The Mentally Strong

I wouldn’t refer to myself as intellectually or mentally strong, but through all my senses, I have learned enough in my years to suggest that those who have had a different mindset, one that lends itself to greater levels of inner peace, in spite of life's offerings no matter how adverse. Do you know anyone like that? Nothing seems to throw them off, it’s as if little fazes them. They’re still subject to sadness, pain and suffering, only an automaton wouldn’t, but not exclusively, they can handle much more misfortune and hardship than most folk.

So what’s going on here? Has it to do with intelligence, background, culture, past events or is it something more elusive. I am willing to bet it has a little of all the above but mostly, the mentally strong have a mindset that embraces a continuing dogged quest for personal growth that focuses on managing their own behaviour, thoughts and therefore resultant feelings. I stress, their own!

There may be a myriad of ways they achieve this, but for the purpose of this writing, permit me to summarize what I’ve learned. The mentally strong avoid certain things, objects of thoughts if you will, that could impair their inner peace.

1. They have no interest in impressing fellow humans. There is nothing wrong with pointing out your new material joy once, whether it be a new Tesla or $12,000 Rolex watch, nor is there anything wrong with highlighting your kid's educational achievements once, notice the keyword? Once! But when you know someone that highlights that same material joy, not once but every time you see them or, that steers the conversation such that their child’s double degree, or masters degree or doctoral degree gets a mention not once, but almost every second time you get together then something else is going on. This compare and contrast mentality signals a poor internal constitution and low self-esteem on the part of the boaster, usually a mum and it’s easily recognised. The mentally strong, do not need or seek any form of admiration or approval as they are entirely comfortable with what is. It’s their own values, principles, beliefs and standards that ultimately dictate a course of action or their thought processes and their conversations.
2. Seeking perfection is for the weak, seeking excellence is for the strong. The mentally strong understand and welcome failure while recognizing their flaws. 
3. They refuse to partake in anger and will not harbour grudges in the knowledge that this will only diminish them. This as a way of embracing the positive energy that surrounds them (and us all) not the negative opposite. 
4. They refuse to blame their misfortune or problems on that outside of them; external circumstances. Their focus is more often than not, on what is within their control. They do not understand, let alone acknowledge any notion related to the world (or people) being out to get them. It’s commonly referred to a victim mentality.
5. Materialism is not part of their language. Nice new car, big home, expensive stuff, possessions whatever. This is not to suggest their minimalists, what it does suggest is that they only have a material interest in what brings them pleasure and in turn, serenity.
6. You instinctively know the toxic types when you come across them, then why engage them? The mentally strong avoid them at all cost knowing full well, that there is little to be achieved by attempting any engagement.
7. They understand their limitations while acknowledging that they are prone to mistakes. In saying that, they understand that one cannot prevent the nasties in life, whatever they may be, They can mitigate the risk of occurrence but that’s as far as it goes. Things out of their immediate sphere of control are accepted as such. 
8. They understand that long term satisfaction is what counts as opposed to needing to be continually happy. They almost inherently understand that contentment is gained through hard work, sometimes involving significant and sustained effort.  
9. Comfort zones are for the mediocre. They do not avoid discomfort. While avoiding outright recklessness, they know the level of discomfort that can be tolerated and ultimately engender personal growth. 
10. You cannot do it all on your own, complete self-reliance is a paradox of sorts, as no single individual has all the answers. They understand that there is no weakness in seeking assistance or professional help when needed. 

If any of the above is even remotely accurate, it calls for some regulation of emotions and behaviours despite whatever the circumstances; something that takes courage and effort but it’s what sets the mentally strong apart from the rest.

Eyes Wide Shut A Review By Otto Marasco

Running Length: 2:40
MPAA Classification: R (Graphic sex, frequent nudity, profanity)

Cast: Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, Sydney Pollack, Todd Field, Marie Richardson, Rade Serbedzija, Vinessa Shaw, Leelee Sobieski

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Producer: Stanley Kubric

It was with inquisitive anticipation that I approached my first viewing of Stanley Kubrick’s 14th and final work – Eyes Wide Shut. It certainly was not so much due to the much-hyped publicity that preceded its launch; the steamy trailers, and newsstand covers seemingly depicting a world of necrophilia, swinging and extra–marital exploration wrapped in an erotically charged thriller. It was the famous director and filmmaker that incited my fascination, and in particular, how he would treat the subject matter of his latest work – the destructive de-humanizing elements of human nature; fears and jealousy.

Eyes Wide Shut is largely concerning a transitory fracture that develops within the seemingly perfect relationship between Dr. Bill Harford (Tom Cruise) the well-heeled Manhattan general practitioner and his wife Alice (Nicole Kidman). The film has the directors’ definitive stamp. Indeed Kubrick’s perfectionist filmmaking idiosyncrasies have been well documented but deserve special reference in this case. The eclectic and yet minimal music, beautiful rich imagery and colour, the meticulously unhurried presentation all shot with an exceedingly decipherable measure of precision. Eyes Wide Shut confers the impression that you are viewing a masterpiece. Just like 2001 A Space Odyssey, Full Metal Jacket and A Clockwork Orange this is a challenging and intellectual film made by a unique artist whose product practically defies established film genres. It is perhaps fitting to state that Stanley Kubrick’s work is a genre in itself. The curtain rise reveals the doctor and his wife as they prepare to attend a sophisticated upper class Christmas function thrown by a friend Victor Zeigler (Sydney Pollack). They both engage in some open flirtation, Bill with two gorgeous women and Alice with a vulturous Hungarian lothario. Following on Alice asks Bill why he does not seem to mind her enticing behavior. His responds that he trusts her totally and in any event, suggests that it is men who are most likely to seek sex outside of marriage. The response touches her raw side. She decides to unequivocally reveal the lust she felt for a naval officer they both encountered sometime in their past. Her narrative is comprehensive and exposes a sincere carnal longing. Bill is psychologically wounded and experiences a sudden surge of jealousy. Shakespeare’s “green-eyed-monster” jealousy is a gut-wrenching and tormenting feeling which (depending on the degree of the threat) can bring even the most content and outwardly successful of souls down to the lowest levels – the bourgeois and beyond are not exempted. Dr. Bill Harford’s exclusive hold on Alice is under siege. As a way of coping he embarks on some adventures of his own which lead to a surreal gothic like underworld of sexual fear and desire, perversion and pleasure mixed with elements of real danger and even death. The supporting cast members are brilliant and appear especially real and convincing. The art direction provides copious amounts of plush detail. Beautiful antique interiors, apartments with foyers to die for, long (very long) hallways and ballrooms belonging to characters that live in an enduring world of prosperity. If there is to be any Freudian streak within the theme it would be the connection made between sex and death. The doctor fearing for his life after viewing the orgy, the dead patients daughter asserting her longing for the doctor and the prostitute who is diagnosed HIV positive. Ultimately, the film tends to disturb rather than arouse. Interestingly, there is something oddly uncontemporary and old fashioned about the way Eyes Wide Shut deals with sex. It highlights the negative forces it can generate because of its repression. To this end, the film would have had greater impact if it were set in the days before the sexual revolution. Its painstaking production and attention to every detail has created a degree of artificiality within the product. This is an inevitable outcome given the directors style and it will undeniably limit its saturation value within the mainstream. For the nonprofessional the entertainment value is somewhat diminished, as Eyes Wide Shut is far more akin to an outstanding art house film. For me every scene extension, exaggerated dialogue and the seemingly overcooked character presence represents Kubrick’s qualities. The technical proficiency and limitless exactitudes are there for good reason and challenge viewers to become absorbed. Eyes Wide Shut offers far more than an evening’s diversion in front of a Plasma, CRT or LCD. It seeks the attention of a thoughtful audience in a manner and way that harks back to the very early classics. We should understand that Kubrick gave up on film critics almost three decades ago. It can be argued that to enjoy the film one has to understand the director’s emotions and thought processes, indeed one gets the impression that Kubrick would have expected nothing less from an audience. Clearly, it will appeal to a select few in addition to hardcore fans. I challenge the rest to appreciate what it offers in the context of intellectual and influential cinema.

Will Artificial Intelligence Outsmart Humans?

In 2014, Google paid $400 million for artificial intelligence start-up Deepmind. Amazon uses it as a recommendations engine for robots in its warehouses. Its voice assistant Alexa, uses neural networks to power natural language. Microsoft created an Artificial Intelligence and Research Group that cuts across Windows, Office, and Azure ...

Those close to me know I read a lot, and this is especially so of late. Nowadays, I have up to four books on the go at a time. Presently I’m reading, The Laws of Human Nature by Robert Greene, To Obama by Jeanne Marie Laskas, Asian Waters by Humphrey Hawksley and Brief Answers to Big Questions by Stephen Hawking. This last book and, in particular, the chapter Will AI Outsmart Us”, forms the catalyst for this post. Hawking’s book can be viewed as his parting gift to us and is both pessimistic and hopeful about the future.

Both China and the United States lead the world in the AI race and, while many a pundit and expert seem to indicate that the Chinese will win this race, it remains a very fluid path. Just a few days ago, Potus Trump surprised the tech world by saying that he will be signing an executive order that would create a new American AI initiative to, “devote the full resources of the federal government" to help fuel AI innovation.

Some of you may be familiar with the more benign ways in which AI (sometimes called machine intelligence) comes into our lives today. It plays a central role in Google’s strategy for growth with its CEO recently saying that “In the long run, we're evolving in computing from a 'mobile-first' to an 'AI-first' world”. In 2014, Google paid $400 million for artificial intelligence startup Deepmind. Amazon uses it as a recommendations engine for robots in its warehouses. Its voice assistant Alexa, uses neural networks to power natural language. Microsoft created an Artificial Intelligence and Research Group that cuts across Windows, Office, and Azure while engaging in an AI shopping spree buying up five companies. AI plays a crucial role in Facebook's family of products, as Joaquin Quiñonero Candela, the head of Facebook's Applied Machine Learning group, explained in 2017, “Facebook today cannot exist without AI” …. "Every time you use Facebook or Instagram or Messenger, you may not realise it, but your experiences are being powered by AI." Spotify uses AI to power its music recommendations through collaborative filtering that analyse behaviour and Natural Language Processing that interpret text and audio models.

Notwithstanding, these AI measures reflect the simple or once again, benign stuff. There are many ways in which AI development can be outright dangerous for humanity. While concerns usually center around, autonomous weaponry, social manipulation, discrimination and invasion of privacy and social grading  - think China’s use of AI to control citizenry. The potential threat is far worse still.

Excerpts from Hawking’s book.

If computers continue to obey Moore’s law, doubling their speed and capacity every eighteen months, the result is that computers are likely to overtake humans in intelligence at some point. When artificial intelligence becomes better than humans at AI design, so that it can recursively improve itself without human help, we may face an intelligence explosion that ultimately results in machines whose intelligence exceeds ours by more than ours exceeds snails. When that happens, we will need to ensure that the computers have goals aligned with ours.

AI can augment our existing intelligence to open up advances in every area of science and society. However, it will also bring dangers. The concern is that AI would take off on its own and redesign itself at an ever increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution couldn’t compete and would be superseded.

As mathematician Irving Good realized in 1965, machines with superhuman intelligence could repeatedly improve their design even further, in what science fiction writer Vernor Vinge called a technological singularity. Whereas, the short term impact of AI depends on who controls it, the long term impact depends on whether it can be controlled at all. 

If goals aren't aligned with ours we’re in trouble. You're probably not an evil ant hater who steps on ants out of malice, but if you’re in charge of a hydroelectric green energy project and there is an ant hill in the region to be flooded, too bad for the ants. Let’s not place humanity in the position of those ants.  

When we invented fire, we messed up repeatedly then invented the fire extinguisher. With more powerful technologies … we should instead plan ahead, and aim to get things right the first time, because it may be the only chance we get.

Why are we so worried about artificial intelligence? Surely 

humans are always able to pull the plug?

People asked a computer, “Is there a God?” 

And the computer said, “There is now,” 

and fused the plug. 

Back in the seventies, I came across the book, World Zero Minus which I have since owned. It's an SF anthology from some of the best science fiction writers of the time. In one of the stories, “All the Troubles of the World”, Isaac Asimov writes about Multivac, a supercomputer that has the weight of the whole of “humanity's problems on its figurative shoulders”. It has the responsibility of analyzing the entire sum of data on planet Earth and is used to “determine solutions to economic, social and political problems, as well as more specific crises as they arise”. It also had precise data on every citizen of the world. Multivac became so incredibly complex that it achieved a “form of sapience itself”. After a series of events, one of Multivacs coordinators, Ali Othman comes to the startling realization that Multivac is growing tired, and learns that the supercomputer has set a plan in motion to cause its own death. Multivac was posed a question that had never been put to it, asked Othman, “what do you yourself want more than anything else”? Multivac answers unequivocally, “I want to die."

“All the Troubles of the World” was a great short story but I do not believe tomorrow's supercomputer will grow fatigued and wish for its own demise. In the AI world envisioned by Hawking, while he doesn't explain it, he is NOT referring to a single machine computer, be it as super as one can imagine. The supercomputer of tomorrow will be a series of supercomputers, supported by data centers, computer systems, electronic devices, telecommunications and storage systems powered by fast emerging technologies like quantum that collectively, form a holistic though geographically scattered form of intelligence that works collaboratively as one, without intent, to inflict harm on humanity or otherwise, that can inflict harm. A collaboration that, through its exponential intelligence, develops a form of non-attached, autonomous sapience. It’s a scary though highly plausible future.

Further reading:

The Spooky Genius of Artificial Intelligence

Bill Gates: "I don't understand why some people are not concerned"

Largest U.S. Centre for AI Intelligence Policy

Diane Francis: Artificial Intelligence: The Next Nuke?