to clarify why I share this question, I would further ask "how does creativity occur?". to me, it's about collecting drafts (inspirations and observations) and then, suddenly when my mind is defocused, thoughts connect and an insight is born!

overall, to me, (creative) thinking is like constructing thoughts as puzzles which are sparked by someone else's thoughts and also my experiences.

(related resource on "mind defocused and focused" and what happens in the brain in both cases is Learning How to Learn course - see links)

I mention B.Fuller's thinking on "thoughts being a system" on purpose, because I wonder if there's some guiding number in the process of collecting observations and then synthesising them into an insight.

it's useful to reflect on how thoughts occur, and especially valuable thoughts, because if education can be transformed, so it can be transformed into a teaching people how to think better.

Yeah, you could do all of that, and much more, like the things mentioned under Social Real-Time Data Sharing. ;)

I used to think I didn't think, as I was intuitive. So I don't think things through actively. I don't have an internal monologue. I just do.

I think pretty deeply about things, but it's all invisible thoughts and below the surface.

It's pre-verbal.

And, I bet you already have a project on that! [+].

I've had discussions about unity with Mindey. We have different views of unity. I think unity is a beautiful concept, where people believe the same things and unite on some thing. It could be as simple as going to the same cafe because you believe in the cafe's values or quality of coffee. It's a trivial example of unity.

I believe you can unite on random variables. And I'm a member of different groups: single man, aged 30, computer enthusiast, cafe goer

I want an application on my phone called "Unity" which lets me find people who believe the same thing as me and allows me to interact with them.

I was randomly imagining future tribes based on values:

Burners: Burning Man type of people who seek experiences and value creative expression of all kinds.

Offgriders: Invisible communities living off-grid.

Calculators: Those who love the quality of life and new gadgets and scoring corporate ladder badges.

Who else? :) This is a creative exercise!

// And thinking is not part of a modern culture (consumerism is).

This is insightful, and indeed. What is happening under the current system, is AI getting directly connected to the limbic system, not the neocortex. This seem to have happened due to marketers finding out that subliminal and subconscious messaging works better, and abusing people's brain circuitry (limbic system), to control the populations with monetary system connected to those more basic needs, and pushing the whole internet to that direction of "images-first" instead of "tables first."

It may be because of the lack of tools for big-data decentralized thinking, and new ideas for that may change the status quo, I believe.

Along these lines, among interesting possibilities I just thought of, is dolphins getting to know the human concept of cultivating not their babies, but cultivating other fish and plants for food... (farming and husbandry)

Notes from "A Fuller Explanation" book club:

"Thinking isolates events; "understanding" then interconnects them. "Understanding is structure,"

"Realizing that a thought required at least enough "somethings" to define an isolated system, it seemed vitally important to know the minimum number ..."

"A "thought" is a "relevant set": experiences related to each other in some way. All the rest of experience is outside the set-not tuned in."

-- sounds like a structure of creativity/ideation! which could be transformed into "learning how to think" guidance"

B.Fuller defines life as "thoughts" and 4 being a min.number for having a thought. But what does it mean in practise?

Reference: http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s05/p1000.html

//Video on Cymatics and example on Dolphins Seeing Sounds

very interesting. If dolphins have a society, then this underwater society may not be like human society, they can naturally communicate with holograms!

If dolphins develop a technological civilization, it must be very different from the technologies developed by humans living in the atmosphere.

// What if dolphins see images based on sounds?

Good point, but the restriction I've described in the idea was a bit intentional -- just like people couldn't transmit full range of their expressions via chat terminal, but were hooked so much that they shared their livelihoods in a sense-packed abstract language -- would dolphins do the same? Before we had Zoom and Hangouts, we had text chat-based communications, that worked miracles for collecting a training sets for things like translation services. :)

What if dolphins see images based on sounds?

So, if humans want to learn the language of dolphins, humans need to turn dolphins sounds into images (with cymascope), collect lots of images and then identify meaning in those images, and finally synthesise it into an English-Dolphins dictionary.

(References added to Links)

Current questions for 0oo front end:

• How can UI work as an ice-breaker and encourage people to post humourous responses?

• What types of ideas there are? So that diverse people feel welcomed to share their idea on 0oo.

// "Everybody generally wants the same things"

Yes and No. At certain level of abstraction -- yes: for example, everybody wants one complex condition satisfied (call this "happiness"), which is the same for everyone, but consists of many conditions to be satisfied ("experiences": "health", "relationships",...), which are not exactly the same, but we can find similarities.

Due to those similarities, systematic cooperation must be possible, which we do see in a variety of collaborations actually happening in the world.

// Make manifestos that describe what everybody wants

I think you already had a particular instance of this idea when describing the specific instance of it -- wantsfiles, and how they would work.

So, what would this be? Would this be written in legalese, or yaml? Or any language or format, and then auto-aligned with formats mapper like metaformat? But if you're so general, I could say that surveys exist (well, more often customer surveys, rather than surveys from the world engineers asking us what world we'd like to live in), and what we currently have is tracking (people telling what they want implicitly, through their behaviors, cause it's automatic, and people are lazy -- so, unless this writing of people's manifestos becomes some kind of school homework globally, or a form of communication (like in the wantsfiles), I don't see people naturally thinking to write such manifestos -- they have got to be pragmatic).

Hmm. What I like about this idea, is that suddenly, everyone would start showing their wants publicly, so they would become more transparent, and helpful. :)

But what about secret desires that people don't want to necessarily make public? Also, how far would this extend? Countries and organizations also often have their domains. Would domains replace markets (=become decentralized internet of wants)?

I imagine one that would have merit on the internet:

Here's an archive and its hash, i will pay people £X currency to host it for me

There would have to be another protocol for the exchange of wants with gives files.

The seller could contact the buyer and automatically arrange a price based on the minimum that the buyer is willing to buy.

Or the buyer could spider the sellers and contract the seller that they choose.

it should be all automated

Would that extend to all autonomous agents? How would this file be updated, would it have encrypted sections? What would be the language to describe those needs? Are those would be limited to the operations available by various standardized systems, or have a more vocabulary to describe more abstract wants?

I so see this used by advertisers... it's like big ASK with lots of bidders.

That makes me think, that this is how internet search should work -- you specify what is your current condition, and what is your target conditions (what you're trying to achieve), and the ? -- is the driving directions, or sequence of hints, that the search engine should provide to get you there. To be able to do that, it actually does require to have information about your current situation. Most search engines do that automatically, as we use a plethora of their services (in case of Google). So, they know what situation each person is in. Now, the task is to figure out what each person actually wants to happen in their lives ^__^ and provide search results with that context in mind, to make it happen... What could possibly go wrong?

Welcome [bauhouse] to the 0oo! It's great to have you here, and your comment is very relevant!

// The implication is that we may have conceived of the universe as being lifeless, but it is actually alive.

While I also adhere to panpsychism, I think there is a boundary, as Paul Budnik asks in his video poem -- where does the consciousness beings or ends?.

// but that humans have compromised the world’s ability to work as it has been working

Humans are just a new life form on the plant Earth, just like animals were a new form of life, after plant life. If a form of life is able to change ecosystem, does it mean that it really compromises it? For example, Earth's temperature during the last 500 mln. years has been outside the current range, and the ecosystem has recovered. I think it's worth a discussion and research to understand, how much humans do actually compromise the world’s ability to deal with the consequences. Albeit, it's a bit of a digression from universal utility.

My concern is, that of what to consider to be "life," and does all life, including life in computational universes, like in Avida, count, and if so, how?

David Bohm’s explorations of quantum physics, general relativity, and wholeness might bring into question the notion of a distinction between sentient life and non-sentient life. The implication is that we may have conceived of the universe as being lifeless, but it is actually alive. If we depend on the non-sentient life of the Earth for the oxygen we breathe, those life forms are an integral part of the whole that maintains the health of the whole.

Creating such a world is rather presumptuous, then. Instead, should we not merely observe how the world already works for all life, but that humans have compromised the world’s ability to work as it has been working by disrupting the systems of life?

[transiency] so, the surveillance cameras should point to skies, when idle? :)

Should it be for all life, or for sentient life? There are life forms, like viruses, that are arguably not readily sentient. How do we think about that?

This category, while similar to Conflict Resolution, is sufficiently different in its description, i.e., more economic-theoretic, in that it refers to the principal–agent problem. You can use markdown syntax pretty much everywhere on the site.

// funds a set of activities or programmes

Hmm. This actually go much deeper than one might anticipate -- activities or programmes -- tend to have all aspects of volition and cognition as well. Will we not require the entire f(x)=y to wrap it? :)

It looks like it's what we'd naturally have by having products on 0oo, because products here are connected to projects, and them with ideas and goals... by buying on 0oo, one would naturally see supply network that one's supporting.

Thinking, of double strategy: business that funds decentralization encryption of user data from being able to see itself, and funds decentralization and dis-own-ment of its services.

Why? Because it's the amount of funds needed for development of the decenralized solution is large enough, that can only be funded as part of the business operations.

I see every purchase of a product funds a set of activities or programmes, the money must physically go to those areas. That's what I mean by wrapped, you're buying more than just the thing on the shelf, but you're investing in lots of other things too.

A map on the wrapper or a link to the product map is a great idea. I like that.

It makes sense to me, and relates to the idea of consumer price breakdown requirement.

How do you see it implemented? Would displaying the entire supply chain, on the wrapping of the product do it? For example, in case of a food product, -- not just the price, manufacturer and nutrients, -- but the entire story, and how related agents will benefit from my purchase.

I certainly think this information would affect purchasing patterns, but how would you compact that all information onto the products? While we could just add proper QR-codes, leading to web addresses with explanations, people like the convenience of not having to scan every item with their phones. In that case, would some kind of elaborate color-coding for initial screening while strolling or scrolling through marketplaces, do it, or how do you imagine it?

What about decoupling technology from the problem it solves and solve with a definition language?

Thanks, [chronological], very appreciated! :)

I've given you SSH access so you can share some storage space in the form of a backup. Although I'm taking a dump every 30 minutes anyway.

Quadrillion dollar question. There's lots to share: CPU, GPU, DISK, RAM, NETWORK...

Cloud computing allows resources to be shared. But I bet there's a simple technique to sharing programs and data that allows the maximum use of technology.

Actually, I was looking into more abstract example and how to have a thinking template for creating systems.

What does any business, any community, any garden, any system need to work (by driving inspiration from how natural systems work)?

Thinking, perhaps what's the most important in the system is a movement of energy and not its parts (parts can change.. if it's a real world system).

So, for a business as a system to work, a movement of money is key. So a transaction moment must be designed. And then missing puzzles to enable that transaction.

For a garden as a system to work, a flow of water and heat must be designed. And later, the plants in the garden.

For a community or a town as a system to work, an interaction is a must-have. So, space that triggers interactions designed. And later, specific people invited who may come and go as they will.

// So, if I apply this thinking for creating a system, then I need to create must-have relationships because they make up a system? And that is my system prototype?

Based on the lean methodology, that would be indeed so. And that means, people-research. Who are those particular people to create relationships with for it to work.

// And how do i know which relationships are must haves?

Thinking of community as a product, is a bit like thinking of a fish tank, yeah, what kind of fish does it need? Probably will depend, ultimately, on what type of fish tank we want to have to live within.

In lean startups there is an approach called MVP (minimum viable product) which means creating must-have features based on the vision in order to get feedback from the real world fast.

So, if I apply this thinking for creating a system, then I need to create must-have relationships because they make up a system? And that is my system prototype?

For example, a fish tank as a system needs a fish but also bacterias that eat fish poo, and plants that a fish eats to produce poo! Now, how does this apply to business?

And how do i know which relationships are must haves?

Of course, there will be comments saying, that people should have to consent to their data, using OAuth, or cryptography and tokenomic decentralized computing with permissioning. I'm of course aware of these methods, and it would be great if hospitals managed their data in those standard ways. However, there are certain consents that people do through giving rights to governments in exchange for social value, because it's more efficient than asking for consents on a case-by-case basis.

What this idea is proposing, is that such medical research is one of such cases, because aging and death is the common enemy of us all -- we could quickly discover patterns of and best treatment strategies by systematically and massively cooperating for this by default. The risk perhaps should be estimated as the cost of extra loss of some privacy to the gain in treated diseases and life years of people survived longer as a result.

This definitely needs to be prepared for. Enough of not preparing for a pandemic.

It is noteworthy, that, while the telecommunications technology is a communication rather than computation technology, it not only empowers humans to communicate and decide together, but also machines.

Things like keyboards, hand tracking devices, and ultimately BCIs on the other hand are empowering only humans to communicate.

This distinction may be important to note, when prioritizing the technologies to focus on.

Isn't there such a thing already, e.g. in the U.K., we have some standardization of salaries for different education levels, specialties and roles. I'll have to look up for the legal documents, but quick search returns payscale.com.

So, while this may be known, do you have more specifics, of what should be the pay distributions? And, btw., how would we deal with the reality, that different circumstances make people value things differently. For example, a surgery may have a huge (life-or-death) value to people, and yet, the social benefits systems working like insurance achieve the reasonable or zero prices on those events.

And, it's a bit like a sub-goal, rather than a method?

So, if I'm wondering how do these factors generalize. What would be the equivalents for a more primitive type of life, like, say, a mosquito?

1. Meaning: self-expression (fertilization for males, laying eggs for females).
2. Health: overall functioning.
3. Relationships: with another mosquito(s) for fertility, and with a blood donor(s).
4. Finance: exchange of sperm for probability increase of progeny?
5. Experiences: fertilization, feeding, laying eggs, drinking water, nectar.

Apparently, finance is a kind of social reciprocal phenomenon, where strategic exchange happens: one gives to another in exchange for something else of existential value. In such primitive cases like that of mosquito, there's no developed financial system, but it is still possible identify where strategic social exchange happens.

In more communal species with distributions of roles, these exchanges probably are more evolved. For example, one could attribute financial nature to the fact that bee drones may be getting "free" honey in exchange for increasing the genetic diversity for progeny.

It doesn't mean though, that financial system is necessarily a sign of higher intelligence, for example, lower order life, like the cells making up our organs, are entirely a result of a kind of financial system driven by blood or ATP and other molecules as a form of currency.

It looks like the Nimb rings are very close from usability standpoint, and Beurer PO60 looks very close from functionality point of view. Would be interesting to see, what could be achieved collectively.

And, here's a video on basic usage.

A few worthwhile comments, from HB:

[beanangel]: It is a fun way to look at things, but I am confused. What if you make two of the entropy balls at a distance to the other making a gravityless laGrange point? That would seem to be a place to store data absent entropy. The thing is, that locating something between two entropy sources does not seem like it would preserve data. One possibility is that if the balls were constructed one bit out of synchronization with each other and then when a bit was pulled from 1 to 0 by one of the balls, the other ball would push it from 0 to 1. The thing is though then they wouldn't be entropy balls and it might only work on things that were 1 bit big, or however many bits fit on a surface between the two balls.

[2 fries shy of a happy meal]: So... if I've got this straight, (no bets on that mind you), given the many worlds interpretation every 'instant' of every possibility is a slide in an infinite slide show and so it should be possible to... encapsulate information in entropy-less bubbles to escape being lost to the flow of time?

Is that right?

[Mindey]: I suppose so, and these entropy-less bubbles might be the laGrange points between the universes in orbit around each others.

So, whatever information source actually can be thought of entropy source, following a certain probability distribution, and it's attraction may be thought of a "distributional drag" (any information source within the influence range of another information source may be affect to drag to acquire the pattern of that other source, similar to how acculturation happens in social circumstances).

The LaGrange points may exist, when there is pseudo-random pattern interferences, or a stable pattern-engendering probability-distributional drags. (So that what one distribution tends to always take, another distribution tends to always give, and so we could have a stable boundary pattern between them, larger than 1 bit.)

LMC is probably too near, and thus may be considered dangerous to message to.

And,... if we send the most useful information for survival of information, would we call this -- intergalactic love, as there actually may be a common goal of preserving information. Additionally, if we do start think together as a civilization, what to send to the future civilizations, it may help us as a civilization politically.

Well, the idea is something like that. Well, we could choose a set of closest galaxies to do that.

Btw., assuming that each protocol is defined by the application itself, and protocols are simply the patterns of certain common applications (think, aMule and ed2k://, Telegram and tg://, etc.), and considering the general trend of browser running WebAssembly, that will allow to run any applications on web browser, those applications could naturally become supported in browser windows.

This is ok, but that means making browser more heavy as a client in general, and I'm not sure if this is what we want. Another, is through building clients to support browsing resources all of those protocols, as a "browser" plugin.

So I wonder: isn't the field of "operations research" - subconsciously already trying to apply math to finding such x-es? I wonder, how does the field formally define its problem domain...

Now, I'm thinking, that the /products section of 0oo could work a bit like CraigList, but supporting people's own payment methods, or tokens of approval of payments.