All have turned aside,
there is not one good man left,
not a single one.
Friday, March 31, 2023
Sermon 11 - Disaster administration and sin
Sermon 11 - Disaster administration and sin
We had an ESS exercise yesterday.
What's ESS, I hear you say? Emergency Support Services. Nowadays. It used to be Emergency Social Services. We are the people who, when there is a disaster, make sure everybody (well, as many as we can find) have food, and clothes, and a place to stay, for the immediate aftermath. We do big disasters, like when four thousand people are displaced from their homes by a wildfire. We also do small disasters, like when someone is burned out of their apartment. There are a lot more small disasters, but a disaster is a disaster, for the person it affects.
We had an ESS exercise yesterday. I'd forgotten how much fun they were. We put up signs, put out tables, took down some of the signs because we weren't doing those parts, moved the tables around, took some tables away and set the chairs out for a waiting area, and generally made a bunch of mistakes. Of course, that's the whole point of an exercise. We make the mistakes during the exercise, so that we make fewer mistakes when we're doing it for real.
We don't want to make mistakes when we are doing it for real, because we are dealing with people who, as we frequently say, are going through the worst experience of their lives. (And then there's my other volunteer work: for the hospice society. I must be a really depressing person to talk to about volunteer opportunities.) You are not going to get an awful lot of thanks out of the people that we are helping. They are going to complain. They are going to be impolite. They are going to be inconsiderate. That's because they are going through the worst experience of their lives. They are not going to thank you for the help, they are going to complain that there isn't more help, or the right type of help, or something that they want, but don't actually need. They're stressed, and they're not thinking clearly. But you don't do this kind of work, this kind of *volunteer* work, if you are looking for gratitude, thanks, or recognition.
These are my people. They are there to help. That is the only reason they are there. You're not getting paid, you're not getting much recognition, you are working long hours, you were working with people who are extremely stressed, you are not getting thanked. The only reason anybody volunteers for ESS is because they want to help.
Which is the other reason, besides being able to make dumb mistakes, that it's so much fun to go through an ESS exercise. These are my people. They are only there because they want to help people. When they ask how your week has been, and you say you've had a bad week, they want to know why. They do actually want to know why you have had a bad week. They want to know what the problem is. They want to know how they can help, if they can help.
I am new here. This is an existing crew. They have worked together. I have not worked with them, at least not yet. We have had a couple of meetings that I've attended, but I am definitely the new one here. I have less experience, but more training, than just about anybody else on the crew. But nobody on the crew is jealous that I have more training. Nobody on the crew is vain about the fact that they have more experience than I do. They want to know what I have learned in my training that they can use the next time they get called out. They are willing to share their direct experiences with me, and are even interested in hearing my second hand experiences from other exercises, and other meetings, with other groups. They want to know, because they are here to help, and anything that can help them be more able to help others is of interest to them.
But I'm not here to talk about helping other people. I'm here to talk about sin.
Besides putting up signs and moving furniture around, most of what we did in the exercise was filling out forms. Actually, filling out one particular form. The registration form. For those of you, and that includes just about everybody listening to me, who aren't familiar with emergency management and emergency services, this is actually the most important aspect of it: doing the registration. The registration lets the authorities identify who was affected by the disaster. It lets the authorities determine how many people were affected by the disaster. It lets the authorities know who has been recovered from the disaster: who is okay, and who is missing and unaccounted for. It gives the authorities the ability to determine how much money is allocated to a given disaster, and therefore how much money should be budgeted for future disasters. It allows the authorities to contact people who have been affected by the disaster and find out whether or not they have recovered at some point in the future. It also allows families to reconnect and reunite when they may have been dispersed by the disaster. Or, it allows families who have lost touch with family members, when those family members may have been in the area of a disaster, and find out whether or not they were affected, and whether or not they are safe. All of this based on one particular registration form.
You begin to see how important this one form is?
The thing is, you can only do all of these things, and many, many more, if the form is filled out correctly. Have you identified all the members of the family that has been affected? Have you correctly identified the number of people who are affected? The ages of the people who are affected, which affects what type of services they may need. The special needs of any particular member of this party or household. Is there a special medical condition that needs to be dealt with? Do they have food? Do they have clothing? Do they have toothbrushes, and soap? Do they have a place to stay? Are they staying with family or friends? Are they staying in lodging that is provided by the authorities?
But even before that, is the name spelled correctly? If we're trying to do family reunification, is the name going to match when we search? My name is fairly simple. And yet, when I've given my name, in a restaurant, waiting for a table, and have looked, later on, to see where I am on the waiting list to determine how much longer we might have to wait for a table, the weird and wonderful ways that my name has been spelled would astound you. Now on a waiting list for a table in a restaurant it doesn't matter very much. When you're trying to do family reunification, it's absolutely, vitally important. Particularly if it's not just one family that's been displaced, but hundreds, or even thousands. So filling out this form, and filling it out properly, is of absolutely, crucially, vital importance.
So, learning how to fill out the registration form, which sounds boring, which sounds not terribly helpful, turns out to be vitally important. And we practice it every opportunity we get. We practice checking, and rechecking, to make sure that we have the name correct, we have spelled it correctly, we have the address written down correctly, we have the phone number correct. And we check and we recheck. And we even practice, and comment on, our handwriting. (Mine, like my father's before me, is legendarily terrible.) Being careful when you're writing down somebody's name. Using all capital letters. Using carefully *formed* letters, so that there is no possibility of mistake when someone reads it.
And, even so, we make mistakes. Our forms are never perfect.
We need to have the information that's perfect as possible. But as perfect as possible, by definition, isn't perfect
We need to; even if we are collating multiple sets of forms, on a sawhorse, in the freezing cold, with your hands cramping both because of the cold and because you are pressing hard enough to make four copies, for multiple clients, none of whom are particularly cooperative, since they are street people, and don't trust the authorities; we need to fill out the forms as accurately as possible, and as clearly as possible, and fill them out correctly, and, even if we don't have particularly good handwriting, we have to ensure that our forms are as legible as possible, so that the suppliers who have agreed to provide food, or clothing, or shelter, or transportation, will trust our forms, and know that they will be reimbursed for providing the supplies to our clients.
We need to know that we fill out the forms correctly, for all of these reasons. There are consequences, if we don't fill out the forms correctly. We need to know that everybody gets what they need. We need to know that the clients get the supplies they need. We need to know that the vendors get reimbursed. We need to know that the government can correctly pay all the bills. Our proper filling out of the forms, provides these services, and ensures that everybody trusts the system, and ensures that it all works properly. And if we don't fill out the forms correctly, there are consequences to any of our mistakes.
If we make mistakes on the forms, there are consequences. They are negative consequences. People don't get paid, or families don't get reunited, or the system breaks down in a variety of ways and people don't trust the system. And, therefore, people, when it really counts, don't get the help that they need. So it's important that we fill in the forms correctly. It's important that we know the correct way to fill in the forms, and it's important that we follow the procedures and filling out the forms, and it's also important that we write legibly, press hard enough to make multiple proper copies, and that everything, absolutely everything, is done properly, and consistently, and we follow the forms in the same way, and put the important information in the right boxes, and that we do that, consistently, the same way, every time we fill out every form, for multiple forms. Okay, when you first come on to the team this seems silly. We are there to help people. Why is it that we concentrate so much on this stupid administrative task of filling out forms? Well, it's because this is the central part of what we do. Yes, when people join the team they think about the disasters. They think about the fires, they think about the floods, they think about the landslides, they think about people being displaced from their homes and the fear and the uncertainty and everything that goes wrong in your life when this kind of a disaster happens. But, the thing is, that in order to provide the help that we need to provide, and in order to ensure that people get the help that they need, we need to fill out the forms properly. It seems silly, but it's a fact. In order to help these people, who are having the worst day of their lives, we have to learn to fill out forms property. And consistently. And write legibly, while doing so. And press hard enough on the forms to make multiple, clear copies. It's just a fact of life in emergency management.
There are consequences if we don't do it properly. So we try to do it perfectly. And, of course, there are all kinds of reasons that we can't do it perfectly, time after time. You are writing in a hurry, so of course your handwriting is not going to be at its best. You are writing forms, on the hood of your car, and it's snowing. So, of course, you're in a hurry and may miss a field on the form. You are dealing with people who may not be terrifically cooperative because of social or even psychological problems of their own. You're in a hurry, you're being hassled, you're in a bad environment, so it's unlikely that you will ever actually fill out a completely perfect form. And yet if it's not perfect, there may be negative consequences.
So you say what does this have to do with sin? Well, sin is anything less than the proper standard. God's standard for us. And the proper standard is perfection. Be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect. So, sin is simply not being perfect. And that has consequences.
Falling short of perfection in ESS, as we have seen, has consequences. Falling short of perfection with regard to God, in terms of sin, also has consequences. If we sin there are consequences that naturally follow. When we sin against our neighbors, we damage relationships, and may even eliminate them. When we sin against others, on larger scale, we may damage our entire society. If we steal, we damage the wealth and security of everyone around us. We also damage the trust that is necessary to the relationships that build this society, and the society becomes less trusting, and, likely, less trustworthy. If we lie, we also betray those trusts, and damage those relationships, and our society. There are all kinds of consequences to sin. The most important, of course, is that we are separated from God.
Now, of course, that is the big one. Separation from God. And that is the one that God has, in his grace, provided for us, and provided forgiveness, and paid the penalty for our sin. That is where salvation comes in. And we are saved from an eternal death, an eternal separation from God.
But, what about those natural consequences? Those, we still have to live with. God has forgiven us. But, if we have sinned against our neighbours, maybe they aren't quite so gracious, and quite so forgiving. When we have sinned against our neighbours, and broken the relationship with them, and broken their trust, not only in us, but possibly in people in general, well, there are probably going to be consequences. God forgives us, and removes our sin, utterly, but in the natural world? Well, those consequences we may have to live with.
When we fall short of perfection in regard to ESS forms there are things that we can do. People who are reading our forms can puzzle through the letters that we have written down, and think of alternatives that might indicate a different spelling when they are searching to reunite families. If we make a mistake in writing down the postal code, there are other tools that we can use to look up the address and correct the postal code. There are tools that we may be able to use to find the correct phone number if we have made a mistake in the phone number. There are certain things that we can do to make up for our lack of perfection in ESS registration.
There are certain things that we can do when we have sinned. We can go to our neighbor that we have sinned against and apologize, or possibly make restitution of some sort. This may help to mend a broken relationship, but it will never be as trusting as it was before we sinned. There are things that we can do to try and address our sin, our lack of imperfection. But they will always fall short of perfection.
This is where my comparison of ESS registration, and sin, both is strengthened, and falls down. In both cases, it's better if we were perfect in the first place. Difficult, and perhaps impossible, but it would have been better if we were perfect in the first place. But where it falls down is that while there are things that we can do about mistakes we have made in the ESS registration, there is nothing we can do to fully cover our sin. Sin is falling short of the mark. It is falling short of perfection. And anything that is imperfect, well there is nothing we can do to make it perfect again. We have sinned. We have fallen short. No amount of restitution, and no apologies, can make the sin not have happened.
And, of course, our sin is always, ultimately, against God. And God cannot look upon sin. Sin separates us from God. And this is the biggest difference between ESS forms, and sin. God cannot look upon our sin. But God has taken care of that. God has provided complete forgiveness for our sin. God has paid the price for all of our mistakes. All we have to do is accept that. We cannot be perfect. But we can accept it and has provided for a continual, and even eternal, relationship with him. He has done all the work. All we have to do is accept it.
Thursday, March 30, 2023
Unjust
A friend was recently giving me yet more advice on my grief. He was relaying a piece of advice that he was given, to the effect that anger was a result of injustice. The implication was, of course, that I should not be angry, because I had not suffered any injustice.
As well as not being terrifically helpful; since it is not really possible to just decide not to be angry, or sad, or depressed; this added yet another layer on my burden of "you are doing it wrong," in regard to my grieving, and overall mental state.
However, subsequently, someone else, in actually listening to my story, noted that I was right to feel sad, and angry, and that the way that I have been treated, particularly by some of the church groups, was, in fact, unreasonable, cruel, and unjust.
While this does not materially change my situation, it is extremely comforting to know that I am, in fact, not too terribly crazy, and that my objection to the way I have been treated by the churches is quite rational. It doesn't mean that I expect the churches to change: they won't. This is a city of churches that are insular and generally uncaring of others. That's not going to change. It isn't even necessarily all that much different from churches in other locales. The church feels itself to be, and, actually is, a minority and under some attack in our society. I've recognized this mentality in the past and from the security industry, and note that it tends toward an "insider/outsider" view of the world overall, and fixation on certain patterns of behavior, even when those patterns can be demonstrated to be ineffective. So, no, there is no point in expecting the churches here to change.
Wednesday, March 29, 2023
Any friend that can be replaced by GPT-4 ...
(I seem to have wandered into a number of digressions in composing this piece, but they all seem to tie together, so I hope you'll bear with me ...)
Decades ago, I was at a teacher's conference. I was in a session dealing with computers in education. The morning paper had published an article about computers in education, and, particularly, using computers to teach, and, therefore, replacing teachers. Someone easked about this. The presenter thought for a moment, and replied that any teacher who could be replaced by a computer, *should* be replaced by a computer. His point was that teaching was a complex task, and that any teacher who taught in such a rote manner that he (or she) could be replaced by a machine would be better off out of the profession, and the profession (and the education system) would be better off without him (or her).
Which story I am relaying to lead into:
We are worrying about the wrong thing with regard to AI.
The programs DALL-E, ChatGPT, and others that rely on "machine learning" and pattern models derived from large data sets, have recently racked up an impressive series of accomplishments. They have produced some amazing results. Everyone is now talking about artificial intelligence as if it is an accomplished fact. It isn't.
These programs have been able to produce some absolutely amazing results. But they have been able to produce amazing results for people who have been able to learn how to use them. That does not fit my definition of any kind of intelligence, let alone an artificial one. If the impressive results can only be obtained by people who are willing to put in the time to learn how to use these tools, then they *are* tools. Just tools. Complicated and impressive tools, yes. But just tools. They do not have their own intelligence.
Intelligence would require that the system would be able to provide satisfactory results for pretty much anybody. A person, and intelligence, is able to query the requestor as to whether the results provided are satisfactory. If the results are not satisfactory, the intelligence is able to query the requester and find out why not, and use this information to modify the results until the results *are* satisfactory. And that is, of course, only one of the aspects of intelligence. There are many others, such as motivation. So, while I'm willing to grant that these tools are very sophisticated, complicated, and definitely useful developments, they don't get us that much closer to actual artificial intelligence.
The results from these tools have created a great deal of interest, even in the general populace. It has particularly created interest within the business community, and new investment artificial intelligence projects and companies is probably a good thing. (Unless, of course, we are all on a hiding to nothing and we never *will* get real artificial intelligence. But let's assume for the moment that we will.) It has also engendered a good deal of discussion on the wisdom of pursuing artificial intelligence, and the dangers of artificial intelligence. Since my particular field is dangers associated with information systems, I have been very interested in all of this, and think it's a good thing. We should be considering the dangers, particularly the dangers, with regard to machine learning, that we have created, and are perpetuating, bias in our systems, particularly when the data sets that we use to train machine learning systems are, themselves, collected, collated, and maintained, by artificial intelligence systems. Which may already be affected by various forms of bias that we engendered in the first place, and have never realized are even there.
There is, however, one fairly consistent theme that appears in discussions of the dangers of artificial intelligence, and which DALL-E, ChatGPT, and their ilk have indicated is a false concern. While it is primarily a screaming point of the conspiracy theory and tin foil hat crowd, many people are concerned about the possibility of what tends to be referred to as "The Singularity." This is the hypothesis (and it is a fairly logical hypothesis), that when we do, actually, get artificial intelligence, that is truly intelligent, and can work on improving itself, that such a system would advance so rapidly that there would be absolutely no way that we could keep up, and it would, from our perspective, almost immediately become so intelligent that we would have no chance of controlling it. It would rapidly become intelligent enough that any of our protections, which are never perfect, would leave open a vulnerability which the system itself could exploit, and therefore it would, again, almost immediately, from our perspective, be beyond our control. What happens at that point is open to a variety of conjectures. This intelligence could turn evil, from our perspective, and wipe out the human race. (Some people would consider this a good thing.) Or, it might create a kind of benevolent dictatorship, managing our lives and having pretty much complete control of the entire human race, since it would be able to commandeer all information systems, which means basically every form of business, industry, entertainment, and any other human activity. Or, the artificial intelligence may simply take off, without us, leave us behind, and disappear from any involvement with us. Or, well, there are all kinds of other options that people have explored and theorized.
None of these options particularly scare me.
That's the wrong thing to worry about. What we should be worrying about is relying on artificial intelligence, and, particularly, these recent examples. These tools are not really intelligent. They do not understand. They do not comprehend. They do not appreciate. They just predict the likelihood of the next piece of output from patterns, in masses of data, that they have being fed. (I have mentioned with, elsewhere, the fact that what we are feeding them is possibly biasing them, and that the bias is probably self reinforcing. And we'll come back to that point.)
I asked ChatGPT to write a sermon. It did a very banal, pedestrian job. When I pointed out some of the flaws, ChatGPT basically gave me back the same thing, all over again. It didn't understand my complaint: it just responded based upon my statement. It didn't understand my statement: my statement was just a prompt to the system, and had similar enough terms to the first prompt that the output was, basically, identical.
I gave a friend an opportunity of a trial with it. He said that it produced a reasonable Wikipedia article.
I think this is illustrative in ways that most people wouldn't. I have never thought highly of Wikipedia. While I applaud the general concept, I feel that, in actual implementation, Wikipedia is the classic example of the pooling of ignorance. When I first set out to assess Wikipedia, I, of course, as an expert in the field, looked up the entry on computer viruses. It was terrible. As far as I know, having checked it several times in the intervening years (although I haven't looked at it recently), it's still terrible. At one point it had more than one factual error per sentence. And, of course, in those early, carefree, bygone days when I still have some thought that maybe Wikipedia might be a useful exercise, I made corrections to these errors. Corrections which were, of course, immediately rescinded by Wikipedia's editorial staff.
Wikipedia does not rely on expert opinion. How could it? The editorial staff of Wikipedia do not know how to judge who is expert, and who is not, on a given entry, or topic. The original computer virus entry did, and as far as I know still does, contain the common received wisdom on computer viruses, with all of the mistakes, errors, and misconceptions, that the common man holds about computer viruses. Therefore, when I tried to correct these errors, the Wikipedia staff felt that I was introducing errors, and so they reverted back to their original mistake-ridden text. For an actual expert, there is, actually, no point in even attempting to correct the errors in Wikipedia. Wikipedia relies upon the common man's perception, and, therefore, it's pretty close to social media as a source of information. There is an enormous quantity, but there is not necessarily very much quality.
(My take on, and attitude towards, Wikipedia, while formed many years ago on the basis of the number of mistakes in the technical entries may be [possibly unfairly] reinforced by the fact that after Gloria died, Wikipedia removed all entries to her from my entry in Wikipedia. I found this very personally hurtful, and, to this day, I have no idea why they did it.)
Wikipedia relies upon entries available on the web, and therefore may rely heavily on social media. Wikipedia also goes by seniority, not by expertise. If you are higher up on the Wikipedia editorial food chain, you can reverse any entry or correction that an expert makes. Therefore, it is no surprise that Wikipedia is riddled with errors, particularly in recent discoveries, and in any area where expert opinion is of value. Wikipedia has become the Funk and Wagnalls of the information age. It's widely available, possibly useful in general cases, and very often wrong.
This is why my friend's further comment that it made "the classic error," was also illustrative. "The classic error" will be repeated, in many articles, and postings, made on the Web, by those who think they know the case, but are not necessarily fully informed. This type of material will be repeated, ad nauseam, on social media, thereby reinforcing the truth and validity of this erroneous material.
And, of course, ChatGPT has been trained on social media. ChatGPT has been trained on material, and text, that could be gathered to give an indication of how we humans speak in response to queries. Or challenges. (This is also why ChatGPT is likely to become obnoxious and abusive if you challenge it. That's the way people react on social media, and it's social media that provides the material that has trained ChatGPT.)
ChatGPT, and DALL-E, the graphic, or art, generating version of the pattern model tool, are simply responding, with patterns that they can predict from a massive database that they have assessed, of what is to be produced in response to any prompt. It's simply using statistical models (very complex statistical models, to be sure), to generate what the average human being would generate, if challenged in the same way. There is no understanding on the part of either ChatGPT, or DALL-E, or any others of those pattern model tools. They do not understand. They do not comprehend. They don't have to. They just churn out what it is likely that a human being would churn out in response to the same prompt.
I asked ChatGPT to produce various materials in recent tests. What I got was pedestrian and uninspired. Well, of course it was. ChatGPT is not understanding, and doesn't have any way to obtain inspiration. It's just going to generate something in response to a prompt. And it is going to generate what most human beings would generate. And most human beings are, let's face it, lazy. So, what most human beings would produce, when challenged to produce a an article, or a sermon, or a presentation outline, would be pedestrian, banal, and uninspired. It's the type of article that you read in most trade magazines. Vendors go to professional authors and ask them to produce an article on blat. The professional author does a quick Google search on the topic, feels that they are expert, and turns out banal, pedestrian, uninspired text. There is nothing innovative, and there is nothing in the material that leads to any item or idea that would spark creative thought. That's not what most human beings do, that's not what most of the material on social media is, and so that's what ChatGPT produces.
Many years ago, I ran across a quote which said that creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep. ChatGPT does make mistakes. But most of them simply are not worth keeping. ChatGPT doesn't think about what it's doing: it just predicts the next, most likely next, probable word that a human being would write in this stream of text. So, ChatGPT isn't going to create anything that's inspired, isn't going to create anything that's creative, isn't going to produce much of anything that is much of use for anything, and if we fail to understand this, we fail to realize what relying on ChatGPT can produce for us. Which is, basically, so much dross.
I have recently read many articles which assert that ChatGPT can provide for us mundane letters, mundane article outlines, and mundane articles themselves, which will be of a help in business. But that is only because we, as a society, have become accustomed to the mundane, and accept it. And, if we continue to use ChatGPT for these types of purposes, we will, in fact, produce more mundane dross, and, increasingly find that garbage acceptable. We are training ourselves to accept the banal, and the uninformative. Eventually we will train ourselves to accept a word salad which is completely devoid of any meaning at all.
ChatGPT is becoming more capable, or at least more facile. It is being trained on larger and larger data sets. Unfortunately, those data sets are being harvested, by and large from social media, and by and large with the aid of existing artificial intelligence tools. Therefore, the fear that some have raised, that we have already biased our artificial intelligence tools by the data that we gave to them, is now being self-reinforced. The biased artificial intelligence tools that we created with biased data, are now being used to harvest data, in order to feed to the next generation of pattern model tools. This means that the bias, far from being eliminated, is being steadily reinforced, as is the bias towards meaningless dross. If we rely on these tools, that is, increasingly, what we are going to get.
And, with the reliance on artificial intelligence in the metaverse, that is what we are going to get in the metaverse. The metaverse is an incredibly complex undertaking. It is, if all the parts that we have been promised, are included, a hugely complex system, orders of magnitude more complex than any we have yet devised, with the possible exception of the Internet, and the World Wide Web and social media itself. We will need to have artificial intelligence tools to manage the metaverse. And these tools are going to have our existing biases, and are going to have the bias towards uncreative, uninspired garbage. And therefore, that's what the metaverse is going to give us.
Increasingly readable, and convincing, garbage to be sure, but garbage nonetheless. Do we really want to be convinced, by garbage?
At any rate, in another test, I complained to ChatGPT that I was lonely. I mean, most people don't listen anyways, and most people don't listen very well. So I figured that ChatGPT would be at least as good as one of my friends, who, after all, have disappeared, since they are terrified that I'm going to talk about Gloria, or death, or grief, or pain, all of which are taboo subjects in our society.
The thing is, ChatGPT doesn't know about the taboo subjects in our society. So, it gave me an actually reasonable response. Now, it wasn't great. ChatGPT cannot understand what I am going through, and cannot understand or appreciate the depths of my pain and loneliness. But at least it was reasonable. It suggested a few things. Now, they are all things that I have tried. But they were reasonable things. It said to talk to my friends. As previously mentioned I can't. When challenged, ChatGPT fairly quickly goes into a loop, basically suggesting the same things over and over again. But it also suggested that I take up volunteer work. Now, of course, I knew this. It is something that I suggest to people who are in depression. And I have done it. And, it does help, to a certain extent. So, a half point, at the very least, for ChatGPT.
I can give more points to that than that to ChatGPT. It doesn't give me facile and stupid cliches. It didn't say anything starting with "at least." It didn't tell me that Gloria was in a better place. It didn't tell me that bad things wouldn't happen to me if I only had more faith. All of which people have said to me. And it's all very hurtful. So ChatGPT at least gets another half point for not being hurtful. (If we are still trying for the Turing test, at this point, I would say that, in order to pass, we would have to make ChatGPT more stupid and inconsiderate.)
But I'm not willing to give ChatGPT very much credit at this point. It's not very useful. It wasn't very analytical. And I did challenge some of its suggestions, to see what kind of response I got when I challenged ChatGPT on various points. I did sort of challenge it on the friend's point, and it didn't get defensive about that. So, at least another half point to ChatGPT.
But, as I say, it's not very good. It's as good as a trade rag article, and it's probably as good as any Wikipedia article. In other words, not very good. The material is pedestrian and. I don't think that bereavement counselors have anything to worry about, quite yet.
I should also note that so far, I have the free version of ChatGPT, and therefore I am not talking to GPT-4. This is GPT-3. So it's not as good as the latest version. And I would like to give the latest version a try, but I strongly suspect that it wouldn't do all that much better. But it would be an interesting test.
Relying on ChatGPT, for anything but the absolute, most pedestrian tasks is asking for trouble. It can't understand. It is going to make mistakes. If you present it as an interface, and, talking about my test about loneliness and bereavement, I realize that I may have prompted some idiot with a grief account to try and tie ChatGPT on to a grief account, as a kind of automated bereavement counselor, well, that's really asking for trouble. Trying to use ChatGPT with people who are, in fact, in real trouble, could create a disaster. Please, those of you with grief accounts, do not try this at home. This is only for trained idiots, who actually know that there is no such thing as artificial intelligence, and realize that ChatGPT isn't that much more of an event from ELIZA. (If you don't know who ELIZA was, it passed the Turing test more than four decades ago, and it only took two pages of BASIC code.)
There is concern that adding the appearance of an emotional component to computer systems, and particularly artificial intelligence systems, will create dangerous situations for users. This is a very realistic concern. We have seen a number of instances, over at least half a century, where individuals have attributed to, sometimes very simple systems, intelligence, personality, and even concepts of a soul.
As only one aspect of the difficulties, but also the importance, of looking at emotive, or affective, artificial intelligence, or any kind of intelligence in any computer system, consider the case of risk analysis. In information security, we need to teach students of the field that penetration testing, and even vulnerability analysis, does not lead you directly to risk analysis. This is because penetration testing, auditing, and vulnerability analysis are generally performed by outside specialists. These people may be very skilled, and may be able to produce a great deal that is of value to you, but there is one thing that they, signally, do not know: the value of the assets that you are protecting. The value, that is, to you. The value of an asset, whether a system, piece of information, or a database of collected information, has a value to the enterprise that holds it. But it is only that enterprise, and the people who work there, who really do understand the value of that asset. The value in a variety of ways, and therefore the protections that must be afforded to that asset. Therefore, no outside firm can do a complete risk analysis, since they do not understand, or fully comprehend, the value, or values, and the range of different types of value, that the asset holds. For the company.
Currently, our so-called artificial intelligence tools, may be able to perform some interesting feats. But they do not understand. And, particularly in regard to affect and emotion, they do not understand, even what these are, let alone how important they are. Now, we can certainly make some effort to instruct artificial systems as to certain aspects of human behavior, and the indicators that the human may be in high states of emotion. However, the systems will have no understanding, no comprehension, of these emotional states. They will not understand the subtleties and nuances of emotional states. We can give them a set of directives as to how to behave with regard to people, but they will not understand, they will only behave. This is a backstop solution, and it cannot be complete. It is akin to the difference between justice and law, in all of our human societies. Supposedly, we think of our legal systems as providing justice. We even call institutions related to the legal system departments of justice. But we all know, in our heart of hearts, that there is a difference between legal and right. We all know that there are times when our laws come to an unexpected situation, and are then unjust. In the same way, we cannot simply give a set of commands to a computer, as to how to deal with a human that is in an emotional state, and expect that this will address all possible situations. Because the computers do not have an understanding of emotion.
In this latter regard, I highly recommend reading "Affective Computing," by Rosalind Picard. Her work looks not only at human factors engineering, but also at the significance of affect, or some similar analogue, in regard to motivation and decision in automated systems.
Tuesday, March 28, 2023
The churches of Port Alberni
It's pretty definite. I am pretty sure that I am heading into a good, solid depression. Likely the most intense that I've had since before I married Gloria. (She seemed to have a very mitigating influence on my depression cycles.) I can recognize the symptoms. I'm already showing signs of cognitive decline and difficulties. I've had more than five decades of experience at it. This is not going to be fun.
It is not likely that I will, actually, commit suicide. I have been deferring the act for more than fifty years, so I'm not sure whether it is now pointless, or overdue. However, every time somebody does commit suicide, everyone is terribly surprised, and always says, "why didn't we know?" So, I'll set down, in advance, the reason for committing suicide after all of these pointless wasted years. It's the churches of Port Alberni that drove me to it.
Now, of course, my previous churches can bear a little of the blame. Nobody particularly cares. The churches that I came from didn't particularly care when my wife died and I was left a grieving widower. I am in pain, I am damaged, and, undoubtedly, I am not an attractive proposition either for membership, friendship, or, of course, romantic entanglements. However, supposedly the church is supposed to take care of damaged, hurting, grieving people. Well, they don't. The churches in on the North Shore didn't particularly care, despite years of contacts, work, help, and other contributions that both Gloria and I made to them. The churches in Delta that I touched on, helped, attended, and participated in their volunteer work, didn't particularly care either. In the six months since I moved away from Delta, absolutely nobody has initiated any kind of contact with me.
But, no, it's the churches of Port Alberni that bear the brunt of the blame here. As I was going around church shopping, I made no particular secret of the fact that I was a grieving widower. Again, see above, for the fact that I realize I'm not a terrifically valuable person, particularly in the current situation, but there has been pretty much zero attempt to address any of my needs, by any of the churches in Port Alberni that I have attended or touched on.
Noted elsewhere, I am not exactly a novice at church shopping. I have experience in a number of church situations over many years. I know how this works, and doesn't. But the churches of Port Alberni set a new standard for not attempting to do anything to or for me. Definitely Teflon. I'm getting more comfort from coffee than from the churches. And I don't even *like* coffee!
It has been bizarre. One particular group has fooled me over and over again. They have, consistently, every time I have attended, talked about the importance of fellowship, and coming alongside, and caring for one another, as well as the importance of sharing truly and deeply when we share vulnerabilities with each other. And so I have shared! Truly, honestly, deeply, and vulnerably! And no one has cared! No one has come alongside. There has been absolutely no fellowship, at all, from this group. There is another that has talked about the need to reach out. The need to connect with the community. The need to extend the church into the lives of all around us. And they talked, and they talked, and they talked, and when I, or other members of the group, have proposed ideas as to how we could reach out to the community, and stand up, and step out, and reach out, they talk about how we can't do that and why we can't do that. And they do nothing. There is no connection in this group that keeps talking about connection. (Yesterday one of the sermons was on the need to confess our sins to each other. In *this* church community? Where the concept of "safe space" seems to be completely foreign?)
I've signed up for the Grief Share daily emails, which seem to be a year's worth of canned, standard, pieces of "Christian" grief advice, all numbered. Number 34, which came a while ago, suggests that we need to be honest in grief. Oh! Gee! What a concept! Actually telling people what's happening! Well, yes, I'm trying to be honest in this blog, even though I come across as a whiny complainer while doing so. However, there doesn't seem to be any point to it. Twice today, and three times yesterday, people asked me how I was, and I said terrible. And then I listened to *their* problems (for half an hour per).
However, I know that honesty is not necessarily the best policy. I mean, it's pretty pointless isn't it? Nobody cares. As the old saying goes: can't complain, if you do nobody listens. As illustrated above, it doesn't matter if you're honest. Nobody cares, nobody asks for details. They just complain about their own problems.
I don't know whether there's any point in being honest or not. Recently somebody asked, possibly for the first time ever, how I was. I replied that I was terrible. He said that that didn't sound like me. I pointed out that he didn't even know me. He said, but you always seem so cheerful! Well, have you ever asked? Have you ever cared enough to ask? Have you ever cared enough that when you get the answer terrible, you ask for details? Have you ever listened to the details? No.
Of course, I am well aware that nobody likes a whiny complainer. So, of course I always present as cheerfully as I possibly can. I'm smiling, generally if I'm not actually crying. I try to be kind to people. I try to return a pleasant comment to any clerk or cashier that I'm dealing with in a brief transaction. It doesn't cost me anything to be cheerful, it doesn't cost me anything to provide a kind word to somebody who's in a generally thankless job. That doesn't mean that I'm not having a terrible day myself, but just because I'm having a terrible day myself doesn't mean that I have to be presenting at glum face, and being terse, or even nasty, to anybody I'm dealing with on a random basis. When people that I pass on the street are kind enough to say good morning I try to return as cheerful a good morning as I possibly can. Doesn't mean I'm not having a bad day. Doesn't mean I'm not depressed. Doesn't mean that I'm not grieving and in pain. You don't even know me.
Maybe it's my own fault. I have, after all, made myself useful to the churches around here. To pretty much every church I have attended. The first week I was in town, I filled in in the kitchen for a funeral service, so that the church ladies could all attend the service. As previously noted, Port Alberni does not make it easy to do church shopping, by having all of their church services simultaneously, at the same time, on Sunday morning. So I have found midweek Bible studies, small groups, and prayer meetings and attend them regularly. I go to the men's breakfasts, and not only do I go, but I am now a regular fixture in the kitchen preparing the breakfast. I've always figured that there was no point in simply going and sitting in the service and expecting people to take notice of you. But, it does seem that what this has resulted in is the church's only looking at my utility value. They don't care about me, as me. I very strongly suspect that I would have had a better result, at least better for me, had I just gone in and said I was new here and demanded that they pay attention to me, and cater to my needs. It's not exactly my style, but, from what I've seen in the churches so far, it probably provides a better result for the newcomer.
It's my own fault in yet another way. If there are contributing factors for going into depression, then exhausting myself helping out, contributing to, and providing various things for the churches, as well as checking up on, and supporting, particular parishioners who were, themselves, in need, was probably not the smart thing to do. Especially since the churches all seem to be just "users."
Then there was yet another men's breakfast day. A friend was suggesting "The Men's Table." He thought it started up in Canada, but it seems to be limited to Australia. That wasn't the only hiccup. Ironically, the friend is an atheist, but, when I went tot he Website, I could see that there is definitely some kind of Christian agenda behind it, given the language. (I speak Christianese fluently.) "The Men's Table" describes itself as a "safe space." The men's breakfasts here are definitely not safe. So, having made months and months of efforts to support the church (universal) and the related programs, maybe it is time that I gave up on this toxic culture.
Atheists probably can't see the full significance here. If there is no God, the church is just another misguided social club, like the Loyal Order of Moose Antler Wearing Drunks, or the Daughters-Of-The-Third-Star-On-The-Left-No-Not-*That*-One-The-One-Over-By-The-Three-Trees. If there *is* a God, then the church is disobeying the commands they were given in setting up the institution in the first place.
So God has, like He did with Ezekiel (24:16) taken away the light of my eyes, and my comfort, and renewed and intensified my depression just at the time that he has brought me to the town with the most uncaring churches in BC (and possibly all of North America). It is hard to avoid the conclusion that God hates me.
Monday, March 27, 2023
Review of "The Lost Art of Listening" by Michael P. Nichols
"To listen is to pay attention, take an interest, care about, take to heart, validate, acknowledge, be moved... Appreciate."
Having attended a number of seminars on listening, which tend to boil down to "you really have to listen hard," I'm not sure that it is possible to produce a course book or pamphlet on how to listen. Nichols does not do a bad job. He does cover all of the traps that people who think they are listening fall into. He does tend to go on at length about these problems, but possibly can be forgiven, since he is writing, rather than speaking.
He does provide the standard advice. He does cover what you should be doing to respond, and confirm, to the speaker, that you are listening. He does provide the basics, and it is up to the reader to actually follow his advice, and really listen.
Saying that Nichols covers too much is unfair. He does go into much greater depth, and examines more complicated situations, then most people would realize are possible. Therefore, while it is too bad that there isn't a quick and easy book, or booklet, about listening, this is a sort of graduate level course in the subject. It's something that most people need to learn the basics of, but Nichols provides a much more in-depth guidance, his examinations are extensive, and his guidance is very valuable.
Saturday, March 25, 2023
Matthew 25:42-3
For I was desperately hungry for a compassionate ear to hear my story, and you told me your troubles; thirsty for fellowship, and you told me I should find some; a stranger, and you told me to come to services regularly for six months, and then we'd see if I was worthy; naked, open, honest, and vulnerable, and you told me I didn't have enough faith and gave me cliches; sick and damaged with grief and depression, and you told me I should find someone who cared; in the prison of despair, and you got on with your programs.
Friday, March 24, 2023
Public-Private grief
Ran across this item this morning:
I had an interesting, and extremely painful, experience of this recently.
I suppose I have to preface the actual encounter with some explanation. Gloria had worked at developing a "resting face" that was pleasant, rather than frowning, or even blank. She had done so well that people would fairly often, smile at her, thinking that she was smiling at them. I tried to do the same, while we were married. Now that she's dead, I feel like I'm doing it in her honour or remembrance. If I'm having a grief burst I cry, but if I'm just walking down the street, and if anyone greets me, and in interactions with clerks and cashiers, I try to be pleasant, at the very least.
So I had this encounter with a guy who I had had a few, brief, nominal interactions with. He asked how I was, and it had been a bad day, and I said not too well. And he was startled, and said, "That's not like you!" And I, startled that *he* was startled, said, "You don't even know me." And he said, "But you're always so cheerful!" And I had to leave, actually leave and get away from him, because it was so painful to have someone who didn't care whether I lived or died be so surprised that I wasn't what he just assumed I was.
(Subsequently I have been informed that he considers himself something of a counsellor and comforter. All I can say is, he's not very good at it ...)
Thursday, March 23, 2023
Going home
I seem to be oddly loath to go home. Even when I have two appointments, on either side of my place, and a little time between them, I seem to avoid "going home," to drop things off or pick them up. I'll generally just pack with everything I need, to begin with, and carry it all with me.
Partly it may be because I am not really on the road "to" anywhere, and there is going to be a slight diversion when going from one place to another. Maybe it's because my place is uphill from pretty much anywhere (the price of having the second best view in Port Alberni).
Maybe it's because home isn't "home," yet?
Wednesday, March 22, 2023
Smug
Anger gives you wings!
PA insularity
is energizing.
(Title explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRLpf-tuNwM )
Tired, lack of concentration, unforgiving
I'm tired today. I don't know why I'm tired. I have had a house guest for the past few days, but, by and large, that was undemanding. I have no idea why I should be tired.
I haven't been working more than usual, and I haven't been walking more than usual. Both are pretty much on par. In fact, I have been taking it slightly easier, since I've basically given up on the churches. I haven't been as frantic the going around to prayer meetings and Bible studies as in the past few months.
In terms of concentration, I have had a great difficulty in getting through my prayer list today. Again, I don't know why I should lack concentration. I don't know that there's any reason why my cognitive faculties should be any more deranged than usual. I've had some relatively interesting discussions with my guest, on topics that are, generally, more interesting than the normal fare around Port Alberni. So, I should not be bored, more than usual, or otherwise having difficulty with thinking.
As I was, numerous times, trying to restart my prayers, and figure out where I had been, I did note that it's possible that my cognitive behavioral therapy, of praying for others rather than thinking about my own sorry state, may be failing. It may be, that, having been attacked once too many times by congregants of the churches of the Alberni Valley, I am somewhat unforgiving, since it is these people that I am praying for. And, after all, why should I pray for people who have been cruel to me? That is putting it in its starkest terms, and, of course, is completely contrary to the basic idea behind the cognitive behavioral therapy, and, indeed, intercessory prayer, which is to pray for those who despitefully use you. Possibly it's just a lack of, or need for, spiritual discipline. Maybe I'm being attacked by the devil. It's hard to tell.
Tuesday, March 21, 2023
Unwelcoming
It snowed overnight. It's not snowing right now: in fact it's rather a nice day. There's breaks in the clouds and rather a nice sunrise in the offing.
As I was walking up to get coffee, I passed the church that I intended to check out today. Someone was going in, so I asked if they had a shovel, and offered to clear off the snow. So, for about an hour, I shoveled their steps, and sidewalk, and the entrance to their driveway. Then one of the congregants showed up to help out with the parking lot. He did some of that, and then came over and noted that I had pretty much finished the shoveling. I suggested that there was still the sidewalk to do. (I know that I'm the only non-jogging, non-dog-walking pedestrian in Port Alberni, but what about the joggers and the dog walkers? I've noticed that a lot of the churches don't clear their sidewalks or the sidewalks in front of their churches.) Anyway, he admitted that it was a good idea, and I started off in one direction, hearing him shoveling behind me. When I needed to take a break, and turned around, I found that while I had been shoveling the sidewalk, he had been shoveling just the entrance to the driveway. Just for their congregants, just for those driving to their church intentionally.
It's official. Port Alberni churches are the least welcoming in the entire world. (With the possible exception of the Russian Orthodox church.)
Monday, March 20, 2023
Sermon 10 - Why?
Sermon 10 - Why?
Job 30: 20 - 23
I cry to you and you give me no answer;
I stand before you but you take no notice.
You have grown cruel in your dealings with me,
your hand lies on me, heavy and hostile.
You carry me up to ride the wind,
tossing me about in a tempest.
I know it is to death that you are taking me,
the common meeting place of all that lives.
I have always liked the book of Job. For one thing, Job has a very nice turn in sarcasm when he responds to his foolish, supposedly comforting, friends.
I also have more than a little fellow feeling with Job. Of course, some people would see some differences between us. I lost my wife. Job lost everything *but* his wife. Gloria was a great comfort. I am not lonely because I am living in Port Alberni rather than North Vancouver, but because Gloria is not here with me, and Gloria was the great comfort, and companion, of my life. Job's wife was no particular prize: she told him to curse God and die!
The central theme of the book of Job is a constant problem to us even today. It is, as C. S. Lewis put it, the problem of pain. It is a basic philosophical question about the nature of the universe. Why is it that pain exists? It is most frequently posed as a supposed proof of the non-existence of God, or, at least, a non-existence of the god that we suppose is good. The standard form of this question, in philosophical terms, is this: if God is both good, and all powerful, then why is there pain? Why do we suffer? If God is good, presumably he would not want us to suffer. If God is all powerful, presumably he could do whatever he wanted. Therefore, goes the thesis, either God is not good, or he is not all powerful. This is the standard formulation of the problem of pain in our philosophy.
And, it is not a question merely in our time. It is a question that has haunted philosophy, and theology, for as far back as we have any kinds of records of this kind of thought.
The book of Job is, possibly, the oldest book in the Bible: there are indications, in the literary form, of much older traditions than the books of Moses. The book of Genesis starts out with the creation of the world, but the evidence is that the person who wrote this down was not actually a witness to this first act of Creation. So, the book of Job, and the problem that it poses, are among the oldest pieces of literature that we still have available to us.
So, this problem, the problem of pain, the question of why pain or suffering exists, is not a new question. It is an old one. Possibly one of the oldest since man first started thinking about the ultimate nature of the universe.
Of course, many possible answers exist, and have been proposed. Some say that pain exists in order to test us. Some say that pain exists in order to strengthen us. Personally, one of my favorites, is that pain, and suffering, and disasters, exist in order that God may allow us the opportunities to help. When we look at a disaster and ask why?, what we should really be asking is, how can I help? In a sense, this answer is the same as, or at least very similar to, the answer that God is strengthening us. There is no particular reason that God needs our help in any problem, event, or disaster: so why is it that God provides us with opportunities to do his work, which he could, of course, do himself, and probably do a much better job of it than we could. The answer would seem to be that there is some benefit to us in being allowed to do some kind of work for God. And the most obvious benefit to us is that we are, in some way, being prepared. Prepared how, and for what, doesn't seem to be very clear. But this does seem to be the most reasonable rationale for why we are provided with any opportunity to work, at all.
But what is the answer to the problem of pain, that God gives? The book of Job, and particularly the ending of The book of Job, does seem to give us God's answer. Job's comforters (and, as Job says, a miserable long-winded lot are they all), give a number of the standard answers. And, while their answers are not exactly untrue, it is obvious from the text that none of these supposed answers are, in fact, considered to be the ultimate answers. None of them are completely correct, although they may give some wisdom in some situations.
But what is the answer that God gives, himself, at the end of The book of Job? It boils down to this:
Why not?
At the end of the book of Job, God gives his answer. And his answer is, basically, were you there when I created the universe? Can you explain all the wonders of creation? Do you understand why I did everything that I did? If you don't, then you could not understand any answer that I would give you to this fundamental question. You are limited creatures. I have created a universe for you, and a place for you to live. I have provided everything necessary for you. But you are still creatures, and you do not understand the fullness of creation or the fullness of the nature of God. Therefore there is something essentially, fundamentally, and inherently lacking in your understanding of the universe, and therefore I am not going to give you the answer to the problem of pain, because you simply would not understand what it is or means.
Now, of course, those who consider themselves clever, and consider that they are smart enough to run their own lives, and universe, and to make their own decisions, without recourse to God, would not accept this answer. But then, they would not accept that God knows best anyways. After all, these are the people who think that they are able to make their own decisions, and who know best how to run their lives, without any recourse to God. They do not feel that God is necessary. They have even, in many cases, decided that God does not exist. And if you decide that you know better than God, then you don't need an answer from God anyway. Or, at least, you wouldn't accept any answer that God would give you. So, why should he give you any answer when you're not going to accept it in any case?
But for those of us who do believe in God, this is the only answer that God is willing to provide for us. Ultimately, the answer is, why not? We have to accept that answer. We have to take it on face value. We have to accept that God does know better than we do. We have to accept that God is good. We have to have faith in this. And we have to accept this on the basis of faith, rather than our own reason or rationale. There is, ultimately, no answer which is going to satisfy the question if we do not take the nature of God as ultimately good, and ultimately all powerful, as a first premise. We are never going to prove, with the logic involved in our own limited minds, the existence of the god who created us, and everything around us, and every provision that we require for life and existence. God is bigger than we are. God has more understanding then we do. And, ultimately, we have to take that on faith. We can either believe that God is good, or we can disbelieve it. We cannot prove it. Our brains are not big enough. Our collective wisdom, such as it is, is not bigger than God. Our collective wisdom and philosophy is not sufficient to answer the question of the motivations of the God who created us, and everything else, including the nature of what we, rather laughably, call reality. Which is only a small part of what God has revealed to us about the ultimate nature of reality.
So then, having said that, do we believe in God? Should we?
Why not?
Saturday, March 18, 2023
This is not a podcast
No, I'm not doing a podcast. For one thing, I do not now, nor have I ever, owned an iPod. And I don't listen to or, now, watch, podcasts. Yes, I walk a lot, but somebody's random opinions, on a daily basis, aren't, from my perspective, worth downloading and planning and arranging in advance, in order to be able to listen to them on my walks. And I don't have big enough data plans on my phone to just search them up, download them, and listen to them while I'm walking.
But that's the consumer side, anyway. What I am doing here, is short, and daily, or at least regularly, and it's basically me talking. But it's not a podcast. No, as much as it may appear to be, it's not just me randomly talking about different subjects. It is based on my CISSP seminar and it is planned, and has a structure (as unevident as that may be at times), and will complete the material.
On the other hand, I can't say that I am being strictly rigorous about the posting of material. I have, for example, just uploaded one of the clips to TikTok out of sequence, and possibly with an incorrect numbering in the description. This is because of TikTok's ten minute limit, and the fact that I overran it by either 2 or 4 seconds, depending on which particular clock you rely on. I did the upload to TikTok, directly from my phone, shortly after I recorded the clip, in order to see whether TikTok would accept the video. It didn't seem to have any problem posting the video, although I haven't attempted to watch it all the way through to the end. (It seems to have clipped four seconds off, but that probably won't create any great loss.) I also noted something interesting with the TikTok app: when uploading a video, the screen that shows is primarily a black background, and therefore doesn't contribute very much to battery drain. Which is good, because it doesn't blank the screen, either, while it is doing the upload. It doesn't seem to consider upload as a function that can go on in the background, and so seems to keep the screen open and doesn't blank it. I find this a rather interesting choice on the part of TikTok's creators and programmers.
Anyway, this is all kind of an experiment anyway. Having created the original posting explaining what I was trying to do, I subsequently realized that another advantage of the ten minute time limit on the video clips was that one could make the point that you can study the CISSP on your coffee break. The individual clips are short enough that they can be accommodated on a coffee break. You have to take an awful lot of coffee breaks to get the whole course, but studying for the CISSP over a longer period of time is probably a good idea anyway.
As well as producing the CISSP seminar itself, this experiment is teaching me a bit more about social media. I already knew that it's important, if doing something on social media, to produce material on a regular basis, and that regularity is probably more important than having amazing content. Regular posting probably makes it seem like a conversation with the author, and the social aspect, that of actually having a conversation, is probably more important than individual insights.
Which is probably why I, myself, don't listen to podcasts.
Friday, March 17, 2023
Inconsistency
Okay, I am overloaded. As Number One Daughter puts it, this is self-induced craziness. Why, am I doing this to myself?
Well, if I don't do anything, I will simply sit around, and mope, and be depressed, until I die. But, isn't that what I want? I mean, not being depressed, but dying? Yes, there is no particular reason for me to be here, so, yes, I want to die.
So, isn't that inconsistent? Well, yes, it is. However, sitting around and waiting to die is going to take a considerable length of time. And I don't particularly want to just sit there for that extended period of time. I abhor waste. So I might as well do something, while I'm waiting to die. Yes, this is inconsistent, in that, while I'm doing all of these things, I am probably increasing the time before I die. If I would just sit around and mope, I would die more quickly. However, "more quickly" is open to definition. I probably wouldn't die within a reasonable space of time, reasonable, for me, at the moment, being next week. So, I keep doing things. I see needs. I tried to find fixes. I try to find things that I can do that will help other people. As I say, there is no sense in thinking that, just because I am a grieving widower, and in pain, here in a new city, that anyone will care. So, instead, I am trying to reduce the total suffering on the face of the earth, by reducing the suffering of other people. And doing things, and starting projects, and doing work, towards that end. That much I can do. And that's reducing suffering, so therefore, no, it's not inconsistent.
Thursday, March 16, 2023
Jesus Film Festival
I realized, recently, that I hadn't actually posted the idea of a Jesus Film Festival. I thought that I should lay out some details of how, at least in my perception, this might happen.
Years ago, Gloria and I watched all the "Jesus" movies I could find, deciding which ones were worth seeing again. (Most weren't :-) We created a list which we watched every year in the lead up to Easter, and added to it as we found more. Eventually we bought DVD copies of all of them. (I'd actually like to start the project in November, to include some of the nativity movies.) In the last several years before Gloria died, I tried to interest churches in various places in the idea of a Jesus Film Festival that the churches could use to get people who won't come to a church service to come to a movie :-) Unfortunately, it turned out to be a hard sell.
So, I have at least six movies that I think would form the basis of the film festival. I am not married (if you will pardon the expression, since it was Gloria and I who chose them) to this particular list, and some people have suggested other titles such as "The Last Temptation of Christ," and "The Gospel of Matthew." (If someone were to suggest, for example, Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," I think we should precede that particular one with a bit of a warning.) If someone wishes to add to, or objects strenuously to the inclusion of some of the titles on this list, I think the basic idea is more important than the specific collection of titles.
(For those who can't get over the idea of "The Chosen," I think that it is a very entertaining series of Biblically-based fiction. But, so far, it is not, primarily about the life of Jesus.)
I do like this collection, and I believe that it portrays a variety of presentations of Jesus, and his humanity and divinity. I think these are aspects that could be discussed in discussion times either preceding or following the showing of the movies.
The specific titles on in my collection are "The Greatest Story Ever Told," "Godspell," Jesus of Nazareth," "Jesus Christ Superstar," "The Miracle Maker" (an animated children's feature), and a film just entitled "Jesus," which was originally broadcast as a television miniseries, although not quite as long as "Jesus of Nazareth." This collection contains a variety of portrayals of Jesus.
I would suggest a general plan of a two-hour viewing. With a discussion, either following the film, or, possibly more workably, preceding the showing of this week's movie, and discussing the previous week's movie. This could encourage people to attend for the entire run of the series, rather than cherry picking individual showings. I would like to see some introduction to each of the movies, giving brief background of the film, some of the specific characteristics of the movie, and the portrayal of Jesus in the movie.
Some additional functions should probably be considered. My understanding is that a number of churches are interested in the project, and may wish to have a showing, although possibly not all showings, at their church. Therefore, the showings of the movies may be at different churches throughout the run of the film festival. In that case, the format of the discussions and showings should be as consistent as possible: the same day of the week, the same start and end time, and the same structure of discussion first and then movie, or movie first and then discussion.
Following the showings, there may be discussion of the film itself. The churches may also wish to have prayer partners, or exegetes, available for those who either wish to know more about Christianity, following a film showing, or wish to have prayer requests addressed.
In terms of the target "market," I see at least two markets, and possibly more. One is, of course, non-christians, or at least non-church attenders. You can get people to come to a film festival, where you can't necessarily get them to come to a church service.
However, there is a secondary target market that is possible for the project. That is Christians, and, indeed, those attending church on a regular basis, who aren't really thinking that much about their Christian Life in the broader world. One of the things that I have noticed with the different Jesus films is the difference in the portrayal of Jesus, and the different emphasis on his divinity and/or humanity. The presentation in dramatic form may prompt some people who are comfortable in their church attendance to view their own Christian Life in a different way.
In terms of the church audience, I assume that the churches would be posting on their websites, announcing with regular announcements from the pulpit during services, and various email contacts and distributions.
My suggestion is that it be a midweek evening session, held either at one consistent church, or in rotation among the churches involved with the project. The sessions would be approximately three hours in length, roughly two hours for the movie introduction and presentation, and an hour of discussion following. Of course, there are various options to vary this proposal. It may be that the project would work better on weekends, or that, given an aging population in Port Alberni, afternoon sessions might be an option. I do not think that the sessions should run longer than three hours, and I believe that the discussions should be affiliated with the viewing sessions, but, again, there may be different opinions on these matters.
There are some additional factors. Licensing is possible, but the cost needs to be covered. I do have DVD copies of all the movies that I have proposed. Again, as noted in other discussions, I have proposed a list of movies, but do not consider that these are the only possibilities, and I feel that the project itself is more important than any specific list of titles. In addition, there are additional possibilities for related activities for the project: there would be the possibilities for the churches to present an altar call type of evangelistic situation, or providing for prayer and discussion one-on-one with those who may have been moved by the video presentations. There are a number of additional possible adjunct activities, which could be undertaken by the project as a whole, or by the individual churches who may wish to be involved in the project.
Wednesday, March 15, 2023
LinkeDin "expert" articles
Recently, LinkeDin (which I am, actually, using, but only as one of the platforms for the free, online CISSP seminar) has been telling me that I am "one of a few experts invited to add to any of these 5 articles."
Oh, be still my beating heart.
However, today I decided to take a look at whatever this was, since the question that popped up was "How do you keep up with the latest security architecture trends and innovations, such as cloud, AI, ..." and, of course, anything to do with education or lifelong learning is of interest to me. (That was, of course, not the whole question: when I got to the actual article they had added "or IoT?")
LinkeDin makes a big deal over the fact that this is an "AI-powered collaborative article." They go on to say that "This is a new type of article that we started with the help of AI, but it isn’t complete without insights from experts like you. Share your thoughts directly into each section — you’re in a select group of experts that has access to do so."
Again, be still my beating heart.
The thing is, as I started to read this piece, I could well believe that it was (mostly) written by the brain-dead "language models" represented by ChatGPT and its ilk. It was pretty pedestrian stuff, and the only areas where I would have been allowed to enter input were under categories such as "define you security objectives," "assess your security posture" and other trite cliches from any "define your own security architecture in five easy steps!" piece. None of this has anything to do with "keeping up" with the latest technologies.
Oh, how *do* you keep up with the latest security architecture trends and innovations, such as cloud, AI, or IoT? Well, that's pretty straightforward. Not necessarily easy, but straightforward. First of all, you know your stuff. You know enough about the history of technology to know that, for example, cloud is not new. It's just "someone else's computer," and we've been using that for decades, under such names as "timesharing" and "distributed computing." What applies to them, applies to cloud. For AI you have to know what AI is, and what it isn't. It isn't a single thing, but a collection of technologies, all of which may have advances at any given time. And you have to be able to "spot the hype," as in the recent case of DALL-E and ChatGPT. They are just large dataset pattern models. Interesting, but not, fundamentally, important, in and of themselves. The important thing is not to get taken in by them. IoT? OK, that is significant, but, again, it's just "Bring Your Own Device" taken to a much higher level, and the same factors and concerns apply. The fact that vendors have gone into it in a big way means that the attack surface is much larger, but not, fundamentally, different.
(None of this could be fit into the categories that LinkeDin felt covered the question. And I have no idea where AI might have fit into the picture.)
Tuesday, March 14, 2023
Hockey, all season long
Today I bought myself a hockey ticket for tonight's hockey game. And, in addition, bought myself seasons tickets for next season. Well, it wasn't much more to buy that than it was to buy the Roomba, and so I might as well give it a try. I've picked the same seat for next season as for tonight's game, so that I can see whether this is in fact a good idea. In terms of the seat, so far it seems to be okay.
I didn't cry, too much, at the game on Monday, so I hope I'm not in too much danger at games this (next?) season. I'm possibly a bit more concerned about how busy I have gotten myself in terms of activities, and how many of them will conflict with the games which, after all, aren't even decided in terms of schedule for next season yet. I will receive that schedule at some point in the future.
Tonight's game is against the Surrey Eagles, which, in view of my sojourn in Delta over the past year, is somewhat ironic. I suppose, in a sense, I am feeling ever so slightly homesick for the mainland and my previous home in the greater Vancouver area. However, tonight I'll root for the Bulldogs anyway.
It's rather interesting, in view of past experiments, that I am able to use the City of Port Alberni wifi, and do dictation (apparently fairly effectively), even in the very noisy environment here in the hockey arena. It is only practice, so far, but there's still background music at an extremely high level, and of course the noise of the players, warming up on the ice, taking practice shots, and so forth. I can hardly hear myself dictate, and yet Gboard seems to be handling it reasonably well. (Except for the fact that it thought the Surrey Eagles were the Siri Eagles, which is rather ironic ...)
Monday, March 13, 2023
Sermon 8 - Listening
Sermon 8 - Listening
Proverbs 18:2
The fool has no love for reflection, but only airing his own opinion.
To retort without first listening is folly to work one's own confusion. - Proverbs 18:13
Once upon a time I was with an American friend when "American Woman" came on, and the announcer said it was by "a little band from Winnipeg called the Guess Who." My friend was surprised that they were from Winnipeg. He said that "American Woman" was their "school song" when he was in high school. *I* was a little surprised at that. I asked, "Did you ever listen to it?"
This is based on yesterday's Bible study. At one point, there was a very extended discussion of how you knew that you were doing God's will. And there was the usual discussion of prayer, and Bible reading. But, the overall theme and concensus seemed to be, for the most part, was that it was important to be listening to God, and for God, all the time. If you were listening to God, then God would tell you whether or not you were actually doing his will, and what it was that you needed to do. And my immediate thought was, how is it that you think that you are listening to God? You don't even listen to each other.
When I was a teenager, I found the Dale Carnegie book, "The Awesome Power of the Listening Ear," in the church library. And I read it. Now, Dale Carnegie is not the greatest author in the world. He wrote an awful lot of books that might be found, these days, in the self-help section of a bookstore or library. I'm not saying that "The Awesome Power of the Listening Ear" is a classic, or even a good book. It's got a lot of trivial content, and it's full of cliches. But it does make one very very important point: it is absolutely vital that we listen to others.
Listening, really listening, to other people is possibly one of the greatest gifts that you can ever give them. We think we are pretty good at listening. As a matter of fact, 90% of us, when surveyed, think that we are better than average at listening. Mathematically, that is just flatly impossible. And even saying "better than average" is not much of an accolade. In fact, it's really, really terrible. From the moment that I read that book I have been studying listening. I have paid attention to studies on listening in psychology classes. I have practiced listening skills myself. I have read up on various guides that people have written about how to develop listening skills. And I have, of course, observed thousands and possibly tens of thousands of conversations over the course of my life. And I can tell you one thing. Almost nobody is any good at listening.
There was a minister who Gloria and I both knew, and respected, now unfortunately deceased. I recall him giving me a piece of advice one time. I followed it, and it turned out to be really, really terrible advice. It was a disaster. (Although, in the end, it may have led to some good stuff so, who knows.) However, even if it was bad advice, he had listened, he had thought about my situation, and his advice was thoughtful, and considered, and even somewhat creative. It was not a cliche. It was not a simplistic reaction. It was thoughtful, and based on what I had said. And what he knew about me as a person. Gloria said of him that when you talked to him, and when he asked how you were, his entire concentration was focused on you. For the time that he was talking to you, even if it was only ten seconds (and he was a very busy man in very great demand), but for the time that he was talking to you, you felt like you were the only person in the world. He actually listened.
Yes, I'm going to talk about grief again. One of the interesting, and extremely painful, things that I have observed about grief, and people's reactions to my grief, is that, when you are bereaved, everyone seems to take it as license to give you advice. Everyone seems to feel that, because you are mourning, you are also stupid. They give you advice. And it's not thoughtful advice. It's cliches. People tell you that "time heals all wounds," as if that helped you feel better right now. People tell you that "God works all things out for the best," as if that is any comfort when you are in immediate pain. People tell you that you should get on with your life, as if that isn't what you are trying to do. And everyone, *everyone*, feels that they have the right, indeed the duty, to give you advice. They talk to you. Endlessly.
Nobody, is willing to listen to you.
Now, of course, partly this is because our society is terrified of talking about, or thinking about, or even admitting that death exists. Or grief. Or pain. I say that I have lost all of my friends, because they are terrified that I am going to talk about Gloria, or death, or grief, or pain. This is, of course, an overstatement. Some people are willing to listen to me talk about Gloria. A little bit. But almost none of them actually will do that. It's been really interesting to see people's reactions, to me, since Gloria died. Some of my, I am very tempted to say *former* friends, feel that they have a duty to call me, and talk to me. But, of course, they will not listen to me. They talk. It's absolutely hilarious, in one sense, although it's very very painful in many other senses, to note that they are so terrified that I will talk about Gloria, or pain, or death, or grief, that they babble! They babble, endlessly, so that there is no space for me to say anything at all. They will babble about anything, running on in an endless stream of words that's almost a stream of consciousness, so that I have no space to say anything, so that there is no danger that I will talk about Gloria, or death, or grief, or pain, until they figure that sufficient time has gone by that they can end the phone call. Without me ever having to say anything.
Nobody will listen. And, in my grief, it would be really nice to have an opportunity to talk aobut Gloria. But nobody will listen.
I'm going to digress for a minute, but I promise this is on topic. I am an ESS volunteer. We do Emergency Support Services: we find out what people need to survive in the imeediate aftermath of a disaster. I'm with a new crew, and having to retake a bunch of courses that I have already taken, and the Justice Institute of BC, which manages the courses and curriculum, is not making it any easier with their really badly designed Website, and some really questionable choices about the design of some of the courses. But, in the midst of one course that was full of extraneous, trivial filler, there was a statement that shone out as true, and important, and something to always keep in mind when dealing with people who are going through the worst time of their lives. It said, "DON’T TALK TOO MUCH - You cannot listen if you are talking."
It's a proven, physiological, fact that you cannot listen while you were talking. While you are talking, not only are you thinking about what you are going to say, and not thinking about what you are hearing, but you actually cannot hear as well. Your own voice is very loud in your own head. Your voice, when you are talking, you not only hear through your ears and the air, but through the bones in your head. Your larynx, producing the sound, is connected to your jaw, which is connected to your skull, and the channels into your ears go through the skull. So you get much better conduction of sound through your bones, then you do through the air. Therefore, your voice, in your head, through the bones, is much louder than pretty much any conversation. If you were talking and other people are talking, generally speaking you cannot hear what they're saying.
And, of course, that's only the physics of the sound. When you are talking, you are thinking about what you are going to say. You are thinking about how you are going to say it. You are thinking of any stylistic tricks you can put into the way that you say something, so that you will convince the person that you are speaking to to agree with you. You are thinking about all of this. You are not thinking about what anybody else is saying. Even if you can hear what they are saying, you are not thinking about what they are saying, you are thinking about what you are saying, or are going to say. That occupies your mind. That is your primary concern, and it is what your brain is occupied with. If you are talking, you cannot hear what someone else is saying.
So, if you are talking, you can't be listening.
But there is also the fact that we listen so very, very badly. Generally, we only listen until we hear something that sparks some idea of what *we* can say, and then we stop listening, because we have to keep trying to remember the vital thing that *we* have thought of to say, and listening, not to what the other person is saying, but for the indications that the other person is about to stop talking, and so we can be ready to jump in before anyone else and say what *we* want to say.
Which usually isn't all that important.
Listening is also more work than talking. This may seem strange, but it appears to be a definite fact. Studies of traffic accidents, and distracted drivers, note that unless people are actually physically manipulating their phone, doing texting or the like, accidents are more likely to happen when people are listening to a conversation on the phone, than when they are talking. Listening takes more work, more attention, and more concentration. Listening drivers are more distracted than talking drivers. This also seems to be the case with regard to distraction simply from a conversation within the car, according to other studies. That the driver, when talking, is less distracted than when they are listening. Listening takes more work. Listening is harder.
So, we are predisposed to talk. But we're also predisposed to talk by our ego, by our natural desires. We want to be helpful. We want to be important in helping someone else. It's more important that we express an idea. It's more important that we give advice. We feel that it is much more important for us to talk than to listen. After all, talking means that we are giving the other person the benefit of our wisdom. Even if, as I hope I have amply demonstrated by this time, we are not particularly wise in these choices.
There is a flip side to listening, and this is silence. Over the years I have come to realize that most of our society is definitely afraid of silence. CS Lewis once said, "When the modern world says to us aloud, 'You may be religious when you are alone', it adds under its breath, 'and I will see to it that you never are alone.'" So we actually need silence, if we are to even try to pay attention to religion of any type in cour society, and yet we are afraid of it. We are constantly busy. If we are not with other people, then we are on our phones. If we are not talking to somebody else on our phones, then we are listening to our "tunes." If we are in the stores, there is background music. There is background music, and sound, or advertising, wherever we go. There is never silence.
And, if we managed to find silence, then we fill it. We have our phones, as previously mentioned. We have our "tunes." We have our podcasts for self-help and self-improvement. We think that we are responsible for filling every second of silence. So it's no wonder that we never listen to anything.
Part of any of the benefits of "mindfulness" is silence. Simply listening to the silence. Of course, mindfulness doesn't really listen to the silence: it tells us to pay attention to the wind; to the bird song (if we manage to find any); to the traffic noises; to the sound of the fan in the heat pump; whatever. And, if you weren't listening to the sounds, then mindfulness tells you to pay attention to the feel of the chair that you're sitting on; the smells in the air around you; or any other sensory stimulation that you can find. Mindfulness really isn't interested in you listening to the silence either. I've been paying attention to mindfulness, since it started out as transcendental meditation, back in the 60s. It's not quite as advertised.
Law enforcement knows about silence, and the power of silence. I know that television presents a rather simplistic view of police interviewing technique, but police interviewing technique is actually a rather specialized field, and comprises a whole set of skills. It's an interesting field of study. And one of the important points, is silence. Those who are skilled in interviewing technique know of our society's fear of silence, and the power of silence. They know when to be silent. They know that we are all afraid of silence, and so is the suspect that they are facing. And so, simply sitting in silence may prompt the suspect to start to talk. Even if the person they're interviewing isn't a suspect, the police know to leave spaces of silence, which prompt the interview suspect subject to recall new details as they are working through the event in their minds. The silence gives them the opportunity to think, and their fear of the silence gives them a motivation to think and recall and try to recollect.
There are some naturally-occurring chemicals that affect our moods. You all know about tryptophan, which is supposedly why you all fall asleep after Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner. (The only problem being that turkey isn't really that excessively high in tryptophan, and the reason you fall asleep is because you've eaten so much dinner, regardless of what that dinner is.) There is also the fact that phenyalanine, which we produce when we are in love, is present in chocolate. Therefore, many theorize that those who are disappointed in love sooth themselves by eating chocolate. (This is a case of taking perfectly good data, and drawing the wrong conclusions. The reality is that those who insist on falling in love have insufficient chocolate in their diet.)
Dopamine is a chemical that we produce, ourselves, in many situations. Dopamine is associated with reward. When we produce dopamine, we reward ourselves. It is pleasant. It makes us happy and rewarded. So strong is this association that anything which produces dopamine can become addictive.
Talking about ourselves exercises the part of the brain that produces dopamine.
Why should we have a mechanism that rewards us for talking about ourselves? Probably because letting other people know about ourselves is necessary for communication. But, of course, when taken to extreme, it can become a problem. We get rewarded for talking about ourselves. We like how we feel when talking about ourselves. Talking about ourselves can become additive. We can easily get to the point where we only talk to other people because it gives us a chance to talk about ourselves.
(And that thing the police do, using silence to get people to talk? Well, suspects being interviewed in a police station are probably a bit stressed. In a bid to reduce their stress, they'll probably want to do something that produces dopamine, so that they can reduce their stress and discomfort. Talking about themselves will do that.)
You're probably part of the ninety percent who think they are better-than-average listeners. You may even feel that you are a pretty good counsellor, even if informally, even if you only try to be good at listening to your friends, or people at church. Trust me, it's likely that you are not. OK, Rob, I hear you say, you've said we're not good listeners. *We* say we are. So far it's "he said/we said." Prove it.
OK, I have a challenge for you. Most of you have smartphones. Most of those smartphones will take video. Set them up to record a few conversations. It may be just you having coffee with a friend. It may be you counselling a friend. (If so, let them know what you are doing, and get their agreement.) Then watch the video. Watch it all the way through. Listen to it carefully. Count all the times you talk about yourself. (You should really *measure* the amount of time you are talking about yourself, but we'll start with just counting.) Even if the story you are telling is making a point important to your friend, if it's about you, it counts.
(And remember, if this is a counselling situation, simply letting the counsellee talk about themselves means that *they* get the dopamine reward. They get to feel good. Isn't that the point of the exercise?)
If you're being honest, you'll probably be surprised by the result. You may even be shocked. I'm not going for shock, here, but you can't start to fix a problem until you realize it exists. Once you realize that you *do* need to improve, you can start to use this tool (and move on to the measuring part) to practice and improve your listening skills.
And so it is with God, and our conversations with God. It's very interesting to talk to people about their Christian life and see how much more often they mention prayer, than they mentioned Bible study. After all, these are two sides of our conversation with God. There is, of course, direct revelation to us, and there is the fact that God occasionally talks to us, specifically and directly. But most often, God is talking to us through Scripture.
And, apparently, we would much rather, and much more often, talk to God, than to listen to Him. That tends to be prayer. We are telling God what is wrong with our lives, and asking Him to fix it for us. We are telling God what is wrong with the world, and asking God to fix it to our satisfaction. Prayer is us talking to God. And, when you talk to people about their own devotional life, they mostly talk about prayer. Talking to God, rather than listening to God.
You can, of course, talk to God in your prayer life, and also listen. If you sit, in the quiet, away from the distractions of the world, maybe God will have a chance to talk to you. But how often do we do that? How often do we sit, in the quiet, away from distractions, away from the other concerns of our lives, and just listen?
And yet, what is it that we say that we want? We want to know God's will for us. That means we have to listen to what God has to say to us. We can't know God's will, if we are always doing the talking. We cannot hear God if we are always doing the talking. We have to listen. And we almost never do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)