How an event could be interpreted in two ways

 

Many technologists think that we blame technologies or products, instead of people, when bad things happen. According to them, instead of blaming guns for violence in US, we should blame people who use them. “Guns don’t kill people, people do,” kind of argument. Many (most?) of us, including me, disagree. We believe that it is the availability of guns that has to be blamed.

 

When I think about it, I conclude that we are looking at the same event but we come from different perspectives. Let me illustrate:

 

Here is an event. The conspiracy theorists (like QAnon) use YouTube to spread nasty rumors about Muslims in America. The video is watched by millions of people who believe in such things. They go out and harm every Muslim in sight before they are stopped.

 

From a technologist perspective, YouTube was created to provide entertainment, but it was hijacked by people committed to spreading rumors. Result: harm to hundreds of innocent Muslims instead of entertainment.

 

From an ordinary citizen’s perspective, the groups like QAnon are always planning to spread rumors. However, the old way of sending letter or even emails was not very efficient. They would have converted a few people not millions. YouTube provides a way of quickly, cheaply and effectively spreading rumors on a massive scale, and hence harm to hundreds of innocent Muslims instead of a few.  

 

Take the event we are sickeningly familiar with: A massacre caused by a murderer, say in a school, using a legally obtained semi-automatic weapon.

 

Form a technology innovator’s perspective, the weapon was created for a good cause, to be used by soldiers in getting an upper hand in a combat situation. It was the murderer who misused the technology and caused mayhem. The result, twenty innocent lives lost, instead of twenty enemy troops.

 

From ordinary citizen’s perspective, the murder had an intent to causing harm. He would have used a knife and killed a couple of people. However, since the weapon was available, he bought and used it. The result: twenty innocent lives lost, instead of two.

 

So, the same event can be interpreted (or explained) in two ways depending on your perspective or your intent. However, as an ordinary citizen, I am appalled by the alternative views and consider them to be self-serving.

Labeling

 I had an interesting conversation with a very thoughtful person who I respect a great deal, about his objection to being labeled. The “labels” are what we use to describe ourselves of those we interact with. So, I may use terms like “Indian” or “Gujarati” or “Engineer” or “Liberal” to describe myself, or a person I am interacting with. Associated with each label is a list of attributes; such as expected behavior patterns, likes, and dislikes. These may be real of prejudicial.

 

His objection was related to these associated attributes, because they may be falsely assigned and unfair to the person being labeled. I agree, this would be objectionable, especially for those of us who are (or at least think we are) different from the others covered under the label being commonly applied to us. Ideally, we would like to know what lies underneath--- what are the person’s interests or views he/she holds. They may or may not be what one would assume given a label.

 

However, there are a couple of problems to achieving this “no-label” world. 

 

First, in many cases, you don’t have a choice from being labeled. A black person has to just show up to be labeled as a black person. An Indian has to open his mouth and a Muslim woman wear her hijab to be so labled.

 

Second, it will be difficult to start a conversation with someone unknown without asking a high level label-related question. My thoughtful friend was quite surprised by the first question we asked when we met someone, say at a B&B we were staying. It was: “Where are you from?” To him it was our attempt at label the person based on where he/she came from. When I asked what would he do, he said he would ask what that person’s interests are.

 

In my opinion, that would be quite awkward. If I say as the first question, “Hi, what are your interests?” I might get a glaring look back. So, “Where are you from?” is an innocuous beginning of a conversation, even if it implies we will judge the person based on the response. 

 

Assigning a label is tantamount to pre-filling a list of attributes associated with a person. We may change the list as we know him/her better, and even forget the label we had initially assigned. But we need something to start with.

 

We are here to live with labels, either you applying it to the other person or vice versa. The only hope is that we move beyond the label quickly and keep an open mind regarding the validity of the pre-filled attributes that come with it.

-------------------------------------------------------

I have covered related topics in my earlier Posts. In my Post of December 2013 (“No Name”) I wondered what would happen if we had no name, which is an extreme example of having no labels. In February 2015 Post (“Real You”), I developed a three-level structure to describe me (or you) based on a similar structure I read about in a book on 

It is a wonderful world!

 I have a doctorate in engineering and so understand physics, science and engineering fairly well, at least on an intellectual level. However, that does not mean that I do not experience a sense of awe at what nature has revealed to us thus far.

 

Let’s start from the images of universe and its myriad of objects. A good place to start given how fresh are the images sent by James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). Although I know that there are 100 billion stars in our galaxies and there are 100 billion galaxies, plus or minus a few billion, I still feel overwhelmed when I see the images of deep space sent previously by Hubble, now refined by JWST. Now think about the fact that the visual stuff is just five percent of the universe. Some twenty percent is dark matter and the rest…seventy five percent---is dark energy. Now consider all that emerged from infinitesimally small singularity when the Big Bang occurred some 13.7 billion years ago. That’s not all. There are likely to be multiple universes around and there is also a possibility that the whole thing is nothing but mathematics, as per Max Tegmark of MIT.

 

From universe, let’s come down to the splendid complexity and variation of life on this earth. First of all, as Carl Sagan famously said, “we are made out of star stuff.” The heavier elements (besides Hydrogen and Helium) we are composed of would not have materialized if it were not the enormous temperature and pressure that are present in a star. As the star goes through its life cycle, it explodes dispersing this heavier stuff in the interstellar space and they eventually end up as our building blocks. How amazing is that?

 

For a physics and mathematics-oriented person, biology is a whole another world, so to speak. From a simple beginning of single cell life, how has nature created a complex human being? We are composed of some thirty trillion cells, each of them has a specific task to perform and requires regular nourishment. This count would double if we include microbiome…bacteria, viruses, and fungi…that live in/on us. 

 

Each cell is complicated and contain DNAs, RNAs and proteins. Recently, I started a course of biochemistry and molecular biology and finally grasped how complex the proteins are. There are thousands of them, each with its massive chemical and physical structure. DNAs themselves are a marvel of nature. They are complex molecules made out of three billion bases, which are “simple” chemicals. Something goes wrong with a few of them during reproduction and you have a mutation. However, it is the mutation that makes life as diverse as it is. New organisms emerge and those who are able to survive the situation then are able to thrive. The others don’t. 

 

Thinking about how a simple activity, like walking, requires an efficient execution of a complicated process. The retinas of eyes receive reflected light. That gets converted into electrical signals and get sent to a specific part of the brain which, through pattern matching, figures out what the eyes are looking at. It then sends appropriate signals to muscles that contract to make legs move while keeping balance. The “GPS” in brain notices where I am walking and gets me home. Unbelievable.

 

Even though the world that I perceive on my daily walks is complex, that is only a tiny sliver of what really exists, as described by Ed Yong in his book “An Immense World”. All of us, all living things, exist in our “sensory bubble” referred to as “Umwelt”, a German word. According to Ed, the earth teems with sights and textures, sounds and vibrations, smells and tastes, electric and magnetic field. A lot of it is outside our Umwelt. Just see the dog sniffing around. It is able to detect what is beyond what we can. Or a turtle that can track earth’s magnetic field. Or a bat that senses obstacles in total darkness using radar. Each in its own Umwelt.

 

However, even those animals can’t detect the part of our universe that is very small. Beyond molecules and atoms are quarks. The small entities (like electrons or photon) behave like particles as well as waves. Some properties of these very small particles are bizarre. They can be anywhere until observed. Also, a particle can affect another (it is entangled with) immediately even if it is at the other end of the universe.

 

I cannot but marvel at what nature has created. and remember Louis Armstrong and his famous song:

 

What a wonderful world

 

Old laws, modern impacts

Planet Money of NPR is one of my favorite Podcasts. Recently, it had two episodes, back-to-back, that made me think about old laws in different parts of the world and what impacts they have in modern days. 

 

The first story was about lunch time in France. If you have done any business in that country, you would know that lunch in France is not munching sandwiches at your desk. They like to go out to eat and devote more than one hour to this activity. What I did not realize is that there was, until recently, a law that required people not to eat in office.

 

The reason was, in the old days they needed to clean up work places after so many hours of being occupied…. fumigate and so on. So, people were forced to leave office buildings during midday. So, a natural outcome was they ate lunch outside their offices instead of just cooling their heels. Recently, the law was changed so workers can be more like us, Americans, and eat in their offices without risking arrest (I jest).  However, people still prefer to eat lunch out and it is now a French tradition. Why? Because they enjoy camaraderie and time away from work in the middle of the day.

 

Result: This old law continues to be beneficial even in the modern days, not in the way it was intended but because it promotes better work environment. 

 

Another story dealt with a law that is related to the expiry date stamped on food packages. We are all familiar with these dates…good if used by xxx, not to be to be sold after yyy, and so on. Not only are there multiple ways these dates are reported, but there is no consistency and different states have different rules.

 

A specific example cited was for milk sold in Montana. The law in that state says that a grocery stores need to stop selling milk by twelve days after the cow was milked, while in most other states it is about twice as long. The reason for the law is that in the old days milk did not last that long which is clearly not applicable any more given the modern ways of storing and treating it. All other states have changed but not Montana. Now it is difficult to make change in that state due to a powerful milk lobby. If they increase the days milk is allowed to stay on shelf, outsiders may come in. Currently they don’t because twelve days does not allow enough time to transport milk from long distance and sell it. 

 

Result: People in Montana pay higher price for their milk just because of an old law. Not so good, but not the end of the world.

 

It is hard not to bring up another old law which is causing a devastating impact, unlike the milk law in Montana. This one applies throughout US, and is not really a law but a constitutional amendment. You know what I am talking about. It is the second amendment which gives citizens the right to carry guns. This law was created in the days of militia and fear of a malevolent government. Just as is the case with the prior two examples, this reasoning does not apply in the modern times, but it is almost impossible to make changes. Once again there is a lobby involved, the NRA. Thanks to the vicious circle of gun manufacturers, NRA and greedy politicians, this amendment remains in force.

 

Result: Terrible. Massacre after massacre, with no end in sight.

 

How gullible do you have to be?

How self-centered do you have to be to put your re-election ahead of doing public good that you were elected for?

 

How power hungry do you have to be that you are prepared to sacrifice democracy in order to cling to power?

 

How spineless do you have to be that you have no ability to stand up to blatant lies told by a ruthless megalomaniac?

 

How ruthless do you have to be to tell blatant lies when you know they are so?

 

How heartless do you have to be to make statements like “banning assault weapons is off the table” after watching the carnage being committed using them?

 

How financially driven do you have to be to run a business that assist in perpetuating what you know to be lies? 

 

How greedy do you have to be to put the profits you make from making and selling weapons ahead of the harm they are causing in the society?

 

How cynical do you have to be in order to hide behind “Second Amendment” when you know it was not created with the modern society or weapons in mind?

 

How hypocritical do you have to be to believe that the lives of fetuses need to be protected but those of innocent victims of gun violence do not?

 

How racist do you have to be to believe in ideas such as The Replacement Theory?

 

How gullible do you have to be to believe that humans are not responsible for the rapid change in climate; vaccines don’t work; or it is not a gun problem, it is mental illness problem?

 

Very. 

Color and casting

 In 1984, a TV series called Far Pavilions premiered. One important role was that of Anjuli, an Indian woman. Amy Irwing was cast in that role because for some reason the makers of the series did not think an Indian actress was capable of fitting the bill. I clearly remember Amy Irwing, looking like she was dipped in chocolate, gamely playing along. However, the casting looked fake. 

 

Shortly afterwards came a TV series called Mahabharata (1989-90), based on the Indian epic. Almost none of the characters was Indian; they were white and black Americans. However, unlike in the previous example, no one was painted brown to resemble the skin color of Indians. The producer was making a statement that skin color should not matter in telling a story. Besides, how would one know what exactly how the many of the characters in Mahabharat really looked like? 

 

That did not go well with many Indians. They were particularly troubled by black actors playing Indians…you see many Indians are extremely conscious of the color of skin. It is like having a black actor play Jesus. 

 

Fast forward to Bridgerton, a TV series we finished watching. It is a period piece set in England of the last century. What is curious is that many leading parts are played with dark-skinned folks, including the queen. Unlike the case with Mahabharata, we know exactly what was the skin color of the upper crust of the English society. It wasn’t black, so there is no ambiguity. Thus, the point being made in Mahabharata was further advanced by Bridgerton. 

 

From white folks playing dark skinned part, we have come to dark skinned people playing white folk’s part. From the days of white folks not trusting a dark-skinned person to play a dark-skinned character, we have advanced to producers creating shows in which the skin color does not matter.

 

And why should the skin color matter? How long will it be when we become completely unaware of the color of the other person’s skin? 

 

Certainly, not in my life time. My granddaughter’s? Maybe. 

 

Maybe not.

Why buy an original?

 

The world of art (fine art, photography) is going through a major upheaval. Artificial intelligence is making it possible not only to make superb copies of fine art but also create “original “works. Also, investment in physical art is moving toward that of a digital form. Note the outlandish prices being offered for digital images that are “original” as confirmed by technologies such as NFT. 

 

Originals, copies, AI, fakes, outlandish prices. What’s going on? What is going to happen?

 

Thinking through this, I went back to the basics. Why would one acquire a piece of art…physical or digital? Then the next question would be: Why not buy a copy instead of original? 

 

According to me, here are five factors that lead you to answering these questions. 

 

Factor 1. The pleasure the work provides by looking at it. 

 

Why does certain artworks give pleasure, and others do not? It is a matter of individual taste.  A refrain I have often heard from buyers (or appreciators) is that “this work speaks to me.” There may be several reasons for that: The work reminds him (her) of some pleasant memory…the scene, the person in the artwork, the atmosphere. Maybe the subject, the composition, and the lighting are very appealing. For abstract art, looking at it engages a different part of the brain. That might do the trick and the work of art speaks to him. 

 

One point to keep in mind is that the same feelings can be invoked by a copy as an original art work, especially now that an AI driven “artists” can exactly duplicate each brush stroke in case of fine art, and by simply pressing the duplicate button on a laptop, one can make exact copies of a digital art.

 

Factor 2. The authenticity of the work. 

 

By authenticity, I do not mean “original”.  Rather, for example, that the scene presented in a photograph is real, exactly as captured by the camera without any significant alteration. 

 

The value of this factor was brought home to me by a comment from one of my relatives who wanted to print and display one of my photos of a bee and a flower. He wanted to make sure that the bee was real and not Photoshopped from somewhere else. Only then he was going to make a print. Now, even if the bee was Photoshopped, he would have gotten the same pleasure from looking at it (Factor 1 above) but he put a higher value on a realistic representation of nature, than a fake one.

 

The same argument is made by the judges in a photo competition I frequently enter. The images have to be authentic, not Photoshopped. Unless, of course, the artwork is entered in a “Creative” competition. Then anything goes, and this Factor does not apply. 

 

Factor 3. The pleasure of owning an original. 

 

There is some inherent pleasure of owning the “original” even if a copy provides the same pleasure if you look at it. Of course, if there is no original, there will be no copies. Copies get made because the original has such appeal (Factors 1 and 2), and the artist becomes well-known because of those Factors.

 

People go through great lengths in ensuring the work of art they are acquiring is original. If it is a masterpiece from a well-known artist, there is a trail of ownership, so the originality may be assured. Unless a hidden work appears in someone’s cellar. Then the brush strokes are examined and the chemical composition of the paint is evaluated to ensure it is not a fake. Once again, in the world of AI, this will become increasingly difficult.

 

For digital images, NFT (Non-Fungible Token) is one way to assure the owner that he owns the original. This is a welcome development for digital artists.

 

This Factor---the pleasure of owning an original--- has emotional reasons rather than rational. Perhaps the next Factor augments the reason for owning an original more strongly. 

 

Factor 4. The bragging value of owning an original

 

This comes to play if the artist (or photographer) is famous. “Hey, I own an original Van Gogh, while you can afford to own only a copy.”

 

How do you separate this factor from the one above? There is a simple test: If you can not tell anyone or show anyone what you own, what will you purchase? The answer reveals your true love for owning the original, not the bragging rights that come with that.

 

Frequently, artwork does get purchased anonymously, and one of the objectives might be that the owner does not want to brag, just get the deep happiness of owning an original. However, the other objective might be to keep the artwork away from potential thieves. 

 

To me, Factor 4 is likely to be a big reason why people are paying outlandish prices for owning originals of famous artists.

 

Factor 5. Art as an investment

 

I argue that this is not a separate factor but inherently intertwined with the others above. 

 

A basic assumption in anything that is purchased for investment is it can be sold for a higher price at a future date. For the next person to offer a higher price, not only does he have to be convinced that the item being offered is an original, not a copy, but he has to get more pleasure of owning an original than the first buyer, and/or have a larger need to brag about it (Factors 3 and 4 above). 

 

If that were not the case, the second buyer would get a copy and not purchase the original from the first buyer.  The investment cycle will then collapse. In future, the first buyer will not pay top dollars for an original, if it were just for investment purposes because future transactions may not materialize. Unless of course it is a speculative investment; a bet on an unknown artist. Even then, the value will depend on that unknown artist becoming better known so that Factors 3 and 4 come into play. So, Factor 5 is based on Factors 3 and 4, not independent.

 

The final point to ponder is whether the museums will continue to buy the originals, and pay a premium. 

 

Yes, that may hold true. Afterall, why would visitors pay a premium to see the original Mona Lisa in the Louvre, and not a copy hanging in my den? As long as that is the case, museums will buy originals and brag about them to attract visitors.

 

Hmmm, museums bragging instead of individuals. 

 

Aha!