A Note About Privacy

A recent article in Wired Magazine reviewed and critiqued the various Artificial Intelligence (AI)-powered devices known as home assistants or homebots. Tucked into the innocuous article was “A NOTE ABOUT PRIVACY.” It is perhaps the most relevant part of the article and reminds us of something we have all been thinking for more than a decade.

A NOTE ABOUT PRIVACY

If your paramount concern in life is privacy, turn back now. Google Home and Amazon Echo are constantly listening, and they send some of what you say back to the mothership. But you know what? This is just another scootch down the slippery slope you stepped on when you signed up for Facebook, bought your first book on Amazon, and typed “symptoms of shingles” into a search box. Tech companies have always asked us to give up a little privacy, a little data, in exchange for their wondrous services. Maybe homebots are the breaking point. But the things Alexa can do—so convenient! One bit of advice: Before the gang shows up to plan the casino heist, hit the device’s mute button. — David Pierce, Wired.com 

In a world of bank machines, cell-phones, smart-phones, internet browsers, and homebots, we have chosen to get services for a reduced cost or “free.” What we have traded for these free services is information about our choices. This is an invaluable commodity for those who would sell us products or services. The movie Minority Report (2002, Directed by Steven Spielberg) envisioned a world in which shopping malls would be filled with personal advertising to appeal to our particular tastes and purchasing history. The movie came out in 2002 and seemed implausible at the time. In 2017, we are tiny steps away from this view of advertising. Such advertising may seem invasive, but the things your smart-phone can do - so convenient!

Doctor Strange

Doctor Strange (2016; Directed by Scott Derrickson), has just become available on Netflix. I decided I would watch it and went in without high expectations. I expected too many fight scenes and not enough metaphor. Perhaps the former was true, but I also found sufficient metaphor and story to keep my interest.

I did not know what to expect from Benedict Cumberbatch, but I was pleasantly surprised at the humour and gravity of his character. He truly wrestles with self-interest and the good of the world. As a self-centred world-class surgeon and immense intellect, the character of Stephen Strange is perfect for Cumberbatch who plays it much like he played his Sherlock character.

Doctor Strange goes where no other superhero movie has gone before. There is no attempt at a scientific explanation for the powers of the heroes in this movie. Instead we see straight-up sorcery, magic incantations, and reliance on the powers of darkness and light. If any of this is making you uncomfortable, or if you wish to avoid spoilers because you have not yet seen the movie, now would be a good time to quit reading. So, as I said, this is about a superhero whose powers come from the fact that he can learn magic incantations. His “photographic memory” helps him immensely in his pursuits of Ph.D., MD, and magic. There is reference to what is known in science as an infinite number of universes (something that is still a theory with little evidence to support) to keep the movie somewhat grounded in science, but for the most part, the writers simply don’t care about science until the physical body of a hero is damaged to the point where it requires the surgical care of Strange or some other member of his world-class surgical team. At the beginning of the story, Stephen Strange is a brilliant surgeon but loses his ability to operate due to an horrific car crash. Strange goes to Kamar-Taj to find healing for his hands but is soon caught up in the great war between the evil and virtuous sorcerers. We get to see the heroes and nemeses running through multiple dimensions and creating portals that take them from one part of a universe to another.

Redemption comes near the end of the movie. Doctor Strange has made his choice, he cannot simply take his miracle of restored hands and go back to his old life. He decides instead to use his great powers to save the earth from the threat of the dark power called Dormammu of the Dark Dimension. At a certain point in the battle it seems that all is lost until Doctor Strange takes the one thing to Dormammu that can defeat the Dark Lord: time. Strange introduces a time loop in which he and Dormammu are trapped such that they must live this one day repeatedly. Strange is killed each day and suffers a good deal of pain in each death but he willingly accepts death and suffering to trap Dormammu in the time loop so that he may negotiate terms with the powerful being. Eventually, Dormammu sees the loop as a prison in which he is trapped and negotiates with Doctor Strange. Dormammu and his evil associates withdraw from earth in return for his release from the time loop.

The story of self-sacrifice which saves the world is the one story that is built into the very weave of the universe. It is the one story which rings true above all others. One person losing their life to save others’ lives and ultimately save themselves is the story of the Messiah and his followers. It is described in multiple ways in the books of the Bible. Matthew 16:25 explicitly says, “If you try to hang on to your life, you will lose it. But if you give up your life for my sake, you will save it.” This same redeeming message is there at the end of Doctor Strange, reminding us of the nobility of self-sacrifice and the ever-present battle of darkness and light. 

Rewiring Our Brains

Dr. Louise Banks: If you immerse yourself into a foreign language, then you can actually rewire your brain.
Ian Donnelly: Yeah, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. It's the theory that the language you speak determines how you think and...
Dr. Louise Banks: Yeah, it affects how you see everything.
Arrival, 2017, Directed by Denis Villeneuve, written by Eric Heisserer (screenplay), and Ted Chiang (short-story).

Sapir–Whorf hypothesis: the structure of a language affects its speakers' world view or cognition. The language we speak is inimitably tied to the reality we experience. “Linguistic Relativity," Wikipedia, accessed 2017-04-12.

Lately, I have been thinking about how I think. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis suggests that the structure of a language affects the world view of those who speak it. How much does my language affect the way in which I think? How much does my personality affect the structure of my mind? What about my culture and my language? What about my micro-cultural experiences and my language? What about my family experiences and ways of thinking? These are questions we do not normally ask about ourselves. The answers are hard to get at. How do I know that my concept of time and your concept of time are the same? When I say “blue” do you and I see the same thing in mind’s eye? What comes to mind when I say “father”; for you; for me?

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis suggests that the structure of a language affects the world-view of those who speak that language. Some linguists believe that there might be a strong version of this hypothesis that says that once one learns a language, their brain is wired for certain conceptualizations which are intrinsic to that language. Others would only subscribe to a weak version of the hypothesis and suggest that a language can have some influence upon our world-view but that the concepts are malleable.

I am not a linguist and not qualified to explain the concepts any more than this; but a recent experience with my daughter has helped me understand some of the differences in the ways in which we think. I was at my daughter’s home in Langley when the spring weather changed and went from sunshine with a few clouds, to a cloudburst that included heavy rain and frozen water.  It will be clear in a moment why I called this “frozen water.” My daughter looked out the window and said, “It is hailing!” With some shock, I rose and looked out the window to see small pellets of ice falling from the sky. Now, technically these tiny pellets would qualify as hail, but my first reaction was to call them sleet, or ice pellets. Why the difference? Although she is my daughter, we each grew up in different micro-cultures. I grew up on a farm where the word “hail” struck fear in the hearts of men, women, and children. Hail, perhaps only second to tornadoes (which occur very infrequently where I grew up), is one of the most feared weather phenomena. Hail, destroys crops and takes away the livelihood of farmers. It is the difference between a year of bins full of grain, bank accounts capable of making loan payments and buying extra Christmas gifts; and taking the small sum of money from crop insurance so that there is hope of buying seed for next year. Our daughter, grew up in the city where hail might damage the garden or the shingles but did little more. “Hail” is not a fearful word for her. When my daughter uses the word hail we each have different reactions. “Hail” affects how each of us think and the effects are quite different.

The movie Arrival made much of the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and used it as a major feature of the plot. In this movie, based upon a short-story, linguists learned the language of an advanced alien race and, in so doing, developed the ability to see the universe in the way in which the aliens saw the universe. The Heptapods, as the aliens were known because of their seven-limbed morphology, had the ability to see their lives in a continuous circle from beginning to end. The linguist Louise, learns the language to such a degree that she can see the beginning and end of the life of Hannah, her daughter, all at once, even before Hannah’s life begins. Working linguists can enjoy the fact that the movie delves into contemporary issues of scientific linguistics, but would be quick to say that the movie took even the strongest version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis to an extreme.

If we understand our smart-phones as a form of computer-mediated language, there is one way in which a weaker version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis may come into play. An article in the journal, Science News, entitled “Smartphones may be changing the way we think,”[1] says that there are initial indications that our electronic devices may be rewiring our brains. Although the study is preliminary, researchers suggest that smart phones are changing our brains; we just don’t know the details of those changes. Thus, those who grow up with the constant presence of this fifth appendage may use different thought processes than those who adapted to the device later in life; but all are affected by using smart phones.

Think about how we navigate in the world. Until a few years ago, if you wanted to go to a place across town or across the country, you pulled out a map and planned your route. As you drove, you either had to stop and refer to the map from time to time or have a trusted friend as your co-navigator. Remember the major arguments that developed between friends or husbands and wives when the navigating did not go well? Now, in the GPS era, we put the destination into our smart phone and listen to the pleasant tones of the smart phone voice as it guides us to our destination. We don’t even need to know where we are in the world, our device already knows that. Just be careful when navigating to Springfield, USA – choose the correct one or you might end up in a totally different corner of America than you planned.

Language and thought processes are clearly, tightly linked. The degree to which our language imposes restrictions on our thinking is not clear. Much more research needs to be done in this area. Perhaps someone reading this blog will recognize the need for linguistic studies and decide to choose it as a career path; or perhaps, I have not clearly specified the terms and concepts and readers will leave more confused. How will my thought processes affect those of others?

---

[1] “Smartphones are rewiring our brains,” Science News Journal, Laura Sanders, 2017-03-17,

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/smartphones-may-be-changing-way-we-think

We Were Soldiers

The Mel Gibson movie, We Were Soldiers, is one of my favourite movies of all-time, with strong themes of leadership and courage. An example is Colonel Hal Moore’s stunning speech just before the young soldiers ship out under his command?

I can't promise you that I will bring you all home alive. But this I swear, before you and before Almighty God, that when we go into battle, I will be the first to set foot on the field, and I will be the last to step off, and I will leave no one behind. Dead or alive, we will all come home together. So help me, God.[1]

Then there is his prayer with a soldier who is a new dad and is questioning how he can be a soldier and a father at the same time.

Lt. Colonel Hal Moore: Our Father in Heaven, before we go into battle, every soldier among us will approach you each in his own way. Our enemies too, according to their own understanding, will ask for protection and for victory. And so, we bow before your infinite wisdom. We offer our prayers as best we can. I pray you watch over the young men, like Jack Geoghegan, that I lead into battle. You use me as your instrument in this awful hell of war to watch over them. Especially if they're men like this one beside me, deserving of a future in your blessing and goodwill. Amen.
2nd Lieutenant Jack Geoghegan: Amen.
Lt. Colonel Hal Moore: Oh, yes, and one more thing, dear Lord, about our enemies, ignore their heathen prayers and help us blow those little bastards straight to Hell. Amen.[2]

Yet, some of the most touching scenes, that continue to bring tears to my eyes, are delivered by Madeline Stowe who plays Hal Moore’s wife, Julie. The scenes give insight into the method of delivery of news of the deaths of soldiers and the impact on the wives who live on the army base. Mrs. Moore is both critical of how the army communicates the news and sympathetic to those who must do this task. Regarding the preparation of the bureaucrats, for the sheer volume of death telegrams that had to be delivered, she says, “Nobody expected this. The Army was as stunned as everybody.”

In one of the scenes we see Moore’s wife at the Fort Benning base watching a Yellow Taxi arrive at the home of her neighbour. She finds the new widow sobbing and angry that the news had been delivered by taxi – no chaplain, no officer - just a cab driver who didn’t want to be there, but had to do his job.[3] Next, Julie Moore sees a taxi arrive at her own door, and fears that it is news of her own husband’s death, only to learn that the driver is lost and needs an address. The following dialogue recounts the emotion of the moment.

Driver: [removes his hat] Mrs. Moore? Colonel Moore's wife?

Julie Moore: Yes.

Driver: I need help finding an address. I'm looking for —

Julie: You JACKASS! Do you know what this is?! Do you know what you just did to me?!

[The driver sheepishly walks toward his cab, but stops at the curb.]

Driver: I-I don't like this job, Ma'am. I'm just trying to do it. [continues toward cab]

Julie: Wait. Wait! [runs to the cab] I'll take it to her. [she takes the telegram] And tell the cab company if there are any others, just bring them to me.[4]

Following this, many more telegrams arrive and Moore and another soldier’s wife walk each one to the designated wife. With tears in their eyes and arms that shakily reach out to console, the two do the best they can to remain strong and help the women understand their losses.

The movie pulls no punches as it shows the horror of the battle that occurred at Ia Drang, Central Highlands, Vietnam on November 14 and 18, 1965. For several terrifying hours the U.S. Helicopter Cavalry was seriously outgunned and over-run by the enemy. At least 559 Americans were killed and more than 1000 Vietnamese soldiers died. The movie tells the story in a way that is gripping and at points humorous.

There is a touching and comedic scene in which Colonel Hal Moore is encouraging his children to say a liturgical, Catholic prayer while one of his little charges resists the familiar prayer in preference for “praying whatever she wants to pray.” She tells her father, "I don’t wanna be Catholic. I wanna be nefodist (Methodist) like Mommy so I can pray whatever I want." Moore responds by telling her “that’s alright, that just means that God made you hard-headed.”

If anyone is “hard-headed” it is certainly Colonel Moore. He is true to his word and, as he promised, he is the “first to set foot on the field, and . . . the last to step off.” May God grant us real leaders who live up to this larger than life soldier and commander.

---

[1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0277434/quotes

[2] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0277434/quotes?item=qt0408924

[3] http://www.lehigh.edu/~ineng/ceb3/ceb3-scenelog.htm

[4] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/We_Were_Soldiers