Category Archives: Modern Day Communication.

THE BEADY SAY’S: TO ANCHOR OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CORONA VIRUS THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IS AND WILL BE VITAL.

27 Friday Mar 2020

Posted by in 2020: The year we need to change., Communication., CORONA VIRUS., COVID-19, Democracy, DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Disconnection., Fake News., Freedom of the Press., Honesty., Human values., International solidarity., Life., Lock Down., Modern Day Communication., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Political Trust, Post - truth politics., Reality., Robot citizenship., Technology v Humanity, Telling the truth., The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Internet., The Obvious., The state of the World., The world to day., Truth, Truthfulness., Unanswered Questions., VALUES, What Needs to change in the World, World Leaders, World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

 

(Four-minute read) 


At the moment rightly so we are all preoccupied with the consequences of our own individual lives and all indicator point to world disaster on a scale not seen by most of us. 

However, if and when we return to a semblance of normal the freedom of the press will be in jeopardy when the blame game starts, which is inevitable. 

Why will it be?

Because the present pandemic marks the emergence of a new model of watchdog function, one that is neither purely networked nor purely traditional but is rather a mutualistic interaction between the two.

What globalization, technological integration and the general flattening of the world have done is to super empower individuals to such a degree that they can actually challenge any hierarchy—from a global bank to a nation-state—as individuals.

The fear that the decentralized network, with its capacity to empower individuals to challenge their governments or global banks, is not a democracy, but could lead to anarchy.

But the alternative is to give the government a veto over what its citizens are allowed to know.

There should be relentless exposure of politician or businessman, every evil practice, whether in politics, business, or social life if we are to change the world for a better future.

False news forces us to ask how comfortable we are with the actual shape of democratization created by the Internet. It circumvents the social and organizational
frameworks of traditional media, which played a large role in framing the
balance between freedom and responsibility of the press.

Many of the problems can be laid at the feet of the Internet—fragmentation of the audience and polarization of viewpoints.

We cannot afford as a polity to create classes of privileged speakers and
press agencies, and underclasses of networked information producers whose products we take into the public sphere when convenient, but whom we treat as susceptible to suppression when their publications become less palatable.

Doing so would severely undermine the quality of our public discourse.

The risk is that the government will support its preferred media models and that the
incumbent mass media players will, in turn, vilify and denigrate the newer
models in ways that make them more vulnerable to attack and shore up the
the privileged position of those incumbents in their role as a more reliable ally watchdog.

Clarifying that the freedom of the press extends to “every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion” and that liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer and individual bloggers. 

Social distancing must not be allowed to turn into ruling distancing.

 Long live WikiLeaks. 

An uncomfortable fact is that a free press in a democracy can be messy at the best of times with governments around the world underestimated the coronavirus the political exploitation of the outbreak is now a reality. 

Capturing the treatment of television is less comprehensive as it is a visual medium.

 

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: DOES ABSOLUTE TRUTH EXIST. IT IS EITHER ABSOLUTELY TRUE OR IT’S NOT. .

09 Monday Mar 2020

Posted by in 2020: The year we need to change., Fake News., Google Knowledge., Honesty., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Human values., Humanity., Modern Day Communication., Modern day life., Post - truth politics., Reality., Religious Beliefs., Social Media, Technology v Humanity, Telling the truth., The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., The state of the World., Truth, Truthfulness., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

 

Fifteen-minute read. 

You don’t have to belive but it helps for something to be true.

Our modern society often seems geared towards quick fixes, superficial relationships, material things.

We are bombarded with advertising and social media images but below this superficial level of experience, there are deeper truths.

The problem of determining the truth in current events (and in other areas) when we’re faced with conflicting views from thousands of media and Internet sources seems insurmountable. Does this make sense? Is it likely?

While accepting that no one is going to get everything right all the time without the truth aiming for equality is a recipe for disappointment.

So we enter into our search for truth by asking these vital questions:

Is truth the property of verbal and written language, or is it now visual and as such by-passes the chaotic problem of human perception and interpretation?

Or is truth assumed to exist in an abstract realm of correctly conceived ideas? 

Or is the truth the true knowledge of things as they are now, as they have been in the past, and as they will be in the future?

What does it mean to know the truth? 

The most valuable asset you can have is trusting but to have trust it must be true?

Pragmatic proofs are paraded daily on TV and Social media which are both promoted by unregulated platforms with unchallenged Fake News making convincing claims to “knowing.” 

Truth used to be conceived as a property of accurately stated words or accurately conceived ideas that correctly characterize world realities like the Corna virus outbreak that might turn out to be the modern-day catalyst to defining the truth.

Let’s start with death as it has a way of concreating the mind.

It is undeniable or is it.

We can’t know anything for certain, so the truth is in need of a God.

Without the Ressurection, Christianity would not exist.

We can’t imagine X being simultaneously true and false in the same manner. Another word if something is true, it’s not simultaneously false in the same way. 

How to “prove” it.

All truth is empirically or scientifically testable.

There are no eyewitnesses who watched Big Bang so the assumption that something came from nothing is propositional truth. It has been the big question facing humanity since mankind crawled from the primordial ooze – where did the universe come from?

If we consider the hypothetical proposition of the impact of finding life on another planet or it arriving on this planet it will not prove anyone theological system right or wrong, so our confused view of what is true will remain.  

For an example of this is.

If by deduction reasoning, verified against observed facts penguins exist.

But put another way, the claim “penguins exist” is itself a penguin.

That said if someone just refuses to acknowledge logic, it ends all rational discourse. You can’t logically prove anything to someone who denies logic.

So deduction depends upon the nature of assumptions.

These assumptions are not applicable universally because the premises from which they are deduced may not hold good at all time and places.  

There is a part of the world that we can’t see. 

Quantium Maths is a realm of reality that doesn’t consist of material things but of non-material forms. Quantum physics brings us a new kind of reality, provides us with direct suggestions of how we can live in accordance with the numinous realm of the universe.

But the meaning and purpose of our nature are anchored in the numinous realm of reality, not virtual reality. We usually take our thinking for granted, and the thoughts in our mind tell us a lot of things, but they say nothing about where they are coming from!

The word, “consciousness” derives from the Latin, “con” and “sciencia”, and it means a state of “knowing together” what is true and not true.

There is no plural form because there is only one consciousness.

Our concepts of truth evolve in the same way in which our bodies evolve.

For some reason, in our history, worldviews have always been accompanied by threats.

We believe that the evolution of concepts and their understanding is the true function of biological evolution. It is impossible to know, whether we are evolving with the cosmic mind, or whether it is merely our mind that has to evolve to a better understanding of a non-evolving cosmic order.

We are left with verifiable truth taking many paths based on observations which become intellectual toys that the real world may forget in the intellectual gymnastics and mathematical treatment of the observations.

The principle of noncontradiction cannot be established scientifically only by a witness. 

Once you concede that *an* absolute truth exists, a whole slew of truth statements come with it:  

It can’t be absolutely true since that would create a contradiction:

So if you remove all religious beliefs it is very easy subconsciously to absorb the truth.

An ascending process” in which facts are collected, arranged and then general conclusions are drawn in which we arrive at a generalisation on the basis of particular observed facts. This process is realistic because it is based on facts and explains to them as they actually are. But it can only show that the hypothesis is not inconsistent with the known facts.

In reality, the collection of data is not illuminating unless it is related to a hypothesis.

Either because it is committed to religion being false (e.g., they want to live a sinful lifestyle, so they need to convince themselves that God isn’t real, or at least, worth obeying), or because they’re too proud to admit defeat, or because they’re not really that interested in investigating the issue deeply, or simply because they don’t see things the same way that you do.        

The narrower the problem on the basis of logical reasoning the truer it becomes verified by observation. 

The penguin stands verified. It does not need a witness or scientifically proven. 

But truth relies on the axiom that things are either true or false: things that are false cannot be true, and things that are true cannot be false.

There exists absolute and knowable truth, outside of the realm of the natural sciences, and not subject to empirical and scientific testing.

All scientific knowledge is built upon a bed of metaphysical propositions that cannot be established scientifically. Where experiment is practically impossible, abstraction and analysis afford the only means of escape from those which complicate the problem so much.  

So many people hold wrong opinions simply because they’ve never thought deeply on the subject. And our culture is absolutely toxic with wrongheaded philosophical and religious views and now false news.   

I won’t say you are wrong if you won’t say I am. The argument depends totally on the rules of the logic game. Unfortunately because of Social media, our intellects are falling.  

We established the truth of the claim by the witness and not those who hide behind logically incoherent arguments removing themselves from the field of logical discussion.

The only thing to do (I presume) is to attempt to lure them back by showing that they’ve transgressed logic and are simply appealing to emotion?

Assuming that the public square should be devoid of religion; assuming that faith is irrational; etc. “Absolute truth exists” is absolutely true.

On the other hand, no one can know anything for certain, is sceptic’s absurdity.

This statement is a broad (self-refuting) metaphysical and epistemological claim.

To achieve a trusted world it requires a compromise of the cultures.  

At this point in our analysis, we might ask:

Does it all matter? Why should we care?

Our answer is the belief that happiness in this life can be found only by understanding the spiritual background of the universe, and by living in accordance with it. 

This means that we have to recognize the invisible background of reality and accept the importance of spirit in our life. Denying the transcendent aspects of our nature can lead to serious problems for our physical health and spiritual well being.

The truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth or someone may claim the right to tell it for you. 

Our task isn’t the task of slaves to technology, who have to serve their creator.

“If Materialism is false”, writes Imants Baruss “then what is true?”

What is true these days is that we economizing it.

Let people believe what they want, as long as those beliefs aren’t leading to hurtful or unlawful actions.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chuck in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WITH THE INFORMATION AGE ARE WE HEADING FOR CYBEROCRACY.

30 Monday Dec 2019

Posted by in Cyberocracy., Dehumanization., Digital age., DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Freedom, Google, HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Modern Day Communication., Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Political Trust, Populism., Reality., Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The state of the World., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

(Twenty-minute last post of the year read) 

 

Technology is not neutral or apolitical.

So information may very well come to succeed capital as a central theoretical concept for political and social philosophy.

The retrieval systems of the future are not going to retrieve facts but points of view. 

However, the weakness of databases is that they let you retrieve facts, while the strength of our culture over the past several hundred years has been our ability to take on multiple points of view.

The question is, will new technologies speed the collapse of closed societies and favour the spread of open ones. The information revolution empowers individuals, favours open societies, and portends a worldwide triumph for democracy—may not hold up as times change.

The revolution in global communications will forces all nations to reconsider traditional ways of thinking about national sovereignty.

We are witnessing this happing already with the rise of popularism – Election of Donal Trump and Boris Johnston, but the tools that a society uses to create and maintain itself are as central to human life as a hive is to bee life. However, mere tools aren’t enough. The tools are simply a way of channelling existing motivation.

The influence in the information age is indeed proving to revolve around symbolic politics and media-savvy — the ‘soft power’ aspects of influence.

The information revolution may well enable hybrid systems to take the form that does not fit standard distinctions between democracy and totalitarianism.  In these systems, part of the populace may be empowered to act more democratically than ever, but other parts may be subjected to new techniques of surveillance and control.

Technology with algorithms are leading to new hybrid amalgams of democratic and authoritarian tendencies, often in the same country, like China that is building a vast new sensory apparatus for watching what is happening in their own societies and around the world.

The new revolution in communications makes possible both an intense degree of centralization of power if the society decides to use it in that way, and large decentralization because of the multiplicity, diversity, and cheapness of the modes of communication.

Of all the uses to which the new technologies are being put, this may become one of the most important for the future of the state and its relationship to society.

So are we beginning to see the end of democracy and the beginning of Cyberocracy?   

Crime and terrorism are impelling new installations for watching cityscapes, monitoring communications, and mapping potential hotspots, but sensor networks are also being deployed for early warning and rapid response regarding many other concerns — disease outbreaks, forest protection.

However, the existence of democracy does not assure that the new technology will strengthen democratic tendencies and be used as a force for good rather than evil. 

The new technology may be a double-edged sword even in a democracy.

To this end, far from favouring democracy or totalitarianism, Cyberocracy may facilitate more advanced forms of both. It seems as likely to foster further divergence as convergence, and divergence has been as much the historical rule as convergence.

Citizens’ concerns about top-down surveillance may be countered by bottom-up “sousveillance” (or inverse surveillance), particularly if individuals wear personal devices for detecting and recording what is occurring in their vicinity.

One way or the other Cyberocracy will be a product of the information revolution, and it may slowly but radically affect who rules, how and why. That is, information and its control will become a dominant source of power, as a natural next step in political evolution.

Surplus information or monopoly information that is concentrated, guarded, and exploited for privileged economic and political purposes could and WILL most likely lead to Governance by social media platforms owned by Microsoft/ Apple/ Google/ Facebook/ Twitter.

When we change the way we communicate, we change society. 

The structure may be more open, the process more fluid, and the conventions redefined; but a hierarchy must still exist.

The history of previous technologies demonstrates that early in the life of new technology, people are likely to emphasize the efficiency effects and underestimate or overlook potential social system effects.

The information revolution is fostering more open and closed systems; more decentralization and centralization; more inclusionary and exclusionary communities; more privacy and surveillance; more freedom and authority; more democracy and new forms of totalitarianism.

The major impact will probably be felt in terms of the organization and behaviour of the modern bureaucratic state.

The hierarchical structuring of bureaucracies into offices, departments, and lines of authority may confound the flow of information that may be needed to deal with complex issues in today’s increasingly interconnected world.

Bureaucracy depends on going through channels and keeping the information in bounds; in contrast, Cyberocracy may place a premium on gaining information from any source, public or private. Technocracy emphasizes ‘hard’ quantitative and econometric skills, like programming and budgeting methodologies; in contrast, a Cyberocracy may bring a new emphasis on ‘soft’ symbolic, cultural, and psychological dimensions of policymaking and public opinion.

Why will any of this happen? 

Because the actual practice of freedom that we see emerging from the networked environment allows people to reach across national or social boundaries, across space and political division. It allows people to solve problems together in new associations that are outside the boundaries of formal, legal-political association.

As Cyberocracy develops, will governments become flatter, less hierarchical, more decentralized, with different kinds of middle-level officials and offices? 

Some may, but many may not. Governments [particularly repressive regimes] may not have the organizational flexibility and options that corporations have.

So where are we? 

Future trends:

  1. The advanced societies are developing new sensory apparatuses that people have barely begun to understand and use;
  2. A network-based social sector is emerging, distinct from the traditional public and private sectors.  Consisting largely of NGOs and NPOs, its rise is leading to a re-balancing of state, market, and civil-society forces;
  3. New modes of multiorganizational collaboration are taking shape, and progress toward networked governance is occurring;
  4. This may lead to the emergence of the nexus-state as a successor to the nation-state.
  5. We now have communications tools that are flexible enough to match our social capabilities, and we are witnessing the rise of new ways of coordination activities that take advantage of that change.
  6. Civil society stands to gain the most from the rise of networks since policy problems have become so complex and intractable, crossing so many jurisdictions and involving so many actors, that governments should evolve beyond the traditional bureaucratic model of the state.

There is no doubt that the evolution of network forms of organization and related doctrines, strategies, and technologies will attract government policymakers, business leaders, and civil society actors to create myriad new mechanisms for communication, coordination, and collaboration spanning all levels of governance. 

However, states, not to mention societies as a whole, cannot endure without hierarchies. 

In the information-age government may well undergo ‘reinventing’ and be made flatter, more networked, decentralized, etc.—but it will still have a hierarchy at its core.” As the state relinquished the control of commercial activities to private companies, both the nation and the state became stronger.  Likewise, as the social sector expands and activities are transferred to it, the state should again emerge with a new kind of strength, even though it loses some scope in some areas.

A central understanding of the big picture that enhances the management of complexity is now needed more than ever. 

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: SHOULD WE BE GIVING AWAY OUR PERSONAL DATA FOR FREE.

15 Tuesday Oct 2019

Posted by in Algorithms., Big Data., DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Face Recognition., Fourth Industrial Revolution., Google Knowledge., Modern Day Communication., Modern Day Democracy., Our Common Values., Robot citizenship., Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Internet., The Obvious., The state of the World., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., WiFi communication.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

 

 

(Six-minute read)

 

Is it time we started to demand that if you use my personal data it’ill cost you because I am worth it.

We all make a trade-off between security and convenience, but there is a crucial difference between security in the old-fashioned physical domain, and security today.

Security is done digitally with algorithms exploiting and analysing your very mood.

In this digital lifestyle, it is nearly impossible to take part in the web world without leaving a trail behind.

Personal privacy is dead.

How to Protect Yourself From Mobile Data Collection

 

We have no clear sight into this world, and we have few sound intuitions into what is safe and what is flimsy – let alone what is ethical and what is creepy.

We are left operating on blind, ignorant, misplaced trust; meanwhile, all around us, without our even noticing, choices are being made.

With the increasing ownership of mobiles, marketing companies now have unlimited access to our personal data. Every site one opens has an agreement form to be ticked with terms and conditions that are all but unreadable on small screens.

It’s not a choice between privacy or innovation, it is the erosion of legally ensured fundamental privacy rights interfacing with apps.

Nuggets of personal information that seem trivial, individually, can now be aggregated, indexed and processed.

When this happens, simple pieces of computer code can produce insights and intrusions that creep us out or even do us harm. But most of us haven’t noticed yet.

Since there’s no real remedy, giving away our most sensitive and valuable data, for free, to global giants, with completely uncertain future costs, is a decision of dramatic consequence.

iCloud and Google+ have your intimate photos; Transport companies know where your travelcard has been; Yahoo holds every email you’ve ever written and we trust these people to respect our privacy.

You only have to be sloppy once, for your privacy to be compromised.

With your Facebook profile linked, I could research your interests before approaching you.

Put in someone’s username from Twitter, or Flickr and Creepy will churn through every photo hosting service it knows, trying to find every picture they’ve ever posted.

Cameras – especially phone cameras – often store the location where the picture was taken in the picture data. Creepy grabs all this geolocation data and puts pins on a map for you.

Then comes an even bigger new horizon.

We are entering an age of wireless information. The information you didn’t know you were leaking.

Maybe the first time you used a new app.

Every device with Wi-Fi has a unique “MAC address”, which is broadcast constantly as long as wireless networking is switched on.

Many shops and shopping centres, for example, now use multiple Wi-Fi sensors, monitoring the strength of connections, to triangulate your position, and track how you walk around the shop. By matching the signal to the security video, they get to know what you look like. If you give an email address in order to use the free in-store Wi-Fi, they have that too.

Once aggregated, these individual fragments of information can be processed and combined, and the resulting data can give away more about our character than our intuitions are able to spot.

When I realised that I’m traced over much wider spaces from one part of town to another I asked myself what is the point in giving you information away when you could franchise it out and get something back in return.

Public debate on the topic remains severely stunted.

Through the current trends in the globalization of technology is in the knowledge society, we have to start asking where is the world moving to?

The concepts and applications of biocomputing, medical informatics, anthropocentric computing, high-performance computing, technological diffusion, predictive analysis tools, genetic algorithms, and cultural informatics all in new or little known fields of information technology.

Many organisations create, store, or purchase information that links individuals’ identities to other data. Those who can access and analyse this personal data profiles can take deep insights into an individual’s life.

A law-abiding citizen might say “I have nothing to conceal.” This is a misconception.

In any debate, negotiation or competitive situation, it is an advantage to know about the other party’s position in order to achieve one’s own desired outcome.

Data brokers – buy and combine data from various sources (online and offline) to deliver information on exactly defined target groups to their customers.

“Click-world” merchants know a lot more about their clients’ private and financial habits than the individual knows about the merchant company or its competitors.

You, therefore, could not be blamed for asking -given the increasing bargaining position of merchants, is the consumer still getting a good deal?

It would be interesting to know how good a deal consumers get when they exchange their data for free-of-charge online services.How to Protect Yourself From Mobile Data Collection

Data has become an economic good for which the “producer” is usually not remunerated.

Data privacy is a matter of choice and individuals should have the right to decide if a company can collect information on them.

Is there a solution:

Of course if you Google it what you will get will be all sorts of advice such as, avoid cookies, use the VPN or disabling the location tracking in your devices and use Browsers that don’t track your activities.

It’s tempting to just play ostrich and put our heads under the sand however data collection is affecting and will affect your life.

This is why we must preserve the right of individuals to know what kind of information is being collected and what is being done with that information.

You could say that the most valuable thing on your computer or network is the data you create. After all, that data is the reason for having the computer and network in the first place.

The first thing to understand is that there is very little that can “prove” that any company (whether an individual, government entity, corporation, etc.) is engaged in safe or adequate data handling processes.

Therefore :

We must retain the right to define our own privacy boundaries and then advocate for those boundaries before invasions in our daily lives become out of control and irreversible.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT MODERN DAY POLITICS.

02 Monday Sep 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Algorithms., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Dehumanization., Democracy, DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Elections/ Voting, England., English parliamentary proceedings., European Elections., European Union., First past the post., Modern Day Communication., Modern Day Democracy., Our Common Values., Political voting systems., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Social Media, The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What needs to change in European Union., What Needs to change in the World, World Leaders, World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

 

(Five-minute read) 

My vote makes no difference is plausibly a part of the modern-day phenomenon of algorithm analyse voting that has lead to both the election of Donal Trump and Boris Jonhson.

It is resulting in the loss or deliberate yielding up of decision-making power by national governments to other organisations with Social media platforms both domestic and international— Like Facebook, Twitter,  etc. 

Combine this with Ngo’s, quangos, the law courts, business corporations, central banks, the E.U., the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization and its no wonder that many are no longer content as voters to be the foot soldiers of a social or religious bloc.

They want to make a difference individually and although in a mass democracy this may lead to inevitable frustration, few would want to return to a time of extreme political polarisation or digital dictatorship. 

The symptoms of short term popularism driven by social media platforms and the smartphone are leading to a no-deal Brexit are the same worldwide. 

Denunciations of the system, citizen disengagement from mainstream parties, electoral volatility and/or apathy, the rise of dissenting movements that appeal to large numbers who are, or feel themselves to be, disfranchised or ignored by an establishment dominated by uncontrollable and often faceless forces are replacing old political systems. 

Hence the perception that parties and politicians are no longer willing or able to represent their voters, that they are “all the same” and that politics has become an irrelevant smokescreen for the machinations of special interests and lobby groups.

When relatively few people are losing out—these changes may not seem to matter much. They may even seem desirable: “pooling of sovereignty,” removal of political interference from civil society, increasing checks on the executive by domestic and international courts, subsidiarity in decision-making, encouragement of inward investment, and so on.

This creates a political and administrative burden that can neither manage nor surrender—a great cause of popular discontent.

Not so, of course, when things suddenly go wrong.

One has only to look at England:

A combination of capitalism and socialism in a highly centralized system without a nationally elected government makes England today a very unusual place.

This oddity has opened up a constitutional free-for-all.

However, national identity, not administrative or economic efficiency, is the core of both devolution and independence— and the rest is window-dressing with the past affecting us all in more complex and deep-seated ways than in countries that have experienced violent historic ruptures.

Community loyalties, however deep-rooted, are not permanent.

Whatever happens in England, there will remain the question of how to govern a big, growing, diverse, crowded, and increasingly self-conscious England.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

THE BEADY SAY’S: WILL A ROBOT WITH EMOTIONS SPELL THE END OF HUMANITY.

17 Wednesday Jul 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Artificial Intelligence., Communication., Dehumanization., Democracy, Emotions., Evolution, Facebook, Fourth Industrial Revolution., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Inequality, Life., Modern Day Communication., Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Reality., Robot citizenship., Social Media, Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The state of the World., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

 

(Eighteen-minute read)

 

An absurd thought you might say but it is the holy grail of AI to manipulate your feelings our emotions.

However, the uses of emotionally AI are nearly endless.

The number one question is going to be how do we stop being manipulated by those who control the data.

Another words democracy itself has been and is becoming more with Social media an emotional puppet show run by companies such as Facebook who is undoubtedly one of the kings of social networking.

It is who and how data is controlled that determines the outcomes of elections and referendums as we have seen with Brexit and the election of Donal Trump and now the coming of G5 we going have:

Autonomous Driving.

Remote Robotic Surgery.

Smart(er) Factories.

Immersive Gaming and Augmented Reality.

Supply Chain Management.

Digital Transformation in the Experience Economy.

It will “offer users no less than the perception of infinite capacity.

                                                  –

But how can we find a balance between accelerating technological progress

and governments’ responsibility to improve the economic conditions and raise

the level of wellbeing for their citizens?

There isn’t a single solution.

Why?

Because Democracy is based on feelings. During an election, you are not being asked to vote rather how do you feel.

Currently, many people cannot imagine their life without social networks, which in less than a decade have become an indispensable resource in our daily lives who have served multiple purposes throughout its short life and replaced other media.

With 2.38 billion monthly active users as of the first quarter of 2019, Facebook is the biggest social network worldwide. It is at a size where it’s worth really taking a careful look at what are all the things that it can do to make social media the most positive force for good possible.

But like climate change, we sit back and watch the development of technologies that have little or no regulation both of which are reshaping the world we live in and the Earth exponentially.

Perhaps sometime in the next few decades, we’ll start developing technologies that improve human intelligence. We’ll hack the brain, or interface the brain to computers, or finally crack the problem of General Artificial Intelligence.

Should we be worried about technology’s advance and our demise?

Will Technology Save Us Or Enslave Us?

Intelligence is the source of technology.

The purest case of an intelligence explosion would be a General Artificial Intelligence rewriting its own source code.

That prospect would certainly change our viewpoints on what is life.

The potential impact on our world is enormous.

Both climate change and GAI  are heading us all to a  critical point of all human history.

Right now, almost no one is paying serious attention to either.

So what might a General Artificial Intelligence do with nanotechnology?

Feed the hungry?

Heal the sick?

Help us become smarter?

Remove our emotions so we have no sense of guilt?

Instantly wipe out the human species?

Probably it depends on the specific makeup of the AI.

See, human beings all have the same cognitive architecture. We all have a prefrontal cortex and limbic system and so on. If you imagine a space of all possible minds, then all human beings are packed into one small dot in mind design space. And then Artificial Intelligence is literally everything else. “AI” just means “a mind that does not work like we do.

So you can’t ask “What will an AI do?” as if all AIs formed a natural kind.

There is more than one possible AI.

Back to the question of whether a robot could or should have emotions.

From an intellectual point of view, this may not be as important to a robot as being able to interrupt human emotion and also display it back while interacting with people.

The most efficient way to answer the question would be to start by making itself smarter: Acquiring more computer resources could probably be most easily accomplished by hacking every computer connected to the internet.

Once that’s done, it could use the resulting enormous amount of computing power to calculate the most optimal way of rewriting itself for more intelligence.

Using this newfound intelligence and raw brute force, it may turn to develop new and more efficient computer chips and proceeding to turn the surface of the earth and nearby matter into computer innards.

We would not escape as we are made from perfectly usable carbon atoms, just waiting to be utilized as computronium – re-purposing our atoms.

It would then be simply a matter of the robot fooling a human, an easy task into thinking it had emotions.

The sort of emotion a robot might actually be programmed would be the same as its intelligence that being artificial.

If it turns out to be possible to create an AGI, it will presumably be given a task of some sort.

Here are a few.

  1. Psychotherapy software that utilizes an emotional connection to dispense advice.
  2. Call answering software that detects caller emotions and responds accordingly.
  3. To foresee the consequences of actions.
  4. Robots will not be susceptible to the effects of fear, adrenaline or shock and could potentially make strategic, reasoned decisions much faster than a human soldier.
  5. Robots would not be restrained by human emotions and the capacity for compassion.

So could a robot acquire Adrenaline along with emotions?

Emotions appear to be integrated as part of a biological body and a biological brain but our inability to see beyond biological programming does not allow us to answer this question.

There is no doubt that as AI technology grows more sophisticated, the potential for implementing it in weaponry is all but guaranteed – Drones that get an Adrenaline kick.

Adrenaline can be used in both technical and nontechnical contexts.

It is commonly used in describing the physiological symptoms (such as increased heart rate and respiration) that occur as part of the body’s fight-or-flight response to stress.

In a robot, it would not be just an act in the same vein. A thinking person feels empathy for something that looks alive and has complex behaviours, even if it doesn’t have life in a biological sense.

In the end, there is absolutely no reason why any sane human would ever want them to have characteristics but technophobic response actually feels rational.

Like a robot dealing with sick people should be able to mimic some emotions like compassion and carefulness….. They testify to the fact that emotions and our biological body operate together.

While a consensus is yet to be reached over the scope and scale of the effect we should expect from mobile connectivity on poverty-reduction and inequality some argue that it might be the best hope we have.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: IS THIS WHAT IS WRONG WITH MODERN DAY CAPITALISM. WE JUST HUMAN CAPITAL.

09 Tuesday Jul 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Algorithms., Capitalism, DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Fourth Industrial Revolution., Humanity., Inequality, Life., Modern Day Communication., Populism., Purchasing Power., Reality., Sustaniability, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The state of the World., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., Wealth., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

 

(Seven-minute read)

The term ” Human capital” suggests that we create ourselves as social beings, and then society recognizes the outcome of our self-making by assigning them values. This value is then exchanged for commodities and services of equal value.

WE SPEND OUR LIVES TRYING TO MAKE THIS VALUE HIGHER.

No discussion of human capital can omit the influence of families on the knowledge, skills, health, values, and habits. But when we become a risk, a drain on society, a problem of a life gone on too long we reflect the political and economic goals that the notion of human capital was designed to fulfil – profit.

When we assign value to human life it means different worth including negative value – to the lives of different people. Life subsequently came to be valued according to its ability to foster the national economy – its potential contribution to GDP with nil contribution deemed a surplus to manage.

This has become the bedrock of modern capitalism – persons and profit with the smartphone transferring its owner into an asset of significant value.

Profit-seeking Algorithms that are now embedded in our societies making it seem natural to be monitored and to allow access to every moment of our days.

Assigning life a market value is no way to guarantee that this value will be high.

Everyone is able to help themselves but information technologies are fastening individuals to prefabricated categories ( Age, gender, religion, ) solidifying us as persons of a certain kind.

Even if we consider ourselves to be so much more than our data or human capital, we cultivate, display, and leverage, our socially recognized arsenal of valued traits—no matter how worrying the manner in which they were consolidated—whenever circumstances call for it.

Human capital, then, is something other than the sum total of our ambition.

Like other kinds of capital, its value is set by market dynamics that support a larger process of accumulation.

We are unable to determine how much we are worth to our society.

There is no stopping this form of unattachment to reality, to politics, to nature, to others and it is destined to become worse. We have world leaders Twittering, governments pandering to populism, androids apps grabbing your data even if you block them.

Indeed it would be fair to say that Capitalism is disappearing underground.

The idea of human lives as surplus—superfluous to society rather than being its building blocks—offends our robust sense of self.

However, in designating selfhood unique yet classifiable, a personal project of self-creation yet a collective subject of political policy, we end up with human capital.

We feel oppressed by constantly having to demonstrate our worth in a matrix of investments and returns.

Is there any solution to this detachment?

Not with Social media that is putting a protective net around people with this net actually becoming a limiting cage.

A vote every five or ten years will not do it.

Countries must enable their citizens to become involved directly in the economy by offering non-trading but inheritable Participation Bonds with guaranteed returns in order to make the economy serve the people rather than the other way around.

In a world of universal and instantaneous communication with robotic technology now treating our abilities to earn a living the coffers of the state are diminishing.

Some will say that Participation Bonds is a form of Socialism.

It might well be but it is not the state owning the assets of a country but its people have a vested interest.

The current relationship between the balance sheet value of human capital and the operating costs of the human capital is not realistic. Successful leaders want to know how their people are deployed and new technological advances clearly are of little value to countries that don’t put their people first.

Therefore, economists regard expenditures on education, training, medical care, and so on as investments in human capital. They are called human capital because people cannot be separated from their knowledge, skills, health, or values in the way they can be separated from their financial and physical assets but tangible forms of capital are not the only type of capital.

No matter what colour, creed or status you are if you are not attached you cannot reap the rewards.

Other words if you are on a sailing boat crossing the Atlantic there is no point in being pushed over or jumping overboard if you want to arrive.

The old adage of “from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves no longer applies.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY .

08 Saturday Jun 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Fourth Industrial Revolution., Humanity., Modern Day Communication., Modern day life., Natural World Disasters, Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Reality., Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The new year 2109, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., United Nations, WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

 

(Five-minute read)

The international community is a phrase used in geopolitics and international relations to refer to a broad group of people and governments of the world. It slips off the tongue of BBC correspondents and newsreaders as if it is just good old plain common sense.

The international society thinks this … believes that … is concerned about.

HOW OFTEN HAVE WE HEARD COUNTRIES APPEALING TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY.

Are they wasting their breath?

If you were to asked me I would say that activists, politicians and commentators often use the term in calling for action to be taken in order to deflect their own countries dismal response.

We all know what is meant by the term ‘international community’, don’t we?

It’s the west, of course, nothing more, nothing less.

Just look at the global issue of climate change which could not be more International which urgently requires a common strategy with binding targets that must be defined on a planetary scale. The central driver of climate change risk is mainstream economic (development) models which aspire to carbon-intensive industrialization.

It is speculated that our global interconnectedness, instead of (only) making us more resilient, makes us more vulnerable to global catastrophe.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the international community"

Solving climate change will take a global effort not an international effort.

Take Aviation pollution alone it is forecasted to triple by 2050 if there are no global policy measures are agreed.

The Earth can not appeal to an International community but our world in which no individual, and no country, exists in isolation, is now facing perhaps its final disaster.

The involvement of Muslim countries – and from contrasting traditions to those of the Arab world – would be most valuable.

It would also represent a most welcome redefinition of the “international community.

Take China for example:  

In fact, the Chinese have their own definition of “international community” to counter what they see as a western-dominated and defined international community.

Take Lebanon, for example:

What did the beloved “international community” think:

Take War-torn Syria, for example:

It is one country where there are sharply divided views between the West on the one side and China and Russia on the other.

Take India, or Latin America, or Africa, or South East Asia?

What do they think?

We are never told. Nobody bothered to find out.

Take Brexit.

Everyone seems to have someone, perhaps some group of people, on whom he or she looks down or whom he or she considers inferior. That is why, for example, the west finds it almost impossible to win votes on many issues in the UN general assembly.

If we are brutally honest with yourself it comes from sheer ignorance.

There is no international community. There is merely a group of states motivated by self-interest.

The international community is a mythical joke.

There will never be one that is worthy of respect rather than a cheap joke.

What we got is a digital dictatorship in its infancy. A world run by Algorithms mostly for profit.

What is needed is an global awaking.

Image associée

All Human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: AS TRUE AS DAY FOLLOWS NIGHT THE TRUE MEMORIAL TO THE 75 ANNIVERSARY OF D DAY IS.

06 Thursday Jun 2019

Posted by in 2019., 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Climate Change., Communication., Democracy, Donald Trump Presidency., England., European Commission., European Elections., Fake News., Fourth Industrial Revolution., History., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Inequality, Life., Modern Day Communication., Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Reality., Social Media, Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The far-right., The Future, The new year 2109, The Obvious., The world to day., Trade Agreements., Unanswered Questions., United Nations, War, WHAT IS TRUTH, What needs to change in European Union., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

 

( Five minutes read and twenty minutes listen)

THE EUROPEAN UNION WAS BORN OUT OF WORLD WAR TWO ON THE 25/MARCH/ 1957 TEN YEARS AFTER IT ENDED TO CHAMPION PEACE.

By establishing a unified economic and monetary system, to promote inclusion and combat discrimination, to break down barriers to trade and borders, to encourage technological and scientific developments, to champion environmental protection.

Fifty-two years later even as it adapts to meet the evolving challenges of the modern world, with all its faults, it has delivery just that- Peace.

Let us all remember the price the world paid to agree with these shared values.

The lessons of World War II — on whose ashes the United Nations was also founded emphasizing that remembrance is a debt owed to those who had lost their lives in World War II.Slide 3 of 18: Navy, Army and Merchant Marine servicemen in New York read the Daily News on June 6 for information about the D-Day invasion.

(By the end of the war, the total deaths ranging from 70 million to 85 million. Civilians deaths totalled 50 to 55 million. Military deaths from all causes totalled 21 to 25 million.)

However, the ideals and spirit that inspired the creation of the United Nations and the EU remain to be transformed into reality.

It is still necessary to remember the causes and overcome the legacies of the Second World War.

To reject and condemn any attempts to rewrite history or undertake attempts to glorify Nazism or any type of fascism.

Today, tolerance and restraint continued to be considered in world policy as signs of weakness and the use of violence and sanctions were praised; the world could therefore not say that the Second World War had been properly remembered.

Indeed it is our duty to revere and preserve and reform both the United Nations and the European Union because too much was paid for them, and too much is now at stake for succeeding generations.

So here below for all the Donald Trumps, Brexiteers, and Populous is a Speech that tells the TRUTH. 

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: WE ARE ONLY GOING TO INVENT SOMETHING SMARTER THAN US ONCE.

04 Monday Feb 2019

Posted by in Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Communication., Evolution, Humanity., Innovation., Life., Modern Day Communication., Our Common Values., Reality., Robot citizenship., Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

( Ten Minute read)

Over the past decade, smartphones have revolutionized our lives in ways that go beyond how we communicate.

It is incontrovertible that they have yielded many benefits for society but the power they hold over us is glaringly evident.

Critical thinking in the real world is being replaced by Apps which are making us unable to focus for more than a minute.

Learning to live with technology without surrendering to it is the biggest challenge in the digital era.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of technology"

If we continue to live with our head in vibrations, and pings of our phones there is no douth that we will be handing what is called life to the worst form of Capitalism –  unseen profit for profit sake.

Undoubtedly, the capability of advancing technology coming forth from the latest industrial revolution has the potential to make even bigger and greater improvements on every aspect of our lives changes than the first three industrial revolutions summed together.
Technology and advancements in science are driving transformations around the world creating ripple effects on societies, institutions, and economies.
They will and are transforming the ways in which we live, work, and interact with one another.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of technology devices"
Understanding these new technologies and their disruption potential is critical for all nations and especially developing countries.
Since humans are responsible for technological development, humans are
also responsible to exert every effort in shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution
and directing it toward a future that reflects the universal good.
So I ask the question facing us all is, would you like to be alive in a hundred years from now. 
If not, even the arrival of whatever God or gods you believe in will not save us from a world of I am all right Jack.

The fourth industrial revolution describes a world where individuals move between digital domains and offline reality with the use of connected technology to enable and manage their lives. It is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.

The breadth and depth of these changes herald the transformation of entire systems of production, management, and governance.

However, this fusion of technologies goes beyond mere combination and cannot be ignored any longer. We stand on the brink of a technological revolution that will fundamentally alter the way we live, work, and relate to one another.

In its scale, scope, and complexity, the transformation will be unlike anything humankind has experienced before. We do not yet know just how it will unfold, but one thing is clear: the response to it must be integrated and comprehensive, involving all stakeholders of the global polity, from the public and private sectors to academic and civil society.

In a world infused with artificial intelligence and machine learning ability, with robots lacking an essential feature – the capacity of moral reason, it is easy to see what will happen.

On one hand, preventing genetic disease by genetic engineering is desirable.

On the other hand, what guidelines, or regulation, or ethical boundaries are there in order to prevent the over-manipulation genetics for desirable traits?

Further, the most critical question is, whose moral standards should robots inherit. 

Moral values differ greatly from individual to individual, across countries, religions, and ideological boundaries. Uncertainty over which moral framework to adopt underlies the difficulty and limitations to ascribe moral values to artificial systems.

This limits their ability to make good or ethical decisions in complex situations.

It is more than just technology-driven change we have new ethical concerns emerging.

These changes are bringing about shifts in power, shifts in wealth, and knowledge.

The speed of current breakthroughs evolving at an exponential rather than a linear pace has no historical precedent. 

The increased dichotomization is leading to an increase in social tensions while our lives become extensively connected to various devices, from our cell phones, cars, and light switches to our home security cameras, and smart speakers.

It is altering the way people eat, sleep, shop, socialize, study, play.

These technologies give rise to vast possibilities—but they can also upend the status quo and create nearly as much uncertainty as it does opportunity.

A paradigm shift is underway in how we work and communicate, as well as how we express, inform, and entertain our self. Having everything attached to everything else people will have no control over either technology or the disruption that comes with the fourth industrial revolution.

The argument is:

The intelligence and productivity gains that AI will deliver can unlock new solutions to society’s most pressing environmental challenges: climate change, biodiversity, ocean health, water management, air pollution, and resilience, among others.

At the same time, the revolution could yield greater inequality, particularly in its potential to disrupt labour markets. As automation substitutes for labour across the entire economy, the net displacement of workers by machines might exacerbate the gap between returns to capital and returns to labour.
The evolution of global industries in the fourth industrial revolution is both exciting and scary.
Only in being knowledgeable about these changes and the speed in which this is occurring can we ensure that advances in knowledge and technology reach all and benefit all.
To be sure that AI is developed and governed wisely, government and industry leaders must ensure the safety, explainability, transparency and validity of AI applications.
AT THE MOMENT OUR GOVERNMENTS AND WORLD LEADERS OFFER EMPTY PROMISES.
Definitions and standards relating to the “misuse of AI” are needed
that incorporate misuse for environmental as well as human harm.
It is incumbent on authorities, AI researchers, technology pioneers and AI adopters in
industry alike to encourage deployments that earn trust and avoid abuse of the social contract.
Recently we have witnessed the father of a young girl state on Television that his daughter committed suicide because of content on platforms of Social media.
A tragedy that could be avoided by our governments applying legal fines on any platform  Social Networks (eg. Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, etc) Instant Messaging (eg. IM, MSN, etc) Chatrooms (eg. Skype, Yahoo, MIRC, etc) that posts
Cyberbullying – Sexting/Self-made videos or photos –  online groomers, impersonating someone -Engaging in Subtweeting or Vaguebooking – Participating in Video Shaming and the like. 
If the fines are large enough you may rest assured that these platforms will remove all such content.
   Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of technology in education"
One thing is certain: 
If we end up with a centralized system where the winner takes all markets we can perversely hope that Climate change wipes us out sooner than later.  
With the arrival of voice recognition, the focuses on education will have to change from modes of teaching to modes of learning.
It won’t be long before Eco and Alexa will be offering rewards to answering questions.
The world in a hundred year from now will be full of useless stuff telling you whether you are alive or dead.  You might even have the pleasure of your Alexa telling you’re toasted that its mother was one a spanner.
Of course, some believe that humans will be known as the most powerful creatures present in the galaxy that surrounds the world.
O! Yet. Have a look around you.

Technology might be changing our definition of what it means to be a

Human?

Fortunately we humans have a long way to go to be human in the first place.

utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare
All human comments appreciated. All abuse and like clicks chucked in the bin.