21 Lessons for C21

[Richard Tarleton]

...... if one fits useful categories for exclusionary scapegoating when questioning things which go wrong that are intrinsic to inbuilt systemic malfunction is judged subversive. It's easy to claim such people mad or dangerous. But it's difficult to get the playing out of consequential psychological and associated sociological symptomatisations without recourse to various metanarrativised approaches capable, in combination, of teasing out where the interconnections are for carefully thought through actions to change the political power balances and status quos that reproduce them.

One nodal point germane to this discussion is using the power of concentrated attention, already being exploited by makers of computer games, in reformatting mindfulness away from the physical environment, including human face-to-face relations vital to (inter)personal development, maturation and the space vital for critical assessing sensory input to eclipse all associated thoughtfulness by wider sensory attenuation, thus helping create the robotic (or robotised) compliance vital to accepting whatever is thrown at the thus deracinated individual as inevitable and in all probability beneficial, without question.

S_A, I've read your post several times over the last couple of days and I'm struggling to work out what on earth you're on about Does it mean (wild guess) makers of computer games are trying to alter our consciousness so as to reduce our awareness of our surroundings and make us concentrate exclusively on their product?

One of the things I like about Harari is his ability to express really big ideas in language of the utmost clarity and simplicity....

Sorry.....

[Serial_Apologist]

S_A, I've read your post several times over the last couple of days and I'm struggling to work out what on earth you're on about Does it mean (wild guess) makers of computer games are trying to alter our consciousness so as to reduce our awareness of our surroundings and make us concentrate exclusively on their product?

One of the things I like about Harari is his ability to express really big ideas in language of the utmost clarity and simplicity....

Sorry.....

Yes, that is a small part of it!!!

(I'd better look up some Harari! )

[Richard Tarleton]

Yes, that is a small part of it!!!

(I'd better look up some Harari! )

(been away for a couple of days) - Looks as if the Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, is exploring similar territory judging by a review of his new book On The Future - only, judging by Tom Whipple's review in Saturday's Times, he doesn't seem to be saying a great deal that Harari hasn't already said (in Homo Deus). I like Whipple's description of him as a "sky half cloudy kind of astronomer"

[eighthobstruction]

....another thicket of academics on Start the Week today....of course....to me always like soft roe and hard roe placed about on twigs....

[Serial_Apologist]

Has everybody done their bit to ensure global temperatures do not rise the 3 degrees celsius predicted to trigger ireversible eco-destruction? I thought I had, just about, until a helpful leaflet posted by Southwark Council made me aware of just how much plastic stuff one is virtually forced to buy - alternatives either being near-impossible to obtain (the leaflet was, frankly, unhelpful there on suppliers) or, I expect, beyond the reach of all but the spending capacity of the wealthiest.

[Lat-Literal]

Where does one start (the week) on this? First, well done to him for his work which is better than someone not doing the work. Next, I think one has to dig below the Big Brotherish anxieties about algorithms knowing us better than we know ourselves. One of the reasons why a woman - a very, very, long term friend - ditched me was because, quote, "you know what I am thinking before I know and it is spooking me". I didn't have algorithms on her. I just happened to read her well. Thirdly - and linked to this - we are very much here in the area of character. Early on, he chooses as his example of proof of the all powerful algorithm sexuality and, of course, his own. He focusses on himself and separates out the visual. That is his own angle on it and fair enough. What it - and the algorithms lack - is the other senses and especially context. By definition of ordinary social organisation and incorporation as opposed to advanced individuality, the eyes in people go mostly to those of the same sex in conversation across the pub table or in sports or wherever heterosexually, albeit without philosophical standing back thought. That is the problem with such people. They always prefer to spend time in groups with people of their own gender looking at each other in talk.

Fourthly, I sympathise with his position on the dwindling role of gods as a positive force alongside or even against science. When you see ISIS twits parading on trucks with western artillery, it is money which is the motive and the religion is the dressing up of it. But at root, along with tribalism and territorialism which is no doubt part of the underbelly and warping of the religion itself, is the unconscious desire for higher ideals which are not far removed from the soul - camaraderie, community, mystery in life's journey, practical interactive reassurance etc. Fifthly, we the west always in a way lived by algorithms. The algorithms, for example, which required us to live by a very small number of radio and television stations. Today, the top down insistence that cancer or dementia or climate change or Brexit cannot be left out of any programme even if it is Steve Wright playing Whitney Houston into the fourth decade. That is an algorithm but not as technical as the ones on which he is focussed. Many of these people don't have proper music in their lives. This is a more important issue.

Sixthly, people have to be doing. If they aren't moving their lower regions, they have to be moving their upper regions. Scrolling is the new smoking. This new generation is far more confident but only in terms of being led. A part of this is economic, as money has been raised to a god in some and is needing to be acquired in desperate others. I don't do mobiles. I'm against them in principle and probably being on the verge of retinal detachment I'm not for them. Indeed, I think that the NHS in thirty years time is facing that condition as a given in almost everyone. But I did stretch my neck towards a late teenage woman on a train on my journeying just to see what she was taking in. It was something about a kid in a boy band, a throwaway about food which is increasingly something to be only looked at, and crucially "I'm surrounded by people and yet I feel so lonely". Well, yes, and how ironic. Away from the scroll, she could have had an interesting 30 seconds talking with me and longer with more interesting, attractive smelling people. Trains are only visually sexual and then not much. For goodness sake, if it was really about who doesn't look bad when walking on a beach, only the 18-25 year olds would be partnered. Everyone else would be travelling Britain alone.

[Richard Barrett]

We already know enough about human consciusness, don't we?

Do we? Do we even know what it is?

[Richard Tarleton]

Do we? Do we even know what it is?

Indeed. Harari discusses this very point, with reference to the possibility of AI developing consciousness, a favourite theme of sci fi movies. Intelligence and consciousness two very different things....computers may come to solve problems much better than mammals without ever developing feelings.....but it's not impossible that AI will not develop feelings of its own, we still don't know enough about consciousness to be sure. He suggests three possibilities -
1. Consciousness is somehow linked to organic biochemistry chemistry insuch a way that it will never be possible to create consciousness in non-organic systems.
2. Consciousness is not linked to organic biochemistry, but it is linked to intelligence in such a way that computers could develop consciousness, and computers will have to develop consciousness if they are to pass a certain threshold of intelligence.
3. There are no essential links between consciousness and either organic biochemistry or high intelligence. Hence computers might develop consciousness - but not necessarily, They could become super-intelligent while still having zero consciousness.

He has more to say on consciousness elsewhere in the book.

[Dave2002]

Yes, I am fed up, when trying to trace old friends, that their only online presence seems to be on Facebook or Linkedin, and I would have to register with one or the other to proceed to contact information. They thus remain uncontacted.

That is indeed a problem. I have so far held out completely against Facebook, and intend to continue to do so. I do have Linkedin, but have provided minimal information, and I don’t use it actively. I am totally against some of these online systems being adopted as a convenient means of accessing sites and information to the exclusion of any other. Thus they function as hard gatekeepers preventing people from access to data and to each other.

[Serial_Apologist]

That is indeed a problem. I have so far held out completely against Facebook, and intend to continue to do so. I do have Linkedin, but have provided minimal information, and I don’t use it actively. I am totally against some of these online systems being adopted as a convenient means of accessing sites and information to the exclusion of any other. Thus they function as hard gatekeepers preventing people from access to data and to each other.

I have noticed, too, an increasing tendency of on-line contact live TV programmes encouraging input to, eg, panel discussions, neglecting email messages, and increasingly Facebook as well, in favour of Twitter.

[Lat-Literal]

I do have further thoughts.

When a brief browse at an album by Mavis Staples sends a message that I might like Whitney Houston, it is hard not to think that the computer has some way to go. This is even more true when it believes I am crazy about Al Martino when it doesn't know that "Spanish Eyes" holds an endless fascination for me, having been on repeat play in the Lake District in 1973 during my longest wait at a table for a meal. It was, from recall, 3-4 hours. Perhaps once all of that has been stuck into the algorithm I will be in awe - at why the algorithm bothered.

This society really does need to define privacy for itself. Where it is wanted. Where it isn't. In some senses, it is a 20th Century concept. Those who were provided with work and homes by the local industrial baron in the 19th Century were wholly under his beady eye. And crammed in as people were, everyone knew about who was sleeping with who and precisely when, along with who was merely ill or at death's door. This was not actually viewed as a wonderful thing. But luckily there was a coping mechanism. Community. Ah, the nostalgia.

Our lives have come full circle in the name of freedom of expression and individual health yet there was that period beforehand when such things were rarely discussed. This was essentially privacy. No doubt many cracked under the strain of it but a part of it wasn't to do with the people themselves. It was to protect other people who were having slightly easier lives from a diet of what were inconsequentials to them and in some cases from doom and gloom misery. For the most part, I don't think people know these days what privacy they want. One moment it is all about talking therapies or their money making commercial equivalents and the next it is "she said this, he did that, it's objectionable and I didn't consent."

Personally, I see only one area of consistency. It is that nobody wants anyone to inspect what they have in their purses or wallets. Whether a computer is a threat to one's bank balance by knowing that one buys Branston beans in Tesco rather than Heinz beans in Morrisons is highly debatable. But I guess at that point it all starts to get a bit too close. It's the credit card version of the unwanted kiss at the office Christmas Party. Of course, if one were to ask some including me about an issue like noise, then, yes, that for us would be a part of the new privacy. The idea that we can want peaceful and even silent homes. But given increasing numbers that will soon too be part of history and for many quiet is their idea of hell.

We could, I suppose, then pan out to confusion between fantasy and reality. I would wager that for all the westerns that were produced long after the end of the first Wild West, the number of gun incidents they triggered internationally could be numbered on one hand. This is not so true of certain kinds of entertainment today. It remains to be seen, for example, if the sort of so-called statement a Childish Gambino likes to make about the state of society is one which only worsens it. But for thirty odd years, the American music, film and gaming industries have been playing a similarly lucrative "it could go in either direction" game. Whether it is linked to that "culture" or not, society has not become more cohesive and secure.

In all of these areas and more, information technology and even artificial intelligence interweaves. It isn't something especially new or distinct. Ever since the invention of radio and television, people have had an additional wall against which to place an ear and glass and an additional window to peer through. No one really thought of "the media" in that way until they were given the technological means of replying. This has developed acute anxieties that there is no longer the net curtain that enforced silence by media unknowingly enabled.

[Richard Tarleton]

I do have further thoughts.

When a brief browse at an album by Mavis Staples sends a message that I might like Whitney Houston, it is hard not to think that the computer has some way to go. This is even more true when it believes I am crazy about Al Martino when it doesn't know that "Spanish Eyes" holds an endless fascination for me, having been on repeat play in the Lake District in 1973 during my longest wait at a table for a meal. It was, from recall, 3-4 hours. Perhaps once all of that has been stuck into the algorithm I will be in awe - at why the algorithm bothered.

Indeed. The algorithms aren't making aesthetic judgements on your behalf (they can't), they're simply picking up on keywords. Harari discusses algorithms at length - he was even urged to change the description of his book for publication so that it would be picked up by the algorithms in the right way.

I know the feeling. I stayed at a mountain centre where someone had a tape with just two songs on it - the only music available - Bob Dylan's Desolation Row, and Linda Ronstadt's cover of Blue Bayou. Two faves to this day

[Dave2002]

I have noticed, too, an increasing tendency of on-line contact live TV programmes encouraging input to, eg, panel discussions, neglecting email messages, and increasingly Facebook as well, in favour of Twitter.

i have several Twitter accounts which I set up years ago to explore how the system could be used. All have been completely dormant for years, and never really became a “big thing’ - I did’t really want them to. To my surprise I did attract a few followers, but as I recall, I could count them on my fingers - probably of one hand. I am aware of some sensible uses for Twitter, but mostly I feel it is a waste of time. I’m not sure if Twitter is so aggressive (as for example Facebook) in trying to get other systems to use it as a key, and hence become a gatekeeper to data.

[Lat-Literal]

Indeed. The algorithms aren't making aesthetic judgements on your behalf (they can't), they're simply picking up on keywords. Harari discusses algorithms at length - he was even urged to change the description of his book for publication so that it would be picked up by the algorithms in the right way.

I know the feeling. I stayed at a mountain centre where someone had a tape with just two songs on it - the only music available - Bob Dylan's Desolation Row, and Linda Ronstadt's cover of Blue Bayou. Two faves to this day

Yes - exactly.