[ExI] The Open Future Foudation [Foundation?]

[Antonio Marcos]

Great, I was wondering why you wasnt discussing in
public :)

--- Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> escreveu:

> Yep. I can put up a website quickly, but I'd have to
> figure out what to 
> put on it.
> 

Well, I guess the best we can do now would be to 1st)
catalog existing sites with the same premisse in the
diverse fields (thats why i say they are scattered
yet, then we can fix that.. also because it isnt very
specific yet like a page listing current research for
example).. I know for chemistry, biology, neurohack...
Computer Science is moot(the whole internet :) also it
so pervasive it will get in most other areas)..
Electronics is similar in the internet, but could be
more organized... engineering would be nice.. :) There
are some science enthusiasts blogs too..

2nd) Philosophy, thats what i would say is the most
important right now, but probably have already been
done (we must search for it before anything is done).
once we start linking to those sites, its probable
they are going to look back, so its better eveything
be settled as not to lose anyone that wont look again
later.

3rd) Im hoping this discussion here will shed some
light on this issue.

> 
> Patenting is just for the legal system. The legal
> stuff doesn't matter. 
> Let the politicians fight this out. That's their
> battle. Not mine. 
> Meanwhile, I'll be doing whatever I can to help out.
> 

Isnt it a problem if we are inventing something and
someone comes along and, lets say, links the final
dots a little faster and invent something, patent and
we cant use it anymore? I mean, we will probably
evolve to openManufacture pretty soon after a good
invention is made, and there is at least a well
organized group around this. so..

> >   I would say it would be more or less protected
> if it
> 
> Nothing is truly secure.
> 

Sure, but i dont let my door unlocked at day-break.
(hmm, first time in my life I use this term, hopefully
its well formatted ;D)

> > acted like a university, though with public
> > discussions even for research. So it would patent
> its
> > discoveries.. but then it collides with your idea
> of a
> > purely open model. A real fouNdation (or something
> :))
> > would be needed.
> 
> Nah, even if people patent stuff, there's going to
> be people that do not 
> patent. See, even if people do patent something, it
> doesn't matter. We 
> can still come up with the same information and
> knowledge.
> 

The problem is the ones that do, not doing it doesnt
help there. Why it doesnt matter? Im not so sure.. 
what you mean "still come up with"? still use the
info? What if we cant produce a gadget because its
patented, or the info allowing the building? I really
hope so! but im not so sure, what if people outside
the openscience movement start getting "out of ideas"
for example.. the problem is the very beginning, while
the closed mentality is still ingrained in people,
after they see the benefits coming it will be a
downhill acceleration.. exponential curve (I was
tempted not to say downhill, but.. :D didnt sound very
good though hahaha)

.. but the beginning might even kill it, so lets plan
=/


> > 2) Economic impact this might cause:
> >    How being so open would destabilize processes..
> And
> > how to deal with opponents of the idea.
> >    Would people adopting this only do research as
> a
> > hobby? if not, how would they feed themselves. And
> > either way, how would research be funded?
> Donations?
> > Like many sites do? Own pocket?
> 
> Money is fake anyway. This stuff doesn't matter.

but the idea people have of it isnt, thats why it
works.

> What we need to do is 
> focus on moving towards an era of abundance,
> probably via 
> self-replication technology and the empowering
> ability of 
> nanotechnology.

Maybe im paranoid, but that sounded a little
precipitated.
Looking, to no avail, for a commonly used phrase
comparable to "dont go too fast to the prize" in
english, I stumbled, maybe in (not much
of)serendipity, across this:

http://digg.com/security/Malware_Evolving_Too_Fast_for_Antivirus_Apps_3

Maybe our capacity to 'prepare' isnt that good.

> In the mean time, if we had to work
> with money, I am 
> sure we can provide food some how. And besides,
> since we're all 
> independent agents, we can all solve that problem on
> our own (at least 
> until nanotech is an option).
> 

thats indeed a less pressing problem. 

> > 3) Security and Responsability:
> >   How to prevent misuse of the knowledge, i dont
> see a
> 
> You can't prevent misuse.
> 

We can discourage somehow?

> > completely open, as you suggest, model being able
> to
> > do anything about it.. Maybe its not needed,
> people
> > would eventually know better or monitor
> themselves.
> 
> Screwups will happen. We need to be prepared.
> 

HOW?? I think all those more pressing questions should
go in the initial page.

> > Maybe its useless anyway, and would eventually all
> get
> > in the open. But wouldnt this mean that eventually
> > openness would be frowned uppon? maybe even
> science?!
> 
> Then we will be open for as long as humanly
> possible.
> 

Lets try to maximize this?

> > (doesnt many people are already suspicious about
> it? I
> > read something along those lines these days)
> 
> You mean, in the sense of trust and authority?

I dont remember the context, but its probably due to
their exclusion of it, again if they see benefits we
succeed, if someone screw up before enough benefits to
back us up(and say its an exception), we blew it.

> This
> just means that we 
> need to create more social communities around the
> research itself. 

hmm.. yes, i guess that will do for that problem.

> Well, not the research, but the topics, and then
> sometimes the 
> implementations to figure out new meaning and
> information about the 
> topics (like experiments).

hmmm.. kinda lost me here..
> 
> >   I would suggest a more organized community, but
> i
> > guess that will eventually come about. When people
> > need a satellite to conduct some experiment maybe
> :)
> > lol
> 
> Yes. The community will be naturally
> self-organizing, like any other 
> community.
> 

ok.

> > 4) Any big issues im missing here? Somehow the
> idea
> > backfiring?: Monopolization of knowledge?
> 
> I don't see any problems.
> 

really?! I had whole bag of them for when we fixed
those! :D hmm okay, maybe thats it for really big
issues, we are just starting anyway..

> - Bryan
>

Mark.


      Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail, o único sem limite de espaço para armazenamento!
http://br.mail.yahoo.com/