species and help them work together. Its why I'm writing this, to explain how to get over some of your schizophrenia, so we as a species can move on to more interesting things like intergalactic travel. But, like everyone else, I also have some schizophrenia left.

    There's nothing wrong with animals. I can be friends with an animal, love an animal for what it is, and play simple games together. We are animals, but we can also be more. The ability to change is what separates us from animals. If you don't want to know whatever is important and true more than you want to avoid the pain of thinking about such truths, to want to know about your schizophrenia (and we all have it some) to get over your delusions, then you're just another animal.
    Tue, Oct 18, 2011  Permanent link
    Categories: society, schizophrenia
      RSS for this post
      Promote
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    Starting from the need to agree on a list of demands, the Wall Street protests have formed their own government. They call it a "General Assembly". They vote on amendments to their list of demands by raising hands and counting. They have leaders but the function of the leaders is to count votes, act as news reporters, and propose major votes like accepting or rejecting the list of demands of the entire movement, like from a central Wall Street protests list of demands from other locations. These protests which started as chaos of everyone saying what they wanted for themselves have become a more unified voice made of what the most number of people agree on. A global direct-democracy is forming, communicating through videos and text on the Internet, without the formality and offices of existing governments, simply based on what people agree on.

    Live videos of many such protests and General Assemblies when they happen can be watched at http://occupystream.com  This is from my viewing of New York and Chicago and a few others for short times.

    Everyone should be watching this, at least sometimes, and should watch at least 1 of their "General Assembly" meetings.

    Governments take away our right to vote on things that are important to us, like when was the last time we had a vote on if drugs should be legal or if corporations should be allowed to pay money for the purpose of changing laws, and despite that, democracy forms on the streets and spreads globally, gradually becoming a unified voice.

    I know this is the start of a global democracy instead of only an isolated special interest group because I've been watching major events that affect the future of the Human species, from history to the present moment, and its a battle between 2 major forces: (1) centralized control of everything, and (2) decentralized control of everything, like control by the 99% of people instead of the 1% of rich people as they often repeat in the videos "We are the 99%". Its because the central banks and financial industry is the root cause of all the problems, second only to Human nature itself. The majority is stronger, and by sticking to what we agree on instead of our differences, we can have a peaceful global direct democracy.

    Its a very interesting time to live in. Nobody should be bored. Watch what's happening and make predictions of where its going.
    Sat, Oct 15, 2011  Permanent link
    Categories: democracy
      RSS for this post
      Promote (3)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Synapses (4)
     
    We sovereign intelligent life forms (from now on, called "people") commit to live by the view that there is no higher authority on Earth than majority commitment of the global population, therefore if a majority commits to something then indirectly all others are committed to it too, but indirect commitments do not count votes toward majority until a direct action to commit to it or a direct action to demote the commitment to an indirect commitment. If at any later time, enough commitments are demoted to indirect that a majority no longer directly commits to the thing, all indirect commitments are no commitment at all. If one does not want to commit to something until a global majority also commits to it, add "and this commitment applies only with global majority commitment" (abbreviated "ifglobalmajority") at the end. Our democracy is fluid. It may contain contradictions but they will be solved by common sense over time. Since this new society is based on withdrawable commitments, anyone who wants to split off their own society, which probably means a lower or ended level of interaction with those still committed, may of course withdraw this commitment to global democracy. The freedom to withdraw ensures its total value is always positive, unlike the old governments. This freedom to leave is the reason most will choose to stay. Instead of a hierarchy of countries and states, our democracy allows overlapping democracies simply by committing to more than 1 at a time, but be careful they don't contradict eachother. Let our democracies form around our society, not our society around our democracies. This constitution is intentionally incomplete, providing only the definition of continuous majority voting on top of which a full democracy can be defined by voting on the specifics of how the voting system and other practical things would work, informally at first since thats circular-logic, but then formally its a consistent voting system able to modify itself through majority vote.

    A commitment to vote on that I like best, the core idea of Anonymous written in a more technical and game-theory way, is:
    * We commit to have no person higher than anyone else, not as an employer, king, money lender, or any authority, and to live as equals who maintain society by enforcing the same rules on eachother with the authority of whoever is near you at the time ifglobalmajority.

    This is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract  system that defines how to vote on creating better social-contract systems.

    Examples to vote on using the constitution above...
    * We commit to have no person higher than anyone else, not as an employer, king, money lender, or any authority, and to live as equals who maintain society by enforcing the same rules on eachother with the authority of whoever is near you at the time ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to logical debate instead of violence ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to make sure everyone on the planet has a reasonable standard of living so long as they put in a reasonable effort to improve the world, first by helping those near us and gradually expanding until everyone commits to everyone else this way ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to tell eachother who is and is not obeying any commitment they have made, which may be one of these standard rules or any other agreement they have made ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to not give resources to anyone in violation of their commitments until the problem has been resolved ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to have no system of debt, since that is a way for one person to be above another ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to use the words "money" and "number" interchangibly and to produce such numbers in computers in whatever patterns serve society best ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to have a small set of rules that apply generally instead of many specific rules as existed in the old society ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to leave the debts and obligations of the old society in the past ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to do dangerous things only with the knowledge of many others who, through majority vote, can stop you from doing the dangerous thing. The more dangerous it is, the more people needed to vote. Weapons of mass destruction need at least 1 million people, and if such a thing is built or exists, it must be locked in such a way that half the million must enter an authorization code private to themself for it to work, for example ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to put more effort into finding and solving the causes of problems, like why someone wants to murder, than effort into punishing for those problems ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to enforce punishments only by majority vote of a number of people proportional to the severity of the problem caused ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to keep reliable records of all punishments, votes, dangerous things, and other negative parts of our world, so everyone is accountable ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to extremely redundantly back up everyones files if not yet backed up that much, in at least 10 different time zones, with encryption for those who want privacy for their files, and to provide such backups at any time through an automated system on the internet ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to maintain a global decentralized internet where any bytes in any pattern can be sent between any devices, without any bias or censoring ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to keep all our commitments on the internet for everyone to see and verify against our actions ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to allow others to do anything not denied in their own commitments ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to not force religion or lack of it on anyone, or to force any other ideas except what is committed to by the person to be enforced on them ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit not to let anyone into our society, or only in certain visitor locations, until they commit to all these standard rules ifglobalmajority.
    * We commit to tell others things they need to know to satisfy their commitments, if we think they don't already know ifglobalmajority.
    * Add your own... and debate or vote on it...

    One of many possible ways to do it... We can start this like a game. I was thinking of creating a Firefox browser plugin or a new version of Firefox (it's open source) that would simulate a war against the internet infrastructure, replace some words with other words globally on the internet (if viewed in this browser), implement continuous majority voting (which only works between the parts of the simulated internet which have not been destroyed in the simulation, so its very strategic in a chess-like way, limiting our communications with those we're cut off from, until we repair those parts of the simulated internet, while aggressive forces seek to make this harder on us) and the new society I describe here inside the game, have the society work together to keep the simulated internet running and end the war in the most peaceful way possible (escalating conflicts is the way to lose the game), and let that new society and voting system expand from simply a game to a real democracy as people start taking it more seriously than the old governments which are simply forgotten, Gandhi style. Or do you think waving signs at Wall Street is more effective than democracy, real democracy without representatives to get in the way, protected by decentralized encryption like Bitcoin? We don't need more resources or people. We need better ideas. Please redirect protesting efforts into more productive ways to decide what kind of society we want and make it happen emergently like starting in a game that simulates war and democracy and parts of the internet going down.

    All my writing, here or on any other website, permission granted to copy. Please let this constitution flow and evolve until people think about it more than existing governments, and then the old governments are forgotten, and we win without a fight. There is nothing more dangerous to a government than the lack of belief that it has any reality outside of its followers. It takes little more than the majority of followers simultaneous answer to one question, to erase a government into the nothingness from where it came.... The question is, given a better way to organize the world called x... If the majority agreed on x, would you also agree on x? That's what ifglobalmajority is for.

    Before we let this conflict between globalization and decentralization escalate to World War 3, we should try to understand why Gandhi was able to replace a whole government with no violence at all, and the Sun Tzu strategies of how to win without a fight. I choose not to fight our oppressors because theres 7 billion of them. The centralized money systems and hierarchies of politicians do more of the oppression. Some of it is because of greed and hate, but most of it is simply for survival of the only system they understand, and nobody understands enough of the system to do the major redesigning needed to fix it. Instead, I propose that we all start many logical debates and eventually come to a global majority agreement of what kind of social organization we really want. There are no limits to how different it can be since we don't need to continue balancing the junk built up in the old society except a few unavoidable things like how to dispose of or prevent the use of the nuclear weapons. If we agree to have no ownership of land, we don't have to. If we agree that we can walk around naked, that's cool too. If we agree that war should be illegal, we find a way to make it happen. If we agree that nobody should ever be above another, there are consistent ways to do it as game-theory research can explain, informally called "punish the nonpunishers" type of societies. I'm not telling you what kind of society to design, but one thing is clear: If we do it as a sequence of small changes to the existing society, it will continue being so complex that its impossible to even read all the laws in a lifetime. If we want to have a law that says we must have a small number of small and simple laws that apply generally to many things, it is our right to design society that way. Instead of escalating conflicts until World War 3, lets act in a civilized way and first decide what we want, and then fight about it if others decide something different. It is uncivilized to fight about not getting the society you want if you don't know what kind of society you want.

    A sovereign person would not block the streets so another sovereign person can't use them, as happened in the Wall Street protests. If you don't like the Wall Street system of global money dictatorship, opt out of it by designing your own society and organize a global walk out and walk into the new system we all debate and then agree on. Getting angry is great for getting attention, but what will you do with attention except get people angrier and start a war? There is a way to get everything we want with no aggressive actions or anger. If we all believe we're sovereign, that would be a good start, and acting like others aren't sovereign to play with their green toilet paper (or other kind of money) works against the most peaceful and efficient and democratic global solution.

    When the majority of us know specificly how we want the world to work, we give the other billions of people some time to verify our plan looks better than how the world works now, to make the same kickstarter.com-style commitment to do it only if enough other people do it.

    We set a date, and on that date, everyone involved walks out of government buildings, their job, leaves their legal contracts in a drawer collecting dust... everything that isn't part of the new design, and we do what we planned to do. No taxes will be collected because the man who collects taxes will be in our group, and he will walk out too. As people see its really working, the whole world joins our new society, and we can leave the old ways in the past.

    At that time we will have more than majority agreement of all 7 billion people, and therefore it is right for us to claim all the resources of the Earth to distribute in whatever way we had agreed. There is no higher authority on Earth than majority agreement of the global population.

    Gandhi did it, so can we.

    If you don't have a plan for a new society, then you have no business protesting the old one.

    This set of example laws, which I have put much thought into over the years, in the absense of existing governments and obligations and debts, as most of the laws of a new society (I still need to add a few to specify the "punish the nonpunishers" parts in a more clear way), would create a society where altruism is the most selfish thing anyone can do, or at least the direction toward altruism without the actual desire, like that man in Clockwork Orange thought he was a good person because they had brainwashed him to feel pain when he was about to do a bad thing, so he only did good things, but he had no recursive goal structure toward good, only the immediate direction toward it (known as a greedy-algorithm). Like that man, this society would make selfish people feel like they were about to lose something selfishly whenever they do not act for the good of society, and rewarded symmetricly. Like the Clockwork Orange system, and the deeper statements it makes about our current society's strategies of motivating people, this set of example laws will only create the approximate behavior of altruism, while those who truly want to improve the world will find it an effective system at amplifying their efforts. If we have to choose between a society that rewards selfishness and one that rewards altruism, the choice is not hard, even if you ask a selfish person. It is purely a matter of selfish efficiency that we should want others to reward altruism to optimize the productivity of the Human species. Its part of why Humans evolved their tiny, and local to the few people they can see or personally interact with, amount of altruism. Want to skip ahead on the evolutionary scale? It's mostly in the mind. The most important thing to me used to be getting rich to spend on myself, but ideas/memes evolve even inside the same brain, and now my root goal is to make the universe more interesting, without even a parameter specifying how much money I have as any importance except how it helps toward the root goal. Redesign society something like this, and put the selection-pressure where it should be, toward improving society as a whole... Until then, we're evolving slowly backward toward Monkeys in a society that amplifies selfishness. Since ideas/memes evolve in society as information, we will see the effects of this change quickly, or leave society as it is and the same exponential speed of evolution of ideas/memes will create the most selfish event of all time: World War 3. The choice is yours...

    They say that no country can start as a democracy and keep the same level of democracy. It decays as changes are voted in and any partial damage to the original plan for the democracy is not replaced since selfishness is directly toward political issues instead of the long-term functioning of the democracy. I disagree that the problem is unsolvable. The problem is all existing political systems reward selfishness in at least 1 part of the system. Whenever anyone is above anyone else, there is selfishness involved in some way or at some time, even if its just a little. The solution is to a system where acting altruisticly is selfish, where at any one time doing the thing that improves the world looks like it will give the most benefit to whoever is considering that action compared to all other possible actions. I think I've defined such a system in these examples to be voted on in combination with the "We sovereign intelligent life forms" constitution above... I think I've defined a new type of democracy that is not just stable, but becomes more democratic over time.



    Without ifglobalmajority at the end, you would commit to it right away instead of waiting for half the global population to also commit. You may want to commit to something, like to quit smoking and have others enforce that on you for your specified time range (giving a time range or permanent gives up your right to withdraw the commitment), for example, or you may want to commit to something in the context of a certain group. Its up to you what you commit to.


    Some people think this kind of society would not motivate people to do the necessary things. They say... Yes. Sounds perfect. I think we should all live in communes, farm, grow long hair, practice free love, and smoke lots and lots and lots of weed. What do you think we should do with our lives? —Field Manhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/a-proposal-so-obvious-its-mind-boggling-that-nobody-has-tried-it

    If you had committed to this rule...

    * We commit to make sure everyone on the planet has a reasonable standard of living so long as they put in a reasonable effort to improve the world.

    ...Then you would be in violation of your own commitment if any person on Earth does not have "a reasonable standard of living" right now. We wouldn't start with such a strict rule, but after everyone had a reasonable standard of living, we would add that rule to make sure it stays that way. Before that, the rule may be to put in a reasonable effort to increase the standard of living of those who live near you, or something like that, and slowly expand the area until it goes global.

    If most people have a reason to think that everyone has a reasonable standard of living right now, then theres no need to waste time looking around to see if anyone is starving. That can be done every now and then.

    But if there was some group of people who consistently had less food than "a reasonable standard of living", then word would spread and it is no longer ok to sit around smoking weed and having sex while you are in violation of your, meaning you personally not some representative, commitment to "make sure everyone on the planet has a reasonable standard of living so long as they put in a reasonable effort to improve the world."

    Therefore, depending on how well the global democracy is working, if everyone has "a reasonable standard of living" or not as far as I know, you may be free to have all the sex and drugs you want (subject to whatever laws are democraticly voted in), or you may be required to work toward solving that problem, and then get back to the sex and drugs.

    If I noticed you being in violation of your own commitment (which only happens if somebody lacks food, for example, and if I think you knew about it), then to satisfy one of my commitments, I would have to start a vote on if you should be punished for not obeying your own commitment, a vote between whatever people I could find at the time, and a quantity of people proportional to the severity of the problem caused. If you were blatantly not caring that others are starving and you knew it, that would be more severe than if you just forgot. Theres a lot of fuzzy areas in it, but I would tend to predict the severity accurately because that is also one of my commitments which I could be punished for, and all this stuff goes onto the internet in public view since everyone is accountable. The part about the sex and drugs isn't relevant and would not go into the public records. Its that you were doing anything other than trying to feed the starving people when you knew they were starving. After that, get back to your sex and drugs.

    There is no requirement to try to improve the world, but if you want other people to make sure you have a reasonable standard of living, that would be one way to get them to do that for you. But everyone has to ensure the reasonable standard of living for those who do try a reasonable amount to improve the world.

    Here's a new example rule, to deal with people trying to stay ignorant of things they should be doing so they won't be punished...
    * We commit to tell others things they need to know to satisfy their commitments, if we think they don't already know.

    That's how I thought of that example rule (which is also in the list above). This is how the process of designing a new society should work, before we get to the real world experiments.

    These rules are all subject to debate, examples that I think work well in the combination I gave. Everyone should be proposing new rules or changes to them and predicting what effect the new set of rules would have on peoples' interactions.

    Its the only recursively consistent constitution. It guarantees your right to withdraw or commit to many democracies at once. Its time we had a way to organize our world that doesn't depend on one person being above another. As many know from the continuing pattern of rebellions and protests, the global conflict between corporations (masters of government, enslaving us through control of money) and decentralized society (Bitcoin, wireless mesh networks, the idea of being sovereign) continues to escalate and shows no sign of stopping and every sign of leading to World War 3 if we don't take our society in a different direction. Please remember this constitution when your only other choice is World War 3. We can all peacefully walk away from the masters at the same time, and they'll have noone left to drag us back. Gandhi did it. We can too. The hardest part is enough people doing it at once. Some protests start while others end, but all it takes is a little scheduling and a lot of planning how to organize society, not more protesting, and this new kind of constitution will help us organize in ways most people have never considered.

    If you don't know what you're fighting for, then why fight? If you don't have a plan for a new society, then you have no business protesting the old one.

    Instead of how to transition from how things are now to something else, which is as far as most people ever get, lets work on defining exactly what that "something else" is and how it will work, like what we will do to stop people from searching for the nuclear weapons after nobody is guarding them for example. This is a complete society designed from the ground up, without any of the governments or money or jobs or debts or obligations of the old society. We let everyone out of jail, since that is a debt and obligation. We can't do this effectively if we have to continue balancing the junk that built up in the old society. I think 7 billion people can forgive eachother if it is the only way to avoid World War 3. Lets keep this to the minimum and simplest practical things to make that happen. Whatever specific things you want in the new society can be done through the global democracy. We don't need to specify them now. Infrastructure and the general plan first...
    Tue, Oct 4, 2011  Permanent link
    Categories: constitution
    Sent to project: Start your own revolution
      RSS for this post
      Promote (1)
      
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (1)
     
    Most of us 7 billion people are fed up with the way the world works.

    Whoever is ready to change things... We will commit to do the following only if others do the following, but if it doesn't work out nobody has to do it. http://kickstarter.com  uses a similar model for charity funding for unusual projects... the funding gets to a certain level by a certain date or nobody's charity actually gets paid. We can do the same for creating a new society. Enough people are in, or nobody is in, but we won't know until the planning stage is over how many people stay in.

    Lets all debate the design of a new society and global infrastructure and all that until we come to majority agreement, maybe through some open source internet voting system based on Bitcoin (to prevent cheating the same way it prevents counterfeiting), for example.

    When the majority of us know specificly how we want the world to work, we give the other billions of people some time to verify our plan looks better than how the world works now, to make the same kickstarter.com-style commitment to do it only if enough other people do it.

    We set a date, and on that date, everyone involved walks out of government buildings, their job, leaves their legal contracts in a drawer collecting dust... everything that isn't part of the new design, and we do what we planned to do. No taxes will be collected because the man who collects taxes will be in our group, and he will walk out too. As people see its really working, the whole world joins our new society, and we can leave the old ways in the past.

    At that time we will have more than majority agreement of all 7 billion people, and therefore it is right for us to claim all the resources of the Earth to distribute in whatever way we had agreed. There is no higher authority on Earth than majority agreement of the global population.

    Gandhi did it, so can we.

    If you don't have a plan for a new society, then you have no business protesting the old one.

    Here's a few example rules we may want to include in some form...
    * We commit to logical debate instead of violence, to obey the outcome of such debates, and only to use correct provable logic, so only logical truths are ever obeyed.
    * We commit to make sure everyone on the planet has a reasonable standard of living so long as they put in a reasonable effort to improve the world.
    * We commit to tell eachother who is and is not obeying any commitment they have made, which may be one of these standard rules or any other agreement they have made.
    * We commit to not give resources to anyone in violation of their commitments until the problem has been resolved.
    * We commit to have no system of debt, since that is a way for one person to be above another.
    * We commit to use the words "money" and "number" interchangibly and to produce such numbers in computers in whatever patterns serve society best.
    * We commit to have a small set of rules that apply generally instead of many specific rules as existed in the old society.
    * We commit to leave the debts and obligations of the old society in the past.
    * We commit to have no person higher than anyone else, not as an employer, king, money lender, or any authority, and to live as equals who maintain society by enforcing the same rules on eachother with the authority of whoever is near you at the time.
    * We commit to do dangerous things only with the knowledge of many others who, through majority vote, can stop you from doing the dangerous thing. The more dangerous it is, the more people needed to vote. Weapons of mass destruction need at least 1 million people, and if such a thing is built or exists, it must be locked in such a way that half the million must enter an authorization code private to themself for it to work, for example.
    * We commit to put more effort into finding and solving the causes of problems, like why someone wants to murder, than effort into punishing for those problems.
    * We commit to enforce punishments only by majority vote of a number of people proportional to the severity of the problem caused.
    * We commit to keep reliable records of all punishments, votes, dangerous things, and other negative parts of our world, so everyone is accountable.
    * We commit to extremely redundantly back up everyones files if not yet backed up that much, in at least 10 different time zones, with encryption for those who want privacy for their files, and to provide such backups at any time through an automated system on the internet.
    * We commit to maintain a global decentralized internet where any bytes in any pattern can be sent between any devices, without any bias or censoring.
    * We commit to keep all our commitments on the internet for everyone to see and verify against our actions.
    * We commit to allow others to do anything not denied in their own commitments.
    * We commit to not force religion or lack of it on anyone, or to force any other ideas except what is committed to by the person to be enforced on them.
    * We commit not to let anyone into our society, or only in certain visitor locations, until they commit to all these standard rules.
    * Add your own... and debate or vote on it...

    See? Building a new society is much easier than it sounds at first. It sounds hard because the one we live in built crap on top of crap and got extremely complex and nobody knows how it works anymore, but we don't have to do that. Our set of rules will evolve democraticly. Its not one set of rules forever, and if we're very careful to avoid contradictions, some rules can vary between different locations depending on who lives there, but we know from history that didn't work well so global democracy and 1 set of rules may be best.
    Mon, Oct 3, 2011  Permanent link

    Sent to project: Start your own revolution
      RSS for this post
      Promote (2)
      
      Add to favorites (2)
    Create synapse
     
    Extremely more power will either go toward the 7 billion people equally or toward the corporations. This is the real deal. Everyone on the planet should be watching whatever news on it you can find, likehttp://spacecollective.org/iPan/7080/Global-Revolution

    Below is something I wrote a few months ago. I saw this coming but nobody listened and now conflicts are escalating as predicted. A direct confrontation with corporations is likely to cause further Patriot-Act laws and police-state types of oppressive government control permanently, which would of course cause bigger protests and later full rebellions, many countries would get involved, and World War 3 would start. But not the kind of war we expected WW3 to be. Nuclear war is bad for business. They don't want to kill people who may give them money.

    Here's a good legal offense... Slavery is illegal. Slavery is when a person is owned. Every corporation is owned. Every corporation is a person. Therefore every corporation is a slave. Therefore it is illegal to own a corporation.
    Research:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

    Months ago I wrote at: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=23054.0  titled "A compromise to avoid World War 3", which I will copy part of below. The specific proposal I made there was a good idea but now theres a more effective possible solution... The petition has enough signatures. What's needed is to let people know this is the action that would satisfy the protesters, and I think it would if they understood it and it is already the goal of many of them. As you can see in the Zeitgeist Addendum movie (see link and description below) and the link above, the law in USA (and other countries?) that corporations are people is used as immunity for owners of corporations. Whatever crimes the corporation does, it is the criminal person, not the owner, and all they stand to lose is the business and not even their savings. They could kill people with their intentionally unsafe products to save money and not go to jail. End corporate personhood and they will start obeying the law like the rest of us have to. Corporations should not be above the law, nor should anyone else. Technically they're not, but in practice they are, and we need something to offset that.

    I've been talking to some of these people for months, and watching important things relevant to the Human species overall, and put together the following a few months ago. I'm surprised their protests got this big. It may be a turning point in the balance of power between corporations and us slaves to money. Lets be careful to not become what we protest against.

    The most important part of "A compromise to avoid World War 3" below...
    http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=23054.0

    Thousands of businesses cooperate to create an internet with far more bandwidth and technology than the existing internet, called Internet 2 ( http://internet2.edu  ), and for it to be only for businesses and not for normal people, and their plan is to replace the existing internet with one controlled only by businesses, where they have no obligation to obey "net neutrality laws".

    Corporations are masters of governments. For example, in California USA, if I want to buy electric power, I am forced to buy it from Pacific Gas And Electric, and part of their budget goes toward creating laws such as for regulating the "standby mode" on electronics. They think it wastes electricity and electronics should have to turn off completely. What started as a way for government to save money by deferring electricity generation to a business, has become a tax on funding the creation of electricity related laws, by a private business. Where do I go to vote against Pacific Gas And Electric if I don't like the laws they put money into creating, my money which I am forced to pay for electricity? Corporations are a part of government that has no obligations of democracy.

    The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. After reserching many charities, http://givewell.org  ( http://wikipedia.org/wiki/GiveWell  ) calculated that, based on supply and demand for Human life, the cheapest Human lives are worth 1000 US Dollars each. That's how much it costs to save a Human life (in the most efficient charities), and people aren't willing to pay it until the price comes down. Based on this calculation, the value of the buildings destroyed in the 9/11/01 bombings was more than the value of the 3000 people who died, since the people were worth 3,000,000 US Dollars at 1000 Dollars each. If you disagree, put your money where your mouth is and save a life. The point is people don't care much if other people die.

    George Bush became president of USA. Then his son became president. George Bush THE SECOND. What is the chance that a man and then his son would be president if USA was a real democracy? Almost none. The system is powered by money, and the central bank system owns most of that money. To restore democracy, we must fix the money system so it tends to flow toward people based on what they do for society.

    Guantanamo Bay is a prison USA created outside of USA for the purpose of not being subject to the laws of USA in that prison, so they can torture people for information. George W Bush had it created. Obama did not shut it down. [EDIT: On Obama page on Wikipedia it says: "In his first few days in office Obama issued executive orders and presidential memoranda directing the U.S. military to develop plans to withdraw troops from Iraq.[110] He ordered the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp "as soon as practicable and no later than" January 2010,[111] but during his first two years in office he has been unable to persuade Congress to appropriate funds required to accomplish the shutdown.", so if that's true then its another example of the central banks being masters of government.]

    Ignorance Of The Law Is No Excuse. Police in USA often say that. Ok, lets see how that applies to USA's Congress who admit that they don't read proposed laws before voting on if they become laws or not. That's why the Read The Bills Act was rejected. Laws in USA are created so quickly that is it impossible for any one person to read them, even if they read laws all day everyday. You can't know if a law applies to you if you don't read it because the system is not advanced enough to search for an abstract idea, while some parts can be searched by words. The system is overclocked, running out of control, and they don't know how to fix it. Something big could easily break, and the gears of society would come to a halt, unless we change the basic way things work.

    As most people laugh at Ray Kurzweil's history-based calculations that technology will continue to advanced exponentially and the future will be here much sooner than most people expect, those people demonstrate their ignorance by not knowing that today for 300 US Dollars they can buy a hat (Emotiv Epoc) which reads some of their thoughts, including emotions and thinking about moving and turning, which allows them to play video games by thinking. This kind of technology isn't far from what's needed to network our minds together into a bigger mind which would be able to control us the same way we control Monkeys, but this mind would also be us.

    The Zeitgeist movement gains popularity quickly. One of their best videos is this version of "Zeitgeist Addendum" which you can watch for free athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg
    From their website http://thezeitgeistmovement.com  (but they are not as centralized as it appears),
    QUOTE:
    The Movement's principle focus includes the recognition that the majority of the social problems which plague the human species at this time are not the sole result of some institutional corruption, scarcity, a political policy, a flaw of "human nature" or other commonly held assumptions of causality in the activist community. Rather, The Movement recognizes that issues such as poverty, corruption, collapse, homelessness, war, starvation and the like appear to be "Symptoms" born out of an outdated social structure.

    While intermediate Reform steps and temporal Community Support are of interest to The Movement, the defining goal here is the installation of a new socioeconomic model based upon technically responsible Resource Management, Allocation and Distribution through what would be considered The Scientific Method of reasoning problems and finding optimized solutions.

    This "Resource-Based Economic Model” is about taking a direct technical approach to social management as opposed to a Monetary or even Political one. It is about updating the workings of society to the most advanced and proven methods Science has to offer, leaving behind the damaging consequences and limiting inhibitions which are generated by our current system of monetary exchange, profits, corporations and other structural and motivational components.
    END QUOTE.

    The Open Source movement (software which everyone has the right to use, copy, modify, and distribute with much less legal restrictions and usually for free) is as strong as the businesses who create software. Open Source tends to be peer-reviewed more, instead of hiding its flaws inside of .exe files without the text files which they were generated from. Open source programmers have learned to work together to advance their common goals. Businesses, being motivated more by profit than by good products, only let others build on their work as long as the business stays in control, able to pull the plug on the whole project if they don't like where it goes. Open source gives every user the legal right to take the project wherever they want, and the creator has no legal right to stop them or change the contract later. The contract normally says things like give credit where its due, don't connect this to proprietary (not open source) systems, or some give permission to do anything at all as long as the author's name stays on it. The majority of Open Source software is at http://sourceforge.net  and the website for SourceForge is one of the open source softwares. If businesses can't learn to work together more than is profitable, they will not be able to compete. People would not use Bitcoin if it was not open source.

    I heard that around the time central banking was created in USA, some president tried to shut it down soon after it started. This is something I'll need to research later and update this writing, or you could research it and respond. This is how a decentralized society works.

    Military Industrial Complex:
    "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."
    —Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961, former president of USA.
    His predictions are now reality.

    In the year 1999, Napster became popular, allowing anyone with internet access to share music files, if they had legal rights to those files or not. This was followed by many decentralized and sometimes anonymous networks, and eventually led to the combination of Bitcoin and Tor networks to move large amounts of money from anywhere to anywhere anonymously. Since it started, governments have been fighting decentralized networks, but legitimate uses of these networks has slowed their attacks. As part of these attacks, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have failed to upgrade their systems to IPv6 even though it has been available for over 10 years, and without it the workaround is Network Address Translation (NAT) which creates severe problems for decentralized networks. Specificly, most people are behind NAT addresses, and communications go out but they don't come in unless they are an immediate response to a communication that just went out. When 2 computers both have NAT addresses, neither can send the first communication to the other, so they can't communicate at all without going through a non-NAT address, also known as a server. Wasn't the internet supposed to be a network of computers where everyone has equal ability to network to everyone else?

    The Pirate Party advocates getting rid of intellectual property laws, like patents and copyrights, so everyone benefits from the many things which already exist and has the freedom to build more things without making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

    The Patriot Acts are created in USA which give government legal ability to do almost anything they want, including kill suspected terrorists on sight without a trial, and spy on financial records through automated systems on a large scale.

    "My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in government."
    —Barack Obama, president of USA, 2009,http://whitehouse.gov/open
    Looks like Obama may want to help with this. What's more open than open-sourcing the economy based on a common identity-verifying system?

    The "Anonymous" group hacks at computers of Federal Reserve.
    [UPDATE: I've talked to some Anonymous members and most did not approve of that action]

    Wikileaks distributes secret government documents, which motivated many people to make changes in their governments.

    Through the internet, revolutions are organized, like happened in Egypt to replace its government.

    Wikileaks hacks at various financial computer systems as a response to such systems freezing the money accounts of Wikileaks.

    News, radio, and some of the most popular forms of communication are censored. You don't see dead soldiers brought home from war, for example, on the news. They don't want people to pay attention to the wars in that way.

    A "kill switch" is installed into large parts of the internet, so authorities can control the internet. If your website does not obey their rules, contain only approved content, then your website will not be accessible to others.

    Some groups threaten others for displaying pictures of Mohammed, which their religion commands against. Talk starts about further censoring communications.

    Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, but I've heard he was forced into it. Compare that to everyone being a slave to money and now through cryptocurrencies [UPDATE: or ending corporate personhood laws] we can free the slaves again.

    Bitcoin is created as a response to the financial system and forcing of identity on transactions of money. Combined with the Tor network, it can be used anonymously to move millions of dollars from anywhere to anywhere. Bitcoin devalued the Dollar by many millions and moved that value into Bitcoins, but competing currencies have been doing that for hundreds of years.

    Currently there are no tax laws about Bitcoins or World Of Warcraft Gold, since they're just numbers in a computer that people trade. Through the bridge of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, governments will be tempted to tax game money, and if they do it will lead to destroying themselves with complexity. World Of Warcraft Gold is a real currency, like Bitcoin, just implemented a different way and connected to a game before it became a real currency. Want to buy some? http://warcraftgoldstore.com  This currency is normally used to buy things in the World Of Warcraft online game, but since it can be exchanged both directions with dollars, it should be subject to the same laws as Bitcoin, and the last I heard, if you get paid in Bitcoins you are supposed to report it on your taxes (some people say, but its debated). Can anyone give me a good legal reason why Bitcoin and World Of Warcraft Gold should be taxed differently? If not, the next purchase of armor or a flying dragon to ride on, should be reported on your taxes. When the auditor asks, tell him "Yes, I bought a flying dragon for xx World Of Warcraft Gold, but I didn't get a receipt." There is a contradiction here. Either we are going to have to start paying sales tax for buying an extra life in a game in a simulated economy with game money, and non-player-characters taxed for spending that same game money, or Bitcoin doesn't get taxed. Which is it? In World Of Warcraft, Blizzard Entertainment is God, and nobody would bat an eye if one of their characters walked on simulated water. If employment laws merge between virtual worlds and the real world, bad things will happen, and the paradoxes will expand without limit. Do your lawyers dare tread in the World Of Warcraft? I really hope so, because one of those non-player-characters was racially discriminating in who he hired for his simulated dragon store. That racist a-hole said he wouldn't hire my character because he had green skin, a hump back, and large claws, which is typical of my simulated species. My whole simulated life, I've had to deal with discrimination against Orcs, and this is the last straw. I am suing for the lost potential World Of Warcraft Gold, in US Dollars please. Second Life is a more advanced game where such employment laws would be more likely to apply, especially in future versions.


    ***End of history events, ordered by how they relate to eachother instead of time.***


    ***How does all that fit together?***

    Its a battle between centralized control and decentralized organization of society, which is fought politically, economically, and sometimes violently. As long as Humans have existed, there have been hierarchies of control: countries, presidents, kings, cities, department of motor vehicles, money systems which you're not allowed to compete with, etc. As technology advanced, organizing society in decentralized ways became possible. The authorities represent centralization of power. They work against decentralization because it reduces their power. As they recently learned from Bitcoin and various attacks through the internet, they are not as powerful as they thought, and as technology continues to advance, they will continue to lose power to decentralized ways to organize society. They could shut down Bitcoin, but they couldn't stop 10 more advanced variations of it from being created.

    There are a few random elements also. In reaction to threats if pictures of Mohammed are displayed, there was an "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day  and an episode of "South Park" in which Mohammed appeared delivering a pizza, as if it wasn't anything out of the ordinary. We can solve the problems between centralization and decentralization, but these more random things (people don't want you to do x for religious reasons, so others do x) may never be solved. The best we can do is try to avoid escalating such conflicts, like by not making demands that others obey our religion and not reacting to such demands. If people didn't think that USA's government may outlaw pictures of Mohammed, then those reactions to it would have been much smaller. These many random elements make a complete consistent solution impossible, but we can build a society much better than what we have now.

    Authorities reduce freedom and increase military spending and spying. Terrorists become more angry and recruit more members. Both use more advanced technology and demand the other change. This escalation of conflicts is not going to stop on its own, and nobody will like what it leads to.

    ***That's history. What's next?***

    If they make Bitcoin illegal, terrorists will attack, maybe not right away, and we don't know any details, but making Bitcoin illegal would be viewed as a severe attack on the decentralization of society. Does that make you want to make it illegal right away? I expect it does, because we are a very confrontaional species. But this time, lets wait and let the identity-verified system compete with Bitcoin and outperform it because businesses accept it into their infrastructure more than they accept Bitcoin.

    Through the internet, many people have realized how the world really works, and we want our fair part of the power. We want a real democracy, and since money is power, we want the central banking dictatorship demoted to a free market where anyone can coin their own money if others agree to accept it as money, the same as currencies have been competing for hundreds of years. Because of new technology like Bitcoin (and its many million dollar economy), new currencies can be designed to do things that old currencies can not, so money does not have to be just a number anymore.
    Mon, Oct 3, 2011  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Promote (2)
      
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (2)
     
          Cancel