Ian Grigg - Austrian Laminated Flower Currency C. 2005 / Psycho-Acoustics Horror Show / Global Banking

Videos by cypherpunk Austrian artist Johannes Grenzfurthner through project called Monochrom (notable re optics). Context hacking.

" In the early 1990s, Grenzfurthner was a member of several BBS message boards.[7] Grenzfurther used his online connections to create monochrom , a zine[8] or alternative magazine that dealt with art, technology and subversive cultures.[9] His motivation was to react to the emerging conservativism in cyber-cultures of the early 1990s,[10][11] and to combine his political background in the Austrian punk and antifa movement with discussion of new technologies and the cultures they create.[12] The publication featured interviews and essays, by e.g. Bruce Sterling, HR Giger, Eric Drexler, Terry Pratchett and Bob Black,[13] in its experimental layout style.[14] In 1995 the group decided to cover new artistic practices[15][16] and started experimenting with different media: computer games, robots, puppet theater, musical, short films, pranks,[17][18] conferences, online activism, which Grenzfurthner calls ‘Urban Hacking’[19] or more specific: ‘Context hacking’, a term that Grenzfurthner coined.[20]"

He made a psychological horror film “Masking the Threshold” that premiered in Austin in 2021. Focus psycho-acoustics. See trailer for references to anechoic chamber wire floor. Total JCR Licklider stuff. @Stephers

https://drafthouse.com/show/masking-threshold

" A skeptic IT worker tries to cure his harrowing hearing impairment by conducting a series of experiments in his makeshift home lab.[2][3]"

Please watch this 6-minute video. @leo @Jason_Bosch @Stephers @jenlake

Participants in video:

Ian Grigg - see papers which include not only digital cash and blockchain smart contracts, but AI research
https://iang.org/papers/

Ricardian / Ricardo - legal automated smart contracts “dominant ruler”???

https://iang.org/papers/ricardian_contract.html
https://academic.oup.com/book/43175/chapter-abstract/362295214?redirectedFrom=fulltext

He developed Ricardian systems with Gary Howland.
https://iang.org/rants/gary_howland.html

"I believe SOX is Gary’s legacy to the world. It is capabilities
for the Internet. It is strong crypto, and it is private. It
is extensible, it is flexible, and reliable. I mean, reliable
in a deterministic way: we can guarantee correct results over
SOX transactions that can only be imagined in other protocols.

It technically dominated the bearer model, in a way that only
a few could grasp. It was also a computer science solution,
a value that only came to be fully appreciated when we found
how trivial it was to add David Chaum’s bearer tokens to SOX.

Gary, Mike and I, built the SOX protocol into Ricardo, a
complete payment system that operated as the settlement
and transfer layers for financial trading. We ran bonds,
trading them at night so that all our bond holders around
the world had a chance to access the market. At 9.15 pm
every night, Gary’s 100MHz desktop blared out the theme
song for the James Bond movies, to announce the start of
trading; his workstation was also our one and only
Issuance server, as well as the Exchange."

http://www.systemics.com/docs/sox/execsummary.html

I see this and I think of Office Space and the rounding the penny gimmick.
“SOX is effective down to $0.001, and can easily be extended to handle smaller values.”

Participant - Stefan Lutschinger, philosopher in Vienna, Austria, lecturer in digital media


https://www.mdx.ac.uk/about-us/our-people/staff-directory/profile/lutschinger-stefan

"Stefan has set up numerous international art events and conferences, managing cultural institutions and moderated the implementation of NetzNetz Digital Arts & Culture Fund City of Vienna Cultural Department, a community-based distribution of municipal funding based on democratically agreed-upon rules.

He has a particular interest in analytical philosophy, the Vienna Circle and Wittgenstein’s concept of ‘language-games’ because of the contention that our whole use of language is similar to game playing.

As a member of the Class Wargames collective, Stefan’s currently co-developing ‘Uprising!’, an electronic board game based on the political events of February 1934 in Vienna."

He is into social gaming and psychology. This is transmedia storytelling @stephers.

Funding for the game he is reviewing came from the Institute for Strategic Development (with Google) - created in 1989 for the banking industry. @leo

This is actually quite worrying for me. Feels very much like Google / bankers are playing the role of Cochis the labyrinth maker from The Magus. I feel like I’ve been part of these gamed scenarios.

Now maybe the film company doing the Magus mini-series AND the predatory banking / cat-bond series at the same time makes more sense.

http://www.inst4sd.com/about/

OMG @stephers the founder of ISD was former Marine Corps in Vietnam and scholarship student at Temple.

http://www.inst4sd.com/directors/

Article on table in the second part of the video is about the John Templeton Fund - prayer and money. It came out in the summer of 2006, the year after the flowers were picked and pressed. It seems the second gathering was in the fall, so they held onto this article for the filming.

https://www.zeit.de/2006/19/templeton1_xml/komplettansicht

My map of Templeton and how it relates to the Global Brain Project

Website about the project, which ran from 2005 - 2006
http://www.monochrom.at/flowerbank/index-en.htm

The laminated part reminds me of the new blockchain metaverse platform Laminar1 advancing with support from Neal Stephenson.

Here Grigg talks about the Viennese artist Sylvia Berndt (aka Sylva Bernt - burned forest @jenlake @stephers ??/ ). The comments then move on to smart card payment systems. @leo

https://web.archive.org/web/20060627205255/https://www.financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/000729.html

“Welcome to the Pressed Flower Ricardian Contract Page”

https://web.archive.org/web/20050507100939/http://sberndt.org/

Ricardian Contract

Sylva Berndt / Sylvia Bernt seems to have been a ceramicist working in France who died in 1995
https://www.invaluable.com/artist/bernt-sylvia-ui8lmfk2jm/sold-at-auction-prices/

IBUC on Ian Grigg’s shirt in the second part - Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation?

2 Likes

This is like the inversion of kundalini energy don’t you think? Notice the ant to the left of the blade? What is going on to the right? Spin? @Stephers

1 Like

Remember the wreck in Austin with the Sorenson people who were in town for the deaf conference? @Stephers

1 Like

“Anyone who, like the Knights of Templeton…”
Is this an allusion to the Knights Templars?

Pasting in text of the article on Templeton Foundation and prayer - it was on the table in the video.

https://www.zeit.de/2006/19/templeton1_xml/komplettansicht

Money teaches prayer

How the American Templeton Foundation is using its wealth to bring science to the path of faith

By Christian Schuele

May 4, 2006 2:00 p.mSource: DIE ZEIT, 04.05.2006

Money Teaches Prayer - Page 1

Now they have reached Europe. The late modern knights of the religious guise continue their struggle for the spiritual optimization of the species on the continent. The John Templeton Foundation from Philadelphia has embarked on a campaign to retouch the Western worldview of enlightened rationalism . Their goal is a movement against the secular world, their methods are agenda setting and mass sponsorship. The Eye of God above the Pyramid of Knowledge, a motif from the BILD dollar bill.

The Foundation has at least $800 million at its disposal, of which it invests $40 million annually in scientific projects to explore and discover “the power and potential of the human mind.” It cannot be called Christian in the fundamentalist sense, since it represents a non-denominational concept of spirituality and God. Even atheists are encouraged, and no one has to make a declaration of faith. Nor can the foundation be accused of targeted subversion, its fields of action are as ideologically unsuspicious as scientific conferences, conventions, study programs and school courses.

In Templeton, American pragmatism and spiritual piety merge into a metaphysical alloy that is not only intended to counteract the supposed dissolution of values. It aims extremely cleverly at a diffusion of the disciplines, at least at the permeability of hardcore natural sciences for spiritual-religious concerns. Templeton wants the dialogue between natural sciences, theology and religiosity; the foundation does not support two-dimensional research (flat science) .

Those who apply for money commit themselves to a certain extent to go into the third, the spiritual dimension. The Foundation systematically sponsors research dedicated to spiritual progress with the clear goal of scientific proof of transcendence and God. If Templeton has his way, there should be a humble, worldwide effort to empirically prove the healing power of faith and to objectively anchor the importance of religion for the world. The Foundation considers rationalistic demarcations between knowledge and belief to be outdated.

The spiritual campaign has meanwhile reached Germany

The campaign of philanthropy began in the United States in the late 1980s. Since then, the name Templeton has appeared more and more often, hidden or openly, on the academic agenda in Germany as well. In June 2005, for example, the Evangelical Academy in the Rhineland in Bonn organized a “cooperation conference” entitled Theology and Natural Sciences - New Approaches to Research and Dialogue ; The conference was funded »with funds from the John Templeton Foundation«. Last September, the freelance journalist Tomas Gärtner from Dresden was awarded the John Templeton Prize European Religious Writer of the Year 2005, awarded by the Conference of European Churches (KEK).

The Research Center for International and Interdisciplinary Theology at the University of Heidelberg recently asked for applications for its John Templeton Award for Theological Promise. Postdocs from all over the world can feel addressed, twelve of whom will each receive $10,000 for the best dissertation or the first postdoc opus dedicated to the topic “God and Spirituality.”

Money teaches prayer – page 2

In mid-December 2005, the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main hosted the international symposium I think, therefore I am me? – The self between neurobiology, philosophy and religion. Researchers of the highest reputation were invited, including Hans Goller, Jürgen Habermas, Hans-Dieter Mutschler, Michael Pauen and Wolf Singer. The conference was the opening event of the Templeton Lectures, endowed with 500,000 dollars, which the Institute for Research on Philosophy of Religion at Frankfurt University had raised.

The theology of humility is closely related to the person of the Presbyterian Christian Sir John Marks Templeton. Born in 1912 in Winchester, rural Tennessee, he wanted to be a missionary and, after studying at Yale and Oxford, began a fascinating career on Wall Street in 1931. In 1954 he founded the Templeton Growth Fund, one of the most successful mutual funds in the world, and quadrupled his wealth in a short period of time. Giving up his American passport in the 1960s, he became a British citizen and was knighted by the Queen in 1987 for his philanthropic services.

At $1.3 million, the prize is the highest in the world for one person and will be presented at Buckingham Palace in London. The winners included: Mother Teresa (1973), Billy Graham (1982), Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker (1989), Paul Davies (1995), Holmes Rolston III (2003), John D. Barrow (2006).

Finally, in 1987, the billionaire founded the John Templeton Foundation, donating large parts of his fortune and establishing research centers, chairs and publications around the world. He wrote books about the 200 worldwide spiritual principles, about »Agape Love«, and he formulated the so-called Templeton Plan: 21 steps to personal success and true happiness. Sir John’s core belief, alongside the healing power of unconditional love, is the hope that spirituality, theology, and religion will have the same careers that medicine, science, and cosmology have done for the past 300 years. In 1992 he sold his fund to the Franklin Group for $440 million and became a full-time philanthropist. He lives in Nassau in the Bahamas. The Foundation is managed today by his son, John M.

From the very beginning, the Foundation has sought to get closer to its goal of scientific universal spirituality through declared research priorities: Unlimited Love, Spirituality and Health, Character Development, The Power of Purpose, Free Enterprise, Forgiveness.

One of Templeton’s major programs was the project, begun in 1997, on the psychology of forgiveness and its putative effect on individual health. In five years of work, Templeton not only wants to have scientifically verified the psychological effectiveness of a theological construct; there is no doubt that Forgiveness Research has triggered a wave of publications and studies, planting idealistic seeds that are gradually being reaped. Checking the American Psychological Association’s PsycINFO indexed database of the number of times the word “forgiveness” or “forgive” appears in the titles of psychological periodicals reveals a startling increase: in 1984, “forgiveness” or “forgive” appeared in 8 titles, 1994 in 14, 2004 in 66.

The term »spiritual« or »spirituality« achieved a similar result: in 1984, 25 articles had it in the title, in 1994 there were 92, and in 2004 322 – a thirteen-fold increase. The root word “religio” appeared in 126 titles in 1984, 195 in 1994, and 468 in 2004—a nearly quadrupling. The potentiation suggests that psychologists, religious scholars and sociologists can scientifically measure “forgiveness” and have thus objectified its effect. In a Gallup poll, more than 80 percent of Americans said they needed God’s help to be merciful.

Money teaches prayer – page 3

The healing power of prayer should be scientifically proven

To date, there has been an avalanche of around 1,200 studies in the USA that pursue the thesis that belief in God and spirituality are health-promoting: intercessory prayers from afar have healing effects, the power of prayer reduces heart attacks and strokes. The spiritus rector of this religious medicine is the frequent publicist Harold G. Koenig, director of the Center for the Study of Religion/Spirituality and Health at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. He has written around 18 books and 160 scientific articles on the supposed connection between health and religion. In his book The Healing Power of Faith dedicated to Sir John Templeton Koenig claims to have proved that religious belief protects against depression and that the main causes of human death can be combated through the healing power of belief. The empirical evidence is sparse, and the American Heart Journal has just published the results of a large, long-term study by Harvard Medical School that clearly refutes the notion that intercessory prayer is beneficial to health.

When Templeton is not a direct sponsor and client, funds are distributed by organizations such as the Fetzer Institute, the Institute for Research on Unlimited Love, the Office of Prayer Research, the National Institute of Health Care Research, and the Metanexus Institute on Religion & Science , which, if they cannot even be described as subsidiary organizations, are at least very close to the Foundation in terms of ideology and personnel. Metanexus has been around since 1998. Until 2002 the organization was called the Philadelphia Center for Religion and Science. One of their mottos is: »God is in the details«. Among other things, Metanexus operates an international online forum with users in 57 countries and strives for worldwide networking of groups and researchers and their access to a meta-library.

The scientifically highly dubious neurotheology has meanwhile set a precedent. In The Spiral, In the March 2004 Metanexus newsletter, Mario Beauregard, Associate Professor in the Department of Radiology and Psychology at the Université de Montréal in Canada, then provides information about his participation in the Metanexus Spiritual Transformation Research Project. Beauregard’s project is entitled Neurobiology of the Mystical Experience. While examining Carmelite nuns in a convent in Montreal, he claims to have found neurochemical correlates for the mystical union with God. Beauregard meets with Newberg and the pugnacious geneticist Dean Hamer in the naturalistic intention of teaching neurobiological evidence for human spirituality. These “neuro-theologians” are convinced that there is a common biological origin of all spiritual desires - meaning that spirituality, at least in part, is inheritable. Hamer even claimed last year to have located a God gene.

Four years ago, the Metanexus set out an extremely seductive bait to promote their cause: the so-called Local Societies Initiative (LSI). The idea behind this is a global network of like-minded researchers. Technical progress should be reflected culturally, that is always spiritually, through the discursive interweaving of science and religion. Metanexus recruits as many institutes or teams as possible via brochures, e-mail circulars, newsletters and information from professional associations. After an acceptable letter of intent, they will receive $5,000 per year and commit to contributing an additional $5,000 from other sources, totaling $30,000 per project over three years.

Through the modality and methodology of its calls for proposals, the foundation receives a welcome overview of thematic interests and project ideas from faculties around the world, as well as access data for those researchers who could be of interest to the network. Any researcher can apply for individual funding projects such as the Spiritual Capital program with a letter of intent . The top forty made it to the final selection and were allowed to submit a proposal. In the end, ten were awarded the contract for a total of 150,000 dollars, which is unusual for the scientific community. The foundation is tightly organized and interested in efficiency, every dollar should pay off spiritually.

Anyone who, like the Knights of Templeton, wants to work on the scientific proof of transcendence, leverages the third-party funding dictate of the universities and elegantly smuggles their Trojan horses into the university faculties, which are forced to collect project-related research funds from non-university institutions or organizations. Since 1998 at the University of California, Berkeley, a conference sponsored by the Templeton Foundation on Science and the Spiritual Quest took place, American colleges offer hundreds of seminars on science and religion; Since then, more and more physicists, chemists and biologists have publicly acknowledged the limits of their knowledge; since then, financially drained academies, including in Europe, have been surviving with Templeton money.

Money teaches prayer – page 4

So far, the humanities faculties of European universities have been the last reserves of a largely uninterested, that is to say: open-ended research. With the military support and subcutaneous influence of the Templeton Foundation, scientific independence seems to be gradually being compromised. The gradual expulsion of the spirit from the humanities has received greater legitimacy in the third dimension. Even if at first glance all this seems unreserved, transparent and legitimate - the dangers of Templetonization lie in the subcutaneous.

First, it can be argued that targeted funding distorts and influences the curriculum and research plan. Because it needs the financial support, a faculty will readily add a Templeton-style seminar or lecture to the curriculum. Who at his university a course on science and religion has received $10,000 in the past from the Center for Theology & the Natural Sciences at Berkeley, a sub-group of Templeton. The more institutes and groups offer such courses, the stronger the impression of large-scale, significant research on a paradigm shift grows. Even if only a few valid bits of knowledge jump out here and there - with regard to the goal of academizing the spiritual dimension, they are always usable, especially since Templeton has its own journalistic troops and a very contemporary marketing concept.

The earmarking of research jeopardizes its independence

Second, Templeton requires that a specific canon of reading be covered, which the foundation is happy to specify. The Books of Distinction program lists 39 recommendations from Templeton Foundation Press intended to raise awareness of spirituality, from John Barrow to Paul Davies and John Polkinghorne to VS Ramachandran. Although most scientists identify themselves as atheists, Templeton’s list suggests that science and religion are in perfect harmony.

Third, metaphysically motivated research opens a door that is difficult to close. If a private foundation like Templeton can influence the scientific curriculum in such a way, when will racist foundations succeed in promoting IQ projects and proving the supremacy of the white race?

By subsidizing studies, symposia and conferences, which are in principle laudable, by advertising various prizes and sponsoring research committees, Templeton gradually bought a spiritual worldview that eventually seeped into society via the intellectual and cultural elite, via universities and the media. It doesn’t have to be based on propaganda or messianic zeal. The consequence lies in the insidious theologizing of science and in the sell-out of research that is critical of religion or of God through Christian patronage. Conversely, this means that critical research on the negative influences of religion on life is made almost impossible.

The Templeton activities are particularly explosive in view of the ongoing ideological controversy between creationists and evolutionists in the USA. Creationists are conservative apologists of the Christian doctrine of creation who campaign against the Darwinian origin of species and, instead of arguing with genealogies, point to miracles. Support for the existence of a Creator God has increased in recent years in new creationism received a new quality insofar as natural scientists have made theistic premises the starting point of their work. Keywords are Irreducible Complexity and especially Intelligent Design (ID). The latter is scientifically legitimized creationism and aims at the conviction that an »intelligent designer« created life according to his blueprint, which according to the state of things can only be (a) God. ID cannot be tested, verified or disproved, but the ID movement is well funded and heavily supported by Templeton.

Money teaches prayer – page 5

The Foundation has recognized and impressively captured the contemporary longing for spiritual growth, spiritual devotion and mystical identity. In the fight against the secular world, she is in the best of company: the Manichaean thought structure of the current American government - kingdom of light versus kingdom of darkness, axis of good versus axis of evil - has already permanently changed the order of the outer world; Templeton changed the access coordinates to the inner one. It is the anti-Enlightenment attempt to de-differentiate out-differentiated systems, to metaphysically appropriate the scientific establishment and to reduce formal evidence of verifiable results to the substantial evidence of verified transcendence.

Right now, when religious fundamentalism is spreading and has to be observed scientifically and independently, the paradigm of faith research is emerging that relies on positive psychology instead of critical reflection. But Templeton organizes research not for the sake of research, but for the sake of effectiveness. The foundation has staying power. She won’t run out of money.

3 Likes

Back to Lamarck and saltational evolution perhaps? UPenn and Philly @stephers @jenlake

"MetaNexus to Host Science & Religion Conference
by Julia Loving, May 8, 2006 Printer-friendly page16x14 Printer page
[Email Page16x10 Email article](javascript:openform(‘E-mail this page to a friend’):wink:

PHILADELPHIA–A new curriculum proposal for more effective science education and current perspectives on the evolution/intelligent design controversy highlight the Metanexus Institute’s annual international conference on science and religion, June 3-7 on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

The conference, Continuity + Change: Perspectives on Science and Religion, presents leading international scholars whose work delves into important new and emerging ideas at the intersection of science and religion scholarship and research. Complete details are posted at www.metanexus.net/conference2006. Registration is available for a single session, an entire day, or the full conference.

The tension between continuity and change is not simply philosophical conundrum; it is also at the root of the most pressing questions of our time. We wrestle with the tensions of tradition vs. innovation in the law, religious thought, and political life. The pace of change in scientific discovery, technological advancement, environmental transformation, and globalized culture is accelerating at such a dizzying rate that our abilities to cope are tested to the limits. The key to surviving and flourishing as human beings depends on how we find continuity and make the right choices in the midst of such rapid change.

Featured public sessions, co-sponsored by the Academy of Natural Sciences (Philadelphia), include:

Beyond Intelligent Design, Science Debates, and Culture Wars: A Teach-In on Evolution, Sunday, June 4. This day-long series of talks will investigate the question of the origins and evolution of life, taking into account scientific, theological, philosophical, historical, and political considerations, many of which impact education and public policy. Distinguished presenters and respondents for these sessions include Ian Barbour (Carleton College), John Haught (Georgetown University, the only theologian to testify in the Dover trial), George Ellis (University of Cape Town), and Nancey Murphy (Fuller Theological Seminary.

Teaching the History of Nature: Towards an Integrated Science Curriculum is the topic for discussion on Monday evening, June 5. As the world becomes ever more scientific and technological, Americans demonstrate not only declining scientific knowledge, but also the inability to effectively address philosophical, religious, and moral issues. To participate in a meaningful way in our democratic society, to make informed policy decisions that will affect not only our lives but also the world’s future generations, we must transform our ways of educating and of learning. Our curriculum reform discussion will propose an integrated science curriculum organized around teaching of the history of nature as an effective framework that will enable students to better understand science, as well as important philosophical, religious, moral, and practical issues at the interface of science and society. Featured speakers are Ursula Goodenough (Washington University of St. Louis), George Ellis (University of Cape Town), and Dennis Cheek (Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation).

Spiritual Capital: Global Perspectives on Economics and Religion, Saturday evening, June 3. This opening plenary session will explore the influences that religion and spirituality have on economic and societal realities—locally and globally. While capitalism certainly has spread far beyond the Protestant countries in the last century, the hypothesis that capitalism’s advance—along with other aspects of the modern world—would necessarily lead to religion’s demise is clearly false. This interdisciplinary forum will explore the economic and societal consequences of religion and spirituality as part of the emerging social science of “spiritual capital.” Featured speakers include Theodore Malloch (the Roosevelt Group), Timur Kuran, (University of Southern California), and Robert Putnam (Harvard University; the author of Bowling Alone).

“We live at an extraordinary moment in the natural history of our planet and the cultural evolution of our species,” said William Grassie, Ph.D., Executive Director of the Metanexus Institute. “The domains of science and the domains of religion, however understood, stand at the center of our hopes for a healthier and safer future. This is a moment for integrating the best of religion and the best of science in service of humanity and the world. This conference is an important opportunity to pursue this multifaceted, multidisciplinary, and multifaith challenge.”

Other conference sessions include:

Indic Religions in an Age of Science
Positive Psychology and Character Strengths
The Emergent Mind
Worldviews in Mathematics, Physics & Cosmology
Pentecostalism and Science
Metanexus Institute is an international organization based in Philadelphia that advances research, education, and outreach on the constructive engagement of science and religion through a variety of projects and opportunities for dialogue. Metanexus supports nearly 300 projects in 37 countries. The annual conference is, in part, a gathering of representatives of Metanexus’ Local Societies Initiative (LSI) members, who have established science-and-religion dialogues in their communities, networked with the global programs."

1 Like

Metanexus Select Members:

Edward J. Devinney Jr. has long served as president of the Metanexus Institute. Devinney is a visiting professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Villanova University. He is widely known for the “Wilson/Devinney” computer code for binary star light-curve analysis used by scores of astronomers. He has a bachelor’s degree in physics from LaSalle University, with a minor in both philosophy and religion, and a doctorate in astronomy and astrophysics from the University of Pennsylvania. He spent 10 years working in the Florida university system, including two as a National Academy of Sciences Senior Postdoctoral Fellow at NASA Goddard Space Center. He then spent nine years with Siemens U.S. research labs as head of the artificial intelligence department and chief scientist. He spun out a high-technology company from Siemens and served seven years as its CEO. His astronomical interests include instrumentation, observational aspects of solar eclipses, and binary stars, including black hole binaries, and he is also very interested in the philosophy of science.

Ursula Goodenough is one of America’s leading cell biologists, Ursula Goodenough is a professor of biology at Washington University in St. Louis. She is the author of a widely used textbook, Genetics, and has served in a variety of national biomedical capacities, including on National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation review panels. She also has served on the editorial boards of several professional journals, and in many positions in the American Society for Cell Biology, including the presidency. In addition, she is a past president of the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science. In her acclaimed book, The Sacred Depths of Nature, she offers a unique blend of modern science and spiritual meanings.

Martin E.P. Seligman is the Zellerbach Family Professor of Psychology and director of the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania. He is the author of many books, including The Optimistic Child and Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-being .

Varadaraja V. Raman is an emeritus professor of physics and humanities at the Rochester Institute of Technology. He has also taught at the Saha Institute for Nuclear Physics in Calcutta and the Université d’Alger in Algiers. He is the author of Indic Visions in an Age of Science , published by Metanexus.

Andrew Newberg is the director of research at the Myrna Brind Center for Integrative Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital and Medical College. He is also an adjunct assistant professor in the department of religious studies at the University of Pennsylvania. He is board-certified in internal medicine and nuclear medicine, and he is considered a pioneer in the neuroscientific study of religious and spiritual experiences, a field frequently referred to as neurotheology.

Mitchell P. Marcus is the RCA Professor of Artificial Intelligence at the University of Pennsylvania, where he is also a professor of linguistics. He created and ran the Penn Treebank Project through the mid-1990s, and he currently serves as chair of the Advisory Committee of the Center of Excellence in Human Language Technology at John Hopkins University.

List of (arch)bishops of Lund. Until the Danish Reformation the centre of a great Latin (arch)bishopric, Lund has been in Sweden since the Treaty of Roskilde in 1658. The Diocese of Lund is now one of thirteen in the Church of Sweden.

Antje Jackelén is the 68th bishop of Lund, a position she has held since 2007. Previously, she was an associate professor of systematic theology/religion and science at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago and was director of the Zygon Center for Religion and Science.

John Grim is a visiting professor in the religious studies department at Yale University and president of the American Teilhard Association. He also coordinates, with Mary Evelyn Tucker, the Forum on Religion and Ecology at Yale University. He has been a professor of religion at Bucknell University and Sarah Lawrence College.

Theodore Friend is a historian, novelist, teacher, and the former president of Swarthmore College. He is also the president emeritus of the Eisenhower Fellowships, and continues to serve as a trustee of its national and international board. After several books on Southeast Asia and Japan, he has shifted his focus to how whole populations conceive of women, and how they conceive of God. The latest of his books (2012) is based on travel and over 200 interviews in Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey: Woman, Man and God in Modern Islam .

George Fisher is an emeritus professor of geology at Johns Hopkins University, where he taught from 1966 to 2005, and served as dean of arts and sciences from 1983 to 1987. He now teaches at the Ecumenical Institute of Theology at St. Mary’s Seminary and University as well as in the Johns Hopkins master of liberal arts program.

Edwin Berkowitz (deceased) was chair of J. E. Berkowitz, LP, a leading architectural glass manufacturer headquartered in Pedricktown, New Jersey. A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, Berkowitz served as building chair for the recently constructed Hillel and as past president of the University of Pennsylvania College Alumni.

1 Like

One more former board member from MetaNexus.

His undergraduate work was in physics, and his first postgraduate degree was in mathematics, all at the University of Calcutta. His doctoral work at the University of Paris, carried out in the medium of the French language under the supervision of the Nobel laureate Louis de Broglie, was in theoretical physics, specifically on the mathematical underpinning of quantum mechanics.

He served the UNESCO for a few years, during which time he became more interested in the history and philosophy of science. His varied interests took him into avenues of work well outside the confines to which many physicists are limited. Eventually, he settled down at the Rochester Institute of Technology in the USA as a professor of Physics and Humanities.

He went on to publish extensively on the historical, philosophical, and social aspects of science. His scholarly papers on those matters have been on the history of thermodynamics, the origins of physical chemistry, the genesis of the Schrödinger equation, the early reactions to Einstein’s theory of relativity, the impact of the Copernican revolution, and on the Euler-D’Alembert controversy in 18th century mathematical physics. He has also written on such topics as the history of the theory of gravitation, of the energy conservation principle, and of acoustics.

Varadaraja V. Raman has taught in a number of institutions, including the Saha Institute for Nuclear Physics, the Universite d’Alger, and the Rochester Institute of Technology, where he is now an emeritus professor of physics and humanities. He has a bachelor’s and master’s degree in physics and mathematics from the University of Calcutta and did his doctoral work on the foundations of quantum mechanics at the University of Paris, where he worked under Louis de Broglie. He was associated with UNESCO as an educational expert, and he has devoted several years to the study and elucidation of Hindu culture and religion. He is an associate editor for the Encyclopedia of Hinduism Project, and he has authored scores of papers on the historical, social, and philosophical aspects of physics/science and India’s heritage, as well as eight books, including Scientific Perspectives, Glimpses of Ancient Science and Scientists, Nuggets from the Gita, and Varieties of Science History.

https://www.closertotruth.com/contributor/varadaraja-raman/profile

1 Like

Metanexus address - University City Sciences Center near UPenn

https://www.metanexus.net/archive/templetonresearchlectures/contact/info.html

1 Like

MetaNexus - founded by William Grasslie - Quaker! Philadelphia / Wilmington

William John Grassie (born May 3, 1957) is an activist for numerous causes, including nonviolence and a freeze on nuclear weapons,[1] reform of science education,[2][3] and greater dialogue between science and religion.[4] He is the executive director of Metanexus Institute, an organization which worked closely with the John Templeton Foundation to promote “dialogue and interactive syntheses between religion and the sciences internationally.”[4]

Grassie was born in Wilmington, Delaware and attended Middlebury College. He is member of the Quakers.[1]

n 1980 in Philadelphia, he promoted nuclear disarmament via the Friends Peace Committee,[5] where he helped to found the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign.[6][7]

2 Likes

Also MetaNexus Senior fellow - note physics of light in Abrahamic religions @Stephers

Norbert Samuelson

Light and Enlightenment

2007–2008

“Norbert Samuelson is the Harold and Jean Grossman Professor of Jewish Studies at Arizona State University. His scholarship focuses on Jewish philosophy and theology, and he is working on two major research and writing projects: an intellectual history of the developing concepts of light in physics and enlightenment in the Abrahamic religions, and a close philosophical commentary on the traditional rabbinic prayer book. He is the author of 13 books, including three recent books on Jewish philosophy: A Users’ Guide to Franz Rosenzweig’s Star of Redemption, Jewish Philosophy: An Historical introduction, and Jewish Faith and Modern Science: On the Death of Jewish Philosophy. He has also published three constructive philosophic-theological works: The First Seven Days: A Philosophical Commentary on the Creation of Genesis, Judaism and the Doctrine of Creation, and Revelation and the God of Israel. These works led Jewish thinkers to focus on the interplay between science and religion and showed how the biblical text could be better understood in the light of contemporary physics and the life sciences.”

1 Like

http://www.monochrom.at/flowerbank/waehrung-en.htm

600x12
ALTERNATIVE CURRENCIES?
600x12

The Flavour of Money

What do we mean by the “flavour of money”? Surely money is neutral? An abstraction with which we can express our wishes and aspirations - at least within the “economic” sphere? This article argues against this simplistic view, and presents an experiment we are engaged in with the creative community here in Vienna. In this experiment we are looking at currency systems which elicit a different attitude and behaviour in its use (when compared with our conventional cash currency). We are looking to capture different values.

Most people think that money is the only type of money. Economics is the study of this single monetary system and it is commonly regarded that the attempt to create an alternative is futile. The short term arguments for this “One Money Hypothesis” are weak, although they may well prove stronger in the long term.

Many ideologies, many organisations that set out with an ambition to make a difference, tend to adopt the same structures and organisational methods. They ossify, reproducing the same behaviour they were designed to replace. It is only through engineering a different form of organisational DNA, different forms of resource and skill sharing and new forms of decision making, that we can hope to immunise the social structure from this long term ossification. We concentrate here on the use and design of alternative forms of “money”, because these systems are both practical tools for small groups and networks, and offer a form of fundamental structural change.

Money has been termed “frozen desire”. It is not neutral in value. The financial system that we have has its own emergent properties - it effects us, and is not simply a passive vehicle for the full richness of human expression. It is an efficient and highly evolved information system for creating material wealth. There is little point in trying to reinvent this system with a “complementary” system, unless you have a clear focus on the sort of values you wish to capture.

The project we are engaged in aims to create new forms of “money”. Token systems, games and experiments which allow us to really see that a different “game” is possible. We are designing experiments that aim to create new forms of emergent behaviour, yet retain the flexible, bottom up creative potential of monetary systems.

There is a long history to this subject. It is an interdisciplinary area involving economics, sociology, mathematics, psychology and information science. It is an area of experimental sociology, it is about possible futures. This is uncomfortable intellectually and ethically, and it is therefore not surprising that until recently, complementary currency research and design has been largely ignored by academic and government institutions.

The majority of real world experiments are relatively recent, starting with Local Economic Trading Systems (LETS), to Time Banks in the 1990s. You can find more information, including a set of links and references to this subject on the Open Partnerhip web site.

Why are renowned economists and bankers such as Bernard Lietaer (one of the original designers of the Euro), and Alan Greenspan (Chairman of the Federal Reserve since 1992) fans of complementary money systems? What does the future hold for our children in a world where the full power and ability to create a functional banking system, using secure digital currencies, is available on a recycled computer using free open source software? What sort of new future will we create with these tools?

We are interested in exploring this potential and their creative applications in our society. We have chosen to start a value exchange system backed by pressed flowers. We have chosen carefully to distance this project from anything to do with real money. The project is about creative exchanges between artists. It is framed with a view to the future and focusses on issues and stories that will effect the world in whch our children will grow up in. In this new field digital currencies can become decision making systems, acting somewhat like votes. They can be used in inventive ways in education and science. What we understand by the term “money” will change out of all recognition in the next 50 years.

What is vital is that we as individuals, and as a society, understand these possibilities, and are not yet again a passive victim of the effects of these technological and social changes. We are not talking
about money as we know it, we are talking about the future basis on which we collaborate, reach decisions and share resources. What are the values we wish to express with these new systems?

Signed,

David Bovill, Stefan Lutschinger, Günther Friesinger, Johannes Grenzfurthner, Ian Grigg and EVE

350x12
350x467
350x12

600x12

Index page 124x20

2 Likes

IBUC was on Ian’s shirt in the video - see Robert Hettinga and Geodesic Economy

http://www.ibuc.com/

http://www.ibuc.com/pdfs/Geoecon.pdf

1 Like

So @stephers, should we be at all surprised given yesterday reference to aroma and synesthesia that William Grassie, founder of MetaNexus a spin off of Templeton’s religion/physics work, is right next door to the Monell chemical senses center on Market Street in the University City Sciences district?

https://goo.gl/maps/vQaXFYtsQXxfAPwdA

1 Like

http://www.shipwright.com/rants/rant_03.html

The Geodesic Network, OpenDoc, and CyberDog

Robert Hettinga
Shipwright Development Corporation

Everyone remembers the old saw [ahem…], “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” These days, I think see nails everywhere. Here’s why.

Almost a decade ago, now, in one of my more entrepreneurial moments, I read Peter Huber’s 1986 “The Geodesic Network”, the US Government Printing Office version of his report to Judge Green, the judge who broke up the Bell System, on the status of the breakup and what Huber thought the next steps should be. Peter Huber’s a smart guy. Doctorate from MIT, JD from Harvard. Wrote a great book about junk science and tort law. The upshot of Huber’s report was a polite version of “Deregulate 'em all and let God sort 'em out”. It took 10 years, but Regional Bell Operating Companies are now (not too successfully) competing in the information services business, and it looks like it’s a matter of time before the last bastion of the telephonic monopoly, the local central office, will be utterly deregulated and competing for its customers like every other business.

The reason Huber gave for his conclusion was something called Moore’s Law, more of an observation, really, named for Gordon Moore, who was one of the founders of Intel. Moore figured out something that is painfully obvious to anyone who’s bought a computer: the cost of some given semiconductor “horsepower” falls by half over a very short period time: every 18 months when Moore first looked at it. You would think that Moore’s Law would bottom out eventually, but it’s hard to see that any time soon. Moore himself figured that it would happen around 1980 or so, and if anything, this “half-life” of semiconductors has decreased since. It’s now half every 12 months. That means that your brand-new whizzy PowerPC-604-based Mac could be worth half what you paid for it in as little as a year. Moore’s Law is why Guy Kawasaki wrote in one of his columns a few years ago that smart people start saving for the next computer the day after they buy the one they have.

This implosion of the price of microprocessors really got Huber’s attention. Telephone switches are microprocessors. Because the cost of switches (operators) was so expensive, and because lines were much cheaper in comparison, the telephone system was originally set up as a hierarchy. Operators switched long distance calls up the network’s hierarchy and then back down to complete a call. The further a call had to go, the higher up the “root” structure of the net the call had to go. The faster “switches”, or rooms with more operators, were at the top. Remember that picture from the 1920’s with an operator supervisor on roller-skates supervising hundreds of operator switchboards? So, this couldn’t go on forever, people cost too much just to switch phone calls, and switching evolved from electromechanical (pulses, or “clicks”) to transistors (tones) to semiconductors. Shockley, the guy who invented the transistor, worked for Bell Labs, remember?

With the advent of semiconductors, you could build really small switches. You could even build one called a Private Branch Exchange, or PBX for short, which really just put a small central office on your premises, if your company was big enough. Once companies could switch their own calls, however, all bets were off. The was no reason you couldn’t just string a bunch of private lines between your headquarters and your branches and build your own minature version of the long-distance network. You then wondered how you could lower the costs of your private lines, and you couldn’t, because you were buying them from a telephone monopoly. There wasn’t any competition for long distance direct lines between a company’s various PBXs, much less switched traffic, which is how most normal long distance calls are handled.

We all know where this went: MCI sued AT&T, and Judge Green broke up the network. He hired Peter Huber three years later, who looked at all these switches, and their collapsing prices, and decided that instead of lines being cheaper than nodes (switches), which necessitated a hierarchical network, things were the reverse, and accellerating with a vengence. In other words, the network had changed from a “root”-like hierarchy to another familiar network, the network of lines and nodes one finds in Bucky Fuller’s geodesic domes, or, as Huber called it, a “Geodesic Network”, which is what he titled his report to Judge Green. In a geodesic network, there is no up or down. A packet of information could be going through a switch in any direction, in and out of any line. The information content of the network is so huge that if it were concentrated at any one node, or switch, the switch couldn’t be built big enough to hold it all. It would choke.

You can see the rise of the geodesic network model in all sorts of things (remember what I said about everything looking like a nail?), the ubiquitous computing stuff they’re doing at Xerox PARC is the most famous example, and my favorite really outrageous one is the capital markets and the financial system, particularly when you look at the long term consequences of digital bearer certificates like digital cash, or digital stocks and bonds.

Anyway, my favorite analogy (and you can see I use way too many as it is ;-)) for the effect of microprocessors on information is that of a surfactant: plain old soap. Like the Dawn commercial, where a drop of dish soap breaks those big grease globs into smaller and smaller pieces until they seem to disappear, Moore’s Law does the same thing to information, and by extension, information hierarchies. Now it seems that information hierarchies are the central fact of modern life, and everything from governments to corporations to practically any organization imaginable evolves into one when it gets big enough. However, let’s dance around the sociology a bit here and apply this strictly to software on the internet, which is the mother of all geodesic networks, specifically the internet as a glaring exception to the rule of organization as information hierarchy.

There is of course, sizable argument about whether the internet is in fact organized, but it is organized, and it is because it is out of control that it works. In fact, Keven Kelly’s excellent book, called, ironically ;-), “Out of Control”, speaks precisely to that point. Kelly talks about organization “emerging” from chaotic circumstances, about biological analogs to this, like a beehive, and about why the net works. It’s a great read, and I reccommend it highly.

When I went to the recent Boston MacWorld, to get into the exhibits free (and to get a free lunch in the process), one of my friends, who’s a VAR, signed me up to an Apple product road show as an “associate”. I mean, I am an associate of his, and I do send my systems integration hardware buys through him, so I was probably even legit, in a backhanded sort of way.

Now, I’m a Certified MacBigot, but I haven’t been paying much attention to microcomputer markets much in the last year or so because I’ve focused so much of my time on the net, in particular, on internet commerce. I have gotten to the point that where the net is the only thing that gets me really fired up creatively. To paraphrase Gibson a little, sometimes I think that hardware as just “meat”; the Real Stuff is on the net. It’s certainly true the thrill is gone. Used to be, when you went to MacWorld, you saw at least one thing which really surprised you, because you couldn’t have imagined that it could even exist. Now, when you go to MacWorld, you see something which has been announced for months, or years, in advance, and is usually just a new wrinkle on an old thing. Not so on the internet. You have everything from news and mail groups to the web, discussing everything from why the Brits have the new Babylon-5 episodes and we don’t, to digital cash and cryptoanarchy.

For someone with the attention span of a gnat, like me, the net is heaven. You can pretty quickly find the bleeding edge of some new field, get spun up in a few weeks and actually ask intellegent questions, and even make a conceptual contribution or two, if you bring something new to the table. Things are changing so fast that everyone’s knowlege gets retreaded almost yearly.Thank you, Mr. Moore.

I used to think, “if only you could get paid to do this stuff”, and now, it’s beginning to look like you can. With the advent of internet commerce, someday pretty soon you’ll be able to live anywhere you want, and sell what you do, or what you think, even, to anyone, anywhere. For cash. The ganglia twitch. I love this place.

So. I’m in MacWorld, marvelling at how the outrigger on some of the new PCI PowerMacs allows you to tilt the whole guts of the machine away from the motherboard so you can plug memory into it, (to loud applause ;-), and the next thing they talk about is OpenDoc. I’ve heard about OpenDoc, but remember I’ve been a net.head for the past year and a half, I’ve given up arguing with idiots about why the Mac is Better then Windows, and my MacWeeks get a cursory glance, if at all, anymore: Hardware is Meat, and all that. So the guy demos a clock part, and then a database part, and then a chart part, and light dawns on Marblehead: and epiphany worthy of O.Henry.

What I’m looking at in OpenDoc is geodesic software. The code only gets used when it’s needed, just like that surfacted information on a geodesic network. It can point to a process or information anywhere, on your machine, down the hall, in New South Wales, anywhere.

That’s nothing new, of course. McNeally(sp) of Sun has said the “network is the computer” for a decade or more, and we’re still wrestling with stuff like CORBA to get it all organized and under control, and no one has figured out how to really implement the object model on an enterprize-wide basis and all of that gark, and meanwhile I’m looking it all in the face, right here at MacWorld, between bites of a ham and cheese sandwich.

The beauty of OpenDoc is that it doesn’t have to be organized, or more precisely, controlled . The user picks his parts and puts them together, the user figures out what he wants to see, the developer has no idea what his OpenDoc part is going to actually be used for , doesn’t care too much about what it interacts with besides what it needs to run, and only cares about what his part does . Organization from chaos.

I immediately had all kinds of ideas for this OpenDoc stuff. My pet one is navigation. You know, like, boats? It’s easy to see how under OpenDoc, a chart is a compound document. There can be parts for meridians (the lines for latitude, longitude, even loran time differences), transponders (depth, wind, location like GPS), courses, contours (depth and elevation lines, isobars), and marks (bouys, landmarks, other boats), and pictures (clouds, rain, water temperature stuff from NOAA). Superimpose them on one compound document, and bingo, a living, breathing picture of where you are right now, with live information from wherever it comes from: NOAA, the instruments on your boat, other boats, the bouys in the water, wherever.

All lit up like this, I then went to see a friend who works at Apple. When I was a graduate student at Chicago in the middle 80’s, I used to work midnight to eight in the morning at the computation center. I spent a lot of time in my office smoking baseball-bat cigars, eating pizza with everything, reading usenet news, and chatting with a high school crony in Dublin. It was a lot of fun then, but I got a real job in Boston, and I hadn’t really messed with the net since. My friend was the one who got me back on to the net a year or so ago, by making me buy Adam Engst’s book, the “Internet Starter Kit for Macintosh”.

So, when I see my friend, holed up in an Apple computer lab at the Parker House Hotel, I told him about my little epiphany with OpenDoc, and all he said was “CyberDog”. At that point, I went into grinnin’ fool mode.

Now, I remember people talking, and even skimming over articles, about CyberDog, Apple’s OpenDoc environment for the internet, and I thought at the time that Apple was trying to write a Yet Another Netscape Killer. I’d even read the various articles on Apple-Internet-Users about it. Now, with geodesic “hammer” in hand, all I could see was nails: I could see that CyberDog isn’t a Netscape killer at all, any more than OpenDoc is a Word 6 killer.

It’s Moore’s law come to internet applications. It’s a code surfactant, breaking software up into smaller and smaller pieces, enabling it to exist in more and more remote places, making it more and more ubiquitous, more uncontrolled, more inefficient, and more powerful, and, paradoxically, more organized, in the emergent fashion of Kelly’s “Out of Control”.

The internet, a creature of Moore’s Law, has always had applications like this. When I got my copy of Adam’s book, they were all there. Fetch, NewsWatcher, TurboGopher, Eudora. InterSLIP. (“Dating” myself, though it’s only been 14 months)

Mosaic was too big, so you had to download it yourself. Netscape hadn’t been released, but eventually it would dwarf even Mosaic. Why? Because Netscape and Mosaic were web-browsers, and because although HTML is itself a kind of compound document architecture, albeit a very primative one, it was never actually designed to be one, it just grew into the role.

The problem Netscape is, as we’ve said here already, even though it tries to use helper apps in a quasi-parts fashion, is just a web-browser. It’s like the meridian part (the latitude and longitude lines) in my example about a compound navigation document. You need it under everything, so that you can tell where you are, and the other parts can array themselves in relation to it, but it doesn’t need to do all the stuff that all the other apps do. Netscape, like the any node in a geodesic software network, will choke on all the code if it tries to control it all at once. As we all know, a geodesic network, like the internet itself, will automatically route around bottlenecks.

Now, there are other architectures out there, not the least of which is OLE, ostensibly a compound document architecture, but is in reality Microsoft’s bus for linking all its “Office” applications, and thus trying to create with it a super-app which is supposed to be the software equivalent of kudzu, choking all its competition out of the water. OLE may do more to increase the market for Pentium chips than any marketer at Intel ever dreamed, but I don’t think that it’s going to do what Microsoft hopes. I think that Microsoft is barking up the wrong tree for two reasons: One, if it plays its historic “dog in the manger” role of controlling code to its own advantage, it will eventually collapse under the load of trying to write it all. Word 6 is a good case in point, and it’s just a word processor. Two, if Microsoft actually opens up OLE to the rest of the world, by improving it so it works better, and by improving its developer evangelism, including not saving the juicy bits for its own developers first, then Microsoft gets its application code base broken up just like a big glob of grease in dishwater breaks up when the soap hits it. Microsoft goes back to being an operating system company, sans the efforts of Mses Clinton, Reno, Bingaman, et. al.

Which is why I think the idea of OpenDoc on the internet, and by extension the CyberDog project, is very interesting. I expect that there will be a Netscape OpenDoc part, just like there will be parts for every Mac normal internet app, like Newswatcher, for instance. The people on the mcip list (the Macintosh Cryptography Interface Project) are talking about a PGP part as soon as PGP 3.0, which is modularized, comes out. I can see how internet commerce parts, like parts for First Virtual, or Cybercash, or more important, how MacEcash, Digicash’s digital cash app, could be converted into an OpenDoc part for CyberDog. Just drag your coins out the Ecash part’s window and drop them on the cash register icon in the Netscape SSL-protected form (or IPSEC-protected, security’s just a part, remember).

It gets worse, however. Remember how Moore’s law drove the terminal-host model to client-server? Are you ready for peer-to-peer on steroids, for server-server? In a twisted parody of Huey “Kingfish” Long’s campaign slogan of “Every man a king”, we’re looking at everybody a server. In a geodesic model for software, concentrations of code are surfacted away by the ubiquity of the processors on hand for the job. We already know about farming out ray-tracing on a network of graphic Macs, one machine acting as a massively parallel parasite of unused computer cycles on other machines. Even this is too hierarchical, too top-down. The cypherpunks, a “electronic mail list of cryptographers, hackers, and mathemeticians” according to the Wall Street Journal, are at this moment cracking yet another rediculuously small keyspace that Netscape is forced to use to encrypt foriegn credit card transactions, to prove that the State department regulations calling cryptography a munition, the ITARs, are hopelessly out of date, and that anybody can read international web-traffic with ease. A participant’s machine links to the server running the search, requests a block of keyspace to search, searches it, and sends back whether it’s found the key. The key server just keeps track of the processing. The processing is actually done by the hundreds of machines requesting keyspace to search. Nobody’s in charge here. The machine with the keyspace to be searched isn’t telling the machines searching the keyspace how to do it. Any machine can be a keyspace server or a keyspace processor, depending upon the circumstances.

One more thing. The machine which finds the key actually gets a reward of about 450 of Digicash’s beta digital cash certificates, called Cyberbucks, or c$ for short, which are currently trading at US$5/c$100, or 5 cents per, and this is a horse of a different color entirely. Digicash did not anticipate a secondary market for it’s nonreplicable certificates, which evidently are being given a cash value on their electronic uniqueness and secure transmissability alone. People are actually buying physical stuff. A major example was a “This T-shirt is a Munition” shirt, printed with the RSA algorithm in 4 lines of PERL and in machine-readable barcode, bought from a server in Great Britian by someone in the US, who will be importing something he can’t then export, or even show to a foriegn national without breaking the law. All with these “beta” certificates Digicash had no idea would be traded.

Welcome to the future, Apple. It is easy to see how people who create things can get paid in a geodesic market like this. It’s easy to see how people can be paid for their knowlege of something in particular. It’s easy to see how, with teleoperation, even machine operators (like surgeons!) can get paid. It’s easy to see that, like the factory jobs did to the farms and to the domestic staffs of the world, people would rather work here than where they worked before, which is all too often an office full of grey cubicles.

I hope that Apple, which has done it’s own imitation of the dog in the manger on occasion, and who fortunately can’t hold a candle to Microsoft in that department, will figure out two things: First, 30% of the microcomputers hooked into the net are Macs, and the Macintosh way of doing things is the reason for that. Second, the people who write either client or server code for those net.macs are about to get paid, directly, by their customers, and eventually get paid in cash, for their their efforts.

A lot of money’s going to be out there for the company selling those developers the tools and the standards to do their jobs, as long as Apple realizes that they’re not marketing transactions here, that they’re marketing relationships, and that they have to avoid hogging all the code for themselves. That dog won’t hunt. It’s too busy keeping the cows out of the manger.

A geodesic network routes around all obstructions.

Cheers,

Bob Hettinga

@AMcD

So perhaps – as I considered – Alex Sobel is related somehow to Noam Sobel???

https://www.weizmann.ac.il/brain-sciences/worg/members

I have previously written about the Monell Center and Noam Sobel and his pheromone/aroma work here:

Curiously, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR), which aims to “probe today’s technology limits and ultimately lead to future technologies with DoD relevance” (see here the plethora of technologies such as digital twinning, nanophotonics, nanoenergetics, genomics, membrane-based electronics, and advanced bioprogrammable nanomaterials), has an internal program called “Trust and Influence.” One of the main reported goals of this program is to “advance the science of social influence within the context of national security.” In 2015, AFOSR’s Trust and Influence Program co-funded Noam Sobel and his research team in the Department of Neurobiology at the Weizmann Institute of Science to explore human handshaking and the unconscious human response to examine another’s odor. Essentially, the researchers confirmed their initial hypothesis, that when we shake hands with a stranger, we inadvertently smell the stranger’s chemical signals. Researchers concluded that this instinctual and subliminal detection mechanism is not only meaningful and adaptive in humans, but that people will actively seek out this odor signal transfer to convey social information. This brief video (see below) demonstrates a portion of their 2015 study, revealing how individuals unconsciously explore the scent of others with whom they have engaged in an overt physical greeting.

Incidentally, it was reported on November 11, 2020, that Sobel and his neurobiology team have created a molecular “smell map” that could “pave the way for smellovision TVs, scented digital photos that have a whiff of vacation, and technology that can ‘print’ any odor.” According to Sobel, when discussing applications to digitize odors, “We have identified the physical, chemical features of smells that are meaningful for human perception. Once we have a device that will measure the properties we have identified, we can digitize the information using codes and algorithms we have already established . . . Having done this, we can reproduce and transmit it, like we transmit vision and sound on a range of devices today . . . The molecules that are needed already exist and are widely available . . . From this point, what we need is one machine that will be like the microphone and one that will be like the speaker . . . We have rudimentary versions of each, and the step just completed means we have the code that we’ll use to connect them.” The concept of digital smell technology was already being discussed openly in mainstream news in 2018, and The Monell Center in Philadelphia, PA, is actively engaged in research to digitize chemosensory data. The notion of a mixed, augmented reality, integrating smell technology, is no longer in the sci-fi realm.


@AMcD I can’t help but consider that digital pheromones may already be a REAL phenomenon – and that cryptocurrency was NEVER about money, but about social physics a là self-spreading neural networking – similar to memetics. Perhaps the blockchain is the electronic nose (see Sobel’s e-nose Scientists Have Developed Electronic 'Nose' That is Able to Predict the Pleasantness of Novel Odors - Life Sciences | Weizmann Wonder Wander - News, Features and Discoveries), and the cryptocurrency, tokens, and NFTs can literally be sniffed out by the blockchain.

Is every crypto transaction a digital pheromone-inducing handshake?

If this digital aroma is in fact real, then the cryptosphere has its own sensory system – like a living organism (which you and I have referenced previously – in the sense that it is a life form – albeit digitized/virtual). It would follow, then, that it would have to have a sensory apparatus as its backbone. I think olfaction (digital) is key to its perpetuation and perpetuity. This would account for the synesthesia aspect (which was highlighted in the Apple TV series, Severance in relation to virtual numbers on a computer screen); and hence, why Grigg et al. spoke to the flavour of money with their flower currency. It needs to be felt and experienced for it to grow and sustain “life.” I know, this all sounds crazy . . .


To reiterate from above:

We are not talking about money as we know it, we are talking about the future basis on which we collaborate, reach decisions and share resources. What are the values we wish to express with these new systems?

Signed,

David Bovill, Stefan Lutschinger, Günther Friesinger, Johannes Grenzfurthner, Ian Grigg and EVE

Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain

Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain

Blockchain and cryptocurrency news and analysis by David Gerard

Crypto Policy Symposium 2022 videos are up

7th September 2022 - by David Gerard - 2 Comments.

The Crypto Policy Symposium, organised by Stephen Diehl, Martin Walker and Darren Tseng, was held on Monday 5 September and Tuesday 6 September, and broadcast over Zoom to an appreciative audience of (I think) between 1000 and 2000. [Crypto Policy Symposium]

The intended target audience was regulators, bureaucrats and politicians — and they were very interested.

The organisers decided that this conference needed to lead to more action against technologies that were being used as bad excuses for predatory behaviour. So they’re starting a new US-based 501(c)4 foundation: the Center for Emerging Technology Policy. [CETP]

Stephen and Darren, with Jan Akalin, have also put out a book: Popping the Crypto Bubble. Available as a lovely paperback or hardback, or it’s free on Kindle Unlimited! [Amazon UK, Amazon US]

Stephen manned the Zoom desk with only a few sound dropouts. But if you missed anything, you’ll be pleased to hear that all the videos are up on the YouTube channel! [YouTube]

Here’s the sessions in original running order:

Monday:

Tuesday:

Afterwards was a reception, with Jan, Darren, Stephen and Martin doing a panel and taking audience questions. [YouTube]

Jan, Darren, Stephen. Martin

Did you catch the Voronoi imprinting at the 1:35 time stamp?

So, this film is literally being released at the end of this month (on the heels of the Ethereum Merge) . . .

League graduated from Rice University in 1992 with degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Art/Art History.


https://internethalloffame.org/inductees/jcr-licklider

INTERNET HALL of FAME PIONEER

J.C.R. Licklider

Posthumous Recipient

In 1962, Dr. Joseph Carl Robnett Licklider formulated the earliest ideas of global networking in a series of memos discussing an “Intergalactic Computer Network.” Both well-liked and well-respected, he demonstrated an amazing prescience many times over. His original and far-sighted ideas outlined many of the features the Internet offers today: graphical computing, user-friendly interfaces, digital libraries, e-commerce, online banking, and cloud computing.

In 1963, while he was serving as director at the U.S. Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), it was Dr. Licklider’s persuasive and detailed description of the challenges to establishing a time-sharing network of computers that ultimately led to the creation of the ARPAnet. His 1968 paper called “The Computer as a Communication Device” illustrated his vision of network applications and predicted the use of computer networks for communications. Until then, computers had generally been thought of as mathematical devices for speeding up computations.

The ARPAnet was eventually eclipsed by the Internet, and in the same year that the ARPAnet formally shut down – 1990 – Dr. Licklider died at age 75.

Licklider’s vision of the Digital Age

A scholarly essay in 1947, says CNET News.com’s Charles Cooper, had an awful lot to say about how we live with computers today.

Charles Cooper headshot

Charles Cooper

March 19, 2007

He may be the most important computer theorist you’ve never heard about. The sad truth is that several candidates could make a strong claim for that title. But when you consider the impact J.C.R. Licklider had on the technology industry, it’s hard to square his influence with his subsequent near-anonymity.

Forty-seven years ago this month, Licklider published a 12-page essay with the offputting title “Man-Computer Symbiosis.” I’d love to know what kind of effect he thought it might have.

Licklider passed away in 1990 but I did get to know him–a little–through the powerful vision in his writings. Similarly, Rick Rashid, who runs Microsoft Labs, recalled that “Man-Computer Symbiosis” is an “amazing piece to read–even today. It described aspects of what would become elements of personal computing and the Internet long before even the beginnings of either.”

When I learned of the upcoming anniversary, I began to call around to ask industry types to assess Licklider’s legacy. That’s always tricky. In a business with no shortage of imposing egos, you can usually count on someone ready to disagree. It’s like asking a New York City baseball fan of the 1950s to choose between Willie Mays, Duke Snider or Joe D.

Funny, but everybody I corresponded with put Licklider on a pedestal. They described him as one of a handful of people responsible for laying the foundation of the current Digital Age. Indeed, along with Vannevar Bush’s 1945 piece in the Atlantic MonthlyAs We May Think,” Licklider’s “Man-Computer Symbiosis” opened a window to a future that few at the time could imagine.

It detailed a partnership between humans and information processing technology, one in which computers would serve human beings, not the other way around, a future where computers would free humans from the drudgery of clerical routine and allow them to concentrate on more creative tasks.

When Licklider was writing, the computing world was characterized by impossibly hard-to-use data processing and bulky calculating machines.

The gist of Licklider’s argument was that computers would be built to allow “men and computers to cooperate in making decisions and controlling complex situations without inflexible dependence on predetermined programs.”

Remember that when Licklider was writing, the computing world was characterized by impossibly hard-to-use data processing and bulky calculating machines. Memory and language limitations were a big problem, and partnership with these contraptions was all but a pipe dream. But Licklider optimistically clung to his faith in change.

He thought it would take about 10 to 15 years for computer scientists to invent what he called a “thinking center” that would “incorporate the functions of present-day libraries together with anticipated advances in information storage and retrieval.” We now know the world moved a lot more slowly than that, but the basic outline came together by the end of the 1990s.

“This is one of those articles that we periodically need to read, every 5 or 10 years,” said , another legendary computer scientist.

Eight years after “Man-Computer Symbiosis,” Licklider co-authored a longer paper on the role of the computer as a communications device. Reading this essay in 2007 is a mind-blower. The prescient first line of the essay is characteristic of the entire forward-looking work:

“In a few years, men will be able to communicate more effectively through a machine than face to face.”

Maybe that’s no big deal from the blasé vantage point of 2007, but the future was far less certain back then. Here’s another delicious passage:

“Today the on-line communities are separated from one another functionally as well as geographically. Each member can look only to the processing, storage and software capability of the facility upon which his community is centered. But now the move is on to interconnect the separate communities and thereby transform them into, let us call it, a super community.”

Sound familiar?

“All of the aspects of the user interface, memory and communication (that Licklider wrote about)–it’s all very, very timely today,” Bell recalled. “That’s really where computing is. He made a nice distinction between what computers do and what people do.”

Licklider later put his vision to work at the Advanced Research Projects Agency (now the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA), where he headed up the unit’s Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO). While there, he threw his support behind Doug Englebart, who had a vision of a digital information retrieval system. (Englebart’s so-called “online system” subsequently introduced the world to computer mice, electronic mail and text editing.)

“I doubt one could disentangle the influence of his paper from his influence as the first head of ARPA’s IPTO,” said John McCarthy, a professor emeritus at Stanford University.

All that is true. But here’s something to chew over. Until Licklider began his work at ARPA, there were no Ph.D. programs in computer science at American universities. That changed after ARPA began handing out grants to promising students, a practice that convinced MIT, Stanford, UC Berkeley and Carnegie Mellon to start their own graduate programs in computer science in 1965. Maybe that should go down as Licklider’s most lasting legacy.


If let’s say one wanted to establish man-computer symbiosis, perhaps a W0RLDBU1LDER would design a sensory scaffolding that could interface between the two – digital pheromones. To this end, stigmergy and swarm intelligence would propel the pheromone trail/network . . . Just thinking out loud . . .

GLOBAL BRAIN

Douglas Carl Engelbart (January 30, 1925 – July 2, 2013) was an engineer and inventor, and an early computer and Internet pioneer. He is best known for his work on founding the field of human–computer interaction, particularly while at his Augmentation Research Center Lab in SRI International, which resulted in creation of the computer mouse, and the development of hypertext, networked computers, and precursors to graphical user interfaces. These were demonstrated at The Mother of All Demos in 1968. Engelbart’s law, the observation that the intrinsic rate of human performance is exponential, is named after him.

NLS, the “oN-Line System,” developed by the Augmentation Research Center under Engelbart’s guidance with funding primarily from ARPA (as DARPA was then known), demonstrated numerous technologies, most of which are now in widespread use; it included the computer mouse, bitmapped screens, hypertext; all of which were displayed at “The Mother of All Demos” in 1968. The lab was transferred from SRI to Tymsharein the late 1970s, which was acquired by McDonnell Douglas in 1984, and NLS was renamed Augment (now the Doug Engelbart Institute).[6] At both Tymshare and McDonnell Douglas, Engelbart was limited by a lack of interest in his ideas and funding to pursue them, and retired in 1986.

In 1988, Engelbart and his daughter Christina launched the Bootstrap Institute – later known as The Doug Engelbart Institute – to promote his vision, especially at Stanford University; this effort did result in some DARPA funding to modernize the user interface of Augment. In December 2000, United States President Bill Clinton awarded Engelbart the National Medal of Technology, the U.S.'s highest technology award. In December 2008, Engelbart was honored by SRI at the 40th anniversary of the “Mother of All Demos”.

Midway through his undergraduate years at Oregon State University, he served two years in the United States Navy as a radio and radartechnician in the Philippines.[8] It was there, on the remote island of Leyte in a small traditional hut on stilts, that he read Vannevar Bush’s article “As We May Think”, which would have a large influence on his thinking and work.[9] He returned to Oregon State and completed his bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering in 1948. While at Oregon State, he was a member of Sigma Phi Epsilon social fraternity.[10][11] He was hired by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics at the Ames Research Center, where he worked in wind tunnel maintenance. In his off hours he enjoyed hiking, camping, and folk dancing. It was there he met Ballard Fish (August 18, 1928 – June 18, 1997),[12] who was just completing her training to become an occupational therapist. They were married in Portola State Park on May 5, 1951. Soon after, Engelbart left Ames to pursue graduate studies at the University of California, Berkeley. There, he received an M.S. in electrical engineering in 1953 and a Ph.D. in the discipline in 1955.[13]

Career and accomplishments[edit]

Engelbart’s prototype of a computer mouse, as designed by Bill English from Engelbart’s sketches.[14]

Guiding philosophy[edit]

Engelbart’s career was inspired in December 1950 when he was engaged to be married and realized he had no career goals other than “a steady job, getting married and living happily ever after”.[15] Over several months he reasoned that:

  1. he would focus his career on making the world a better place[16]
  2. any serious effort to make the world better would require some kind of organized effort that harnessed the collective human intellect of all people to contribute to effective solutions.
  3. if you could dramatically improve how we do that, you’d be boosting every effort on the planet to solve important problems – the sooner the better
  4. computers could be the vehicle for dramatically improving this capability.[15]

In 1945, Engelbart had read with interest Vannevar Bush’s article “As We May Think”,[17] a call to action for making knowledge widely available as a national peacetime grand challenge. He had also read something about the recent phenomenon of computers, and from his experience as a radar technician, he knew that information could be analyzed and displayed on a screen. He envisioned intellectual workers sitting at display “working stations”, flying through information space, harnessing their collective intellectual capacity to solve important problems together in much more powerful ways. Harnessing collective intellect, facilitated by interactive computers, became his life’s mission at a time when computers were viewed as number crunching tools.[18]

As a graduate student at Berkeley, he assisted in the construction of CALDIC. His graduate work led to eight patents.[19] After completing his doctorate, Engelbart stayed on at Berkeley as an assistant professor for a year before departing when it became clear that he could not pursue his vision there. Engelbart then formed a startup company, Digital Techniques, to commercialize some of his doctoral research on storage devices, but after a year decided instead to pursue the research he had been dreaming of since 1951.[20]

SRI and the Augmentation Research Center[edit]

Engelbart took a position at SRI International (known then as Stanford Research Institute) in Menlo Park, California in 1957. He worked for Hewitt Crane on magnetic devices and miniaturization of electronics; Engelbart and Crane became close friends.[21] At SRI, Engelbart soon obtained a dozen patents,[19] and by 1962 produced a report about his vision and proposed research agenda titled Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework.[18] Among other highlights, this paper introduced “Building Information Modelling”, which architectural and engineering practice eventually adopted (first as “parametric design”) in the 1990s and after.[22]

This led to funding from ARPA to launch his work. Engelbart recruited a research team in his new Augmentation Research Center (ARC, the lab he founded at SRI). Engelbart embedded a set of organizing principles in his lab, which he termed “bootstrapping strategy”. He designed the strategy to accelerate the rate of innovation of his lab.[23][24][25][26]

The ARC became the driving force behind the design and development of the oN-Line System (NLS). He and his team developed computer interface elements such as bitmapped screens, the mouse, hypertext, collaborative tools, and precursors to the graphical user interface.[27] He conceived and developed many of his user interface ideas in the mid-1960s, long before the personal computer revolution, at a time when most computers were inaccessible to individuals who could only use computers through intermediaries (see batch processing), and when software tended to be written for vertical applications in proprietary systems.

Two Apple Macintosh Plus mice, 1986

Engelbart applied for a patent in 1967 and received it in 1970, for the wooden shell with two metal wheels (computer mouseU.S. Patent 3,541,541), which he had developed with Bill English, his lead engineer, sometime before 1965.[28][29] In the patent application it is described as an “X-Y position indicator for a display system”. Engelbart later revealed that it was nicknamed the “mouse” because the tail came out the end. His group also called the on-screen Cursor a “bug”, but this term was not widely adopted.[30] Engelbart’s original cursor was displayed as an arrow pointing upward, but was slanted to the left upon its deployment in the XEROX PARC machine to better distinguish between on-screen text and the cursor in the machine’s low-resolution interface. [31] The now-familiar cursor arrow is characterized by a vertical left side and a 45-degree angle on the right.

He never received any royalties for the invention of the mouse. During an interview, he said “SRI patented the mouse, but they really had no idea of its value. Some years later it was learned that they had licensed it to Apple Computer for something like $40,000.”[32] Engelbart showcased the chorded keyboard and many more of his and ARC’s inventions in 1968 at The Mother of All Demos.[33][34]

Tymshare and McDonnell Douglas[edit]

Engelbart slipped into relative obscurity by the mid-1970s. As early as 1970, several of his researchers became alienated from him and left his organization for Xerox PARC, in part due to frustration, and in part due to differing views of the future of computing.[1] Engelbart saw the future in collaborative, networked, timeshare (client-server) computers, which younger programmers rejected in favor of the personal computer. The conflict was both technical and ideological: the younger programmers came from an era where centralized power was highly suspect, and personal computing was just barely on the horizon.[1][15]

Beginning in 1972, several key ARC personnel were involved in Erhard Seminars Training (EST), with Engelbart ultimately serving on the corporation’s board of directors for many years. Although EST had been recommended by other researchers, the controversial nature of EST and other social experiments reduced the morale and social cohesion of the ARC community.[35] The 1969 Mansfield Amendment, which ended military funding of non-military research, the end of the Vietnam War, and the end of the Apollo program gradually reduced ARC’s funding from ARPA and NASA throughout the early 1970s.

SRI’s management, which disapproved of Engelbart’s approach to running the center, placed the remains of ARC under the control of artificial intelligence researcher Bertram Raphael, who negotiated the transfer of the laboratory to Tymshare in 1976. Engelbart’s house in Atherton, California burned down during this period, causing him and his family further problems. Tymshare took over NLS and the lab that Engelbart had founded, hired most of the lab’s staff (including its creator as a Senior Scientist), renamed the software Augment, and offered it as a commercial service via its new Office Automation Division. Tymshare was already somewhat familiar with NLS; when ARC was still operational, it had experimented with its own local copy of the NLS software on a minicomputer called OFFICE-1, as part of a joint project with ARC.[15]

At Tymshare, Engelbart soon found himself further marginalized. Operational concerns at Tymshare overrode Engelbart’s desire to conduct ongoing research. Various executives, first at Tymshare and later at McDonnell Douglas, which acquired Tymshare in 1984, expressed interest in his ideas, but never committed the funds or the people to further develop them. His interest inside of McDonnell Douglas was focused on the enormous knowledge management and IT requirements involved in the life cycle of an aerospace program, which served to strengthen Engelbart’s resolve to motivate the information technology arena toward global interoperability and an open hyperdocument system.[36] Engelbart retired from McDonnell Douglas in 1986, determined to pursue his work free from commercial pressure.[1][15]

Bootstrap and the Doug Engelbart Institute[edit]

Teaming with his daughter, Christina Engelbart, he founded the Bootstrap Institute in 1988 to coalesce his ideas into a series of three-day and half-day management seminars offered at Stanford University from 1989 to 2000.[15] By the early 1990s there was sufficient interest among his seminar graduates to launch a collaborative implementation of his work, and the Bootstrap Alliance was formed as a non-profit home base for this effort. Although the invasion of Iraq and subsequent recession spawned a rash of belt-tightening reorganizations which drastically redirected the efforts of their alliance partners, they continued with the management seminars, consulting, and small-scale collaborations. In the mid-1990s they were awarded some DARPA funding to develop a modern user interface to Augment, called Visual AugTerm (VAT),[37] while participating in a larger program addressing the IT requirements of the Joint Task Force.

Engelbart was Founder Emeritus of the Doug Engelbart Institute, which he founded in 1988 with his daughter Christina Engelbart, who is Executive Director. The Institute promotes Engelbart’s philosophy for boosting Collective IQ—the concept of dramatically improving how we can solve important problems together—using a strategic bootstrapping approach for accelerating our progress toward that goal.[38] In 2005, Engelbart received a National Science Foundation grant to fund the open source HyperScope project.[39] The Hyperscope team built a browser component using Ajax and Dynamic HTML designed to replicate Augment’s multiple viewing and jumping capabilities (linking within and across various documents).[40]

Later years and death[edit]

Engelbart attended the Program for the Future 2010 Conference where hundreds of people convened at The Tech Museum in San Jose and online to engage in dialog about how to pursue his vision to augment collective intelligence.[41]

The most complete coverage of Engelbart’s bootstrapping ideas can be found in Boosting Our Collective IQ, by Douglas C. Engelbart, 1995.[42] This includes three of Engelbart’s key papers, edited into book form by Yuri Rubinsky and Christina Engelbart to commemorate the presentation of the 1995 SoftQuad Web Award to Doug Engelbart at the World Wide Web conference in Boston in December 1995. Only 2,000 softcover copies were printed, and 100 hardcover, numbered and signed by Engelbart and Tim Berners-Lee. Engelbart’s book is now being republished by the Doug Engelbart Institute.[43]

Two comprehensive histories of Engelbart’s laboratory and work are in What the Dormouse Said: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry by John Markoffand A Heritage of Innovation: SRI’s First Half Century by Donald Neilson.[44] Other books on Engelbart and his laboratory include Bootstrapping: Douglas Engelbart, Coevolution, and the Origins of Personal Computing by Thierry Bardini and The Engelbart Hypothesis: Dialogs with Douglas Engelbart, by Valerie Landau and Eileen Clegg in conversation with Douglas Engelbart.[45] All four of these books are based on interviews with Engelbart as well as other contributors in his laboratory.

Engelbart served on the Advisory Boards of the University of Santa Clara Center for Science, Technology, and Society, Foresight Institute,[46] Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, The Technology Center of Silicon Valley, and The Liquid Information Company.[47]

Engelbart had four children, Gerda, Diana, Christina and Norman with his first wife Ballard, who died in 1997 after 47 years of marriage. He remarried on January 26, 2008, to writer and producer Karen O’Leary Engelbart.[48][49] An 85th birthday celebration was held at the Tech Museum of Innovation.[50] Engelbart died at his home in Atherton, California, on July 2, 2013, due to kidney failure.[51][52] A close friend and fellow internet pioneer, Ted Nelson, gave a speech paying tribute to Engelbart.[53] According to the Doug Engelbart Institute, his death came after a long battle with Alzheimer’s disease, which he was diagnosed with in 2007.[20][54] Engelbart was 88 and was survived by his second wife, the four children from his first marriage, and nine grandchildren.[54]

Anecdotal notes[edit]

Historian of science Thierry Bardini argues that Engelbart’s complex personal philosophy (which drove all his research) foreshadowed the modern application of the concept of coevolution to the philosophy and use of technology.[35] Bardini points out that Engelbart was strongly influenced by the principle of linguistic relativity developed by Benjamin Lee Whorf. Where Whorf reasoned that the sophistication of a language controls the sophistication of the thoughts that can be expressed by a speaker of that language, Engelbart reasoned that the state of our current technology controls our ability to manipulate information, and that fact in turn will control our ability to develop new, improved technologies. He thus set himself to the revolutionary task of developing computer-based technologies for manipulating information directly, and also to improve individual and group processes for knowledge-work.[35]

Honors[edit]

Since the late 1980s, prominent individuals and organizations have recognized the seminal importance of Engelbart’s contributions.[55] In December 1995, at the Fourth WWW Conference in Boston, he was the first recipient of what would later become the Yuri Rubinsky Memorial Award. In 1997, he was awarded the Lemelson-MIT Prize of $500,000, the world’s largest single prize for invention and innovation, and the ACM Turing Award.[1] To mark the 30th anniversary of Engelbart’s 1968 demo, in 1998 the Stanford Silicon Valley Archives and the Institute for the Future hosted Engelbart’s Unfinished Revolution, a symposium at Stanford University’s Memorial Auditorium, to honor Engelbart and his ideas.[56] He was inducted into National Inventors Hall of Fame in 1998.[57]

Also in 1998, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) SIGCHI awarded Engelbart the CHI Lifetime Achievement Award.[58] ACM SIGCHI later inducted Engelbart into the CHI Academyin 2002.[58] Engelbart was awarded The Franklin Institute’s Certificate of Merit in 1996 and the Benjamin Franklin Medal in 1999 in Computer and Cognitive Science. In early 2000 Engelbart produced, with volunteers and sponsors, what was called The Unfinished Revolution – II, also known as the Engelbart Colloquium at Stanford University, to document and publicize his work and ideas to a larger audience (live, and online).[59][60]

In December 2000, U.S. President Bill Clinton awarded Engelbart the National Medal of Technology, the country’s highest technology award.[46] In 2001 he was awarded the British Computer Society’s Lovelace Medal.[61] In 2005, he was made a Fellow of the Computer History Museum “for advancing the study of human–computer interaction, developing the mouse input device, and for the application of computers to improving organizational efficiency.”[2] He was honored with the Norbert Wiener Award, which is given annually by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.[62] Robert X. Cringely did an hour-long interview with Engelbart on December 9, 2005 in his NerdTV video podcast series.[63]

On December 9, 2008, Engelbart was honored at the 40th Anniversary celebration of the 1968 “Mother of All Demos”.[64] This event, produced by SRI International, was held at Memorial Auditorium at Stanford University. Speakers included several members of Engelbart’s original Augmentation Research Center (ARC) team including Don Andrews, Bill Paxton, Bill English, and Jeff Rulifson, Engelbart’s chief government sponsor Bob Taylor, and other pioneers of interactive computing, including Andy van Dam and Alan Kay. In addition, Christina Engelbart spoke about her father’s early influences and the ongoing work of the Doug Engelbart Institute.[64]

In June 2009, the New Media Consortium recognized Engelbart as an NMC Fellow for his lifetime of achievements.[65] In 2011, Engelbart was inducted into IEEE Intelligent Systems’ AI’s Hall of Fame.[66][67] Engelbart received the first honorary Doctor of Engineering and Technology degree from Yale University in May 2011.[68][69][70]

See also[edit]

So, I’m looking at the work Samantha does and pairing with Stefan’s presentation on the Google-funded “On The Surface” game where you don’t know who your friends are - run on text chat. It triggered a memory of this text-app game that ran on AI that had been trained on questionable material and would twist the course of the game towards tawdry ends. It was a text-base game like the one Stefan was talking about.

"Let humans go wild co-writing fictional stories with arguably the world’s most-powerful automated text-generation system on the internet, and some of these adventures will, unsurprisingly, turn dark and erotic. Latitude allowed people to write freely and profited from these types of graphic tales when players paid a monthly subscription to continue their narratives. AI Dungeon stated that players should be over eighteen.

However, it suddenly ramped-up efforts to rid the game of underage sexual encounters as well as certain lewd and NSFW content. Sex acts between two fictional consenting adults was fine, though. First, the developers installed a glitchy content filter that obstructed fans from playing the game even if they followed the rules. Mentions of something as benign as four watermelons, for example, would prompt the software to reply: “Uh oh, this took a weird turn…” That was the game’s way of saying, change the subject – you’re stepping out of line.

Players were frustrated with the sudden censorship and buggy content filter ruining their games. The turning point, however, came when Latitude started automatically banning gamers for generating lewd content that was no longer allowed. While that may seem a sensible move by Latitude, gamers were often barred when it was the machine that wrote the filth first, all by itself and unprompted."

"The code continued to pull in more pieces from the Choose Your Story site. It’s basically amateur sci-fi writing with mostly innocent narratives and some distressing scenarios, such as one in which magical beings casually discuss forcing themselves on unwilling mortals to see if it’s possible to procreate. The kind of data you might not want to train your machine-learning system on.

AuroraPurgatio told us she isn’t against NSFW stories on AI Dungeon. She searched through the training data and shared it because she wanted to unmask the company’s hypocrisy for everyone to see: people were being banned as a result of the choice of information used to teach the game how to play.

“These automatic suspensions have been occurring when the AI generates this content on its own," she told us."

" AI Dungeon started out as a university project when Walton was an undergraduate computer-science student at Brigham Young University in Utah. The first version was an open-source effort built using OpenAI’s previous GPT-2 model that was released in 2019. The game went viral, with thousands of people wanting to play, and he turned his idea into a private game company marketed as Latitude in 2020.

Walton claimed more than one million people were actively playing AI Dungeon a month, and by early 2021, it had raised more than $4m in funding.

When the biz upgraded AI Dungeon to use OpenAI’s more-advanced GPT-3, it trained the game, as with GPT-2, using text from the aforementioned problematic dataset. This time, engineers at OpenAI helped fine-tune a cloud-hosted instance of the model for Latitude, accessible via an API, the resulting neural network breaking the machine-learning super-lab’s own policies on unsuitable content.

The AI software would suddenly turn innocuous plots unnecessarily naughty, causing the human player to be booted out."

Founder Nick Walton got his start in AI gaming as a student at BYU.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/waltonnick/

Brother Alan Walton, also LDS and BYU, co-founder of game company. Data analyst with online education and health data, plus time in Russia Novosibirsk.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/alanarthurwalton/details/experience/



Novosibirsk is Nanotech center in Russia, Siberia @Stephers

https://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/siberia-to-be-at-heart-of-russias-nano-revolution/

1 Like

This is like the inversion of kundalini energy don’t you think? Notice the ant to the left of the blade? What is going on to the right? Spin? @Stephers

Hmmmm. I need some time to sit with this macabre image – that is seemingly depicting ears . . . The ant on the left would signify stigmergy/swarming. I am seeing Fibonacci (the innate spiral) being broken on the right . . . Yes, it invokes the breaking/splitting of kundalini energy, as the knife/dagger penetrates through the center of the pelvis, straight through the coccyx and the sacrum.

1 Like