IBM v. Jeopardy
I was amazed as I watched the PBS Nova program about how IBM has built a computer named “Watson” to play against Jeopardy champions, starting tonight.
The program followed advancements in artificial intelligence, competitions in chess, which is essentially entirely mathematical, and then the challenge of Jeopardy, where the “questions” are really answers and are filled with tricky language and idioms that are meaningful to humans but very difficult for a machine to “understand.”
The program describes how the IBM programming team solved various stages of the problem getting Watson to be able to process greater and greater levels of nuance and meaning. Some of the issues involved having the machine be able to “hear” the incorrect answers of other contestants so it doesn’t repeat their mistakes, and learning a strategy for wagering on Final Jeopardy.
The big realization is that the computer never really understands anything.
Computer “gets” nuance by performing incredibly complex searches through data, and it plays chess by analyzing a greater set of probabilities mathematically than a human can, but in both cases, what is apparent from these incredible feats is not what it can do, but what it isn’t capable of remotely doing – which is living as a natural organic life form.
While the human contestants on Jeopardy also have a huge processing unit in their brains, they are competing using their feelings, sensations and emotions, all of which are crystallized in their grasp of he language that represents reality in human terms.
Watson is using this language entirely differently, but performing calculations and searches on words and never really “taking in” the meaning.
To me, there are two aspects of this experience that are significant.
First, the human achievement of simulating language and human understanding is incredible, rivaling perhaps going to the moon, building the Internet or decoding the genome.
But Watson defeats its human competitors through brute data processing power and technology, reminding us in the process that our own logical mind is not the entirety of what we are—as authors like Eckhart Tolle point out to us when they suggest meditation to notice that our thoughts are only part of who or what we are.
Actual organic life, of which we are a part, is a vibrant expression of sensation and feelings including love, compassion, and a myriad of other emotions, all of which the human Jeopardy contestants call upon to understand the questions in the contest. Their processing of the information is slower than Watson, but their grasp of the meaning is infinitely deeper.
This should serve to remind us that what we are a part of, and what we take for granted as we worship at the altar of science and technology, is infinitely more complex and alive than the machines we create in our image.
Neuroscience, biology and quantum physics are only beginning to penetrate the previously unknowable boundaries of what life is.
In their hubris, scientists have suggested that they have created life by manufacturing DNA, but they have inserted the DNA into organic cells that were already energetic with whatever it is that animates ordinary matter as organic – call it spirit or what have you.
Watson for all of its mathematical power doesn’t have it.
Even the simplest life form does. My cat is connected to existence and the universe in a way Watson never will be. It understands a great deal of my behavior and possibly some of my language with its body, sense and perhaps intuition.
When we examine the complexity of our DNA and see that it works on the same principles as a computer—capable of being decoded symbolically—it suggests at least to me that there is also an intelligence at work within the very nature of life. And perhaps our development of computers, programming software like that which “animates” Watson, is a resonance with whatever it is (spirit, mind, energy) that is behind existence itself.
At its most basic the intention of life is simply to be--and to survive. That is the programming explained by Darwin in his theory of natural selection and evolution.
It is the belief of some scientists like Bruce Lipton, the author of Biology of Belief, that human evolution is the process of life becoming more conscious of a higher purpose through our own growth both individually and collectively. Perhaps technology itself and projects like Watson are lessons along that path, which may serve to hopefully educate us enough to evolve and survive as a species rather than use that same technology to make ourselves extinct.
The ultimate source of our own programming may not care whether the human expression of life survives or not—it may well have infinite variety of life forms to experience itself through.
Up until recently the concept of a higher intelligence has been the province of religion which has named it God, or perhaps science fiction.
Science has avoided this area for lack of evidence; and even the creation of a Watson does not speak to higher intelligence, except for the humans who programmed it to perform its incredible calculations.
But as we watch Watson compete against humans on Jeopardy we might get a vague sense that what Watson is showing us, and which we take for granted moment to moment, is precisely what Watson is NOT, and what we ARE – sensory beings capable of some of Watson’s processing power but also infinitely more in terms of love, touch, wisdom, grace and community.
Watson might win Final Jeopardy one or more of these nights, but it will never sense itself as alive. It will never have the capacity to connect to the source of its being on an organic level, because it is not a being but a thing.
I believe that this is at the root of much of the despair and isolation that people feel as they are literally overwhelmed and consumed by technology that seems to be its own reward, continually “upgrading” to achieve a level of perfection that can only come by being natural and human.
In my own life technology has reconnected me to many old friends and given me the means to pursue many human endeavors—in that way it has been immensely empowering. But I have to be careful that the allure of technology does not also make me deadened to what truly makes me human, and disconnect me from the very source of my humanity—my connection to a higher power—and perhaps my soul.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Emotional Freedom and Positive Energy by Judith Orloff
Recently I was turned on to some great resources in the form of two books, Emotional Freedom and Positive Energy by Judith Orloff – her web site also has some excellent videos.
What I really like about Dr. Orloff’s work is its warmth along with its practicality.
While both books have the usual set of self assessment tests, and are filled with anecdotes and case studies from Dr. Orloff’s practice, they both also provide pragmatic and positive steps to achieve growth and a more fulfilling life, difficult and worthy goals in our current cultural climate.
In Emotional Freedom Dr. Orloff uses the concept of “transformation” of negative emotions as a basis for being happier and more fulfilled. This is a much better foundation in my opinion that beginning with the idea that something is fundamentally “wrong” with you; for example, you’re diagnosed or feel like you’re depressed.
The fact is that life is challenging and filled with emotional issues ; alternatively avoiding these issues leads to a disconnected existence of isolation which is equally challenging.
The impressive structure of the book addresses four dimensions of emotions that Dr. Orloff suggests must each be in balance for a harmonious existence: the physical biology, a spiritual meaning of one’s state of being, the energetic power that can deplete or revive you, and finally the psychology or sources of the various feelings that can overwhelm us at various times.
She deals with each of these aspects as she identifies seven main emotions, describes their effect on us, and provides concrete recommendations for transforming the negative states into their positive counterparts.
She refers to this as “alchemy” and for those who face challenging feelings in their daily lives, learning techniques to transform emotions is worth its weight in gold.
Particularly for men, who sometimes are not as adept at articulating or identifying what they are feeling, specifically naming both the negative and positive states is particularly helpful. Here are the seven transformations Dr. Orloff cover:
In each case, the negative conditions are thoroughly described and identified along with practical steps to transform them into their positive counterparts.
What I found particularly useful was merely the ability to pinpoint common causes or triggers for the negative states and then the payoffs that ensue when one successfully transforms them through positive steps.
In Positive Energy, and earlier book, Dr. Orloff covers similar ground but from the perspective of a series of therapeutic “prescriptions” which are actually best practices for daily life. This book also features interviews with famous people who have put these practices into action in their own careers or personal lives.
Another aspect of both books that I appreciated was the identification of how our energy or emotions can become sapped. Frequently I have thought “what’s wrong with me – why can’t I cope with what others seem to handle effortlessly?”
Dr. Orloff describes toxic people and relationships as “energy vampires” and provides suggestions for how to combat their negative effects.
She also identifies societal drains – such as “techno-despair” – which can overcome us as we feel overwhelmed by the complexities and demands of the many media with which we’re constantly assaulted. (My previous blog on the stresses of working with Microsoft software are a good example of techno-despair).
Part of the benefit of her descriptions is the “aha” moment when one realizes that one is not alone in feeling challenged by these kinds of experiences, and that there are solutions.
Though she is a medical doctor and a psychiatrist, Dr. Orloff also describes herself as an “intuitive” healer and strongly suggests that as we work with our emotions, we pay particular attention to what dreams may be telling us about our waking lives.
The way that I have used Emotional Freedom is to quiet myself when I feel agitated or overwhelmed and to notice the negative emotion that seems to have me in its grip; for example, as Dr. Orloff describes, the grocery store and a checkout line might frustrate me if I feel rushed. Taking a greater perspective, however, and focusing on being patient (and creating some space for myself internally) can allow me to not only negotiate the current circumstances, but feel better about my own capability to handle other issues going forward.
Either of these books provides a helpful set of practical suggestions for getting through challenging times and situations. Taken together, they are a resource a heartily recommend.
What I really like about Dr. Orloff’s work is its warmth along with its practicality.
While both books have the usual set of self assessment tests, and are filled with anecdotes and case studies from Dr. Orloff’s practice, they both also provide pragmatic and positive steps to achieve growth and a more fulfilling life, difficult and worthy goals in our current cultural climate.
In Emotional Freedom Dr. Orloff uses the concept of “transformation” of negative emotions as a basis for being happier and more fulfilled. This is a much better foundation in my opinion that beginning with the idea that something is fundamentally “wrong” with you; for example, you’re diagnosed or feel like you’re depressed.
The fact is that life is challenging and filled with emotional issues ; alternatively avoiding these issues leads to a disconnected existence of isolation which is equally challenging.
The impressive structure of the book addresses four dimensions of emotions that Dr. Orloff suggests must each be in balance for a harmonious existence: the physical biology, a spiritual meaning of one’s state of being, the energetic power that can deplete or revive you, and finally the psychology or sources of the various feelings that can overwhelm us at various times.
She deals with each of these aspects as she identifies seven main emotions, describes their effect on us, and provides concrete recommendations for transforming the negative states into their positive counterparts.
She refers to this as “alchemy” and for those who face challenging feelings in their daily lives, learning techniques to transform emotions is worth its weight in gold.
Particularly for men, who sometimes are not as adept at articulating or identifying what they are feeling, specifically naming both the negative and positive states is particularly helpful. Here are the seven transformations Dr. Orloff cover:
In each case, the negative conditions are thoroughly described and identified along with practical steps to transform them into their positive counterparts.
What I found particularly useful was merely the ability to pinpoint common causes or triggers for the negative states and then the payoffs that ensue when one successfully transforms them through positive steps.
In Positive Energy, and earlier book, Dr. Orloff covers similar ground but from the perspective of a series of therapeutic “prescriptions” which are actually best practices for daily life. This book also features interviews with famous people who have put these practices into action in their own careers or personal lives.
Another aspect of both books that I appreciated was the identification of how our energy or emotions can become sapped. Frequently I have thought “what’s wrong with me – why can’t I cope with what others seem to handle effortlessly?”
Dr. Orloff describes toxic people and relationships as “energy vampires” and provides suggestions for how to combat their negative effects.
She also identifies societal drains – such as “techno-despair” – which can overcome us as we feel overwhelmed by the complexities and demands of the many media with which we’re constantly assaulted. (My previous blog on the stresses of working with Microsoft software are a good example of techno-despair).
Part of the benefit of her descriptions is the “aha” moment when one realizes that one is not alone in feeling challenged by these kinds of experiences, and that there are solutions.
Though she is a medical doctor and a psychiatrist, Dr. Orloff also describes herself as an “intuitive” healer and strongly suggests that as we work with our emotions, we pay particular attention to what dreams may be telling us about our waking lives.
The way that I have used Emotional Freedom is to quiet myself when I feel agitated or overwhelmed and to notice the negative emotion that seems to have me in its grip; for example, as Dr. Orloff describes, the grocery store and a checkout line might frustrate me if I feel rushed. Taking a greater perspective, however, and focusing on being patient (and creating some space for myself internally) can allow me to not only negotiate the current circumstances, but feel better about my own capability to handle other issues going forward.
Either of these books provides a helpful set of practical suggestions for getting through challenging times and situations. Taken together, they are a resource a heartily recommend.
Monday, December 6, 2010
The Stress of Technology as Exemplified by Microsoft
For many years I have been writing about Microsoft products and a great deal of my success has come in making difficult situations palatable for readers; however I have gotten to the point myself where the stress of using stuff that doesn’t improve over time has almost overwhelmed me.
It is interesting to note that as far back as January 2003 Bill Gates wrote a famous memo excoriating his subordinates for problems with Windows XP and MovieMaker software. Now XP is being clung to by many users for its relative stability.
Like many users I have come to depend upon the Office suite on a daily basis for doing my work; last year I wrote a book on Using Office 2010, the latest version and scratched my head over the added complexity in order to adopt a few new features (the exception is PowerPoint which was markedly enhanced).
But these days I rely mainly on Outlook for my email and calendar; on my laptop I am still using Outlook 2007 and Windows Vista.
Last week, from one moment to the next, the Outlook slowed down in sending out email and eventually just crashed every time I tried, bring up a pale white screen that informed me it wasn’t responding and had to be shut down.
The same symptoms started happening with Internet Explorer—I suspected a virus but I use a Microsoft security suite which showed nothing wrong, and also scanned the system with another service.
The problem occurred in the evening and I thought I might have solved it before going to bed, but then it began again in the morning and I realized that unless I did some serious troubleshooting I would be unable to send and receive email or surf the web normally.
I had already done several System Restores, each taking about 15-20 minutes to try to revert my system to a time when it worked properly. I went on Google and found many references to similar problems, and over the next day and a half, here is a partial list of things I did to solve the issue:
Uninstall and reinstall Office – twice.
Run Office Diagnostics and fix
Try alternative browsers and email programs – couldn’t connect properly and the browser crashed
Tried to use Google Gmail – didn’t retrieve all of my old email in timely manner
Install service packs 1 and 2 for Vista – each taking an hour to download and another hour to install
Try to replace faulty files in Windows folder
Try to fix several registry entries manually
Use Safe Mode for Outlook 2007 – this actually got me my email to send and receive but limited some other Outlook features
Installed two cleaning programs and purchased a license for Registry Mechanic to try to fix installation and registry problems
Got rid of my Outlook data file and replaced it with a smaller file
At each turn I considered the prospect of reinstalling Vista and all of my programs clean – something I used to have to do at least once a year just to keep Windows running – but which meant hours of restoring settings and looking for programs on disk and online.
Finally the second Vista service pack and running Outlook 2007 in Safe Mode – obviously not an optimal solution, stopped the crashes in Internet Explorer and enabled me to use my email with stability and reliability… finally.
Needless to say I was exhausted by the time I reached this point and was grateful for any solution—even one as unsatisfactory as using a scaled down version of my Outlook email program.
OK – I know many readers have had similar experiences. I know of many users how have taken computers to friends or places like Best Buy to get them to work properly—and frequently they simply break down from one moment to the next.
The question is why can’t a company like Microsoft get it right? (I know many readers will suggest using Apple, and that is an appealing option except that many people have invested in Microsoft software and compatible hardware, know the programs, and Apple does sometimes have its own issues).
They key point here is that Gates’ memo was written in 2003.
We all experienced the old hourglass when things froze much earlier—and now, with Vista and Windows 7, all that seems to have changed is the hourglass has been replaced with a spinning squiggly circle to let us know things are not happening – or sometimes a shiny green slider bar.
Most of us need to rely on Google or an IT department to provide answers, if they even exist. Typing something like “Outlook crashes when sending email” can get you hundreds of possible suggestions—and if you can understand the explanations you might even find a few on Microsoft’s own web site.
And this is almost 30 years since the operating system was first created, and about two decades into Microsoft Office.
And yet – “upgrades” to these products are foisted on us every two years! Each one is chock full of new features, but the one thing we all crave – stability and reliability –apparently cannot be achieved.
We can all joke about this stuff as they do in the Mac and PC ads on TV, and shrug and muddle through, but I believe that this lack of accountability and control is taking its toll on many peoples’ psyches – I know it did on mine last week.
First there is the stress of not being able to work properly and be responsive professionally.
Then there is the added stress of trying to fix the problem and wondering if it is even soluble.
At root is the sense of things out of control and beyond our capacity to fix.
This sense is exacerbated when watching TV news, and sensing that the same symptoms are happening on a larger scale planet wide, and certainly in Washington DC.
On a more mundane level, the Microsoft experience is repeated daily with things that have gotten more complicated each time they change – like ATMs, credit cards, cell phones, satellite and cable systems, remote control and now even parking meters which demand credit cards.
Is the answer denial, withdrawal, meditation, therapy – or just acceptance?
Perhaps it’s the reason one in nine people now suffer from depression.
Our corporations like Microsoft promise so much in their advertising—would it be too much to ask that they at least deliver on some of their promises and provide a product that works stably and reliably after it’s been on the market for nearly three decades?
I don’t know what the answer is—I need to “reboot” regularly with a nap and reach for my cat.
Sometimes I think about Maui or Costa Rica, but I wonder if I can count on an Internet connection.
It is interesting to note that as far back as January 2003 Bill Gates wrote a famous memo excoriating his subordinates for problems with Windows XP and MovieMaker software. Now XP is being clung to by many users for its relative stability.
Like many users I have come to depend upon the Office suite on a daily basis for doing my work; last year I wrote a book on Using Office 2010, the latest version and scratched my head over the added complexity in order to adopt a few new features (the exception is PowerPoint which was markedly enhanced).
But these days I rely mainly on Outlook for my email and calendar; on my laptop I am still using Outlook 2007 and Windows Vista.
Last week, from one moment to the next, the Outlook slowed down in sending out email and eventually just crashed every time I tried, bring up a pale white screen that informed me it wasn’t responding and had to be shut down.
The same symptoms started happening with Internet Explorer—I suspected a virus but I use a Microsoft security suite which showed nothing wrong, and also scanned the system with another service.
The problem occurred in the evening and I thought I might have solved it before going to bed, but then it began again in the morning and I realized that unless I did some serious troubleshooting I would be unable to send and receive email or surf the web normally.
I had already done several System Restores, each taking about 15-20 minutes to try to revert my system to a time when it worked properly. I went on Google and found many references to similar problems, and over the next day and a half, here is a partial list of things I did to solve the issue:
Uninstall and reinstall Office – twice.
Run Office Diagnostics and fix
Try alternative browsers and email programs – couldn’t connect properly and the browser crashed
Tried to use Google Gmail – didn’t retrieve all of my old email in timely manner
Install service packs 1 and 2 for Vista – each taking an hour to download and another hour to install
Try to replace faulty files in Windows folder
Try to fix several registry entries manually
Use Safe Mode for Outlook 2007 – this actually got me my email to send and receive but limited some other Outlook features
Installed two cleaning programs and purchased a license for Registry Mechanic to try to fix installation and registry problems
Got rid of my Outlook data file and replaced it with a smaller file
At each turn I considered the prospect of reinstalling Vista and all of my programs clean – something I used to have to do at least once a year just to keep Windows running – but which meant hours of restoring settings and looking for programs on disk and online.
Finally the second Vista service pack and running Outlook 2007 in Safe Mode – obviously not an optimal solution, stopped the crashes in Internet Explorer and enabled me to use my email with stability and reliability… finally.
Needless to say I was exhausted by the time I reached this point and was grateful for any solution—even one as unsatisfactory as using a scaled down version of my Outlook email program.
OK – I know many readers have had similar experiences. I know of many users how have taken computers to friends or places like Best Buy to get them to work properly—and frequently they simply break down from one moment to the next.
The question is why can’t a company like Microsoft get it right? (I know many readers will suggest using Apple, and that is an appealing option except that many people have invested in Microsoft software and compatible hardware, know the programs, and Apple does sometimes have its own issues).
They key point here is that Gates’ memo was written in 2003.
We all experienced the old hourglass when things froze much earlier—and now, with Vista and Windows 7, all that seems to have changed is the hourglass has been replaced with a spinning squiggly circle to let us know things are not happening – or sometimes a shiny green slider bar.
Most of us need to rely on Google or an IT department to provide answers, if they even exist. Typing something like “Outlook crashes when sending email” can get you hundreds of possible suggestions—and if you can understand the explanations you might even find a few on Microsoft’s own web site.
And this is almost 30 years since the operating system was first created, and about two decades into Microsoft Office.
And yet – “upgrades” to these products are foisted on us every two years! Each one is chock full of new features, but the one thing we all crave – stability and reliability –apparently cannot be achieved.
We can all joke about this stuff as they do in the Mac and PC ads on TV, and shrug and muddle through, but I believe that this lack of accountability and control is taking its toll on many peoples’ psyches – I know it did on mine last week.
First there is the stress of not being able to work properly and be responsive professionally.
Then there is the added stress of trying to fix the problem and wondering if it is even soluble.
At root is the sense of things out of control and beyond our capacity to fix.
This sense is exacerbated when watching TV news, and sensing that the same symptoms are happening on a larger scale planet wide, and certainly in Washington DC.
On a more mundane level, the Microsoft experience is repeated daily with things that have gotten more complicated each time they change – like ATMs, credit cards, cell phones, satellite and cable systems, remote control and now even parking meters which demand credit cards.
Is the answer denial, withdrawal, meditation, therapy – or just acceptance?
Perhaps it’s the reason one in nine people now suffer from depression.
Our corporations like Microsoft promise so much in their advertising—would it be too much to ask that they at least deliver on some of their promises and provide a product that works stably and reliably after it’s been on the market for nearly three decades?
I don’t know what the answer is—I need to “reboot” regularly with a nap and reach for my cat.
Sometimes I think about Maui or Costa Rica, but I wonder if I can count on an Internet connection.
Monday, November 22, 2010
A Blast from the Remote Past
Sixty years ago when I was a tiny boy in Vienna my parents had a nanny named Elsie with a young daughter, Sylvie. We were playmates as Elsie was close to my mom, and recently I remembered how much it hurt to leave them behind when we began the long journey to the U.S.
Many years later when my parents retired Elsie and her husband came down from Canada and visited; I can barely remember the occasion but I do recall how much my mom savored the reconnection.
Then, a couple of weeks ago on Facebook I received a message asking, “Are you the Tom Bunzel who was born in Vienna?”
The profile showed the portrait of a horse, and I knew immediately who this was. Elsie had mentioned how her daughter her taken to horses when they moved to Canada. An hour or so later I was chatting with Sylvia, whom I had known as a young boy as Sylvie.
It was remarkable how our humor and attitudes ran parallel, although our lives c
ould not have been different. Sylvia runs a bookstore and manages a farm with 20 cats and livestock. She’s been married for 40 years and has three children; I never married.
My ego got stroked by how she found me; apparently she had seen one of my technology books in a Canadian bookstore.
Both of our memories of Vienna are dim but we both stirred some recollections out of the cobwebs.
For me the main memory is of a bombed out divided city where my Czech parents were afraid of being caught or dragged outside the American sector.
Sylvie later told me a funny story about getting punished for letting a bunch of caged rabbits loose in the countryside—she was an animal lover early. She mentioned getting spanked and I know that my bottom also got it on a few occasions.
Then we arranged a video call on Skype. I was both excited and apprehensive and it was a bit odd for two older people who hadn’t seen one another for decades to suddenly be face to face.
Sylvia had two cats crawling over her and with my recent adoption of a cat we had lots to talk about on that score.
As we described our respective pasts, I was struck about how similarly difficult her acclimation to her new country was from my own.
I described how my first day in kindergarten the well meaning students had been prompted by the teacher to “help me learn English”, and they held up objects yelling, “pencil,” “pen,” “eraser,” “chalk” and so on until I cried and was overwhelmed. It wasn’t until another teacher took an interest in me helped me learn how to read that I settled down and could go to school without crying.
Sylvie had had a similar experience – she had not been allowed to begin school for a year because she still spoke only German, which put her a year behind.
I was struck by how much this person who was a relative stranger on the one hand shared with me in terms of a common life experience during our formative years—experiences and feelings which wouldn’t have been similarly understood by many of my closest friends.
I tried to evoke memories of my parents and a connection to my distant past and felt bad that I couldn’t come up with memories that might help her. At times I felt a bit awkward and distant, and yet at others the reminder of a legacy that goes without attention for days or weeks at a time reminded me of who I am and where I came from.
Many of my more recent memories of my parents are from their time in retirement in California, and sometimes I can go back to my boyhood in New York.
But here was a link to a childhood that I know still affects me, and yet which I largely know mainly from my parents’ description.
But the kind and funny woman who I saw in the webcam made that personal history real in a way that no photograph or dim memory could. As we shared more of our parents’ early difficulties and our own experiences growing up, it was as though a new pathway reopened to my earliest years.
A day later the impact of this sudden opening is still with me. I can only wonder how the man I am today was formed by experiences that occurred when Sylvie and I were playmates, and which we can barely even recall together today.
For me, it’s interesting to consider how just a few years ago I might have resisted even opening this small door to my distant past, preferring to leave the comfort of my present circumstances undisturbed.
But now I saw the synchronicity as amazing and exciting, as I reflect more deeply on just exactly who I really am, where I came from and why I showed up here in the first place.
Many years later when my parents retired Elsie and her husband came down from Canada and visited; I can barely remember the occasion but I do recall how much my mom savored the reconnection.
Then, a couple of weeks ago on Facebook I received a message asking, “Are you the Tom Bunzel who was born in Vienna?”
The profile showed the portrait of a horse, and I knew immediately who this was. Elsie had mentioned how her daughter her taken to horses when they moved to Canada. An hour or so later I was chatting with Sylvia, whom I had known as a young boy as Sylvie.
It was remarkable how our humor and attitudes ran parallel, although our lives c
ould not have been different. Sylvia runs a bookstore and manages a farm with 20 cats and livestock. She’s been married for 40 years and has three children; I never married.
My ego got stroked by how she found me; apparently she had seen one of my technology books in a Canadian bookstore.
Both of our memories of Vienna are dim but we both stirred some recollections out of the cobwebs.
For me the main memory is of a bombed out divided city where my Czech parents were afraid of being caught or dragged outside the American sector.
Sylvie later told me a funny story about getting punished for letting a bunch of caged rabbits loose in the countryside—she was an animal lover early. She mentioned getting spanked and I know that my bottom also got it on a few occasions.
Then we arranged a video call on Skype. I was both excited and apprehensive and it was a bit odd for two older people who hadn’t seen one another for decades to suddenly be face to face.
Sylvia had two cats crawling over her and with my recent adoption of a cat we had lots to talk about on that score.
As we described our respective pasts, I was struck about how similarly difficult her acclimation to her new country was from my own.
I described how my first day in kindergarten the well meaning students had been prompted by the teacher to “help me learn English”, and they held up objects yelling, “pencil,” “pen,” “eraser,” “chalk” and so on until I cried and was overwhelmed. It wasn’t until another teacher took an interest in me helped me learn how to read that I settled down and could go to school without crying.
Sylvie had had a similar experience – she had not been allowed to begin school for a year because she still spoke only German, which put her a year behind.
I was struck by how much this person who was a relative stranger on the one hand shared with me in terms of a common life experience during our formative years—experiences and feelings which wouldn’t have been similarly understood by many of my closest friends.
I tried to evoke memories of my parents and a connection to my distant past and felt bad that I couldn’t come up with memories that might help her. At times I felt a bit awkward and distant, and yet at others the reminder of a legacy that goes without attention for days or weeks at a time reminded me of who I am and where I came from.
Many of my more recent memories of my parents are from their time in retirement in California, and sometimes I can go back to my boyhood in New York.
But here was a link to a childhood that I know still affects me, and yet which I largely know mainly from my parents’ description.
But the kind and funny woman who I saw in the webcam made that personal history real in a way that no photograph or dim memory could. As we shared more of our parents’ early difficulties and our own experiences growing up, it was as though a new pathway reopened to my earliest years.
A day later the impact of this sudden opening is still with me. I can only wonder how the man I am today was formed by experiences that occurred when Sylvie and I were playmates, and which we can barely even recall together today.
For me, it’s interesting to consider how just a few years ago I might have resisted even opening this small door to my distant past, preferring to leave the comfort of my present circumstances undisturbed.
But now I saw the synchronicity as amazing and exciting, as I reflect more deeply on just exactly who I really am, where I came from and why I showed up here in the first place.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Toward a New Theory of Bio-Relativity?
One of the most common phrases scientists have used when talking about a search of for other life is to possibly find “life as we know it.” This is a telling phrase because so much of what we can experience depends precisely on who and what we are.
As neuroscience advances, it is getting closer and closer to locating thought and ideas at the molecular level, and as such a field is evolving known as “bio-physics.”
It may be worth speculating then whether just as Einstein revolutionized Newtonian physics with his Special and General Theories of Relativity, it would now be appropriate to consider new theories that take into account the nature of the human being him/herself—and with it the very nature of consciousness.
If we assume that consciousness—whatever it is—manifests through our physical being while we live, it is obvious that the nature of consciousness is a function of at a minimum the circuitry of our brain, and as is becoming more and more apparent, also the entire physiology of our body/mind.
And we can probably surmise that consciousness is evolving. We know that embryos go through the various stages of evolution from single cell organisms, to reptiles, to mammals and finally humans.
We also sometimes talk about a “Reptilian” brain, which is presumably more primitive, reactionary and less capable of warmth or compassion than a mammalian brain. We might even presume that compassion evolved with warm blooded mammals, and among some humans at least, it is hopefully still evolving.
When I look at my cat, I can get a sense of warmth and love but I also know instinctively that if I try to “figure out what she’s thinking”, I am wasting my time. She is also reacting in many ways—and she is literally on a different frequency than I am—with some overlap which involves shared needs and a bond that can gradually develop.
I think where Eckhart Tolle refers in his writing to knowing some cats as “zen masters,” what he means is that because they don’t have an egoic mind like humans, they are always in the present, and so when they repose they exude a sense of calm that many humans would envy.
So again, while it may seem obvious to the point of irrelevance, what we know, experience and can see is a function of the frequency on which we’re operating. In fact, our eyes can see only a certain range of light; but through instruments we know other frequency are operating and influencing; for example gamma or x-rays which are beyond our ability to naturally perceive. Similarly dogs hear in a range beyond our own, and dolphins communicate with sound in ways we need instruments to monitor.
So as our study of consciousness and mind goes to the subatomic or quantum level, what does the Einsteinian model of relativity potentially suggest for being itself?
General Relativity as I understand it says that it is the geometry of space and time which is influenced by whatever matter is present – space is curved – and gravitational forces bend space so that time is relative and truly moves at a different rate depending upon where you are—it’s “relative.”
Special Relativity says that the laws of physics (nature) are the same for observers in uniform motion relative to each other and the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers.
A famous example is of an observer on the ground watching an airplane overhead, on which a flight attendance is walking. Her speed for the observer on the ground will be different than for someone seated on the plane; there is no objective motion—everything is linked to a frame of reference (of an observer).
How might we slightly adjust some of these concepts—speculatively—to a theory of being or consciousness?
Well, our frame of reference, besides being a function of where we are, is also a function of what we are.
If we begin with the fact of our existence and bodily nature, we can say that what we can know or experience is a direct function of our being; for example, we perceive in a space of three dimensions so that if other dimensions exist, they would be beyond our direct perception.
Science generally presupposes that what we are is all that there is, or is all that is knowable.
But though we might not be able to measure or completely comprehend it—we know that we have a mind; perhaps we can make a leap of faith that nothing can exceed the speed of mind.
If we consider that a mind functions through thought—where is a thought? Presumably in the quantum space between two neural cells as they “fire.” This may well make a thought outside of space/time in the same way that a subatomic particle may appear or disappear beyond cause and effect.
Perhaps not mathematically, but more poetically, we might then create a formula something like
M=C/P –
or Mind is the result of consciousness based on physiology – our software running through our hardware and expressed, as Epigenetics has suggested, through our genetic code responding to the environment.
These concepts would shift the assumption of science that nature is objectively knowable to a more reasonable position that it is only knowable based upon our observation of it—and the nature of the observer is a critical and generally ignored factor.
This concept was known as “being in the world”—seeing existence as a process by the philosophical school of Phenomenology and much of today’s “new age” thinking deals with the potential of knowing ourselves better so that nature becomes more understandable to us and we evolve in some way.
Certainly the absence of such a position is at the heart of scientific efforts to “control” nature with the assumption that we can know it objectively without taking into account our own being and participation in its processes, have yielded disastrous results and miscalculations.
As neuroscience delves more deeply into our brain and our “being”, however, if we begin to think in terms of relative scale to the subatomic and perhaps even the astronomical, we may begin to fathom and ultimately discern the true nature of mind or consciousness.
One effort along these lines is the trend toward meditation and its scientific basis—where we can change our nature (human alchemy) and thereby experience life differently—and alter our own reality.
And as we decode our genetic makeup (with vast areas of “junk DNA” that is simply not decodable or knowable at present) we can get a sense that higher levels of intelligence might become knowable and accessible—perhaps even intelligence that is not dependent on physical form for existence or influence.
Our very sense of life “as we know it” would expand—and with it we might get a more realistic sense of our true relative position in the universe, as sense of awe, reverence or purpose we may have of which we’ve been unaware, and strike a balance and harmony with existence/nature, instead of trying to control and manipulate it.
Such an opening and change in our attitude to existence may also, I would suggest, make it possible to connect with higher levels of life and intelligence which have to this point been largely hidden from us, as we’ve evolved from only the single cell organisms of eons ago to human beings at an evolutionary crossroads, and still largely unaware of our true nature, mind and purpose.
As neuroscience advances, it is getting closer and closer to locating thought and ideas at the molecular level, and as such a field is evolving known as “bio-physics.”
It may be worth speculating then whether just as Einstein revolutionized Newtonian physics with his Special and General Theories of Relativity, it would now be appropriate to consider new theories that take into account the nature of the human being him/herself—and with it the very nature of consciousness.
If we assume that consciousness—whatever it is—manifests through our physical being while we live, it is obvious that the nature of consciousness is a function of at a minimum the circuitry of our brain, and as is becoming more and more apparent, also the entire physiology of our body/mind.
And we can probably surmise that consciousness is evolving. We know that embryos go through the various stages of evolution from single cell organisms, to reptiles, to mammals and finally humans.
We also sometimes talk about a “Reptilian” brain, which is presumably more primitive, reactionary and less capable of warmth or compassion than a mammalian brain. We might even presume that compassion evolved with warm blooded mammals, and among some humans at least, it is hopefully still evolving.
When I look at my cat, I can get a sense of warmth and love but I also know instinctively that if I try to “figure out what she’s thinking”, I am wasting my time. She is also reacting in many ways—and she is literally on a different frequency than I am—with some overlap which involves shared needs and a bond that can gradually develop.
I think where Eckhart Tolle refers in his writing to knowing some cats as “zen masters,” what he means is that because they don’t have an egoic mind like humans, they are always in the present, and so when they repose they exude a sense of calm that many humans would envy.
So again, while it may seem obvious to the point of irrelevance, what we know, experience and can see is a function of the frequency on which we’re operating. In fact, our eyes can see only a certain range of light; but through instruments we know other frequency are operating and influencing; for example gamma or x-rays which are beyond our ability to naturally perceive. Similarly dogs hear in a range beyond our own, and dolphins communicate with sound in ways we need instruments to monitor.
So as our study of consciousness and mind goes to the subatomic or quantum level, what does the Einsteinian model of relativity potentially suggest for being itself?
General Relativity as I understand it says that it is the geometry of space and time which is influenced by whatever matter is present – space is curved – and gravitational forces bend space so that time is relative and truly moves at a different rate depending upon where you are—it’s “relative.”
Special Relativity says that the laws of physics (nature) are the same for observers in uniform motion relative to each other and the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers.
A famous example is of an observer on the ground watching an airplane overhead, on which a flight attendance is walking. Her speed for the observer on the ground will be different than for someone seated on the plane; there is no objective motion—everything is linked to a frame of reference (of an observer).
How might we slightly adjust some of these concepts—speculatively—to a theory of being or consciousness?
Well, our frame of reference, besides being a function of where we are, is also a function of what we are.
If we begin with the fact of our existence and bodily nature, we can say that what we can know or experience is a direct function of our being; for example, we perceive in a space of three dimensions so that if other dimensions exist, they would be beyond our direct perception.
Science generally presupposes that what we are is all that there is, or is all that is knowable.
But though we might not be able to measure or completely comprehend it—we know that we have a mind; perhaps we can make a leap of faith that nothing can exceed the speed of mind.
If we consider that a mind functions through thought—where is a thought? Presumably in the quantum space between two neural cells as they “fire.” This may well make a thought outside of space/time in the same way that a subatomic particle may appear or disappear beyond cause and effect.
Perhaps not mathematically, but more poetically, we might then create a formula something like
M=C/P –
or Mind is the result of consciousness based on physiology – our software running through our hardware and expressed, as Epigenetics has suggested, through our genetic code responding to the environment.
These concepts would shift the assumption of science that nature is objectively knowable to a more reasonable position that it is only knowable based upon our observation of it—and the nature of the observer is a critical and generally ignored factor.
This concept was known as “being in the world”—seeing existence as a process by the philosophical school of Phenomenology and much of today’s “new age” thinking deals with the potential of knowing ourselves better so that nature becomes more understandable to us and we evolve in some way.
Certainly the absence of such a position is at the heart of scientific efforts to “control” nature with the assumption that we can know it objectively without taking into account our own being and participation in its processes, have yielded disastrous results and miscalculations.
As neuroscience delves more deeply into our brain and our “being”, however, if we begin to think in terms of relative scale to the subatomic and perhaps even the astronomical, we may begin to fathom and ultimately discern the true nature of mind or consciousness.
One effort along these lines is the trend toward meditation and its scientific basis—where we can change our nature (human alchemy) and thereby experience life differently—and alter our own reality.
And as we decode our genetic makeup (with vast areas of “junk DNA” that is simply not decodable or knowable at present) we can get a sense that higher levels of intelligence might become knowable and accessible—perhaps even intelligence that is not dependent on physical form for existence or influence.
Our very sense of life “as we know it” would expand—and with it we might get a more realistic sense of our true relative position in the universe, as sense of awe, reverence or purpose we may have of which we’ve been unaware, and strike a balance and harmony with existence/nature, instead of trying to control and manipulate it.
Such an opening and change in our attitude to existence may also, I would suggest, make it possible to connect with higher levels of life and intelligence which have to this point been largely hidden from us, as we’ve evolved from only the single cell organisms of eons ago to human beings at an evolutionary crossroads, and still largely unaware of our true nature, mind and purpose.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Reconcile or Perish
The heartbreak of watching television, particularly the news, is seeing the apparent chasm of understanding between the two hugely polarized segments of society, here in the U.S. and also around the world.
To summarize the essence of the conflict as I see it:
On the one hand there are Traditionalists who adhere to a strict set of moral standards that they firmly believe come from a higher power that renders those ideas sacrosanct and immutable.
On the other side there are what we might call Progressives that believe we can "improve" the circumstances of human existence according to ideas that come from human beings and that scientific advancement, along with removing past moral divides among people, will create a better world.
The choice of terms or names is not meant to favor either of these camps over the other.
The heartbreak, for me, is to see both sides mauling one another verbally and sometimes even physically, and generally parroting the pronouncements of the most shrill and extreme proponents of their respective positions, without any compassion or understanding of the other side.
To watch cable news in particular is to never see spokespeople for either side actually listen, take in, weigh and appreciate the point of view of the other.
To allude to a Christian concept, or actually one attributed to a spiritual master named Jesus, the idea of loving one's neighbor as oneself, and thereby at least being open to his/her ideas, is absent from current dialog.
To see children thrust into these disputes, carrying placards and voicing ideas that they have gotten from others, is even more disturbing.
Clearly if these two camps cannot somehow be reconciled, our society is in serious peril. To his credit Obama mentioned this in his campaign but for various reasons his administration has so far been unable to effect a way of letting both sides hear the other and work out their differences.
I believe that a road to reconciliation may exist if we align the two camps to what they hold sacred; for the Traditionalists that would be God or Religion; for the Progressives that would be their God or Religion, namely science (or what man has discovered and achieved).
Perhaps the preeminent proponent of the Scientific perspective would be Stephen Hawking, who in his lastest book, The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, has attempted to strip all mention of God out of any explanation of reality, claiming essentially that natural phenoma alone can explain existence and that a "multiverse" came into existence out of nothing.
On the surface, this point of view flies in the face of the Traditionalists and Religious community.
But what was interesting was to see these ideas discussed on of all things The Larry King Show, and to hear Deepak Chopra "take in" the Hawking/Mlodinow ideas and describe them lovingly as actually embracing both the sacred and the idea of higher consciousness.
What Chopra suggested as he questioned the co-author, Mlodinow (with whom he will now collaborate on a new book) is that the very natural laws on which Hawking bases is complete theory of everything are at their base… Intelligent –of an order of intelligence much higher and far vaster than what ordinary common sense would have us believe.
When Quantum Physics demonstrates that at the subatomic level particles behave or exist only according to how they are observed, that firmly places an 800 lb. gorilla into the domain of science—namely Consciousness.
Whether you use the term "God" or "Natural Law" to refer to higher levels of intelligence or consciousness that are being discovered at the macro and micro-cosmic levels makes no difference—clearly such energies, forces or realities are now accepted by both camps under different names.
From this perspective, with a sense of awe of the unknowable that seems to lie at the heart of smallest and the grandest scales of at least our portion of the "multiverse", I would submit that the Scientific Progressives might offer an olive branch to the Traditionalists by acknowledging that certain things are in fact sacred or simply "higher": for example, Life.
After all, for all of our advances we have still not managed to create life out of non-life; we can only manipulate life for our purposes.
Now before Progressives excoriate me for threatening womens' reproductive rights let me say that this doesn't necessarily mean the adoption of one extreme belief or another.
Rather, it should merely represent the first step for showing respect for one aspect of the beliefs of the Traditionalists; Life is not possible without a degree of Consciousness—whether we call that God or simply higher form of Intelligence or Energy.
One would hope that once the scientific community can come to this conclusion and become open to the concept of the higher or the sacred, that the less extreme members of the Traditional camp will similarly open and accept some of the tenets of the Progressives—namely that we are all expressing the same genes (or God's children) and worthy of respect.
In a nutshell, we are not better than them—we literally are them. We're all really the same stuff.
One would hope that this sort of reconciliation in the middle might lead to a way for new leaders to emerge and truly begin to solve the many problems facing our society by respecting the foundational beliefs of both sides, as they begin to come together.
Unfortunately this can only be achieved if we begin to re-examine and alter our attention and subjugation to the mass media, because clearly the FOX/Traditional and the CNN/Progressive channels have a vested interest in continuing to foster hostility and controversy.
I believe that this is where the Internet comes in. If the Internet and social media can foster a new paradigm of communication that is not based on advertising and conflict (and mass consumption) but rather participation and acceptance, reconciliation has a chance.
At its core, true social media is exactly that, embracing the social and cooperative and rejecting the zero sum concept of limited resources and winners and losers. It represents reconciliation through listening and understanding.
It's important that individuals embrace the values of openness and tolerance for other ideas and perhaps even change their own points of view if properly influenced, so that the social institutions that are currently unable to transcend sharp divisions can do so and begin to function effectively once again.
The essence of such an attitude is compassion; I happen to believe it is of a higher order of intelligence in the same way that consciousness or life is, and that if we don't begin to manifest it in significant ways we're in serious trouble, both domestically and globally.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Tools of Engagement: How the World of Communication is Changing
I'm proud to announce that my new book, "Tools of Engagement: Presenting and Training in a World of Social Media," is now available at Amazon.com. As someone who has written extensively on video and presentation, I wanted this book to reflect the many changes that are impacting how we communicate with each other using technology.
The main theme of the book is that where presentations used to be targeted one-time events, they are now part of an ongoing conversation, and while authority figures may still claim the main podium, all presenters subject to a new democratic set of expectations of participation and engagement by their audience.
I strongly urge anyone with a message to avoid a "broadcast mentality" and simply give a PowerPoint presentation—and hope for the best. Such a strategy is doomed to failure today on many levels.
First there is the expectation of engagement and participation by any modern audience. Audiences expect a speaker or expert to have done a lot of research into their needs, and to be transparent and available online prior and subsequent to any presentation or event for interaction and feedback.
Whether the information is for internal or public consumption, a speaker today needs to have a presence, either through a blog, YouTube channel, Facebook group or event page, or some other interactive venue where the audience can get in touch and develop a sense of who they are—and often begin to interact with the speaker and become involved in the material directly.
There is also the phenomenon of the "Backchannel"; which is the reality that many of those attending any presentation are actively commenting and reacting with smartphones or PDAs, so that if the speaker is not aware of the sense of the audience, or engaged with the commentary, he or she will be tuned out.
Getting a sense of the reality of social media allows a presenter or trainer to be attuned to the needs of an audience and provide significant value. In terms of ordinary PowerPoint—it's the difference between trying to impress an audience with a spinning logo and information about YOU, as opposed to leading with insightful questions and foreknowledge of issues of importance to your audience.
For example, if a presenter has been active on blogs, monitoring and participating in Twitter and Facebook, or uploading video or images relevant to their field, they will generally find a receptive and knowledgable audience eager to hear more and open to calls to action.
These ideas have been well documented and presented in popular books like Groundswell, Tribes and Trust Agents, so what I've tried to do in my book is to provide some examples of the actual social and desktop tools and how to make them work effectively together.
For example, while PowerPoint is a staple for live presentations, its stale title and bullet slides are old hat, and professional speakers generally opt for more powerful visuals using image metaphors, analogies and diagrams. What I try to do is suggest how social tools like YouTube can set the stage for PowerPoint prior to an event, and then YouTube and its cousins SlideShare and AuthorStream (presentation hosting sites) can become powerful sources of additional content to maintain a connection with an audience.
I am also a big believer in the new web conferencing technologies which provide instant communication with a large group of attendees, but have the issues of maintaining a connection with an invisible audience, using just the power of the speaker's voice, message and visuals and graphics. In a world where getting anywhere is proving to be a challenge, going to a virtual event is proving very popular, but it has its own set of rules, risks and rewards.
What I want to do in Tools of Engagement is provide a reader with enough ideas and scenarios to spark the imagination in whatever his or her field may be—from an entrepreneur to a marketing executive at a large organization, to engage their colleagues and customers in ways that make the style of presentation effective and valuable.
I conclude the book with some speculation as to how social media and its impact on the organization may be evolutionary, in my hope that as a new "worldwide nervous system" the social Internet will either force or simply shift organizations to be more responsive to human and planetary needs, as opposed to simply making profits for shareholders.
Certainly it seems as though brands are having to listen more and more to customers online—we can only hope that this trend also translates into more than just public relations initiatives but eventually, with the instant involvement of customers and workers through the web—to a more natural and real awareness of higher values, like cooperation, philanthropy, compassion and wisdom.
If you're interested in discussing issues raised in the book, please feel free to comment here and perhaps we can demonstrate the power of social tools for engagement in a flourishing dialog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
