George Kong

Perth, Australia

About George

Bio

Ambitious. Egomaniacal even. All that dare dream can be described as such, until they can demonstrably justify to others their worth. But reaching that place can be difficult, if not impossible without that sense of ambition and vision in the first place.

Languages

English

An idea worth spreading

Irrespective of how well something can be done now, it can probably be done better. Nothing should be so sacrosanct that it is immune to criticsm, analysis and reinvention.

I'm passionate about

thinking without boundaries.

Talk to me about

how ideas in the future play off each other, that defy traditional ideas of the future which are usually played out in a vacuum.

People don't know I'm good at

changing the world. Yet.

Favorite talks

Comments & conversations

Noface
George Kong
Posted about 2 months ago
Shaka Senghor: Why your worst deeds don’t define you
One cannot lose their humanity. From the deepest depths, to the highest heights, we are always all human. All humans have traits that can lead to great good and great harm. To forget that, blinds us from the things that we must be most vigilant about. In dehumanizing those that go against our moral grain, we pretend that human beings aren't capable of great evil - and in doing so end up committing greater evils still.
Noface
George Kong
Posted 2 months ago
David Chalmers: How do you explain consciousness?
Consciousness is a really intriguing and perhaps one of humanity's grandest questions. But Chalmers is a bit of a troll in this field. He turns consciousness into a god of the gaps kind of argument; where the subjective experience of consciousness is always resident in what we haven't explained - or rather that what we have explained isn't good enough to provide a definitive answer on the subjective perception of consciousness. Well... I say that even though some details may continue to elude, that we've done much to demystify and explain significant parts of the nature of this conscious perception it in a very significant way. One of the best theories going is Integrated Information Theory... where our perception of consciousness... is as a system that combines the information provided by all the various subsystems - and connects them together and adds new information on top that couldn't have been generated by the sub systems alone - and in doing so integrates information in a way that is unique to the combined function of the system. For example, we have the visual system that is able to parse all the details of vision - but has no capacity to care of what it is seeing. It may 'see' a blue chair, but without the connection to a greater whole where the other parts are able to understand the nature of a chair, its purpose and its relation to other elements like and unlike - it can ascribe no meaning to the blue chair - nor differentiate it anymore from a yellow umbrella than a green coat. Those other modules that may appreciate the meaning of the blue chair could not have generated that appreciation without the connection to the modules of vision and tactile physicality that informs how a chair might feel. And in this way, we come to explain significant parts of why consciousness feels one way and not another, as well as its significance and purpose in the universe.
Noface
George Kong
Posted 4 months ago
Graham Hill: Less stuff, more happiness
We hoard because of scarcity. If we didn't feel like we had to worry about keeping a specific thing for some undetermined point in the future, then we'd have no reason to hoard. After all, is the ownership of 5 properties which you cannot use at once, experientially different from having access to 5 different spaces on demand? Ironically, in a post-scarcity mind set then, we would be happier to live in a smaller footprint; we wouldn't worry about not having access to something when we need it - if we don't have to worry about the lack of it when we needed it.
Noface
George Kong
Posted 4 months ago
Chris Kluwe: How augmented reality will change sports ... and build empathy
Augmented Reality (and Virtual Reality) is one of those technologies that will earn the uninformed ire of the casual traditionalist until the technology starts to proliferate and people actually experience first hand how it integrates with and complements our lives. If you told people even a dozen years ago that in 2014, we'd spend dozens of hours every week staring down at black plastic and glass slabs, ignoring people around us - then they'd respond that 2014 had become a dystopic nightmare. Of course what's unsaid is that those slabs are gateways to further social and informational connections, supplanting time spent staring at TVs. In the same way - what's unsaid about AR and VR is that they'll offer us deeper, richer connections and experiences with technology - and ultimately with each other. Far from been technology to dehumanize us; they become technology that better humanizes the individual and society as a whole.
Noface
George Kong
Posted over 1 year ago
Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass?
Rather presumptious to believe that I'm not acting upon the problems I see. My beliefs and ideas simply don't align with your ideas of what should be done. I've already described what I think the solution is - an escape from the cycle of suffering through technological means. You may chide me for 'been a lemming' - but I realize more keenly than most that the suggestion of asceticism while attractive to the 'spiritually' oriented... is fundamentally unworkable and unsustainable as long as we remain human - in all our greatness and foibles and variability.
Noface
George Kong
Posted over 1 year ago
Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass?
Haven't read the book, but reading the wikipedia entry... as much as I wish humanity had it within itself to seek such a wise and sustainable path... the reality is it does not. We are cognitively limited - unable to fully comprehend the consequences of our actions past a certain point (we cannot fully appreciate the extent of the ripples we create). While it isn't outside the bounds of reality for any individual to be wise enough to grasp the full range of consequences of actions... it is improbable for all people to be so magnaminous - lest those without the sufficient cognitive capacity perish. This... is not a desirable outcome. And as a strategic reality - those with resources and power will triumph over those with no desires for such a thing, if conflct occurs. And conflict inevitably occurs. The only escape from this trap is through the top - where technology can cope with the wanton desires of all men. It is not impossible. It is within the realm of possibility for us to achieve a post-scarcity society within the century. If we collectively play our cards right anyway.
Noface
George Kong
Posted over 1 year ago
Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass?
I think such a world has already occurred. We don't even have to go as far as Google glasses to be able to say that yes, there are technological requirements for any degree of successful integration with society. I mean... language a form of technology is by far the most fundamental requirement for that societal interaction, but no one questions life without it. We are nearly at the same level for utilities like electricity and water and even internet. And if as a society we determine that such a device is necessary - it'll only because the economic cost is so low and so available that there's little excuse for not having one, and that in the worst circumstances can be easily subsidized in general. I mean... institutions that require the use of technology typically invest in it - like books and desktop PCs and laptops. I don't see why this would change with these glasses. As for privacy and security issues... further reliance on personal computing technology (so it's an issue that impacts all our computing devices, not just the ones we wear) will no doubt deepen the potential negative impact that hacking and other security breaches will have on us... but this is the transaction cost of this level of technology. The efficiencies and functionalities it provides outweigh the potential cost of inconveniences that it leverages. If it didn't, it would fail. Just like the potential ability of a vehicle to cause death and maim its occupants and others is outweighed by the positives of a reliable and fast transportation network.
Noface
George Kong
Posted over 1 year ago
Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass?
As romantic as that ideal is for some, I can say without equivocation that, such a thing is not an ideal state for anyone. We evolved from creatures without technology. Such a life is harsh, brutal and full of environmental insults. Doesn't lessen the triumphs and joys of just been alive in any form... but such an idea is only ideal for those that haven't fully contemplated our necessary dichotomy with technology.
Noface
George Kong
Posted over 1 year ago
Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass?
Every man woman and child can achieve happiness, contentment and enlightenment... If only they'd just abandon materialism and live in the moment! - said a person without full understanding of human nature. Point been, yes, you can live a good life without this kind of tech. But that doesn't invalidate its power to improve lives.