Hey, Mom! Talking to My Mother #643 - Sensoria - Musical Monday for 1704.10 - the State of the Hate Nation

Hey, Mom! Talking to My Mother #643 - Sensoria - Musical Monday for 1704.10 - the State of the Hate Nation

Hi Mom,

So, after falling a few days behind, I caught up yesterday in fury (some would say flurry) of posts (Wednesday through Sunday in about an hour).

Now I am ensconced in my Star Trek room in Sangren and doing my work (both for classes and for Calculus), and it's time for me to get another Musical Monday loaded here on the blog.

The other day, I was trying to get my wife to watch last week's eponymous video for last week's Musical Monday -- "Voodoo in my Blood" -- when she asked: "what the fuck is Musical Monday?"
Of course, this made me sad because she shouldn't need to ask that question.

Ah well...

I have also noticed that I am not getting as many likes as I would like on Facebook. Possibly the Facebook algorithm thwarts me by not showing my posts to very many people as I am not interacting with very many people. Of course, this makes me want to see the Facebook algorithm for constructing the "news feed."

That said, I created another playlist for this one (see link below) and named it for the song (and video) that I started with, which is Cabaret Voltaire's "Sensoria."

"Sensoria" is pronounced "Sense - Oh - Ree - Ah."

So, I start with Cabaret Voltaire, which is a band that I have been returning to a lot lately through the power of You Tube.

I had not meant for this to become an '80s fest, but the Google had other ideas.

I often let one song lead to the other, and so with this, Google's algorithm found like picks and formed the core of this playlist.

And so, this playlist comes from Cabaret Voltaire's song "Sensoria," which is the plural of "sensorium" as shown above.

Our "sensoria" need to be fully awake in the State of the Hate Nation and the rise of the new Hitler.

Believe me, I do not not write that idly. I have some more thoughts on this jackass who has usurped the highest office in our land and my very legitimate comparison of him to Hitler, and I will explore more of those thoughts later.

For now, these things.

I also plan to explore Cabaret Voltaire more later.

Cabaret Voltaire is like the Golden Fleece for me. I discovered them in a field trip to Chicago's great alternate music Heaven, Wax Trax, and then they were the band that I most wanted to know more about but had less access to in less progressive Kalamazoo, Michigan in the 1980s.

But now with the Internet...

Now with YOU TUBE, I can actually listen to the entire Cabaret Voltaire catalog.

And I can read about Cabaret Voltaire.

Check this out for Cabaret Voltaire stuff: http://brainwashed.com/cv/



FROM - http://brainwashed.com/common/htdocs/publications/cv-roar_13_1984.php?site=cv


CABARET VOLTAIRE
ROAR #13, 1984
[John Kevin White] recorded a Pax 12" with I Scream Brothers under the watchful production eye of Cabaret Voltaire.

What was it like having Cabaret Voltaire controlling the knobs and switches when you recorded at their Western Works studio?

They might not like this, but I'll say it. I'd worked with Cabaret Voltaire before, when I was with I Scream Brothers. I'll not dwell on that, because although the group was a major stepping stone for me, I don't really have a lot of respect for the other two members at all. We're not really on good terms now. We've slagged each other off y'know, they wasted a lot of my time. But anyway, I approached the Cabs again and said, "How about having a go with this? I'm doing a single for Marcus (Featherby of Pax Records)". He wanted me to do an anti-war single...

Weren't the tracks originally intended for the Pax "Wargasm" album?

Yes, for "Wargasm II". He said "John, record a couple of tracks for 'Wargasm 2'. I'd not specifically written an anti-war song, and I wouldn't have gone out of my way to write anti-war type tracks, but I did happen to have two things of that nature, "Just A Game" which speaks for itself, and "No Songs Tomorrow" which isn't so obvious, but it's the story of me killing a bird with an air-rifle as a teenager. But anyway, I approached the Cabs and they said "Yeah, why not. We're quite busy at the moment, but we've worked with you in the past and you've been here before. We seem to get on O.K.". Because they don't seem to have to do this sort of thing. They're not a commerical studio. If they don't like the person there's no reason at all why they should do it. They don't do it for money, because to be quite honest, the money you give them hardly justifies the time they spend with you. They must WANT to do it. So I went along for just one day because they were quite busy. And I was really knocked out with it at the time.

Digital assistance and credit: Simon Dell
© ROAR, 1984

I decided to list all the songs up front here rather than adding text labels between the videos which already have titles on the display image.

SENSORIA PLAYLIST ON YOU TUBE

Cabaret Voltaire - "Sensoria"
Can "Vitamin C"
Shriekback "Nemesis"
Jenny Hval "Female Vampire"
Killing Joke "Love Like Blood"
The Cure "A Forest"
Echo and the Bunnymen "The Killing Moon"
Siouxsie and the Banshees "Kiss Them For Me"
CocoRosie - "Lemonade"
Bjork "Notget VR"

AND THEN, I find an amazing web site like https://postpunkmonk.com, which deserves more exploration.

For now, here's a piece from https://postpunkmonk.com, in 2012 about this particular song, "Sensoria," calling it seminal.

I knew I was on to something good...

FROM - https://postpunkmonk.com/2012/08/06/seminal-single-cabaret-voltaire-sensoria/

Seminal Single: Cabaret Voltaire – Sensoria

Posted on August 6, 2012by postpunkmonk

Virgin | UK | 12″ | 1984 | CVS 312

Cabaret Voltaire: Sensoria UK 12″ [1984]

1. Sensoria [12″ remix]
2. Cut The Damn Camera

I was fortunate enough to have heard Cabaret Voltaire from the point of their second album, “Voice Of America.” Their 1980 album really opened my ears to the more avant possibilities inherent in unpopular music, as it were. Their use of found audio collage, overlaid with a deliberate moral ambiguity atop their primitivistic, rhythmic, industrial grooves was inspiring to me and yet I only sampled the occasional Cab Volt record until I heard this record, and the coin dropped, as it were. I had bought “2×45” and “Eddie’s Out” from their Rough Trade period, but that was all. After hearing this, I rode the Cab Volt horse, but hard. It didn’t throw me until the band transitioned to their house phase [“Groovy, Laidback + Nasty”] where they lost me, but good!

I happened to see the video for this track on TV. I can’t recall if it was either Night Flight, Snub-TV or perhaps London Calling, but it hit like a bolt from the blue. The juxtaposition of an authoritarian preacher intoning the gospel of absolute servitude to one’s betters with slamming industrial beats 80 feet tall as well as a chorus of African women singing backing vocals was pretty singular at the time. The deeply insinuating vocals of Stephen Mallinder added their usual sinister appeal; all the moreso since Mallinder used only his phrasing to ratchet up the sense of menace in the music. Lesser bands in Cab Volt’s wake would pioneer what I called “ogre music” and rely on vocals run through FX and distortion pedals to attempt to achieve what came to Mallinder naturally [and subtly].

Unlike their avant garde trio phase on Rough Trade, the “imperial phase” of Cabaret V0ltaire coincided with the band being signed to Virgin through Stevo’s Some Bizzare label with the earlier year’s album “The Crackdown” being the harbinger of a new period of industrial funk for the band that saw them making me very happy indeed with each new release. Like their Sheffield pals Martyn Ware and Ian Craig Marsh of Heaven 17, Mallinder and his cohort Richard Kirk sought to meld avant garde electronics with soul and funk influences; but what made them diverge significantly from the path that Heaven 17 ultimately took was their allegiance to Burroughsian cut-up technique. Their willingness to juxtapose content that was not necessarily related in order to create a “third mind” scenario that was richly evocative for its unplanned randomness.

In that way, this single itself was a sterling example of an early mashup. The track is actually fabricated from two different Cabaret Voltaire songs off of their “Micro-Phonies” album on 1984: “Sensoria” and “Do Right.” The album versions of each bear some resemblance to this 12″ single, but the remix by John Potoker [with uncredited sonic glue courtesy of Robin “M” Scott] is a thing of wonder. A rare musical example of a whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Relentlessly pounding machine energy is given an injection of funk and ironic reactionary commentary via the preacher, who by giving a sermon on obeying your superiors, plays right into Cab Volt’s fascination with exposing and disrupting the control process. The result is a dancefloor devastator and an example of the “industrial music” ethos the band trailblazed with Throbbing Gristle for over a decade before it reached the point of slickness that is evidenced here. The point where Cabaret Voltaire became a genre unto them selves with many followers in their wake of the NIN and Skinny Puppy ilk.

"Sensoria"

His head is not his memory.
Visions coming, one, two, three.
Trickle up, trickle down.
Wearily, we come unwound.
Sensoria, sensoria, sensoria, sensoria.

In hard times, hard thrills.
Reaching for the chosen pills.
Dragnets will pull you in.
Tell you that you're deep in sin.
Sensoria, sensoria, sensoria, sensoria.

In hard times, hard thrills.
Reaching for the chosen pills.
Dragnets will pull you in.
Tell you that you're deep in sin.
Sensoria, sensoria, sensoria, sensoria.

Once you were a lonely playboy.
Heading for a simple joy.
Trickles up, trickles down.
Frankly, I don't give a damn.
Sensoria, sensoria, sensoria, sensoria.

In hard times, hard thrills.
Reaching for the chosen pills.
Dragnets will pull you in.
Tell you that you're deep in sin.
Sensoria, sensoria, sensoria, sensoria.

Her new father, where and when?
Reaching for a giddy end.
Like a girl on a rainy day.
Have the needs to keep it sane.
Sensoria, sensoria, sensoria, sensoria.

Senses reaching fever pitch.
Reaching for a giddy end.
Like a girl on a rainy day.
Have the needs to keep it sane.
Sensoria, sensoria, sensoria, sensoria.

His head is not his memory.
Visions coming, one, two, three.
Trickle up, trickle down.
Wearily, we come unwound.
In hard times, hard thrills.
Reaching for the chosen pills.
Dragnets will pull you in.
Tell you that you're deep in sin.
Sensoria, sensoria, sensoria, sensoria.
Sensoria, sensoria, sensoria, sensoria.

Have the needs to keep them sane.
Sensoria, sensoria, sensoria, sensoria.
Sensoria, sensoria, sensoria, sensoria.

Songwriters
RICHARD HAROLD KIRK, STEPHEN WILLIAM MALLINDER

Published by
Lyrics © Universal Music Publishing Group

Song Discussions is protected by U.S. Patent 9401941. Other patents pending.



Read more: Cabaret Voltaire - Sensoria Lyrics | MetroLyrics

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reflect and connect.

Have someone give you a kiss, and tell you that I love you.

I miss you so very much, Mom.

Talk to you tomorrow, Mom.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

- Days ago = 645 days ago

- Bloggery committed by chris tower - 1704.10 - 10:10

NOTE on time: When I post late, I had been posting at 7:10 a.m. because Google is on Pacific Time, and so this is really 10:10 EDT. However, it still shows up on the blog in Pacific time. So, I am going to start posting at 10:10 a.m. Pacific time, intending this to be 10:10 Eastern time. I know this only matters to me, and to you, Mom. But I am not going back and changing all the 7:10 a.m. times. But I will run this note for a while. Mom, you know that I am posting at 10:10 a.m. often because this is the time of your death.

Hey, Mom! Talking to My Mother #642 - Detroit Tigers Opening Day - 1704.07

Me at Opening Day 2017

Hey, Mom! Talking to My Mother #642 - Detroit Tigers Opening Day - 1704.07

Hi Mom,

I continued my run of going to Opening Day games once again. Went with Dad last year. This year, I went with my good friend Bruce "Fris" Johnson.

It was a nail biter of a game.

It was a game that convinced me yet again not to tweet during the game because I jinx the results.

Luckily, the Tigers pulled out this win in the end.

Here's various photos, Twitter messages, the box score, and recap.

I am blessed. I love going to opening day. It's a great treat, and it should be a NATIONAL holiday.

Since I am still catching up, I will leave off with those remarks for now.

GO TIGERS!!

FROM - http://www.espn.com/mlb/recap?gameId=370407106

DETROIT -- After seven runs, five walks, two lead changes and a parade of futile pitching changes, the eighth inning finally ended at Comerica Park.

What the Detroit bullpen squandered, the Boston relievers had given right back.

JaCoby Jones drew a bases-loaded walk in the bottom of the eighth, and the Tigers outlasted the flu-bitten Red Sox 6-5 on Friday to win their ninth straight home opener. Detroit allowed five runs in the top of the eighth, blowing a 4-0 lead in the process, but the Tigers scored twice in their half to take back the lead.

"Up and down the lineup, you had guys that were having good at-bats and passing the baton to the next guy," Detroit catcher James McCann said. "That just builds chemistry, builds camaraderie among ourselves as a team."

Red Sox stars Hanley Ramirez and Mookie Betts were ill and out of the lineup. Boston also was without shortstop Xander Bogaerts and reliever Matt Barnes, who are on the bereavement list.

Whoever won this game was going to do so in spite of its bullpen. The Tigers wasted their lead when Pablo Sandoval put the Red Sox ahead with a three-run homer off Francisco Rodriguez. Sandoval, who played in just three games last year before having shoulder surgery, hit a drive to left-center field on an 0-2 pitch for his first home run since Aug. 15, 2015.

The lead didn't last.

After Nicholas Castellanos and Miguel Cabrera struck out to start the Detroit eighth, Heath Hembree (0-1) walked two batters, and pinch-hitter Mikie Mahtook followed with a tying double off Robby Scott.

"He threw me a curveball and I was able to get a barrel on it," said Mahtook, who was playing his first home game for the Tigers after being acquired in the offseason.

Joe Kelly then allowed consecutive walks to McCann and Jones, forcing in the final run.

"Just yanking some fastballs to his glove side," Boston manager John Farrell said. "Missed down and away to right-handers where you're looking to finish off an inning. This one got away from us."

Mahtook made another important play in the ninth. With a man on first, Rodriguez (1-0) allowed a two-out double by Mitch Moreland. Mahtook reached the ball in the right-field corner and threw it in quickly enough to make the lead runner stop at third.

"If he bobbles that ball, if he doesn't field that ball cleanly, it's a tie ballgame," McCann said.

Before the bullpens got involved, Detroit's Michael Fulmer pitched six scoreless innings. The reigning American League Rookie of the Year allowed four hits and two walks, striking out four.

Boston knuckleballer Steven Wright allowed four runs and seven hits in 6 2/3 innings.

McCann's two-run homer made it 4-0 in the seventh, but relievers Bruce Rondon and Alex Wilson were able to get only one out apiece in the top of the eighth, forcing Rodriguez to come in and face Sandoval with two outs and runners on first and third.

"I got ahead of him 0-2, and then just threw an extremely bad pitch over the plate," Rodriguez said. "You guys know what was the result."

REMEMBERING ILITCH

The Tigers played a video tribute before the game honoring owner Mike Ilitch, who died shortly before the start of spring training. A large "Mr. I" was cut into the grass in center field and also appeared in a circle to the left of home plate and on a flag beyond the wall in left-center.

DEBUT

Boston reliever Ben Taylor made his major league debut in the seventh, striking out the only hitter he faced. He was in line for the win after Sandoval's homer, but the Red Sox couldn't hold on.

TRAINER'S ROOM

Red Sox: Betts and Brock Holt both sat out Wednesday's win over Pittsburgh because of illness. Holt was in the starting lineup Friday as the designated hitter and went 1 for 2 with a walk before being lifted for a pinch-hitter in the seventh.

Tigers: Detroit is without RF J.D. Martinez, who is recovering from a sprained right foot. Tyler Collins, who started Friday in right, misjudged a flyball in the seventh for an error -- but he also had two hits.

UP NEXT

Red Sox: LHP Eduardo Rodriguez takes the mound against Detroit on Saturday. Rodriguez posted a 3.24 ERA after the All-Star break last season.

Tigers: RHP Jordan Zimmermann starts for the Tigers. He went 9-7 with a 4.87 ERA last year, when he was bothered by neck issues.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reflect and connect.

Have someone give you a kiss, and tell you that I love you.

I miss you so very much, Mom.

Talk to you tomorrow, Mom.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

- Days ago = 644 days ago

- Bloggery committed by chris tower - 1704.09 - 10:10

NOTE on time: When I post late, I had been posting at 7:10 a.m. because Google is on Pacific Time, and so this is really 10:10 EDT. However, it still shows up on the blog in Pacific time. So, I am going to start posting at 10:10 a.m. Pacific time, intending this to be 10:10 Eastern time. I know this only matters to me, and to you, Mom. But I am not going back and changing all the 7:10 a.m. times. But I will run this note for a while. Mom, you know that I am posting at 10:10 a.m. often because this is the time of your death.

Hey, Mom! Talking to My Mother #641 - Preparing for our posthuman future of artificial intelligence

Hey, Mom! Talking to My Mother #641 - Preparing for our posthuman future of artificial intelligence

Hi Mom,

Still in catch up mode.

I own a lot of David Brin books and yet have not read enough,. I have many in my to read book case, including Existence, his latest. This is a project to which I should devote myself.

Meanwhile this is here for me to read. Maybe others will be interested.

After all, I have always liked show and tell.

from - http://www.kurzweilai.net/preparing-for-our-posthuman-future-of-artificial-intelligence

Preparing for our posthuman future of artificial intelligence

March 9, 2017

(credit: iStock)

By David Brin

“Each generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it.” – George Orwell

What will happen as we enter the era of human augmentation, artificial intelligence and government-by-algorithm? James Barrat, author of Our Final Invention, said: “Coexisting safely and ethically with intelligent machines is the central challenge of the twenty-first century.”

(credit: Prometheus Books)

A lot of folks are earnestly exploring the topic. “Will scientists soon be able to create supercomputers that can read a newspaper with understanding, or write a news story, or create novels, or even formulate laws?” asks J. Storrs Hall in Beyond AI: Creating the Conscience of the Machine (2007). “And if machine intelligence advances beyond human intelligence, will we need to start talking about a computer’s intentions?”

Sharing this concern, SpaceX/Tesla entrepreneur Elon Musk has joined with Y Combinator founder Sam Altman to establish OpenAI, an endeavor that aims to keep artificial intelligence research — and its products — accountable by maximizing transparency and openness.

Among the most-worried is Swiss author Gerd Leonhard, whose new book Technology Vs. Humanity: The Coming Clash Between Man and Machine, coins an interesting term, “androrithm,” to contrast with the algorithms that are implemented in every digital calculating engine or computer. Some foresee algorithms ruling the world with the inexorable automaticity of reflex, and Leonhard asks: “Will we live in a world where data and algorithms triumph over androrithms… i.e., all that stuff that makes us human?”

Will we see the explosive or exponential transitions predicted by Vernor Vinge, who gave “singularity” its modern meaning, or as championed by Ray Kurzweil? Day-in, day-out, we are only somewhat aware of rapid change, since we swim along inside its current. But Leonhard illustrates how swiftly a singularity crisis may come on, by referring to a line from Ernest Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises:

“How did you go bankrupt?”

“Two ways. Gradually and then suddenly.”

Comments Leonhard:

“Exponentially and the “gradually then suddenly” phenomenon are essential to understand when creating our future… Increasingly, we will see humble beginnings of a huge opportunity or threat. And then, all of a sudden, it is either gone and forgotten or it is here, now, and much bigger than imagined. Think of solar energy, digital currencies, or autonomous vehicles: All took a long time to play out, but all of a sudden, they’re here and they’re roaring. Those who adapt too slowly or fail to foresee the pivot points will suffer the consequences.”

He adds: “wait and see is very likely going to mean waiting to become irrelevant.”

Leonhard expresses urgency for civilization to apply humanist values to the coming transition. Unlike Francis Fukayama, whose Our Posthuman Future exudes loathing for tech-driven disruption of old ways and urges renunciation, Leonhard accepts that major changes are inevitable and won’t be all-bad. He is friendly to many in the “Humanity Plus” community and shows an awareness of science fiction (SF) as a medium for scenario exploration.

(I do find it troubling that so many pundits give nods toward SF, yet seem to have read nothing since William Gibson’s Neuromancer, whose simplistic preachings and redolent cynicism now seem rather quaint, unhelpful, and long in the tooth. That perennial citation is starting to seem perfunctory, even discrediting.)

Nevertheless, after a very interesting first portion, Technology Vs. Humanity thereupon devolves into the kind of repetitious proselytization that can be distilled into two sentences:

• We should all try to retain mastery over mechanisms that cannot ever have any ethical constraints of their own.
• All that we hold dear will be doomed, unless we consistently, forcefully and perpetually apply upon our tools moral standards that have served humanity to this point.

That is quite a double-barreled onus! A prospective task that seems –– peering ahead across future generations –– rather exhausting.

---

Technology vs. Humanity by Gerd Leonhard: About the book

Artificial intelligence. Cognitive computing. The Singularity. Digital obesity. Printed food. The Internet of Things. The death of privacy. The end of work-as-we-know-it, and radical longevity: The imminent clash between technology and humanity is already rushing towards us. What moral values are you prepared to stand up for—before being human alters its meaning forever? Before it’s too late, we must stop and ask the big questions: How do we embrace technology without becoming it? When it happens — gradually, then suddenly — the machine era will create the greatest watershed in human life on Earth. 

---

Exploring analogous territory (and equipped with a very similar cover), Heartificial Intelligence by John C. Havens also explores the looming prospect of all-controlling algorithms and smart machines, diving into questions and proposals that overlap with Leonhard. “We need to create ethical standards for the artificial intelligence usurping our lives and allow individuals to control their identity, based on their values,” Havens writes.

Mark Anderson of the Strategic News Service pondered the onrush of devices that might meddle in our minds and hearts:

“Frank Lloyd Wright is rumored to have once boasted that he could design a house which…could lead the inhabitants to fall in love, or to get divorced. If this was even partly true of building architecture…then what of the architecture of those who will be holding, and reacting to, our innermost secrets? How will a new user know that she is using a bot with bad performance statistics? Should there be different levels of ethical certification for bots involved with selling shoes on Amazon, compared to counseling or doing Watson-like medical diagnoses?”

Making a virtue of the hand we Homo sapiens are dealt, Havens maintains: “Our frailty is one of the key factors that distinguish us from machines.”

Which seems intuitive till you recall that almost no mechanism in history has ever worked for as long, as resiliently or consistently, as a healthy 70 year old human being has, recovering from countless shocks and adapting to innumerable surprising changes. Still, he makes a strong (if obvious) point that “the future of happiness is dependent on teaching our machines what we value most.”

The Optimists Strike Back!

(credit: Tor Books)

In sharp contrast to those worriers is Ray Kurzweil’s The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence, which posits that our cybernetic children will be as capable as our biological ones, at one key and central aptitude — learning from both parental instruction and experience how to play well with others.

This will be especially likely if (as I posit in Existence) AI researchers come to a too-long delayed realization — that we know of only one way that intelligence ever actually came about in this universe: through upbringing in human homes. Through interfacing with the world relentlessly in the physical, personal and cultural feedback loops of childhood. Indeed — and here’s an irony — this is the only scenario under which the urgings of Leonhard and Havens and so many others have even a remote chance of coming true.

(credit: Oxford University Press)

Well, there is one other way, elucidated in Robin Hanson’s new book: The Age of Em. In that startlingly original and well-thought-out tome, Hanson wagers that AI can only happen in the near term by emulating the brain activity and working minds of actual, living humans. Such doppeled copies — (a little like e-versions of my dittoes, in Kiln People) — might proliferate in “matrix” style software worlds, spawning billions, trillions and even quadrillions of copies, all of them based upon a selection of original human beings. Originals whose own versions of human morality and spirituality become templates to pass down the line.

Hence — according to Hanson — such cyber-emulated descendants would be inherently capable of ethics, since they are based on us … though they might later veer into new cultures as different from ours as Shogun-era Japan was from the Yanamamo, or Aztecs, or Tibetans, or attendees at Burning Man.

A Failed Prescription

Gerd Leonhard seems aware, at least surficially, that culture makes a difference. Moreover he sniffs, scenting danger in optimism:

“…To me, it is clear that technological determinism and a global version of the “California ideology” (as in “Why don’t we just invent our way out of this, have fun, make lots of money while improving the lives of billions of people with these amazing new technologies?”) could prove to be just as lazy — and dangerous — as Luddism.”

A former resident of Silicon Valley, Leonhard is welcome to his opinion. Though I also find it ironic. For example, he preaches that STEM educations should be accompanied by exposure to humanities and ethics and all that, in order to generate innovators who are also grounded in history and values …

… while appearing to ignore the plain fact that that is exactly what happens in Californian schools and especially that state’s glorious universities, far more than anywhere else on the planet. Indeed, it is only in North America that all universities fully implement a fourth year in their baccalaureate programs, consisting of “breadth requirements,” so that science and engineering types must take a full year of humanistic courses … while arts, humanities or other “soft” majors must imbibe enough science survey classes to foster at least marginally aware citizens.

(Proof of this? The U.S. almost always scores among the top three in “adult science literacy” and often number one. I explain this elsewhere, so don’t let your head explode with cognitive dissonance.)

In his book Machines of Loving Grace, John Markoff writes, “The best way to answer the hard questions about control in a world full of smart machines is by understanding the values of those who are actually building these systems.” It is an open question whether the yin or the yang side of Silicon Valley culture … or else the new, state controlled tech centers in China, for example … take this obligation down paths of responsibility.

Gerd Leonhard coins a term: “Exponential Humanism.”   “Through this philosophy, I believe we can find a balanced way forward that will allow us to both embrace technology but not become technology in the process.” Nor do I disagree with the general desideratum. The conversation he calls for is essential!

Alas, Leonhard then goes on to present checklists, then more checklists, of things we ought to do and/or not-do, in order to retain our humanity, control and values. Take this agenda as a sample:

I propose that we devise a test that gauges all new scientific and technological breakthroughs according to questions such as:

• Does this idea violate the human rights of anyone involved?
• Does this idea substitute human relationships with machine relationships?
• Does this idea put efficiency over humanity?
• Does this idea put economics and profits over the most basic human ethics?
• Does this idea automate something that should not be automated?

I don’t mind checklists, and these certainly contain wisdom. But Leonhard offers no details about how to pass and enforce such rules. By worldwide consensus among those who read Technology vs. Humanity? By legislation? Orwellian fiat? Nor does he speak of enforcement; what is to be done about dissenters or those who reject renunciation?

A Method That Is Truly Human

(credit: Free Press)

Again and again, from techno skeptics like Leonhard and Havens and so many others, we hear that “technology has no ethics.”

Well, I am not so sure about that. Nor is Kurzweil, whose Age of Spiritual Machines suggests otherwise. Or Kevin Kelly, whose What Technology Wants and The Inevitable propose simple process solutions to the dilemma of encouraging decent outcomes and behavior.

Nor Peter Diamandis, whose Abundance impudently forecasts a post-scarcity future, when spectacularly wealthy citizens can partner with cyber entities and explore values together. Nor Isaac Asimov, who foresaw robots caring deeply about moral issues, over the long stretch of time.

But let’s go along with Havens and Leonhard and accept the premise that “technology has no ethics.” In that case, the answer is simple.

Then don’t rely on ethics! Certainly evangelization has not had the desired effect — fostering good and decent behavior where it matter most — in the past. Seriously, I will give a cookie to the first modern pundit I come across who ponders human history, taking perspective from the long ages of brutal, feudal darkness endured by our ancestors.

Across all of those harsh millennia, people could sense that something was wrong. Cruelty and savagery, tyranny and unfairness vastly amplified the already unsupportable misery of disease and grinding poverty. Hence, well-meaning men and women donned priestly robes and … preached!

They lectured and chided. They threatened damnation and offered heavenly rewards. Their intellectual cream concocted incantations of either faith or reason, or moral suasion. From Hindu and Buddhist sutras to polytheistic pantheons to Judeao-Christian-Muslim laws and rituals, we have been urged to behave better by sincere finger-waggers since time immemorial. Until finally, a couple of hundred years ago, some bright guys turned to all the priests and prescribers and asked a simple question:

“How’s that working out for you?”

(credit: Harper Prism)

In fact, while moralistic lecturing might sway normal people a bit toward better behavior, it never affects the worst human predators, parasites and abusers — just as it won’t divert the most malignant machines. Indeed, moralizing often empowers them, offering ways to rationalize exploiting others.

Even Asimov’s fabled robots — driven and constrained by his checklist of unbendingly benevolent, humano-centric Three Laws — eventually get smart enough to become lawyers. Whereupon they proceed to interpret the embedded ethical codes however they want. (See how I resolve this in Foundation’s Triumph.)

And yet, preachers never stopped. Nor should they; ethics are important! But more as a metric tool, revealing to us how we’re doing. How we change. For decent people, ethics are the mirror in which we evaluate ourselves and hold ourselves accountable.

And that realization was what led to a new technique. Something enlightenment pragmatists decided to try, a couple of centuries ago. A trick, a method, that enabled us at last to rise above a mire of kings and priests and scolds. The secret sauce of our success is —

— accountability. Creating a civilization that is flat and open and free enough — empowering so many that predators and parasites may be confronted by the entities who most care about stopping predation, their victims. One in which politicians and elites see their potential range of actions limited by law and by the scrutiny of citizens. Does this newer method work as well as it should? Hell no!

Does it work better than every single other system ever tried, including those filled to overflowing with moralizers? Better than all of them combined? By light years?

Yes, indeed.

We may not be, by nature, highly moral creatures. But we do know how to be persnickety. Suspicious. Judgmental. Accusatory. Demanding. Those we do with spectacular skill and passion. And while these traits often wrought vileness, in hierarchies of old, we have harnessed them into arenas wherein positive sum, win-win outcomes pour forth, catching and staunching many evils. Detecting and amplifying so many good things.

Moreover, this may be the proper way to deal with ethics-deficient technology. As citizens and users, we need to stay judgmental, applying accountability via markets, democracy, science and courts –– and public opinion –– upon those companies and cyber entities who behave in ways we find unethical. Or inhuman. The specifics of implementation will change, with time. (We’ll need new, technological tools for applying accountability.) B

ut this is the way that Ray Kurzweil’s vaunted singularity machines will learn to be “spiritual.” The kind and friendly ones will do better than their unethical competitors … because the good guy machines will have us — the Olde Race — as allies against the meanie-bots. And yes, it might boil down to just that.

Alas, the glory of our era — this technique that underlies our positive-sum games — seems so poorly understood that many of our best minds never grasp the method in its essence, believing instead that we’ll cross the minefield ahead by chiding.

Gerd Leonhard, in Technology vs. Humanity, offers us a Hegelian dialectic of sorts. Between two dismal theses — the blithe techno-transcendentalism of Ray Kurzweil and the renunciatory nostalgia of Francis Fukayama — Leonhard rightly pleads for caution, for a middle-ground synthesis, though leaning a bit toward Fukayama. Leonhard frets over plans to embrace and incorporate tech-prosthetics into human existence. “Because it would be a reduction, not an expansion, of who we are, it would no longer be empowerment but enslavement. …”

To which I must reply: how the heck do you know that?

All of them, spanning the current spectrum of discourse from Kurzweil and Peter Diamandis to Leonhard and Havens all the way to Fukayama and religious fundamentalists, seem bent on making grand declarations. Yet, those who would lay down lists of demands and prescriptions make a shared assumption, the same one proclaimed by Plato and so many other dogmatists: that they know the way of things better than our descendants will!

Recall the quotation from George Orwell that opened this article: “Each generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it.” Shall we then demand that our children and grandchildren — perhaps a bit augmented and smarter than us, but certainly vastly more knowledgeable — ought to follow blueprints that we lay down? Like Cro-Magnon hunters telling us never to forget rituals for propitiating the mammoth spirits? Or bronze age herdsmen telling us how to make love?

Ben Franklin and his apprentices led a conspiracy against kings and priests, crafting systems of accountability not in order to tell their descendants how to live, but in order to leave those later citizens the widest range of options. It is that flexibility — wrought by free speech, open inquiry, due process and above all reciprocal accountability — that lent us our most precious sovereign power. To learn from mistakes and try new things, innovating along a positive-sum flow called progress.

We did not need specifics from the Founders; indeed, it proved desperately important for later generations to toss out many of their crude biases! Nor will our heirs need or benefit from explicit lists and prescriptions laid down by well-meaning authors in 2016. Because they will be both smarter and wiser than us, or we’ll have failed.

Will they be smarter and wiser in part because of technology? That seems likely. Might they have solved many of the quandaries that fret us … only to encounter others that we cannot imagine? Also very likely.

Might some of our practical and moral decisions right now either aid or impede that growth? Of course. That is why I bother to engage this topic and read all these earnestly sincere tomes about the future!

But our job is not to delineate or prescribe. It is to find enough of the errors and calamities in advance, cancel those we can, and build enough virtuous cycles so that our children may stand on our shoulders, doing and achieving and pondering and making ethical decisions for their own time. Doing all of that both clumsily and brilliantly. And then yammering too much advice at their own heirs.

Originally published in Omni

(credit: David Brin)

David Brin is a scientist, public speaker, and world-known author. His novels have been New York Times Bestsellers, winning multiple Hugo, Nebula and other awards. At least a dozen have been translated into more than twenty languages.

David’s latest novel, Existence, is set forty years ahead, in a near future when human survival seems to teeter along not just on one tightrope, but dozens, with as many hopeful trends and breakthroughs as dangers… a world we already see ahead. Only one day an astronaut snares a small, crystalline object from space. It appears to contain a message, even visitors within. Peeling back layer after layer of motives and secrets may offer opportunities, or deadly peril.

David’s non-fiction book, The Transparent Society: Will Technology Make Us Choose Between Freedom and Privacy?, deals with secrecy in the modern world. It won the Freedom of Speech Award from the American Library Association.

A 1998 movie, directed by Kevin Costner, was loosely based on his post-apocalyptic novel, The Postman. Brin’s 1989 ecological thriller, Earth, foreshadowed global warming, cyberwarfare and near-future trends such as the World Wide Web. David’s novel Kiln People has been called a book of ideas disguised as a fast-moving and fun noir detective story, set in a future when new technology enables people to physically be in more than two places at once. A hardcover graphic novel The Life Eaters explored alternate outcomes to WWII, winning nominations and high praise.

David’s science fictional Uplift Universe explores a future when humans genetically engineer higher animals like dolphins to become equal members of our civilization. These include the award-winning Startide Rising, The Uplift War, Brightness Reef, Infinity’s Shore and Heaven’s Reach. He also recently tied up the loose ends left behind by the late Isaac Asimov: Foundation’s Triumph brings to a grand finale Asimov’s famed Foundation Universe.

Brin serves on advisory committees dealing with subjects as diverse as national defense and homeland security, astronomy and space exploration, SETI and nanotechnology, future/prediction and philanthropy.

As a public speaker, Brin shares unique insights — serious and humorous — about ways that changing technology may affect our future lives. He appears frequently on TV, including several episodes of “The Universe” and History Channel’s “Life After People.” He also was a regular cast member on “The ArciTECHS.”

Brin’s scientific work covers an eclectic range of topics, from astronautics, astronomy, and optics to alternative dispute resolution and the role of neoteny in human evolution. His Ph.D in Physics from UCSD,  the University of California at San Diego (the lab of nobelist Hannes Alfven), followed a masters in optics and an undergraduate degree in astrophysics from Caltech. He was a postdoctoral fellow at the California Space Institute. His technical patents directly confront some of the faults of old-fashioned screen-based interaction, aiming to improve the way human beings converse online.

(credit: David Brin)

Topics: AI/Robotics | Human Enhancement | Singularity/Futures | Social/Ethical/Legal | Survival/Defense

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reflect and connect.

Have someone give you a kiss, and tell you that I love you.

I miss you so very much, Mom.

Talk to you tomorrow, Mom.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

- Days ago = 643 days ago

- Bloggery committed by chris tower - 1704.08 - 10:10

NOTE on time: When I post late, I had been posting at 7:10 a.m. because Google is on Pacific Time, and so this is really 10:10 EDT. However, it still shows up on the blog in Pacific time. So, I am going to start posting at 10:10 a.m. Pacific time, intending this to be 10:10 Eastern time. I know this only matters to me, and to you, Mom. But I am not going back and changing all the 7:10 a.m. times. But I will run this note for a while. Mom, you know that I am posting at 10:10 a.m. often because this is the time of your death.

Hey, Mom! Talking to My Mother #640 - Space X plans Space Internet

Hey, Mom! Talking to My Mother #640 - Space X plans Space Internet

Hi Mom,

Still in catch up mode.

At Tigers opening day all day today, but that post will come later.

FROM: http://www.kurzweilai.net/space-x-is-pushing-hard-to-bring-the-internet-to-space

Space X plans global space internet

March 17, 2017

SpaceX has applied to the FCC to launch 11,943 satellites into low-Earth orbit, providing “ubiquitous high-bandwidth (up to 1Gbps per user, once fully deployed) broadband services for consumers and businesses in the U.S. and globally,” according to FCC applications.

Recent meetings with the FCC suggest that the plan now looks like “an increasingly feasible reality — particularly with 5G technologies just a few years away, promising new devices and new demand for data,” Verge reports.

Such a service will be particularly useful to rural areas, which have limited access to internet bandwidth.

Low-Earth orbit (at up to 2,000 kilometers, or 1,200 mi) ensures lower latency (communication delay between Earth and satellite) — making the service usable for voice communications via Skype, for example — compared to geosynchronous orbit (at 35,786 kilometers, or 22,000 miles), offered by Dish Network and other satellite ISP services.* The downside: it takes a lot more satellites to provide the coverage.

Boeing, Softbank-backed OneWeb (which hopes to “connect every school to the Internet by 2022″), Telesat, and others** have proposed similar services, possibly bringing the total number of satellites to about 20,000 in low and mid earth orbits in the 2020s, estimates Next Big Future.

* “SpaceX expects its latencies between 25 and 35ms, similar to the latencies measured for wired Internet services. Current satellite ISPs have latencies of 600ms or more, according to FCC measurements, notes Ars Technica.

** Audacy, Karousel, Kepler Communications, LeoSat, O3b, Space Norway,Theia Holdings, and ViaSat, according to Space News. The ITU [international counterpart of the FCC] has set rules preventing new constellations to interfere with established ground and satellite systems operating in the same frequencies. OneWeb, for example, has said it will basically switch off power as its satellites cross the equator so as not to disturb transmissions from geostationary-orbit satellites directly above and using Ku-band frequencies.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reflect and connect.

Have someone give you a kiss, and tell you that I love you.

I miss you so very much, Mom.

Talk to you tomorrow, Mom.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

- Days ago = 642 days ago

- Bloggery committed by chris tower - 1704.07 - 10:10

NOTE on time: When I post late, I had been posting at 7:10 a.m. because Google is on Pacific Time, and so this is really 10:10 EDT. However, it still shows up on the blog in Pacific time. So, I am going to start posting at 10:10 a.m. Pacific time, intending this to be 10:10 Eastern time. I know this only matters to me, and to you, Mom. But I am not going back and changing all the 7:10 a.m. times. But I will run this note for a while. Mom, you know that I am posting at 10:10 a.m. often because this is the time of your death.

Hey, Mom! Talking to My Mother #639 - Christmas 1966 - photo series one #20

Mom me and Dad Christmas_4 years_11 Months_ 12_25_1966

Hey, Mom! Talking to My Mother #639 - Christmas 1966 - photo series one #20

Hi Mom,

Still in catch up mode.

Like a lot of young boys in the 1960s, I might have said I want to be a fireman when I grow up.

I am four years old here (almost five).

In a year or two, I would say astronaut.

Because I am behind, I am letting the pictures speak more words.

I love the expression on my face here.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reflect and connect.

Have someone give you a kiss, and tell you that I love you.

I miss you so very much, Mom.

Talk to you tomorrow, Mom.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

- Days ago = 641 days ago

- Bloggery committed by chris tower - 1704.06 - 10:10

NOTE on time: When I post late, I had been posting at 7:10 a.m. because Google is on Pacific Time, and so this is really 10:10 EDT. However, it still shows up on the blog in Pacific time. So, I am going to start posting at 10:10 a.m. Pacific time, intending this to be 10:10 Eastern time. I know this only matters to me, and to you, Mom. But I am not going back and changing all the 7:10 a.m. times. But I will run this note for a while. Mom, you know that I am posting at 10:10 a.m. often because this is the time of your death.