my silicon-based life

It's an occasional theme in sci-fi to ponder about alien life being chemically based around silicon instead of carbon (e.g., you may recall this Star Trek episode). The idea being that, since silicon and carbon are in the same column on the periodic table, they have the same number of valence electrons and hence can form (many of) the same chemical bonds...blah blah blah. (The fact that the binding energy of these electrons in silcon is less than in carbon is rarely mentioned, but that may not be a huge issue.)

In another scenario, the life is not "chemically" silicon-based, but a new "breed" of "mechanical life" shows up, via Artificial Intelligence and robots and whatzits. Some say the day will come when we will serve the machines...

It may be that the day has already come, but we failed to notice.

It occurred to me the other day that my life is essentially (becoming) silicon-based. That is, the silicon computer chip is essentially the conduit, and the computer itself the portal, through which I conduct (i.e. live) a significant portion of my life. I work at a computer pretty much all day. Many (if not most!) of my social interactions take place via e-mail. I get my news and entertainment via websites and video games... I guess I do still need to eat real physical food, but even that problem is partially taken care of: when I'm "hovering" in cyber-limbo, I can go for several hours without even feeling hungry! Presumably someday I'll even be able to order take-out online.

In The Matrix, one of the computer-based "life forms" declares humanity to be a virus. I find it at least entertaining to argue that the computer is the virus. Computers reproduce via humans manufacturing them, they take over a significant section of the humans' lives, they suck energy from the humans... Perhaps a "symbiotic" relationship describes things better, but that's assuming that what the computers deliver to *us* is actually beneficial!

I almost titled this entry "Luddite". ;-)

quantum "feeled" theory

Tonight I went to see the new movie What the BLEEP Do We Know!? I went because, as a physicist who's also versed in religion, I wanted to see what the movie had to say, and to prepare myself for any conversations with others about the movie.

Oh, man.

What a waste of eye candy.

At 30 minutes, I wanted to leave but stayed out of a sense of duty. The misapplied (and logic-defying) inferences from quantum mechanics spouted by the actors --- who perhaps were "experts" who I've never seen in all my years as a student of physics, and whose names were not given --- seemed to be nearly wrapping up... It was silly, but endurable.

At 40 minutes, when they started saying orthodox Christianity was "blasphemy," I thought, "You don't need to stay here anymore." So I walked out. Now FYI, I've endured some real stinkers of movies, and I generally don't mind anti-Christian vitriol (since I'm interested in cultural discourse!) but this is the first time in my life that *I* was the one instigating the movie walk-out. As far as films with a religious agenda go, this one out-stunk the combined stench rising from the Left Behind movie and The Warriors of Virtue (closing line: "So Scraps, you wanna learn about Tao?"). And at least WoV had those cool 'roo-fu fight scenes.

I must say that I did laugh out loud once or twice during WtBDWK!? --- totally involuntary hah-hah funny laughter, not even cynical snickering like you might guess --- but I don't think those parts were intended as comedy. I couldn't help it. Maybe it was my quantum-chi, or maybe it was just that the woman speaking was being ridiculous.

Rather than continue and provide a detailed review, I'll go straight to the analysis by my companion, Shanti Treat, who said it all:

"This movie would be good if you were high."

(Toootally, man...hffffffffffffffffff)

value added

I'm about to self-release my first EP. Why, you ask, would anyone spend lots of their own money to release a PHYSICAL CD in this age of peer-to-peer piracy? Isn't it true that the business model of the music industry is flawed and in need of change? That there's no such thing as intellectual property, that illegal downloaders are "fans" who must be accommodated rather than prosecuted? That, no matter whether we like it or not, downloading is here to stay? That the role of the musician returns to the age-old practice of giving live, in-person performances (as Elvis Costello seemed to advocate in an interview a year ago)?

Maybe these things are true. Although I would argue that recorded music goes beyond "intellectual" property (like having the secret to making TNT) and into... I dunno, "artistic property"? Someone can't just TELL you the idea for a song, you need to actually be able to hear it. Songwriters reading this are now thinking, "He's talking about `mechanical' rights" -- the rights to play the physical recording of the music. ("What about the plain copyright??" some songwriter is asking. Eh.)

Well, in partial concession --- not full admission --- to these "facts"...or "ideas"... I tried to to think about what would be the incentives for people to BUY rather than LEECH. And in particular, to buy a physical product. What is the "value added" of having a physical product? (Lets assume you've already got a kick-a$$ recording...) Here's what I came up with:

- "Ownership": Not ownership of the intellectual property per se, not the right to unlimited duplication, but just the satisfaction of saying to yourself, "I own this physical thing and I can take it where I want and play it when I want."

- "An artistic experience": i.e. Artwork. Along with ownership is the idea of actually owning something of value, and in particular of artistic value. The experience of seeing some interesting art, and of opening the CD cover... is not something you can get from an MP3.

- "Information": Some words of special insight into the artist and/or printed lyrics for the songs. Sure someone may eventually type the lyrics in and post them to some website, but the idea is that the purchaser of the physical product gets the joy of following along in the little booklet as they're playing the songs for the first few times. So that they can go "to the artist" rather than some impersonal internet database. Without the printed lyrics, there's less of an incentive to buy the product. My advice to other artists is: Don't put it (all) on your website for free, put it in the CDs.

- "Support": Honestly, I think most people who are music fans are interested in supporting "the artists", just not the "big bad record companies". (They fail to realize that the record companies PAID for the studio time, artwork, mastering, etc, etc, and that the artist doesn't make any money until THEIR SHARE from the CD sales profits surpasses their DEBT to the record companies...) But...we've also created a culture of "ubiquitous" music, in which music is ultimately devalued, and people feel a sense of entitlement to it, so rampant downloading occurs independently of any feeling toward the artist on the part of the downloader. For indie projects like mine, however, fan support is paramount. Essentially it reverts to the "old system" of patronage of artists. Fans want to support their artists by giving them something to live on, in exchange for some artistic output. We like this!

That's what I've got for now. I mean, that's what I've got in terms of ideas, but it's also, I think what I've actually got in the final design for my CD. Printing all the lyrics in a font that's still readable was a challenge, but when I showed people a previous design in which MOST of the lyrics were printed, they expressed disappointment that the full lyrics weren't printed. So now they're in there.

Also, one full MP3 from the CD is posted on my website, and the rest are 1.5-minute clips. But you knew about that trick already.

Anybody else have some observations or ideas regarding.... preserving the music industry? ;-)

Cheers,
Scott