the tedium.

Windows and Souls

[Spoilers ahead!]

“Tommy, The gallery wasn’t to look into your soul, it was to see if you had a soul at all”

In this decent adaptation of a very good book, this is the haunting line that kills the hope of one of our main protagonists.

Turing postulated that “If it appears to be intelligent, we should assume that it is”,  and this is exactly what they do at Hailsham School, they treat the donors as if they were normal flesh and blood, except they are not.  They are carefully created clones for the future harvesting of their organs [which is the sole purpose of their short life’s].

It is also made clear in the book / film that Hailsham is/was the last of its kind, with Madam telling the grown up children that its now mostly done in a battery farm style.

So, whilst Turing asks us to assume they are intelligent, he doesn’t speculate in anyway how we should actually treat them.

So, Clone, or AI, the question of “rights” eventually comes up.

So, in our example, the children are no better than hens in the eyes of society, breed for purpose and little else, but Hailsham takes a different view.  And this is how equal rights start, someone stands up, someone demands to be treated equally. They are often martyred for their actions and become a focus point for future believers.

Who / what will be the first artificially created intelligence to stand up and say, “I am equal?”

Will the human creators ability to always press the “off” switch negate the need, creating perfect sub servant creations, or will there need to be a “judgement day” when AI takes literally on a life of its own?

Or, as in the book, is the simple nature and nurture of their upbringing enough to create a “doesn’t know any different” mindset.

And, should there become a day when the human race can indeed create from scratch, a clone or AI in his own image, what of the soul? Will, as Madam asks, there even need to be the debate.

Could the Church for example, embrace such a “soul”?

Asimov set out rules for AI behavior, can they be transposed equally and without amendment to clones?

But what then?

As someone who has worked in HR for sometime, i understand the anti discrimination laws in the UK pretty well, and further more, from my work with a charity working in the LGBT sector, have read the Jogyakarta Principles and see their clear and simple beneficial applications to the field of human rights.

But isn’t that the question, when will AI / Clones become “Human” enough to qualify for human rights, or will we need to create a separate set, and indeed, how should we distinguish and qualify eligibility criteria.

No matter how much we look for the soul in others, often, we should be examining our own.

?

Hat-Tipping to Plagiarism.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/business/media/guidelines-proposed-for-content-aggregation-online.xml

I found this article really interesting, so i quoted it.

Does that mean I didn’t read it, or didn’t understand it? Does that mean i’m a hypocrite.   No, because i freely admit i am commenting on, or adding to the debate, originated elsewhere.

However, i’m sure we have all done it, casually retweeted, or reblogged something, so it appears in our timeline without really reading the article, or because simply you liked the picture.

Using something else to the benefit of our own wall / timeline, when really we have done none of the work.  Or because re quoting said piece makes us look cooler.

Does this make us all rampant plagiarizers?

How about this, a mate takes a really cool picture of you, and suddenly its your avatar across your social media spectrum, are you acknowledging the “artist” in your media?

Does that make you fall foul of copyright laws? Will the SOPA police come and take you away never to be seen again?

I doubt it, but there is a reason most decent photographers will put watermarks on their pictures; you want one without one, you need to pay me for it.  I mean, if your mate was a budding DJ, and you posted all his/her music to your s/media without crediting, could that effect your mates chances or being correctly noticed?  Could that effect their future chances in the industry?

There is a fine line between free promotion to garner word of mouth, and someone stealing your shit.

But words and articles are not music and pictures are they?  I mean, quoting an article from BBC online isn’t costing your fellow taxpayer any lost royalties is it?

No, perhaps it not, but where is the line?  At what point does a re-tweet, blog, quote become plagiarism?  So, lets say, i write some twitter poetry, or take an awesome picture, and i post it, and then it gets retweeted by someone with millions of followers, who will be remembered, me, or the person will millions of followers.

I think the point best made in the article is that from the Huffinington Post, its not about the retweet par say, its the visibility, and the perceived reception of credit.

But the web is a free place, once you post something, its out there, it takes a life of its own and anyone can do anything to it.  Free speech man!

I agree the web should be minimally policed, and think things like SOPA go way too far. But, I took some pictures at a gig i went too last autumn to my s/media streams and some blogger stole them from Flickr and pasted them to his blog without credit.

I didn’t want money, I certainly am no great Tog with aspirations to be working backstage for the stars, but what I am is deserving of credit.  So, i emailed said blogger and said, “please post the link, or credit my twitter name or something”.

Five months on, those pictures remain uncredited.  As are numerous other pics stolen from other gigs on the same tour.  Thus readers are entitled to think, wow, this guy is dedicated, look at all the gigs he goes to.  No, he’s a tea leaf. He is earning a reputation and followers to his work by dubious means.

So, yes i like this hat-tipping, this direct referencing. So, intellectual credit for the originators are preserved.

And that’s what it is, referencing.  I have a scientific education, and one thing I learned from my Masters especially was that everything must be referenced, show you have done the reading, show you have done the work.

Academic referencing goes at the end, social media referencing is the start of the post usually, but ever way, give credit where it is due.

?

Dont fear the Reaper (More cowbell)

http://newhumanist.org.uk/2768/stayin-alive

So, does your life need more cowbell?  I’m going to guess it does.  I mean, who doesn’t need more cowbell?

If those comments mean nothing to you, get googling, and have a chuckle.

However, this reflection is more about the song, Don’t Fear The Reaper that the skit parodied than the skit itself.  And indeed, actually, more the meaning of the title.

10 years ago (give or take a day), I came home from a weekend away to find my housemate and good friend dead.  One of those things.  Noone really knows why, and Sudden Adult Death Syndrome is as close to an answer as i can give you.

I guess with this in the back of my mind, I read the article above with a more passionate slant than i might normally do.

Should we fear death?  Should we crave immortality? 

Well, they are two different questions really  In respect to the former, well, as long as i’m not tortured slowly to death by crazy people, its as inevitable as taxes and that surely should give you some scope and notice to prepare.

So, sat here calmly without a gun to my head, or a crazy person with a Stanley knife, i can say i’m not that scared.

My views?  I have two degrees and a faith in scientific method, so, in the absence of peer reviewed proof of the presence or indeed the absence of god, ill sit firmly on the agnostic fence, with both legs pointing towards atheism.

I have massive respect for people with strong religious faith, and i must distinguish that from those with just faith -who i also have much respect for - but i am not one of them.

Me, I don’t have faith, religious or otherwise, and don’t therefore believe in the Easter Bunny, Father Xmas or reincarnation. 

Would I like to?  Would I like to live forever?  No, I wouldn’t.  I’ve buried one close friend, a lifetime of doing that doesn’t appeal much to me.

But I do passionately believe in the development of H+, the enhancement of the human body and extending the limits of what we are able to do.

That’s not being immortal, its maximizing what you can do with what you have got.

I’m colour-blind, so, whilst I would love new technicolour lenses, they are not going to make me live forever.  Just perhaps improve my taste in shirts.

When the singularity comes, perhaps, the life expectancy of the human race will be much longer than it is now, and that perhaps is a good thing.  Mainly because it should be relatively uniform (yes, yes, there will be a those who can and those who cant cost factor for some time).  So therefore, in amongst those who already have been amalgamated with the technology of the time, there will be no “death”.

Is that to say that a robot or a singular human wont be afraid to die? No, because Johny Five wanted to stay alive!, Hal had a moment when he got reset and god damn it, Roy Batty had seen things you wouldn’t believe!

So, even past the glorious future where man and machine are one (not the Terminator version though..) death will still haunt us. 

I guess also, i’m hoping death when he (or she) comes, will be as Terry Pratchett so envisages, a civil servant of the gods, just doing his job, and ushering you off with a smile and THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A JOKE.

So, in the meantime, fear or not, that’s up to you, but grasp what you have, take your motto, whatever it is, and if it helps you, make it your faith.

I, like Roy Batty, at the moment, “want more life, fucker (/ father)”, and that, certainly includes more cowbell.

In memory of Sam Liddiard, 1976-2002.

?

Rules of Engagement

So, apparently, these two don’t like each other. And?

I, as i have previously mentioned, have been fortunate enough to be involved at sport at International level as a coach, and have, therefore, seen first hand gamesmanship in action.

And yes, I have employed it, sometimes with success and sometimes not.

I wont bore you with examples, but i have been swore at several times, once, threatened with violence (i think that was fair to be honest!), and once, shock horror, someone refused to shake my hand.

My point, this happens. It will have happened on your local park / court today, it will happen tomorrow, and it will continue to happen when ever two opposing teams come together.

If you think this shouldn’t happen, then great, thanks for that, and enjoy your utopia. It happens.

May i take this moment to clarify explicitly that I’m not condoning racism, (or any other ism) and believe that is past a line that shouldn’t be crossed.  

Sports psychology is a massive part of top level sport these days and players are coached to deal with the pressure and expectation of being under such scrutiny.

At this level, (and even at mine) any weakness displayed, or even perceived weakness displayed will be capitalized on and exploited if possible.

So, consider this, in the game today, it was openly discussed that Liverpool should “get in and about” David De Gea (Man U goalkeeper), in fact, the term, “rough him up” was specifically used.

So, talking openly about using explicit and probably illegal (and possibly dangerous) contact is absolutely fine, but don’t you dare refuse a hand shake.

People are people, and people are entitled to like or dislike any other person as they see fit, and thats human nature. To not shake someones hand because you dont like them, is petty, perhaps, but to me, fine.

I think, Saurez, Evra, Ferguson and Dalglish have all played top level mind games today, and i think 90% of people who watched the game and launched into a blinkered fan biased tirade about a missed handshake will have absolutely missed that point.

“When two tribes go to war, a point is all you can score”