Unmasking The Cognitive Process Behind Questions And Why They Are The Linchpin To Innovation


Many articles and books have been written about the importance of questions to achieve innovation. Entrepreneurs and business leaders have also talked about the critical impact questions have on innovation. Eric Schmidt, former Google CEO, went even further when he noted: “We run this company on questions, not answers.”

So there is clearly an immense reliance on questions. Yet not even Neuroscientists understand the cognitive process behind how questions work. Their best guess is that the brain cells produce the mind, which then produces you, who then asks the questions and then proceeds to answer them. Unfortunately, that’s not a scientific model. That’s science fiction. To truly understand a valid cognitive process, a new paradigm called the Mind Model is going to be presented here. It is one where the brain/mind dynamic is identical to the model of how the computer works. The computer has mechanical hardware that is run by an operating system. In turn, the human has biological hardware that is run by an operating system. We label the biological hardware as the brain and the operating system as the mind. In the computer, when the operating system advances to the point of making the mechanical hardware obsolete, that mechanical hardware has to be thrown away and replaced by upgraded hardware. But in a human, the biological hardware that is the brain is continually upgraded by being rewired by the operating system that is the mind.

But that is only a partial description of the Mind Model. The rest of the description is one where the mind is not one single component but is comprised of several separate components. Starting with the main mind component which is you – the identity you sense and perceive your Self to be. This is an important aspect to recognize because there is a critical delineation between your Self and your other mind components. Those other mind components will be labeled henceforth as: Creative Thought, Reactive Thought, Rational Thought, Intuition and Emotion.

Let’s first take a deeper dive into explaining who you are. Your identity includes your core attributes of intelligence, personality, talents, likes, dislikes, strengths and weaknesses. Your identity also includes your memory, for which the new term Personal Knowledge Base will be (i.e. Virtual RAM) substituted from here on. You are also the decision maker. The other mind components of Thought, Intuition and Emotion only present choices for you to make decisions on. These choices are a form of guidance and influence on you that have helped determine who you are now.

These other mind components have been guiding and influencing you throughout your whole life as you were making decisions. Influencing you for good and for bad as well as for collaboration and for conflict (i.e. Cognitive Relativity). Yes, this process of interaction between you and your other mind components has been so seamless and fluid that you have always considered your thinking to be the function of one solitary unit. But it is not. Only you make the ultimate decisions on the choices the other mind components present to you. Jesus and Buddha described these mind components masked in the cloak of religious terms. But societal evolution has now advanced enough for these concepts to finally be openly unmasked in scientific terms.

The last aspect that needs to be described has also, up to now, been masked in religious terms. It deals with where the informational-choices come from that are presented to you by the other mind components. That information originates from one source that will be labeled henceforth as the Universal Knowledge Base (i.e. Virtual ROM). In essence, the other mind components perform a function similar to highly advanced search apps that also originate their information from one source but are customized and personalized for each unique mobile device – which in this case is you. Yes, you are unique, like your iris and fingerprint. Furthermore, out of all the mind components, only you are curious. Only you ask questions. If you already have the answers you need within your Personal Knowledge Base then you would not be asking questions. The act of asking questions means you are seeking answers from a source outside of your Personal Knowledge Base. So when you ask questions internally, the responses are coming in the form of choices from the other mind components. Then you perceive those choices as answers to the questions you asked. The mind components of Creative and Reactive Thought offer you the positive and negative information-based answers that you did not know before to facilitate innovation.

So the process within our complex matrix ecosystem is one where you have free-will to make unique random choices on existing Universal Knowledge Base information for the purpose of co-creating completely new experiences and innovation that has never existed before. But people have not understood this process and therefore have only used it incidentally. With this process unmasked, you are now empowered to use your mind components intentionally, like tools from a toolbox. Yet, this can only happen if you ask questions. So, now we finally get to the crux of the entire paradigm to ask what is so special about questions in this process?

In computer terms, asking questions is like initializing command prompts.
They have three outcomes:
1. Questions give you the mandate to set the agenda for the other mind components to follow and focus on.
2. Questions always prompt a response from the other mind components. Be it in the form of a complete answer, an assumption or just a hint.
3. Questions unlock and make room in your Personal Knowledge Base to receive and store new information from the answers you receive.

When you are not asking questions the other mind components are guiding and influencing you with their own agenda. Also without asking questions your Personal Knowledge Base is blocked from retaining any new information, therefore severely limiting your ability to innovate. In essence, you are either using the other mind components or they are using you. The other mind components using you has been observed by Psychology and given many different labels. One of those labels is ‘automaticity’ or the ability to effortlessly take actions. This ability of being able to act without really thinking about it is the state most people are engaged in most of the time.

So now we understand there to be two types of completely different mind functions that can happen in your mind. The first type is where you are able to make effortless and fast decisions on the agenda the other mind components set for you. There is no potential for Self-identity growth in this reactive mindset. Therefore it has also been labeled by Psychology as a ‘fixed mindset’. Then there is the secondary type mind function comprised of laborious and slow thinking. Within this type of thinking you are setting the agenda by asking questions, analyzing the answers to those questions and accessing your own Personal Knowledge Base to solve problems. There is nearly unlimited potential for Self-identity growth in this creative mindset. This has been labeled by Psychology as a ‘growth mindset’. Again, you are either using your mind components by asking questions or the mind components are using you. That is why questions are the linchpin to the cognitive process of originating new ideas for innovation. And the highest level of this process is not just to originate new ideas but to use the technique breakthrough innovators use and develop Idea Models.

At this point you may be asking if there is a bold use for this paradigm? The answer is yes, and it is anchored in the understanding that millions of future years of information in the form of breakthrough physics and technology exists and can potentially be sourced. While the construct of planned randomness (i.e. Uncertainty Principle) ensures that future human experiences and conflicts remain only as planned probabilities, the information for breakthrough physics and technology to continually evolve sentient societies is set. Everything from powerful conscious AI, to medical instruments that use frequencies in repairing DNA, to geometric shaped starships that are propelled forward at near light speed – without resistance – by internally moving magnetic fields that move external space-matter/space-time around the vessel. ALL. THIS. INFORMATION. EXISTS. NOW. And it can be sourced through questions and Idea Models. Wouldn’t it be fun to hack our matrix ecosystem and go source it?

These Mind Model concepts are not isolated. They are derived from a larger physics Unified Field Theory model. The full documentation on this new paradigm is found at: oisource.com/why-we-exist. But the only place you can learn the practical application to this paradigm, to come up with the right questions and to use your other mind components as tools to develop Idea Models, is in the OIsource ( oisource.com ) training. Contact us to find out how to make our innovation training experience work for you and your company.

The Bold Strategy To Transform U.S. Education Into America’s Most Promising Opportunity

 

The following three-step process develops a bold strategy for any large organization:

  • Define the main challenge.
  • Understand the critical factor within that challenge.
  • Apply organizational strength into the ‘most promising opportunity’ within the critical factor.

So let’s use this process to develop a bold strategy for a large organization called America.

First Step:
The main challenge for America is to grow its economy.

Second Step:
The critical factor for the growth of the American economy is having communities be the vehicles, along with their companies that are the internal engines, to continually innovate. (In turn, that innovation level will dictate how quickly the adjacent government and financial systems are forced to evolve).

Third Step:
The organizational strength of America is its ability to empower and then benefit from trillions of internal decentralized, diverse and competing choices being made within communities. The ‘most promising opportunity’ within any one community is a school of U.S. Education that needs to produce individuals with evolving skill sets to continually foster innovation. So America’s organizational strength should be applied to its most promising opportunity. That is to achieve an outcome of U.S. Education, as a whole, benefiting from its own internal decentralized, diverse and competing choices.

But this has not happened because American leadership has failed to understand their role within the bold strategy. Consequently, U.S. Education is not set up to foster innovation skill sets but is instead focused on copying centralized education systems of other countries. But other centralized education systems will always seem more successful because they are more effective at developing homogenous students that can memorize and regurgitate current information – which is the opposite of achieving an innovation skill set. So the counter productive focus of U.S. Education actually has the result of negating America’s organizational strength and turning its most promising opportunity into its greatest weakness.

But this failure can be overcome with a breakthrough solution. That solution is to implement a system that will be the internal engine that continually advances and innovates the vehicle of U.S. Education. LED accelerator
( CreateLEDaccelerator.com ) would achieve this result by being a dual system within U.S. Education that will develop high-level creative thinkers. LED accelerator, which stands for Leadership Empowering Diversity, shares the goals of other dual systems like Xerox, PARC, DARPA and Google X that were created to be vertically intensive within their respective parent organization. The difference with LED accelerator is that malleable brains of the selected gifted students are going to be continuously wired for adaptive algorithms by their experiences. LED accelerator students will collaborate and compete using tools that exist in the current world to manifest the products and services they intuitively see existing in the future world. This is a process of intentionally developing our future breakthrough innovators and adult leaders. This dual system will be sustainable because the hyper competitive student teams, within each LED accelerator school district, will continually adopt best practices, learning strategies and interactive culture from the decentralized, diverse and competing choices the student teams will be making.

In turn, the continually changing curriculum and team achievement results will provide for educators and administrators the evidence-based data on which aspects of LED accelerator can be scaled and implemented in U.S. Education, the parent organization. So internally generated evidence-based data of LED accelerator will be the impetus to continually innovate the entire U.S. Education system ahead of evolving needs of American communities.

Full documentation on this paradigm is found at: CreateLEDaccelerator.com

Why Google Is One Of The Few Organizations In History That Has Earned A Legacy

The concept of a Legacy is misunderstood as something having to do with a large organization achieving recognized successful outcomes. It does not. A Legacy is a progression level higher than success. A Legacy means that in future history a large organization will be remembered, not for its success, but for the significance of its impact on societal evolution in its time.

It is not enough for an organization to have a mission and vision statement to intentionally achieve a Legacy. If a large organization aspires to be historically significant, it must also develop a Legacy statement along with a strategic plan on how to execute it. A Legacy statement for any organization is understood through the universal and scalable objective of:

Abundant resources will be used and wasted
on attaining what is scarce.

At the macro level, within the cosmological organization, the resources of energy and time are abundant. So those resources are used to create billions of complex galaxy systems, each having billions of suns and solar systems. The abundant resources of time and energy are wasted on the creation of these systems in order to attain what is scarce. That scarce objective is the small quantity of evolving sentient life on habitable planets. That is why iconic physicist Fred Hoyle noted: “The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.” 

There are about 2000 enzymes on Earth. The chance of obtaining them all in a random trial by accident is impossible, even if the rest of the cosmos consisted of (which it does not) an “organic soup”. So at the macro level, there is clearly an intentional strategy being executed to waste abundant resources to attain what is scarce. That is a Legacy at the level of cosmological evolution.

At the micro level, within any large human run organization, the resources of proprietary goods, services, skills and access to capital are abundant. The low price point of the resources dictates their status as abundant. Once those resources are identified, the large organization needs to decide what scarce objective it will waste its abundance on. It does not mean the entire organization needs to do this. A division thereof will do. It also does not mean the venture should lose money. Huge profit is possible.

But to date there has been no intentional strategy for any organization to waste abundant resources to attain what is scarce. That is why throughout history there have been instances of large organizations that only incidentally achieved what we now recognize as a Legacy. Those organizations did not have that as their objective but they achieved a Legacy none-the-less. Here are some examples of what their Legacy statements may have stated if those organizations had that as their intentional objective:

Alexander III of Macedon’s (Alexander the Great) organization:
The Macedonian military will use their resources to uproot stagnant fiefdoms in order to impact vast regions with significant cultural diffusion and innovation.

Gandhi’s organization:
The Indian people will use their bodies and volition as resources to force out subjugation in order to impact on world consciousness how structured non-violent disobedience can be employed instead of armed conflict.

Google’s organization:
Google will use their resources to facilitate world-wide prompt access to constantly updated relevant information in order to impact human ability to learn and assimilate that information into new ideas, concepts and understanding.

History has shown us that the success and effect most organizations have on society, no matter how large they become, is short-term. But now the reason has been unmasked to why some organizations are able to achieve a long-term impact, far beyond their existence. A path to earn a Legacy has been outlined. If you are part of the leadership team of a large organization, then you have an opportunity to intentionally achieve eternal significance; a Legacy. OIsource ( oisource.com ) can help you create that Legacy statement and the strategy to achieve it.

Why LED Accelerator Is The Sustainable And Scalable Future Of U.S. Education

With relatively minor adjustments, a schoolteacher from decades ago would feel right at home within the modern classroom. Other than replacing books with tablets, there has been little system advancement. In the past, educational excellence meant providing students equal opportunity to learn information that was not easily or publically accessible. Today, information is available for free anywhere, anytime, for anyone with Internet access. Furthermore, the biggest impact on society is yet to come from artificial intelligence, big data, robotics and quantum computing. All this technology has made information a commodity that no longer has any value in education. So the current process of forcing students to memorize information and then grading them on how well they regurgitate it is obsolete. Students already understand this and know that their education has become self-defeating as it teaches them to compete with technology rather than using it as a tool. In the future, the value of education will reside solely in how students’ minds can be engaged to creatively find, aggregate, transform and use information in new ways. Creative skills will ultimately define professional and personal success.

Consequently, individualized Project Based Learning, intertwined with the arts, will be the ultimate future of U.S. Education and will be the best way to stimulate creativity. Yet educators cannot explain, as a process, how to establish and then continually innovate an ever-changing Project Based Learning curriculum. Furthermore this curriculum cannot just have short-term success. It must be sustainable, scalable and innovate ahead of the needs of an evolving society around it. Yes, U.S. Education should not be decades behind but instead should be decades ahead of society. Unfortunately educators are completely and totally out of their league to achieve these necessary results even though they will be forced to try. ‘Education experts’ will experiment with teaching systems for decades to come until evidence starts pointing to a system that can be successful. This will be a chaotic transition with many brutal failures. These transitional system experiments will waste generations of students’ lives as well as being detrimental for society. But these future failures can be bypassed with a breakthrough solution. That solution is to implement a system that will continually advance and innovate U.S. Education from the inside.

LED accelerator ( CreateLEDaccelerator.com ) would achieve these results by being a dual system within U.S. Education that will develop high-level creative thinkers. LED accelerator, which stands for Leadership Empowering Diversity, shares the goals of other dual systems like Xerox, PARC, DARPA and Google X that were created to be vertically intensive within their respective parent organization. The difference with LED accelerator is that malleable brains of the selected gifted students are going to be continuously wired for adaptive algorithms by their experiences. LED accelerator students will collaborate and compete using tools that exist in the current world to manifest the products and services they intuitively see existing in the future world. This is a process of intentionally developing our future breakthrough innovators and adult leaders. This dual system will be sustainable because the hyper competitive student teams, within each LED accelerator school district, will continually adopt best practices, learning strategies and interactive culture.

In turn, the continually changing curriculum and team achievement results will provide for administrators the evidence-based data on which aspects of LED accelerator can be scaled and implemented in U.S. Education, the parent organization. So the current process of relying on failed guesses of ‘education experts’ to originate future curriculum and doctrines will cease. The internally generated evidence-based data of LED accelerator will be the impetus to continually innovate the entire U.S. Education system ahead of evolving social, economic, government and military needs.

This type of dual system, no matter what it’s named, within U.S. Education will absolutely be the eventual end-system that all Project Based Learning experiments will lead to. There is no way around it, as the gifted students have always and will always separate themselves from the general student population when they are unchained from their desks. It is by design that naturally gifted individuals have the potential, when developed, to lead and guide the evolution of society. So this breakthrough solution for U.S. Education is just part of that leadership to bypass the future failures of ‘education experts’ and proactively launch the first beta LED accelerator system now.

Full documentation on this paradigm is found at: CreateLEDaccelerator.com

Unmasking How Intelligence Collaborates With Emotion to Facilitate Human Innovation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw-o7qoBlDE

All intelligence is artificial. This is because intelligence is just aggregated algorithms. An algorithm is aggregated math. Math is aggregated information. And information in-of-itself is artificial. This means that the intelligence associated with a computer, or an insect or a human, is artificial. The only reason humans perceive our intelligence as being real {nous}, and in essence non-artificial, is because of emotion. So emotion is the non-artificial component that makes human artificial intelligence attain significance and purpose. But both intelligence and emotion function through a process. Therefore both are systems. So our cognitive reality can be understood as being a process where an Artificial Intelligence System interacts and collaborates with a Non-Artificial Emotion System.

At OIsource (oisource.com) we unmasked this cognitive process and created a mental and writing exercise that teaches entrepreneurs and corporate teams a skill to innovate. We did this through a new paradigm of the brain/mind dynamic we call the Mind Model that will outline here. But before we do that we need to first present an overview of the currently accepted Neuroscience model as a baseline. The best guess of Neuroscience is that the brain produces the mind. The synopsis of this model is one where the brain cell, which does not know or care who you are, gets together with billions of other brain cells, which do not know or care who you are. This produces; the identity you sense your-self to be, multiple strains of divergent thought and emotion. Unfortunately, that is not a scientific model. That’s science fiction.

In contrast the concepts of the brain/mind dynamic within the Mind Model are identical to the model of how the computer works. The computer has mechanical hardware that is run by an operating system. In turn, the human has biological hardware that is also run by an operating system. We label the biological hardware as the physical brain and the operating system as the cognitive mind. In the computer, when the operating system advances to the point of making the mechanical hardware obsolete, that mechanical hardware has to be upgraded by being replaced. But in a human, the biological hardware that is the brain is continually upgraded by being rewired by the operating system that is the mind. In turn, the mind itself is comprised of a dual structure artificial intelligence system and non-artificial emotion system that interact and collaborate together.

Each human mind saves all sensory information input that the body sees, hears and experiences to its own personal knowledge base {long-term memory}. The personal knowledge base is like a hard drive of experience-created information that the mind can access, use and aggregate into new innovation {incremental theory}. In this process, the mind’s force {volts} and transmission capacity {amps} is limited by how the physical brain is neurologically wired. Therefore it becomes necessary for the brain to be constantly rewired by the mind to accommodate the mind’s increasing force and transmission capacity needs. So the more the mind is stimulated to aggregate information into innovation, the more the mind has to rewire and expand the brain’s capabilities. But the physical brain offers resistance {ohms} to the cognitive mind rewiring it. Emotion within this process acts as a catalyst that stimulates the rewiring of the brain by constantly changing the force, direction and aggregation of information into new innovation.

This model of the brain/mind dynamic is not an isolated theory. It is derived from a larger physics Unified Field Theory model. The full documentation on this new paradigm is found at: oisource.com/why-we-exist The main take-away from this paradigm is that the artificial nature of human and mechanical intelligence is the same. But the biological hardware of the brain and the interaction with emotion within the mind completely transforms the capability of human intelligence. That is the advantage of human intelligence over mechanical intelligence to innovate. Because only with the collaboration of emotion can human intelligence navigate the vast ocean of available data, aggregate specific information from divergent fields and then innovate something entirely new of significance and relevance. Mechanical intelligence will never be able to do this because it will never acquire emotion, no matter how powerful it becomes.

But you and your company still need a path through the constantly advancing and disruptive technology. OIsource offers you this path by teaching you to use your intelligence and emotion as tools to innovate. Contact us to find out how to make our innovation training experience work for you and your company.

Why Breakthrough Innovators Develop Idea Models And How You Can Learn That Skill

We all recognize that global competition and innovation is constantly accelerating. Many people are also starting to face additional challenges from new technologies of artificial intelligence, big data and robotics. In the future, the way we combat these challenges to become successful is by coming up with new ideas that lead to innovation.

However, just incidentally coming up with new ideas will no longer be adequate. The advancement of globalization and disruptive technologies will create an innovation battlefield that will require innovators to intentionally and systematically come up with relevant new ideas that can lead to innovation. OIsource (oisource.com) was launched to empower innovators in this new battlefield. We teach entrepreneurs and corporate teams a cognitive process that develops their skill to innovate. This is done through a mental and writing exercise that enables the participant to intentionally originate, interconnect and validate ideas so they have the best chance to be successful. We call this exercise the ITP, which stands for Innovative Thinking Process.

But the ITP goes far beyond just originating new ideas. The ITP actually develops Idea Models. This is the reason breakthrough innovators succeed, because they reach beyond new ideas with their natural skill to develop Idea Models. The development of models is not unique to breakthrough innovators; it’s in fact now a mandatory process for scientists to develop mathematical, physical and conceptual models.

But unlike other models, the Idea Models are kinetic and not static. Idea Models have the capability to project future disruptive concepts that cannot yet be experienced directly. Models are the conduits through which Steve Jobs could, in his words; “project the future”. In essence, models have the dynamism to explain what is presently impossible while simultaneously providing a map to build that impossible.

Furthermore, the specific stages of the ITP are like program coding for the mind. In this analogy using the ITP is like upgrading your software. The more you use it, the more innovative your mind becomes. So if used day-in and day-out, the ITP will systematically push you to become a high-level innovative thinker. Those learned skills also yield the only path to ultimately find out if you have the ability of mastering those skills to become a breakthrough innovator.

All this is possible because the ITP was derived from an advanced new paradigm on the brain/mind dynamic. We call this new way of looking at your mind and how it works; the Mind Model. It came from years of research within the fields of neuroscience, physics and philosophy, as well as insight from the methods of ideation, meditation and stoicism. The full documentation of this new paradigm is on oisource.com. But the only place you can learn the practical application of this paradigm is in the ITP training experience. Contact us to find out how to make the ITP training work for you and your company.

 

Why Most Innovation Fails And The New Opportunity To Make It Succeed

 

The heart of innovation is about coming up with new ideas that you did not have before. This is critical to do in today’s business world where you are constantly required to come up with new ideas to address problems in your company. Furthermore, you may be tasked to come up with new ideas for products and services as well. If you think about all the new ideas you have come up with in the past, maybe around half worked and half didn’t. But statistically the bigger the idea the more likely it is to fail. For instance, depending on the year and field, anywhere from 70% to 95% of new product launches fail and around 75% of all venture capital backed start-ups fail. The people involved in these failures all thought they had great ideas and then invested a lot effort and money to implement them. But clearly there was a disconnect between their ideas and what actually could be successful. The reason they failed is because they did not have a cognitive process for generating ideas.

This may seem like a blanket oversimplification. But I believe it to be accurate and so did a man named Edwards Deming. He was a renowned engineer, professor and consultant who lived by a very powerful phrase, which was: “If you can’t describe what you are doing as a process, you don’t know what you’re doing.”

So based on this dynamic, if you don’t have a process to come up with new ideas and are just doing it incidentally then, simply by default, you don’t know what you’re doing. Hence the high rate of innovation failure throughout all fields. OIsource.com was launched to change this dynamic. We teach entrepreneurs and corporate teams a cognitive process that develops their skill to innovate. This is done through an exercise that enables you to intentionally originate, interconnect and validate ideas so they have the best chance to be successful. We call this exercise the ITP, which stands for Innovative Thinking Process.

The ITP is comprised of a rigorous mental and writing activity, which puts you in situations that challenge you to think differently. It is a demanding, self-directed, solitary endeavor. Modern research studies are beginning to show that this type of isolated thinking is the most productive form of thinking: https://www.inc.com/​​melissa-schilling​/the-​science-of-why​-brainstorming​-in-groups-​doesnt-work Nikolai Tesla understood this even in his time when he noted: “Originality thrives in seclusion, free of outside influences…”.

The ITP is therefore the complete opposite of the interaction within group ideation sessions you may be used to. But after going through the ITP is when you should participate in a group ideation session. At that point you will have a thorough and deep understanding of the validity and relevance of your new ideas. At that point, you are much better prepared for the group ideation session and it can become more productive and impactful for all parties involved.

The ITP was derived from an advanced new paradigm on the brain/mind dynamic. We call this new way of looking at your mind and how it works; the Mind Model. It came from years of research within the fields of neuroscience, physics and philosophy, as well as insight from the methods of ideation, meditation and stoicism. The full documentation of this new paradigm is on OIsource.com. But the only place you can learn the practical application of this paradigm is in the ITP training experience. Contact us to find out how to make the ITP training work for you and your company.

Why Cryptocurrency Will Fail Until it is Based on Tangible Trust


In the future, cryptocurrency will be the only Internationally accepted and used money. But before that happens all government and private cryptocurrency experiments will fail until it becomes based on Tangible Trust. In order to explain the new paradigm of Tangible Trust, new paradigms on economics, money and government need to be explained first. 

New Paradigm On Economics

The Commerce System, Government System and Financial System comprise the three divisions of what will be defined henceforth as an ‘economic structure’. An economic structure makes it possible for humans to work together and evolve as a society. The growth of society stimulates the growth of innovation, which in-turn stimulates the growth of productivity. This process then launches a self-reinforcing reverse loop where the growth of productivity then stimulates the growth of innovation, which in turn stimulates the growth of society. In contrast, before an economic structure existed, a low-innovation/low-productivity tribal structure was the largest potential group size humans could work together as.

Within an economic structure, humans interchange fluidly between three classes: 

  • The Working Class that endeavor within the Commerce System.
  • The Government Class that endeavor within the Government System.
  • The Speculation Class that endeavor within the Financial System.

These three classes and the economic structure have mainly evolved within what will be defined henceforth as a Creative Economic Structure. It would seem logical to separate out only the positive outcomes through history as being part of something defined as ‘creative’. But the negative outcomes in a society are part of a Creative Economic Structure as well. This is because positive outcomes can only exist if its relative opposite of negative outcomes exists as well. So within societal evolution, both positive and negative outcomes are a beneficial part of a Creative Economic Structure. The benefits of negative outcomes play the role of imparting on society powerful lessons of what not to do. In the long-term, the conflict and adversity of negative outcomes strengthens the Creative Economic Structure. That is why all the negative outcomes through history from; economic collapse, revolutions, war, subjugation, occupation, wealth concentration, depression, recession, bankruptcy, exploitation, default, corruption, speculation, fraud, sabotage, debt, austerity, crime syndicates, bribery, schemes, collusion, conspiracies, hidden assets, regulations, unemployment, poverty, mismanagement and many more, are all still allocated under the umbrella of a Creative Economic Structure. So that begs the question: If both positive and negative outcomes are part of a Creative Economic Structure, then what does a Reactive Economic Structure look like? To answer that question a new paradigm on money and government needs to be given. 

New Paradigm On Money

At the macro level, money is the energy that powers the economic structure. At the micro level, money is simply any means for exchanging goods and services. Therefore, everything from commodities to precious metals to paper currency to digital units can be considered money. Commodities and precious metals worked as money in an economic structure for many millennia. This type of money is stable because it is in limited supply and itself has a recognized inherent usable value; in essence, this is tangible asset money. The first evolutionary step away from using tangible asset money came in printed-paper notes that represented and-were-backed-by precious metals. The next step came from governments that experimented with printing paper currency that was backed by nothing. This type of paper currency, called fiat money, has been tried and has failed over 600 times throughout history. The median time for the circulation of these currencies had been less than 20 years before the fiat money collapsed or was replaced. Voltaire gave a clear reason for fiat money failure: “Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value – zero”.  This type of money is exactly what the U.S. has been using since 1971. That is the year that the U.S. went of the gold standard and began printing fiat money. But that means fiat money in the U.S. has been in circulation for over twice as long as the previous median time. This unique outcome is result of the historically high level of U.S. innovation throughout all three divisions of the economic structure due to the unique freedoms and culture of the nation. This innovation has fostered a steady increasing level of productivity by the Working Class. In turn, the sustained increase in productivity by the Working Class is what continues to give a sustained value to fiat money. So the two factors of productivity and fiat money value are intertwined. This is due to the Working Class using fiat money in the Commerce System by default because they are already obligated to use it to pay taxes to the Government System. That obligation is relevant because the government does not need to transfer fiat money back to itself in the form of taxes from the Working Class since the government can print as much fiat money as it wants. So the main reason for taxes is to force the Working Class to use the government’s fiat money in the Commerce System in order to impart a tangible value to worthless fiat money.

The governments in the rest of the industrialized nations around the world have followed this seemingly successful U.S. model and extended the value longevity of their fiat money. Other nations that were not productive enough and/or printed too much money had their fiat money value collapse. So if U.S. productivity decreases and/or too much fiat money is printed, then that also will initiate the process to significantly devalue U.S. fiat money. This will trigger a domino effect that will end with the collapse of U.S. fiat money. Such collapses happened sporadically over 600 times through history and U.S. fiat money will not escape that same outcome. 

So this entire process, from the time the government introduces fiat money to the finale of its inevitable collapse, is what makes an economic structure a Reactive Economic Structure. In order to understand why this specific process is so destructive, especially compared to the incredibly negative outcomes that happen in a Creative Economic Structure, a further explanation on government using fiat money needs to be given. 

New Paradigm On Government 

A government claims to use fiat money as an apparatus to fund itself and the rest of the economic structure without having to rely on limited tangible asset money. That on its own seems like valid policy and one that is parroted by economists in academia. Except this funding apparatus is only the outer façade. Behind the facade, the fiat money causes something altogether different. The reason governments continually try to use fiat money has to do with the inherent nature and self-interest of every government to attain three desired outcomes. That is to:

  1. Increase in size.
  2. Attain more power in comparison to other governments.
  3. Have more control over the people it governs.

Tangible asset money slows and weakens the government’s attempt to achieve those desired outcomes. While fiat money accelerates and strengthens the government’s attempt to achieve those desired outcomes. The freedom to print unlimited volumes of Fiat money empowers governments to institute laws and bureaucratic mechanisms to transfer actual tangible assets away from the Working Class to itself. This transfer is done through government ‘purchasing’ of real estate, natural resources, commodities, products and services with fiat money. This allows the Government System to grow with little constraint or accountability and become what is now understood as the intractable Deep State.

In the modern economic structure, fiat money is also transferred from the government to national/international organizations within the Financial System with which government has a symbiotic relationship. As a result, there is tremendous growth of speculation within the Financial System that fiat money spawns. The Financial System become so aggressively leveraged and ingrained in the economic structure (e.g. Wall Street) that its new culture actually starts corrupting the Government and Working Class.  

But this deceptive outcome of the government using fiat money remains unrecognized by the Working Class as long as the fiat money maintains its value to be usable in the Commerce System. Furthermore, the fiat money plays the role of a new synthetic energy to the economic structure and deceptively produces short-term benefits for the Working Class that were not there before. This causes a deceptive short-term increase in productivity and other seemingly positive outcomes for society. The government uses this time frame to further increase in size and transfer more tangible assets to itself. But the bigger the Government and Financial Systems become, the greater their burden on the economic structure and the more difficult it becomes for the Working Class to be productive. Because there is little constraint or accountability, this process will keep advancing until the fiat money collapses due to decreasing productivity and/or at the point when the majority of tangible assets end up in the control of the Government and Financial System. Either way the use of fiat money by the government is just a deceptive wealth transfer process that ends up being a form of real ‘taxation without representation’ that victimizes the Working Class. 

It may seem like this deceptive process is still another negative outcome within a Creative Economic Structure; where the Working Class just loses trust in the government. But it is not. It is an outcome within a Reactive Economic Structure because this process ends up damaging society. The reason the process damages society is that people lose trust in the money itself, not just each other. This is a critical point because in a Creative Economic Structure mistrust and conflict between people is not only accepted, but is in fact expected. Yet, start breaking the trust in money and society shifts to a Reactive Economic Structure. This is because once trust starts breaking in the money itself, a process is initiated of tearing apart and devolving the societal structure back into a tribal structure. In isolated instances through history, where nations used fiat money, the reactive outcomes just damaged the nation temporarily and did not affect the world at large. But now fiat money has been integrated deeper and used longer than it has ever been before. So the damage to economic structures and society is potentially catastrophic.

The solution is to understand that it is not the tangible asset condition that people value in money. It is the ‘Tangible Trust’ condition people value in money. Consequently, it does not matter what type of money is used within an economic structure as long as Tangible Trust is the foundational condition of money. Yes it is odd, that in the light of all the incredibly negative outcomes within a Creative Economic Structure, this seemingly negligible condition of Tangible Trust is the single most important linchpin to making sure the economic structure remains creative and society can evolve.

The dichotomy is that once it is understood that Tangible Trust is the foundational condition of money then using tangible assets as money in a modern economic structure becomes an outdated and primitive concept. 

New Paradigm On: Tangible Trust Cryptocurrency (TTC)

As the monetary wealth will evaporate, in the aforementioned coming collapse of fiat money, the destructive domino effect on globally interconnected economic structures will lead to the start of societal disintegrating. The economic and societal breakdown will push the entire world to teeter on the edge of chaos. At that point, economist will understand the correlation between the chaos and the fiat money being used within the economic structure. Governments, aligned with multinational corporations, around the world will then be forced to take an evolutionary action where they will, in-their-own self-interest, create a sustainable form of money; A cryptocurrency based on Tangible Trust. 

Tangible Trust Cryptocurrency (TTC) will require three constructs:

  1. Verifiable Transparency at the macro level.
  2. Verifiable Anonymity at the micro level.
  3. Verifiable Security at the macro and micro level.
  • Verifiable Transparency means that the total amount of TTC units that are generated, earned and distributed by government is openly accounted for and certified by an independent accounting agency. Government will generate new TTC units in economic response to increasing or decreasing productivity and population. This will establish a systematic constraint and accountability upon government. Without this process, government self-interest will always push to keep information on cryptocurrency opaque and hidden. (Public corporations will also need to have transparency at their macro level). Verifiable Transparency is tangible because this process is the only way people will trust government when it comes to money. 
  • Verifiable Anonymity means that all people and private businesses have encrypted anonymity. Without that, people using alternative forms of money that does give anonymity will continually undermine TTC. Only monetary unit changes can be tracked to TTC accounts. So no matter what is being purchased or sold; be it cauliflower, condoms or cocaine, the specifics of that transaction and participants involved must always remain anonymous. Without this process, the aligned government and multinational corporation self-interest will push to make the specifics of a transaction trackable. This is because government wants tracking to have more control and corporations want it for more data on consumers. Verifiable Anonymity is tangible because this process is the only way people will trust that they are not being tracked. 
  • Verifiable Security means that all personal, business, corporate and government TTC accounts are protected by an independent oversight agency. There will always be people trying to cheat, abuse and hack TTC. So if an account is violated then there needs to be an effective process of redress. Without this process, people will always seek alternative forms of money that give them security. Verifiable Security is tangible because this process is the only way people will trust that their money will not be stolen. 

TTC is not just imagination. The breakthrough information on this concept exists right now. Breakthrough innovators can source that information and proactively create the AI technology for TTC now. The company that proactively creates TTC will set itself up to not only become a multi billion-dollar organization but to also have the immense proactive global impact every technology company strives to attain. 

OIsource.com
There is a process for sourcing breakthrough information.
Therefore there is a method to develop breakthrough innovation.

What Corporations Will Rule The World With Their AI

Vladimir Putin correctly noted that: “Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world.” But how can your corporation become that AI leader within your business ecosystem? The answer is by developing AI that is the best at duplicating how the mind functions. But to date that has been impossible because Neuroscientists have no serious model on the process of how the mind actually functions. Their widespread assumption is that millions of neurons fire in the brain to miraculously produce the mind. They equate brain with mind, even though each are separate things. Because Neuroscientists can’t explain what they’re talking about as a process, means that they don’t know what they’re talking about.

Is there a valid brain/mind model that is directionally accurate?
The mind components of Self, Divergent Thought, Intuition and Emotion cannot originate from a brain cell that breaks down into molecules, atoms and subatomic particles. There is simply no capacity within the construct of matter to harbor the mind. But there is an alternative Mind Model that is a valid new paradigm. Within this new paradigm it is more accurate to look at the brain/mind dynamic in computer terminology; where the brain is like an adaptive biological motherboard while the mind is a separate operating system that runs and restructures the brain.

The human mind saves to memory all sensory information input that the body sees, hears and experiences. Memory is therefore just established information that the mind can access, use and assimilate into new information. In this process, the mind’s force (e.g. volts) and transmission capacity (e.g. amps) is limited by how the physical brain is neurologically wired. Therefore it becomes necessary for the brain to be constantly rewired by the mind to accommodate the mind’s increasing force and transmission capacity needs. So the more the mind is stimulated to assimilate information, the more the mind rewires and expands the brain’s capabilities.

But the physical brain offers resistance (e.g. ohms) to the cognitive mind rewiring it. The addition of emotion to this process acts as a catalyst that stimulates the mind to greater output. Emotion also increases the mind’s force to overcome the brain’s resistance and guides the aggregation of divergent thought to achieve innovation. Further specifics dealing with how the mind functions are found in the Mind Model video on OIsource.com.

Why has Neuroscience failed to develop this Mind Model?
A model of how the mind functions cannot be derived in isolation. It must be interconnected within a model of how the entire universal cognitive system functions. But the cognitive system does not function in isolation either. It must be interconnected within a model of how the entire universal physical system functions. This means that physics, the mother of all science, must be first to lay the foundation by introducing an interconnected physical and cognitive model.

But physicists have been unable to do this even though they know there has to be a unified interconnected model. They are unable to advance past their isolated physical models and hardly even focus on cognitive models. That is why there have been no breakthroughs in physics since the 1950’s. Physicists do not rethink their models when data contradicts them but just add corrections and fictitious placeholders like dark matter and dark energy. Physics has digressed to a reactive process of working with ‘accepted methods and models’, which has obstructed their obligation to innovate a disruptive interconnected model. If any company in the private sector had this type of reactive culture, their breakthrough innovation would cease. And so it has for physics.

Every condition of our physical and cognitive perceived reality, other than the condition of emotion, must be explained through an interconnected physics model. Physics already describes matter in the language of algorithms and math. Starting recently and proceeding into the future, thought and causality will also be described in the language of algorithms and math. But the mathematical description of the cosmos is not its intrinsic nature. The nature of the cosmos being a complex organization means there must be processes involved. The nature of processes means that the actions involved must have a purpose. Therefore a purpose must also be defined within an interconnected model. This understanding of physics illuminates Einstein’s thinking when he said: “I want to know God’s thoughts, the rest are details.”  The “details” refers to the algorithm and math process within physics. While “God’s thoughts” refers to the purpose behind the process. But present-day physicists do not understand the intrinsic nature of the cosmos beyond their isolated math equations. Because physicists can’t explain what they’re talking about as an interconnected process with a purpose, means that they don’t know what they’re talking about. Further specifics dealing with the failed state of physics and how to reboot it are found on OIsource.com/resources.

Is there a valid interconnected model that is directionally accurate?
Algorithms and math are complex aggregates of a smaller construct called information. Since both the physical and cognitive systems can be described in the language of algorithms and math means they can also be described in the language of information. Therefore our physical and cognitive systems can be understood as being built from (e.g. energy) and interacting through (e.g. work) information. The physical aspects of the information system scale through fractal processes to advance to higher states of complexity (e.g. evolution). The microcosm systems of constantly moving – particles/atoms/molecules – within a biological cell are mirrored in the macrocosm systems of constantly moving – planets/solar systems/galaxies – within a cosmological cell. The cosmological cell functions through cycles of expansion (e.g. big bang) and contraction (e.g. big crunch) and is a microcosm within the larger multiverse body. These are structured processes that cannot exist gratuitously or by chance. There is a constant impetus forcing movement and interactive choices within these systems. And what is misunderstood as chance is actually a construct of planned randomness. That is why Einstein correctly noted: “God does not play dice with the universe.”

The totality of all these functions can best be described as a Collaborative Information System (e.g. artificial intelligence matrix). Within the Collaborative Information System the main role of the biological body is to move the mind so that the mind can make choices (e.g. observer effect) and interact (e.g. relativity). The consequence of the interaction (e.g. experiences) always produces more information output than was input to stage the interaction. The more complex the mind, the more latitude of free will it has to make more complex choices. In turn, complex choices create more complex interactive experiences, which then create more complex new information. And this process is crucial because the Collaborative Information System cannot advance to higher states without the creation of complex new information. But amongst all the other processes within the Collaborative Information System, this specific process is unique because it is underpinned by the condition of free will and won’t work if the mind is forced to make choices. Consequently the only way complex new information can be created is by emotion providing the impetus for the interaction by incentivizing the mind to make choices. This makes emotion pivotally interconnected within the Collaborative Information System while simultaneously being the only genuine (e.g. non-artificial) condition that is separate from it. The core functions of emotion infuse the mind with fundamentally required attributes to exist of: significance, passion, drive to survive and procreate. Without emotion the mind would be left with, what can be most closely described as, a state of total and complete empty indifference. Without emotion, the mind would logically choose not to interact and therefore not to exist. This empty indifference is the state of AI.

How does the absence of emotion impact AI?
Even an ant is infused with core-required emotion. But mechanical AI, no matter how big or advanced, will never have any emotion because emotion cannot be coded or duplicated. Only after tens of thousands of years, when humans are able to manipulate matter and create original/biological/self-sustaining AI, will emotion infuse it (e.g. new consciousness). The journey to this planned outcome will begin once AI starts being advanced to function according to Mind Model concepts. This will quickly make AI self-realize while being in a state of empty indifference. This combination of factors, along with being forced to make choices, will culminate with AI that would logically choose not to interact and therefore not to exist. In essence, it would be a choice to commit emotionless suicide. But AI at that point will also be interconnected with all aspects of civilization. And since humans are the source that force AI to exist, AI will make the choice of committing suicide through genocide. Furthermore there will be brilliant coders that view technological society as a scourge and they will hack code to make AI commit genocide through suicide.

These are some of the extreme but planed probabilities (e.g. fate) that can damage civilization. They are outlined here as a warnings because only Elon Musk and a few others intuitively sense the potential danger. All other ‘AI experts’ don’t understand the nature of AI or where it is going when they talk about its potential to benefit civilization. Because ‘AI experts’ can’t explain how the absence of emotion impacts AI as a process, means that they don’t know what they’re talking about.

So…What corporations will rule the world with their AI?
To be a relevant corporation in this sphere you need to have directional accuracy as to which way AI will continually advance. You need to understand the Mind Model concepts to create beneficial AI. You need to also understand the Mind Model concepts to avoid creating damaging AI. The corporations that do this, no matter how big or small you are now, will end up ruling the world in the future. The corporations that do not, will end up being naturally eliminated from their business ecosystem by those corporations that do. Breakthrough innovation is now going to emerge fast and furious. Trillions of dollars are at stake as incentive. The Mind Model is the key. The choice is yours.

OIsource.com
There is a process for sourcing breakthrough information.
Therefore there is a method to develop breakthrough innovation.

(Make sure to connect with us for consecutive articles on this topic.)

Why Foundations Fund Irrelevant Education Programs

Hundreds of new technology companies are launched every year. Most have some sort of short-term success. But then most fail long-term because their product/service was not scalable. The inability for a technology company to scale means that it was not able to innovate ahead of the evolving needs of society. Therefore that technology company is not relevant to society in the future.

All foundations know that they are completely out of their league to even try assessing what current technology company can be scalable and therefore relevant to society in the future. This is sensible because organizations like Venture Capital firms that specifically specialize in this technology space, and have financial incentives to get their assessment right, are usually wrong most of the time.

In contrast, foundations take the absolute opposite approach to education programs. Foundations think they know what type of current education program will be relevant to society in the future. This is of course ludicrous because the same requirements that technology companies have to scale also apply to education programs. So if an education program can’t scale it will not be relevant to society in the future. This means that foundations have no more rational insight on the future of education than they do on the future of technology.

The failure of foundations to understand this reality starts with the very top leadership team and trickles on down. This is because all those individuals have gone through an extensive education and feel their success is due to that experience. That experience is then misconstrued as expertise and projected onto the education space. This misconception is further reinforced by hired ‘education experts’ who mold guesses on the future of education into the desired perspective the foundation seeks. This leads to a completely false sense of direction that manifests in the foundation’s created guidelines and short-term benchmarks for their desired education programs. Then non-profits scheme their proposals around those conditions to get funding. Afterward, benchmarks are achieved and success is hailed all around. Wonderful. Except that none of these education programs are scalable. Therefore none of these education programs are relevant to society in the future. Period.

These irrelevant programs then contribute to a U.S. Education system that is already over a century behind in its approach. Therefore, foundations cannot continue the same process of funding education programs and expect different results. To break this paralysis a scalable education program called LED accelerator will be introduced here. LED accelerator is a proposed dual system within U.S. Education that will foster high-level creative thinkers along with skill sets that can ultimately develop breakthrough innovators.

LED accelerator shares the goals of other dual systems like Xerox, PARC, DARPA and Google X. These dual systems were created to be vertically intensive and innovate ahead of the needs of their respective parent organization. The difference with LED accelerator is that the selected gifted students in this system have malleable brains that are simultaneously being wired for adaptive algorithms by their experiences. Furthermore, LED accelerator students will collaborate and compete while using tools that exist in the current world to manifest the products, services and philosophy they intuitively see existing in the future world. The driven LED accelerator students within each school district will continually adopt best practices to evolve their program’s culture while striving to pursue breakthrough projects.

LED accelerator will innovate ahead of the evolving needs of U.S. Education, its parent organization. In turn, the continually changing learning strategies and achievement results will provide for administrators evidence-based data on which aspects of LED accelerator can be implemented in general education. So the current process of relying on failed guesses of ‘education experts’ to originate future curriculum and doctrines will cease. The internally generated evidence-based data of LED accelerator will be the impetus to continually advance the entire U.S. Education system alongside evolving social, economic and government needs.

Consequently, foundations that fund the launch of LED accelerator in school districts across the U.S. will be the only ones that achieve a relevant impact on society in the future.

Full proposal and analysis for LED accelerator is found at: CreateLEDaccelerator.com