(not to be outdone with the german) Danke Alles, und guten Abend!

first off, i said a long time ago that i think computers have a big place in the classroom although not as complete replacements. i thought that computers would just be a way for teachers to access information easier and would be very benefitial for multimedia presentations to add videos, sounds, and pictures to a lecture. i thought that would be very convienent and helpful to the teacher, and i also thought that it would help the kids learn. after hearing some discussion and what emily said about what she has seen in teaching, i think that there would be more problems then benefits with the computers. first of all the teachers are from the pre-computer age, and as i have seen many times, especially in high school, most teachers cannont use computers well at times. many times i have seen the teacher have something set up, only to have it mess up and have to get fixed, which would take up a lot of class time, and then it wouldnt even be that much better than an overhead projector or a regular lecture. this just wastes time and is a hassle. also i dont think it helps that much anyway. mostly they are just putting notes on microsoft powerpoint, which they could just dictate to us or use an overhead projector instead and it would be just as easy. also, i think that the powerpoints only end up having the kids just copy down the notes word for word from the powerpoint and never actually have the material sink in. i think that when a teacher just lectures, the students actually have to think about what is being said and write down what they think is important

for my second challenge i want to talk about what i said earlier about saying it was unfair to call the monster from frankenstein a cyborg. i said that since he was made of all human parts and since he could learn things and had feelings he would have to be all human. now i think that it is also good to call the monster a cyborg. he is not natural at all. he was made by man and man's creation from parts of different but already dead humans. he was created in a lab, and there was a bunch of technology and machines used to make him. also, as it is shown in the movie, he does not fit in with the human population he was designed in the image of. he is an outsider, and is nothing like a normal human. he has not experienced any of the things that the other humans have, he never was born, he never grew up, he never had real parents. so in that sense of unnatural feelings and artificial creation i think it is fair to say that the monster is just like a cyborg. also i think that the previously mentioned statement in class that he, like the cyborg, is a borderline case, which is another simularity that can make the monster a good candidate for comparison to a cyborg

So long, farewell, Auf wiedersehn, goodbye!

Thursday, February 23, 2006
Computer Progress

1. After an completion of this technology class, we have all learned that there is not just one viewpoint that is absolutely correct for technology and its future. My original question involved whether or not computers will ever be able to reason. After watching Frankenstein and other films of the sort, it seems as though reason is a thing computers will never be able to accomplish. If we really did know anything about how to go about AI, i believe that the movies to date would have a better explanation on how things all came to be. Frankenstein showed us nothing but lightening which supposedly jump started a heart. This is about the best idea for how this would be done that i have seen, and it is still highly unbelievable.
Artificial intelligence and reason, as i believe we have all come to see, are just nice things to write about. Zombie movies have the same problem. There is no explanation as to how things came to be, but they just tell us they exist. In either case, it is an exciting thought to think about. It sparks our imagination, though we really know nothing about it. Maybe the promise of technology is just some really cool movies.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Borgmann's Challenge

2. The web of realtions that we had talked about concerning Borgmann i believe refers to two things. First, the relations between people. A well would obviously invite more conversation and interaction than a spigot would, there is not much debate there. The thing that doesn't change is the web of relations that technology such as this influences on work life. We had discussed that the web of relations seperates supervisors from those under them unlike in less technological times.
This problem has never come to my attention. It seems as though there is still a direct connection in most workplaces that i have been in, and those i have worked in. Managers all directly oversee the people under them and the web of relations is not disturbed by technology. This is a different case in factories, however. Assembly lines require no direct overseeing, but this can be done from a distance by security camera without any personal involvement. In this case, the web of relations is disturbed by technology. Given the example of a work environment other than a factory or something of the sort, the nostalgia Borgmann has seems insignificant. Either way, with or without technology, there is still a direct connection between employer and employee.

Final

The first thing I would like to discuss in this blog is the recently discussed topic of the role of technology in education. Most people in the class took the view point that we are letting technology in the classroom get out of hand. I believe that it is important for our youth today to get experience with these technologies. I also believe that they need to get experience with older technologies such as books and writings. But we must not forget that these kids are not going to be exposed to the same things that my generation was, when growing up. Lets face it, when the youth of today are our age, technology is going to be a lot different. They need to start now in order to keep up with these future technologies. They are also going to be the ones who develope the technology of the future. We need to give them exposure to as much technology now, in order to keep our technological advance in order.

The second topic I would like to discuss in this blog is cyborgs. Most people in the class think of cyborgs as unnatural and something to be afraid of. I do not think this way. I beleive that cyborgs are the next step in human evolution. People say this cannot be true because it is not natural. Well to this I say that it is not natural to save your grandparent from cancer or a heart attack. We have evolved to the point to were that our brain is advanced enough to contemplate self-improvement. This very fact, to me, says that the next step in our advancement as a species is into cybernetics.

Final

The first blog I would like to discuss was the movie we watched, "Koyanisquatsi". I found this movie to be wierd and hard to understand. After watching it for the second time, I relized that earth is teaming with life and change. The earth is not hear for us, we are here because of the earth. Respect is a big life lesson that is learned through the years, and this movie shows us the lack of respect we have for earth. Technology might seem to further out lives, but it is in direct combat with mother nature. The prestein images overshadowed by mans technology was very appartent in this movie. The scene that I think will always stick out in my head is when we saw a beautiful beach with people on it and as the picture continue to grow, we see a power plant in the back round. This movie really hit home and showed me a new found respect for mother nature.
My second blog was on Frankenstien. I am unable to find it in the blog now, but I believed that Franlenstien was not a cyborg, that he was human. I still believe very strongly that a cyborg is something of science fiction and presently is not of this earth yet. I cyborg is a machine that controls a human. Human's still have complete control over there actions, and if they try to blame technology they should take a harder look at themselves. Although technology has many evils, it is still controled by human's, not v.s. Although my view on cyborgs has not chagned I do believe someday it is posible. Where human and machine will come together and there will not be a distinct difference between the two. I just hope that I am dead before this comes about. During my life time I wont to be in control of how I think and act.

final

The first blog that I would like to discuss, would be one of the very first blogs about the movie "Koyaniskazi"(check spelling). In the first blog, I stated that I thought the movie was confusing and I did not really like it nor did I understand what the concept was. I just saw a bunch of different clips of a bunch of different environments thrown together with laim music to make a movie without a plot. Now the end of the semester, I have different thoughts about the movie and I now understand what was trying to be portrayed. The technological advancements that have occured in this world have greatly changed the environment to an ugly menacing place. The best example from the movie would have to be the part with the beach and the power plant in the background. People are sunbathing right next to a nasty, polluting powerplant. This ethics and technology class helped me better understand and broaden my perspective about many things. Understanding what the movie was trying to portray after the semester is finally over is very interesting to me because I applied what I learned to trying to understand the movie and I actually did.

The second blog I would like to discuss is my blog about my opinion on whether or not frankenstein is a cyborg. My initial thought is that frankenstein was not a cyborg. He is made of much human flesh. Once the discussion of cyborgs came up, I soon realized he was really a cyborg. Yes a cyborg must have some type of technological equipment attached or inserted in oneself, but my new opinion involves creating a human from other sources and making the human come alive. Frankenstein did not have the same human intelligence that natural born people had. Ex. Sense of Humor, Common Sense. Cyborgs in my opinion can actually be something other than half robot half human.

Final

1) In my post on March 22 about Harroway and her views on cyborgs, I already showed the different views on her take of cyborgs. On Harroway's thought that everyone is a cyborg, I was at first completely disagreeing. Many people would completely disagree with Harroway. If they thought only literally about the definition (cyborg: part human, part machine), the only true cyborgs would be amputees with fake limbs or people with pace-makers. My first reation was "I am not a cyborg, there are no technological parts to me. I am 100% organic material." And that was that. Then I began to think about it, at first literally, but then metaphorically. I've had knee surgery, and they put some dissolving sutures (I don't know how you spell it) in. I'm sure they've dissolved by now, but does that mean I've still got some synthetic material floating around in me? If not, well, I needed those synthetic sutures to keep the muscles in my knee together at one point in time...so...was I a cyborg then? Does the same saying go for cyborgs as it does for cheaters: "Once a cyborg, always a cyborg?" Am I a cyborg? Then I began to think of all the technological things I have associated with my body. Sometimes I wear contact lenses. Sometimes I wear glasses. Sometimes I wear a watch. Sometimes I wear a knee brace. Sometimes I wear a retainer. I my goodness. I'm a freakin' cyborg. I wear shoes. I use a battery-powered tooth brush. My iPod is pretty much attached to me. I could go on forever. So, from all these things, I think it would be safe to assume that as a person lives, they become increasingly 'cyborg-y,' or, if you prefer, 'cyborg-like.'
That leads to another question. Newborns: completely innocent and naked (pun intended) of any technology--or--fresh-brewed cyborg? Does the fact that there were computer monitors to keep track of the mother's and the newborn's vital signs (among many other technologies involved in delivery) make the newborn a cyborg even before she comes out of the womb? This is definitely arguable.
The only way a person in today's world could not be a cyborg is if they were born on a remote island, with no inhabitants, to a mother who was struck with amnesia without any knowledge of the 'technoligified' (I just made that word up) world. There's your true human.

2) On March 29, I also wrote about the cyborg, this time comparing its cyborg qualities with the qualities of Frankenstein. In March, I tried to find an argument supporting the thought that Frankenstein was a cyborg. When compared to the definition and examples given in the previous answer (#1), Frankenstein would be considered a cyborg because of all of the artificial and technological things that were put into making him. When compared to what Harroway refers to as a cyborg today (everyone), and when discussing his feelings of isolation and lack of a sense of belonging, he is nothing like a cyborg. Since, according to Harroway, everyone is a cyborg, Frankenstein would be compared to everyone. In general, 'everyone' has a sense of belonging. There are a few individuals who have lost that sense because of moving to a new place, maybe just finding out that they are adopted, or just not fitting in with their peers. None of these reasons are because they have cyborg-like qualities, though. 'Everyone' doesn't feel like they don't fit in because they are cyborgs. Like I mentioned in March, a grandmother probably doesn't feel like she fits in any more or less because of her new pace-maker. If anything, I would think that new cyborg-like qualities would make a person feel like they fit in more. For example: A young boy may have his leg amputated because of an accident. He would have to spend the rest of his life in a wheel chair if it wasn't for his prosthetic (once again, not sure about spelling) leg. He may feel a little out of place because he doesn't have a leg, but he would feel more out of place if he wasn't ever able to walk again and have to be stuck in a wheel chair forever. So, in this case, the presence of 'cyborg-ness' actually causes more of a sense of belonging than its absence.

Final

1. In my response to the film The Bride of Frankenstein and the article that we were supposed to read in the library, I now take a much more opposite and radical view point. Frankenstein the created monster was just that a monster. His actions and attitude to the rest of society were caused by society but by the monster who created him initially. Frankenstein was a created moster with initial evil intentions due to the fact he was produced from the dead, and is therefore a direct morall defiance of God and Frankenstein's behavior shows this. Frankenstein cannot blame his actions based on his treatment that he received from others. He as well as his creator are immorally defiant. The idea to create such a monster can only be construed from the ultimate and original monster, Satan. Only Satan himself would come up with an idea to collect portions of dead carcasses and try to develop a living being. Therefore, it can be determined that Frankenstein's actions are truely those dictated by the devil and canot e blamed on any mistreatment of any kind that he received.
2. After viewing the film Koyanisquatsi, I argued that mass technology had intertwined itself into our everyday lives and was almost inexscapable. I was very wrong. Mass technology today is something that can be illuded today just as it was in previous eras. I myself live in rural Kentucky where many residents still today live without many of the technological advances or lives of leisure that many injoy today. Two of the residents that participate is such behavior is that of my grandparents. The two of them live without some, not all, but the majority of technological leisures that the majority enjoy. The exist without the use of a telephone, I-pods, computers, and even running water. However, my grandparents feel that todays culture and people lack the ability to do things on their own without technological help. They feel that their chosen way of life is one that promotes true culture, one that has nearly passed from existence. In their minds today's modern culture is one that is lacking in substance and true meaning.

Final Exam

1) I read two posts of mine and came up with relatively the same answers; I still agree with what I said. The first had something to do with the "progress" of technology and how far we've really come. I think it's odd that after all the progress we've made with technology, we can't seem to make it answer what seems to us to be a logical, simple question such as chewing gum and walking at the same time, as Dreyfus uses for an example. This still boggles my mind; we should be so advanced in our technology and our lives, but we are still grappling with the same issues as before.

2) The second blog had more to do with cyborgs and is relevant to my final paper. We have become so reliant on mdern technology and we rely so heavily on computers, cell phones, television, and other forms of technology and machines that we are dependent on them for our survival, thus making it almost an impossibility to live without these things. In this sense, we are cyborgs; half human, half machine. I agree with this whole-heartedly. I type all papers on a computer, I research those same papers on a computer, I play games, chat with friends, make plans, all with the computer or the cell phone. Without them, I would not even know where to begin ...

Final Exam

Response to Motorcycles and Buddha (2/17)

The basis of Borgmann's major argument against Pirsig's thesis is as follows: that technology has become too obscure and disconnected to become a focal practice. I must disagree. While it is true that technology has become obscured from the commodity that it delivers, it does not prevent that technology from being used in a focal manner. Indeed, it enhances it.

Specialized knowlege, more specifically the acquiring of it, can itself be focal. As technology becomes more and more departed from focal practices it at the same time generates a necessity for more and more interaction and understanding with others. Not only does it take years of education, time spent in a classroom with other people, interacting and experiencing to create and fix this new technology, it also requires time spent with friends trying to understand how the new technology works and if it breaks whether or not it can be fixed or should be used in an alternate manner.

Humanity is united by its frustration with and attempts to understand technology. How many jokes are told and stories are shared about some piece of equipment breaking? I myself bond best with my father when we're discussing the algorithm for a new program or cussing out a fried hard drive. Learning, sharing, dicussing--focal.

Response to irony (2/17)

Books are difficult to research from. For one thing, not only do you have to spend time finding the book, you can spend hours reading through it before you realize that this particular work does not have the particular information that you need.

The same of course, can be said of research on the internet, but with databases and trusted sites you can often find not only what you need but also more than you hoped for. The access to information online is instantaneous and unparalleled. Because there is so much, of course, you can be led astray but with the internet (and unlike books) you can can search within documents to quickly determine what information it contains and whether or not that information is relevant.

The database at Thomas More may not have had direct access to the article needed, but the article was found and acquired immediately with only a phone call to a friend. Not an hour drive to Lexington, nor a two week delay for inter-library loan. Books just cannot competer with the speed.

Final Exam

1. On my comment to Oncomouse:
Before I had commented on what a wonderful idea it was to have a mouse that's make-up would be similar to that of a human being. I thought that it would be great that we could test new drugs and actually find the true results before ever trying the drug on a human. I didn't think that it was cruel to lab mice that they were being used to see what would the results be if the scientist did whatever to them. I also believed that this was great for the terminally ill. Plus, that maybe it could find the cure to cancer, HIV (AIDS), and other terminal diseases. I didn't think it was unethical to have such an advantage of curing diseases and possibly viruses that have been killing people for years. I could see how someone might want to disagree with me but this oncomouse can open some many more opportunities to our world.
I can see someone thinking that diseases are considered as "population control" and if that was disrupted then we would be over populated. Or that this was cruel to be using a animal's life once again for our own advantages. Perhaps, if this was a successful idea that funding and testing would be too expensive and even if drugs were developed from such idea that they would probably be too expensive to purchase.
I can see why people might want to disagree with me when I say oncomouse is such a great idea. Once again, I'm going to be a nurse and I'm going to see poor people dying to young and too soon. I'm going to see people suffering and begging not to die. I'm going to see someone that just happened to have bad luck and made a stupid decision. I'm going to want to help them and I want everything that can be done to be done. I don't want to see people die I want to see them live. If something like this does ever become available I'm all for supporting the idea. Think about it could be you one day lying there wishing that there was something else that could be done....


2. My comment on Koyaanisquatsi:
When commenting on Koyaanisquatsi I thought that the film made you feel like it was the end of the world. The music and the scenes were just put together like this world has become a nightmare because of technology. I also had said that the director felt like we were being control by the technology instead of us controlling it ourselves. He has nature's finest in the film; the beautiful trees and oceans. The director had everything untouched and innocent. Then he came with factories and cities forming and just destroyed the calmness. I stated that there is still nature in our world and we can still choose to be a part of it or we can be a part of our industrialization. So we still can make a choice on how we live our lives.
Others might disagree because most people cannot function without our technology. The use of the internet, lab tops, cell phones, I-pods, palm pilots, ect. can be seen everywhere today. Industrialization has changed our society in many ways. Children are not out enjoying the weather and outside anymore because they rather stay in the house and play playstation or play on the computer.
Our society has changed but I think that it's your choice on how you want it to affect your personal life. You can make the decision to have a cell phone or not. Parents can keep their children away from video games and make them play outside. I don't think that technology is a bad thing and I don't think it controls us. It's nice to have technology and it has many advantages. I myself enjoying having a cell phone and I like using the internet. It's nice to have these things and of course people enjoy and use them but it doesn't mean it's controlling their lives. When man discovered how to use a sharp edge on a stick to find food what did he do?? Of course, he started using the tool to start killing some better food. Of course, he used this tool for any other purposes when he could figure out what it was good for. This is simply what we are doing today we just figured out better technology.

Final Exam

In my first comment, I talked about how using the internet is better than going to the library. Yes, the internet is faster to find information, but the information may not all be correct. You can find something on the topic that you are looking up but that does not always mean that it is all correct. There are so many different websites and different versions of information, you can not always assume that it is all the right information. In using the library to look up information, it may take longer but the information is a primary resourse. So the library is the better place to find information that is needed to write a paper or find research on a topic.


In my second comment, I talked about how Frankenstein was considered to a cybrog and just parts put together. Yes this is true that he was just parts of humans put together, but he as able to show thoughts and feelings to his surrounds. He had become more then a cybrog, he had started to act and become human. He even began to start to speak and put together sentences that sense and were related to the situation that he was in. So Frankenstein can be considered to form into a human being and not just a cybrog.

Final Exam

1) My very first post was a post about the film Koyaanisqatsi. I can tell by reading my post and by remembering my initial reaction to the film that I did not completely understand the film or the point of watching it. The first time I saw Koyaanisqatsi at the beginning of the semester I thought the movie was just a whiny portrayal of "technology ruining our world." However, looking back, I now think of the film as intelligent, unique, and as a possible vessel to promote change. Seeing the scenes in the film made me more aware of what technology is doing to our world and to our environment. It is crucial for people to see what is happening to nature and to human relationships due to our obsession with technological development. If human beings continue to be careless with the use of technology, we will eventually suffer major consequences. The second viewing of Koyaanisqatsi was beneficial because it allowed me to notice things or ideas I had not noticed the first time, such as the atrocious chemical reactor on the beach. It did not truly strike me the first time; however, the second viewing allowed me to see the disgrace it has put into nature.
2) The other post that I now view in a different light is my reaction to Borgmann. Out of all the philosophers we've studied throughout this course, Borgmann is the one that I can truly understand and relate to the most. At the beginning of the semester; however, I found Borgmann to be annoying and completely old-fashioned. I assumed from the readings that Borgmann was against all technological development and that he wanted to regree to ancient times; however, upon clarification by having discussions in class, I have come to better understand Borgmann's thoughts and feelings. I agree with Borgmann in that technology is not necessarily bad, but that it can be used in negative ways. Technology can be a positive when it comes to areas such as medicine; however, technology can be extremely negative when it gets in the way of our social relationships and our experiences in the world. Borgmann addresses major areas of concern such as the disappearance of family meals and actual physical conversations. These important focal practices are being rapidly replaced by microwave convenience and Internet conversations. If we do not start to put greater emphasis on focal things and focal activities, the human identity and way of life is in grave danger. Another concern that I share with Borgmann is the growing "trend" of turning important things, such as education, into mere commodities to be bought and sold. I have a new found interest in what Borgmann has to say, which is a huge change from the beginning of the semester!

A response to myself otherwise known as a final exam

1) A response to my blog report on the rhetoric of democracy. The position that was taken on this issue was that voters become disenchanted with the government in this case democracy because of its rhetoric or how it portrays itself to get ahead in the political arena. And while the rhetoric may have a polarizing effect on voters so that they no longer pay attention to ads and the speeches of politicians, it does not fully disenchant the populous from political life—politicians do that all on their own. Since America began politicians have formed themselves into groups whether it’s the Whigs, the Republicans, the Democrats etc… and they have each had a party platform , which they spoke from. Never did this result in low voter turnout or the complete disconcern with the way the country is run. It isn’t the nature of democracy where one advertises themselves under one party that creates disenchantment. The politicians, who are funded by shady companies on both sides of the aisle, the backtracking on campaign promises, and the inability to inspire any sort of action. The political individuals are what ruin participation in democracy not the rhetoric of democracy, which Borgmann talked about. What these individuals lack is not an absence of this rhetoric but charisma. In the response, charisma was said to be a part of the rhetoric of democracy. However, charisma is what gets agendas accomplished because men like Gandhi were able to get their purposes accomplished, which is more than many can say for their governments. Of course there are downsides to charisma men like Hitler had charisma and accomplished horrible offenses against humanity but he did accomplishes his agenda even though it was terrible. These are very common examples but they get the point across that the rhetoric of democracy does not completely disenchant voters it is the lack of leadership and trustworthy people that does that.
2) A response to a blog report on elibrary. The response theorized that libraries were being gradually replaced by online databases like elibrary and ebscohost. That is perfectly reasonable. However, the second part of the response said that the existence of the library would not completely disappear because of those, who loved books and those, who needed books for their job. This at best unpredictable and at worst libraries will be replaced by such engines as elibrary. The fact that people who love books will rally around them and keep them safe from the evil computer monster is ridiculous. People change. Perhaps some just liked books for their texture that is a rather weak tie to books, others liked books because they could see what others have written in the margins (that’s me, a serial margin writer) there’s always the tablet laptop that allows one to write just as they would in a book, and then there are those who feel that a book is a connection to the past but that is a value passed down by parents, which can be wiped away in a few generations. All of these rather Romantic notions of the book or the humanity infused within them is lost when man merges with technology (I will not fool myself any longer into believing that my beloved books will be around or valued for much longer…tear…). Professions are becoming increasingly reliant upon technology so books will easily dissolve from the picture. But that is the nature of the device paradigm to hide the true meaning of a book—a collection human knowledge (no matter how terrible) and a demonstration of the skill of the writer—behind an ease to the job of learning without skill. Without a belief that skill is involved in the educational system as well as the professional world, the book will no longer be around no matter how Romantic someone wants to get about it. (looking at the post the purple color makes the blog look so menacing...kind of like a grape or an eggplant...very menacing projectiles indeed)

Final Exam

1)It seemed in the blog entry that I posted about Technology and Government and how our nation is using technology I was really against the whole technology idea. I really think that I was too harsh on the use of technology and now I realize that technology really is a good thing. I think about nations that do not have technology and it makes me wonder why I was so harsh on technology in my earlier blog entries. I really think that this nation would not be where it is today if it was not for technology. New devices and entertainment has definitely helped shape the nation in a good and innovative way. As the presenters were giving their presentations someone mentioned a story that they were doing and how America was sent back to a time before the ice age. The nation was not trying to live like they did before the age of technology! They were trying to build the technology that we have today! So to say that we would be better off without technology is a misconception that I had wrong before.
I think technology is frightening and elusive at first glance to a lot of people because we truly do not know a whole lot about it; but now that I did do a lot of discussions about technology it is found that technology serves a great purpose in this country. The nations that do not have technology have not prospered. Japan is probably one of the most technological based countries, and it is Japan that is projected to be the next power nation in the world. It is not that technology is bad; it is actually good and I’m glad that I had this opportunity to fix that error. It is almost like I am Borgmann and throughout the class I was ripping on technology the whole time but now that it is over I’ve realized the benefits; just as Borgmann ripped on technology throughout the book, but then at the end we find out that he indeed has a very close attraction to technology.
2) In my blog entitled The Internet and Stages of Education I talked about the learning process and how learning by the internet is not really the best way of learning but by doing is what is important. While I still argue that the internet is not the best way to learn things I do now believe that a lot of knowledge can be gained through going on the internet. The internet has a boundless amount of information that just has to be found. Sometimes the hardest part is ciphering through all the material and junk on the internet to get to the actual facts of what you are truly looking for. There really is a lot of information that is on the internet; most of which can help for classes, projects, term papers, ect. I still think that books are the best source to get information from because you do not have to look through a bunch of things that are not related to the topic of interest. Also, in books about the topic of interest there is no doubt that the information is correct or not. Sometimes when I am looking up information about a topic on the internet I wonder if the information is really correct or not; with books I do not have to wonder about those sorts of things.
The way that the internet has evolved with the active learning that has come about with the internet it sometimes seems that there is activity through the internet. We can no longer say that learning from the internet is passive learning. I was actually on a site last week where flash cards are actually on the screen and when I hit the mouse the card flipped over and told the definition. As I was doing this process I began thinking about all the time I could have saved in grade school and high school if they had that technology out back then. In many ways the internet has saved people time and given them the same opportunity of scoring well on tests. Do I think that I learned something while I made up the flash cards in grade school? Sure. But I would have rather have all the flashcards on a computer screen and used the time for more study instead of having to write all them up. The problem that Borgmann saw with this is the fact that with the extra time that was there from not making up the cards the student would not study but rather watch TV or go to a shopping mall. I disagree to an extent because I think that a dedicated student would study the cards with the extra time. An educated student would not have made up the flash cards to begin with. So in conclusion, I’m glad I had some time to reflect on my blog entries and I will continue using the internet for educational purposes.

Final Exam

1) My first post was about how technology seeps its way into our lives, and that it's up to us to prevent it from taking over. Maybe I was wrong...Perhaps the way to go is to just embrace it and all it has to offer. The truth is that those who chose to resist will simply be left behind. Every aspect of life is connected to technology in some form, so we should just accept it. In the workplace is where I see the biggest need for submission to technology. Most occupations, most lucrative ones, anyway, require a working knowledge of the computer. In order to succeed in life we need to accept the fact that technology is the way of the future, or we'll find ourselves stuck in the past.

2) My second post suggested that we can choose focal practices while still enjoying certain aspects of technology. Sometimes when I really look around at the way people interact, I think that technology is in itself the new focal practice. Forget going to Southgate House...I can stay at home listening to the stereo, not worrying about how I look, and I'm still hearing the same music without the hassle of parking, crowds, and mediocre warm up groups. If you look at things like chat rooms, instant messaging, distance learning, and on-line dating, these things are all keeping people connected and involved. Isn't connection, and engagement what focal practices are all about? If that's the case, I would have to say that technology is without a doubt a focal practice.

Final Exam

Response #1
In one of my previous posts, I took Langdon Winner's view of technology and its effects on education. While Winner seems to take a more critical stance, there are many out there with opposing viewpoints.
The Department of Education even devotes an entire section of their website to the benefits of technology in the classroom. According to Ed.gov, "New ways of obtaining and presenting information have given students powerful new ways of analyzing and understanding the world around them."
There are areas in which I disagree with the use of technology in the classroom. I, like Winner, am afraid of the isolation and depersonalization things such as distance learning could emphasize. However, there are relevant positive aspects from those in favor of technology in the classroom. For example, one high school science teacher points out, "Instead of reading about the human circulatory system and seeing textbook pictures depicting bloodflow, students can use technology to see blood moving through veins and arteries, watch the process of oxygen entering the bloodstream, and experiment to understand the effects of increased pulse or cholesterol-filled arteries on blood flow."
Teachers also point out the aid technology has in tutoring students in certain subjects, such as math. CD-roms designed to "spit out" drills on such things as long division or the times table provide instant feedback, and according to one elementary teacher "increase self-esteem."
One benefit pointed out that I hadn't previously thought of was, "Hearing disabled students can master complex problem solving skills on the computer as easily as those without a disability."
Hopefully, educators and administrators will continue to evaluate the positive and negative effects of technology in the classroom, not only to raise standardized test scores, but also to raise "book smart" children.

Response #2
1. A robot must never harm a human or allow one to be harmed through inaction.
2. A robot must obey any command given by a human, unless this violates Rule 1.
3. A robot must protect itself from harm, unless this violates Rule 1 or 2.
Asmov's Laws of Robotics
I wonder what Donna Haraway would think of these "convenient" rules? According to Haraway, "A cyborg is a cybernetic organism, a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction. Social reality is lived social relations, our most important political construction, a world-changing fiction."
Overall, Haraway seems quite fond of cyborgs and their implications for the future, but even she, hereself, states, "Cyborgs are never entirely trustworthy creatures." In my opinion, Haraway offers good suggestions when it comes to the integration of cyborgs in society. She points out that, as creators, we have a responsibility to these beings. However, there are those who completely reject Haraway's ideas and suggestions. There are many who insist that the creation of cyborgs should be forgotten and never mentioned. Critics of cyborgs argue, "Technology will intrude into the hitherto sacred space of the human body." In an ideal world, much like the one Haraway describes, it would be nice to say that we should be careful about how much intelligence we put in robots, but in reality, there will always be people pushing the boundaries too far, and to what expemse?
It is important to keep in mind, "For everything computers and technology can do for us, there is something that can be done to us."
"For every vision of digital heaven," warns Arthur Kroker, "there is an equal image of digital hell."

Exam

1)

Cyborgs: I believe even if someone is given an artificial arm, leg, or any other body part then that does not make them a cyborg. They still have a human heart and working brain and feelings. An artificial arm does not change the way one feels about certain things or how they react to different situations. I still think that Frankenstein is a cyborg in that he is human and not human. Frankenstein has no family or kinship which I believe makes him a cyborg. Even if a humans had an artificial limb, they would still have a family and other outside relationships. Humans also can engage in conversation, feel adn express love, and share emotions with the use of an artificial limb, ultimately making them not a cyborg.

2)

My reaction to my first blog of the semester: The blog Foreground of Technology is similar to my research paper: leisure and technology. Technology is delivered by how we experience it. Almost all of leisure and free time is mainly spent consuming. This is not what the promise of technology has held out for us. I believe that technology takes away the real tradition and context of certain things. Especially cooking with one’s kids, cleaning, and playing. Technology can replace all three of these activities, ultimately making us lose the real meaning of work and tradition.

The more work and effort we put into something the greater the results and the better we feel. Technology can make us happy for a short time, but not for ever. We must begin to understand the real meanings of devices so that family tradition is not reduced solely to machinery.

Final Exam

As I listened in class the other day to presentations on cyborgs, I started to think maybe Harraway is right to a certain extent. Some people can be considered cyborgs but not all. Being a nursing major I have had many oppertunities to talk with patients who have artificial body parts. These patients especially the ones with pace makers are grateful for the technology of the modern era. Some patients with pace makers would not be alive if it wasn't for technology. Same for patient's with artificial limbs that help them to function like normal human beings. I guess I would consider these people as part cyborgs because of the use of technology. But I still disagree with the fact that humans even with artificial limbs or pace makers are completely cyborgs. Humans woud not be able to have feelings or a conscious to tell right from wrong if they were cyborgs.
I also agree that steriods can turn a person into a cyborg. When people use steriods they want to become strong in a shoerter period of time. This can make them abnormal to teh reast of the human population because of the domination of muscle strength. These people may be considered in a different catagory.
i still believe that humans have to adapt to the technology advancements. People are who they are by what they are taught and how they are raised. Even though humans use technology in their every day life it is not a part of their actual body, just a part of their life.
However, I do not feel our generation needs to worry about the advancement of cyborgs right now. The closes we can get is to people with artifical body parts and just the usage of technology every day.
Koyaanisqatsi
I spend a lot of time outside. During the summer my family and I go camping using technology such as campers and gas stoves to cook. I have to agree with the creator of Koyaanisqatsi that the environment is technology. A person just needs to look outside a window to view a piece of technology in the environment. In cities tall buildings, factories, lights, cars, and machinery are all part of the environment filled with technology. In the movie I remember one particular scene that I thought was interesting which was the factory on the beach with people laying out in the sun. When I picture a beach I definetly don't picture one with a factory right next to it, however there are a lot of condos. A family on vacation to this beach is there for relaxation but instead of hearing the ocean waves they hear the factory horns.
Because of the technology advancing so quickly in the United States many of the woodlands and farms are being destroyed to build new cities or factories. If technology keeps advancing like it is there will be no more forest for animals or farms to grow crops. People will lose their beaches to factories and there will be no more family vacations. The natural noises of animals such as birds will be over heard by factories and machinery working. It's amazing to see how technology has progressed in just ten years. And soon the environment will be completely full of factories, buildings and machinery in places it was never before.

Final response

1) A second look at The Futurological Congress
Now that I don't have to worry about giving away the ending to all those that didn't finish the book, I can give a full reaction to the book. My thoughts haven't changed since my last response, but now I can give more details as to why this book left me stunned. When Lem first introduced the LTN bombs I thought to myself, "If they can drug the water with that, what is to stop them from just plain drugging everyone to keep them in line?" Well, it seems like Lem fully explored this idea, maybe a little too far. The main problem was overpopulation, that led to the total violation of everyone's rights. They kept them sedated and never let them see the crap-hole they were living in. If the government is able to go that far, then why not start chemically sterilizing people and not letting them know. Then in a few generations the population will be in check. I mean if your going to go so far, you might as well go all the way. The people are fed nothing but lies, so what is the harm in lying even more. Even during the "present," with the sewer raids, if they are willing to bomb a city for no real reason, then why not have mass killing of criminals and other bad guys. I know I would rather be dead than to live in a world that messed up. The only good thing about the future Lem has presented to us is the fact that everyone is made nice. I'm not saying a world without arms, but a world where people have no drive to use the weapons they have. If only we were allowed to do such things, it would be a messed up world, but in some ways it would be better.
2) Problems with Dreyfus
I am still hung up on Dreyfus and his critique of artificial intelligence in search engines. He is blaming the technology for its faults, when really the creators of web pages are to be blamed. They use encrypted words to get their sites to show up during searches, whether that is the info you are looking for or not. They want the hits on their page, so the programmers do all kinds of sneaky stuff to deliberately throw off the search engine as well as the people actually doing the research. They knowingly add things to the page so their illegitimate information will show up instead of the real things you need. Now I can't blame that on AI, it is doing the job it was designed to do, and it does it well that is how you end up with all the bad links. If it is looking for certain topics you type in and it finds it in a strange place, it shows you where all it found your topic. Dreyfus keeps looking to the AI to solve the problem when you really need to be looking to the people. They are the ones trying to deceive the AI, therefore they are the root of the problem. Dreyfus also does not give the researching people enough credit either. If I type in certain words I know I am going to get a lot of off topic hits. It is up to me to chose my words carefully and also to avoid going to sites that seem off. I mean if I type in "sexy" in a search box I can be sure that some sites are going to have more sexy pictures than sexy information. You have to expect that kind of thing with the internet, its people like Dreyfus that don't expect it and are really picky. My dad is one of those people, he can't use the internet because he doesn't know how and he gets upset. Then I get upset with him, and its just a big mess. You can't blame the engine or the internet, you have to blame the creator and the searchers, they are the ones causing problems.

(Final Exam Response 2) Harraway I still disagree but I think she might be onto something about our human nature.....

I strongly disagreed with Harraway on various occasions about her claim that we are all cyborgs. I did feel that her personal experiences in her life were interfering with her thoughts and she was not independently writing her claims about the human nature. I also did feel Harraway as a feminist saw men as beings without any feelings attached to them partially due to her experience with her husband. I still disagree with her but agree with her on limited perspectives. I will not call ourselves cyborgs but beings whose very human natures automatically continue to fight with various outer forces of our humanly created environments from technological to traditional ways of attending events.

It must be true that we are still humans because our human nature can be very fragile against diseases yet it can be very rough against other environmental conditions. Recently, I was a reading an article about a girl who had an artificial heart because her regular heart stopped functioning. After a certain period of time, her bodies begin not accepting the artificial heart and put her own heart into functioning. Yes, during this process she was definitely a cyborg according to Harraway’s definition. We must also acknowledge our bodies do not always accept things that do not go along with its own operations. Sometimes it approves or disapproves artificially created products by humans. During organ donations, we will from time to time read that certain people’s bodies do not adapt to the organ inserted and they have to take it out and put a new one in. It’s the same thing with our blood types; we can accept certain blood types and not accept others. Again on this context, it might really seem as if we are really cyborgs with certain genetic or other coding inserted in us. But what determines this coding? Well, it’s easy to answer, various environment factors, we are born on this earth and it transforms and shapes our beings through various environmental factors. We get chicken pox and do not ever get it again because our bodies’ memory remembers it and learns how to protect itself. Even robots are nowadays shaped or manufactured to operate in rough environmental factors. Robots that are sent to Mars can be a great example.

Yes, I agree we must be making some sort of advancement in understanding operations of the human body. I see a tiny light present in this advancement. We will never know everything about our human natures. It does not matter how much steroids, chemicals, or other artificially created things we insert in our bodies, it continues to regulate its operations based on our wrong doings. More importantly, it knows how to adapt without any consciousness action. I think a regular cyborg would break down in seconds and not operate during these circumstances. Or it would blow up the whole facility because it can not find love or friendship like that of in the Frankstein movie. We can be “cyborgs” but we will never get the right picture of what does it mean to be a human spiritually. There are other forces in our earth which are not physically and materialistically visible. Like the air we breathe or the space we use to move around to live our lives is absolutely invisible. We can not come to conclusion about our cyborg nature too soon yet it is not wrong to pull out cyborg like qualities of human nature. When exposed to certain settings, we are definitely cyborgs like that of the work place.

(Final Exam Response 1) Technology might have effects on cultures that have long histories...

I have argued on various occasions that technology will not have effect on cultures that have long histories. I do not know if these claims are as valid as I thought they might be after thinking about various cultures that belonged to many centuries old empires. Once I start thinking about countries of Japan and China, I do feel that technology has had a dramatic impact on how people live their lives. As we know one time in history, Japan all of its doors to the invasion of the foreign markets so it could flourish within its own soils but it later saw in order to be a world power, it had to corporate with the world and open its gates especially to the Europeans. In the twenty first century, once we speak of these two great powers of the world, we relate to them technologically. Yes, both nations do practice traditional ways of doing things but after speaking to a Japanese friend, traditional customs seem not to be the way they used to be. Young generations tend to respect elderly a lot less than they used to and elderly are concerned about their own health and use their spending on themselves than on their kids or not for the well being of their families. Many years of traditions, cultures, and respect can be given up for the substitute of money. Everything we use from our desks, computers or the chairs are made either in Japan and China. Not that it’s a bad thing to sit on or use Chinese or Japanese made computers but many people work for low wages in big factories long hours and in bad conditions so they can flourish their countries against other world powers like the Europe and the United States of America. Powers of production and labor have placed the centuries long bloodshed for the honor of being Chinese, British, Japan, American, etc. The game has become the question of how much money do you have so I can recognize you as some sort of national identity of the world. Once we speak of any national identity, we first ask the question of how modern are they and where their economies stand? If they do not keep themselves up to the standards of the United States or other Western as well as Eastern civilizations then those countries are considered less modern or in some sense less democratic.

I do not know if this analysis would vary in different religious contexts or traditions but I do believe that people desire for money because money equals power. Once you have the power, you can insert and pursue your ideals into the culture because you have the money to do so and it will look more appealing than those who do not have the power or the money. I feel that as the world gets more globalized each day, it will be easier to capture smaller tribes or village like countries with the introduction of technologies. People can be thought of the magic of technology which produces money in the market place in order for personal and national prosperity. Those who resist technology and other improvements will be eliminated. Good example of such countries would be Africa where people fight various diseases or other environmental factors because they have not learned “how to master the earth.” They seem to us from a Western stand point as hopeless people. I’d like to ask the question to them, I’m sure most of them are much happier than us because they do not suffer from traumatic effects of living in a stressful technological environment. Yet, we continue to steal from their resources and lives and dirty their worlds which they respect.

Final Exam: Responses to 2 of My Blogs

Response 1

In Feburary I wrote a blog on my reaction to Borgmann, which talked about how we can reform technology and still have it as a part of our lives. My previous blog also talked about how as humans all we are seeking is happiness. As I look back at this blog, I can definitely make some changes as to my way of thinking. The more I think about it, we are not seeking happiness in society, but rather we want success, which success in life does not necessarily mean happiness. There can not be a society without technology, and I do not even think we can decrease its existence in our lives. We have become so accustomed to a way of living where practically everything is at our fingertips, and the pursuit continues of an even more technologically advanced society. This reliance does not leave much room for reform in the way of technology being less apart of our lives. People today do not want to take the time to even think about how they would live without some technologies as they are not used to taking the time to do anything. Everything is so fast-paced in society today that people forget about cultural values that had meaning before the techonological age. Technology is so overwhelming, and it gets us what we want fast, as we use it for a means of success. People are so wrapped up in having the best life as far as success and money that they are willing to sacrifice the true happiness which can be found through ones cultural values. Techonology then will never truly be able to be reformed as it continues to advance. It will always consume our lives, as to most people success is what matters because it gives us a status and even easier access to technology.

Response 2

At one point, in the latter part of the semsester, I chose to write a blog on distance learning, rejecting its recent claim to fame. Distance learning, however, can be ever powerful for the fact that it allows students access to information that was otherwise not as easily available to them years ago. The times have changed as far as who goes to school with more and more non-traditional students enrolling into college. Non-traditional students being those people who are older and, most of the time, have kids as well as full-time or part-time jobs. On-line learning could be a benefit for such students as it offers flexibility and convenience. Time management and self-motivation may be an issue for those students enrolled in on-line classes, but then again, students attending tradtional classrooms can have the very same problem. We are thus in control of our education: we can make online learning just as effective as the tradtional classroom, though it may take some type of extra effort and time. We control our lives, and we thus control the role technology plays in it, which means we can put on-line learning to good use when used in an effecient and effective manner. The advancement of technology can make so much more available to us, expanding our knowledge, thus making it seem senseless to let it go to waste. The convenience and felxibility offered by distance learning could make the choice of getting a college degree even more appealing to those people who would otherwise pass on extra schooling. In conclusion, distance learning is not so negative, as it can provide more opportunity in some peoples' lives.

education

Emily's stories about the accelerated reading program for 3rd graders horrify me. It seems to me that the educators are trying to acheive a two-fold goal and in the process causing only harm.

A good friend of mine is an English teacher in high school (and has been for many years) and she and I discussed the shift in the role that parents play in the education of their children. She complained to me about how if a student has not been doing well in her class or if the child has been disciplined, she gets an irate call from a parent blaming her for their childs faults. "My Johnny isn't doing well in your class. What have you done wrong?" or "Johnny would never act that way!"

It seems as people in the U.S. become busier, less time is spent with their children--working with them and raising them and that more and more families have to rely on schools to both raise and educate their kids. Perhaps this new (and terrible) reading program is an attempt to alleviate this trend by both forcing kids into the higher levels of scholastic aptitude necessary to function in the "modern world" and forcing parents to spend time with their kids. The fact that neither of these is done voluntarily or happily and that that can ruin a child's love of reading seems to have escaped the administrators.

lem

I enjoyed reading the Futurological Congress. I didn't understand some of the jokes or references and had a hard time keeping track of characters, but i don't think that was the point of the work. I'm worried that the need that people today have for everything to connect and makes sense (and sense is a relative term, anyway) prevents them from enjoying new experiences. We recently studied poetry in my Spanish class and about half of the students spent time complaining that they "didn't get it" instead of just relaxing and enjoying what they could. My point is that not every line of every poem need make sense. The point is the overall impression you get from a piece or the feeling that the work leaves you with.

Is this need to know everything widespread and symptomatic of our technological age? Or am I just picking on the Biology majors without meaning to?

The Futurological Congress

When I started reading this book, I had to occasionally reread a few sentences. I often felt confused. Why are there naked women in the hotel hallway? What does that have to do with Lem's point? Does Lem have a point? Luckily, the second half of the book was a little less far fetched. Given the fact that Lem wrote this book in 1978, a time when "pharmacologic alterations" were common, it makes sense this theme would appear throughout the book. As one reviewer of the book wrote, "Tichy's reluctance to experiment with the various drugs, and his abhorence of their effects, serve as Lem's warning about the drug culture which was flourishing at the time he wrote the novel. These warnings, made nearly thirty years ago, still hold true for any addictive substance, whether drugs or technology. " Another interesting facet of the book was Lem's portrayel of women, "In The Futurological Congress, men are equated with the active and creative, while women are consistently passive and objectified, the possessions of the men. For example, the secretaries of the Society for Liberated Literature are there to act out the fantasies of the professors, the men. Or this: "the bar on my floor had now been seized and occupied by the student protesters-dynamiters and their girls" (17). These statements,hopefully, represent the year 1978 rather than 2039.

A "Winning" Idea?

After watching Langdon Winner's Internet clip about the future of education, it became obvious that his ideas aren't so far fetched, unfortunately. Winner's parody is ultimately all too real. When Langdon compares distance learning to an ATM, education can be thought of strictly as a commodity. We, as students, are the consumers, but is our satisfaction really guaranteed? In The Handwriting on the Wall: Resisting Technoglobalism's Assault on Education, Winner says, "Another strategy of cost-cutting is simply to computerize more and more of the activities of education. Innovations here arrive under a variety of glamorous labels - - interactive learning, distance learning, the virtual classroom, and the like, but the ultimate result is always the same: replacing people with technology. To an increasing extent, information machines now convey the texts, lectures, lesson, exams and the like, becoming the real media for downsizing and outsourcing in the education industry. As such innovations proliferate, conventional schools and colleges face the distinct possibility that the "services" they provide will be taken over by high tech "alternative service providers" in the commercial sector."
Langdon jokingly defines education as the "transfer of knowledge from point A to point B." Although he says this in jest, this is yet another comment that hits too close to reality. I recently saw that a public school in Florida is offering teachers bonuses based upon how well their classes perform on the mandatory state standardized tests. Is this what education has come to, teaching to the test? If that's the case, Winner's automated professor machine will be in high demand in the not so far off future.
Hopefully, as Winner has suggested, "teachers might raise their hands and announce: Excuse me! On whose authority has the future been foreclosed? Who decided that one peculiar model of a global economy, is the only one possible? Why must we accept this misshapen vision of the human prospect? And who decided that the changes ahead lie beyond our ideas, voices and participation? We watch in stunned amazement at the naked effrontery of initiatives launched in the name of "globalism," "flexible production," "free trade," "reengineering," "total quality," "interactivity," "distance learning," "wired education," and "the virtual classroom". We've discussed these bizarre agendas with our students and, frankly, they are not much impressed. In fact, the students insist on being included in the discussions, plans and decisions about what the future holds. As their friends and scholarly mentors, we are committed to working with them to realize their dreams for a better world. Now, show us our place at the table."

We should not generalize the concept that robots will take over....

During today's discussion, it came to my attention that we began speaking how in the future there is a slightly great possibility that robots might take over and we will begin this war between technology and human race. If you think of this state of war in a more radical content this war already began. Sometimes technology strikes againist us and we try to fix it to get it running again. There are various fields where technology does not always take orders; airplane crashes, space shuttle mission failures, failure of hospital equipments to treat patients,etc.

When we speak of technology taking over our lives, we must take the world as a whole which would be impossible to do. As I have brought this up before, there are various regions of the world maybe majority of the world where technology has not touched and is not capable of touching because of environmental conditions. North Pole and desserts of Africa and Middle East are some of the examples of various other earthly conditions.

Yes, its very good to look at various uses of technology especially how it can be destructive but our human lives are very fragile. I TOTALLY DISAGREE we are all cyborgs. I think Harraway is sort of caught up with the state of men and how they are all robots with no emotions. Im sorry for her experience with her husband and it did not work out. Going back to the fragile human nature, a small disease which is unknown to human knowledge can wipe out a whole human race. A small example of such crises like bird flu can be one of the greatest example of such.

In the eastern world culture, eastern europe, middle east and asia, many people believe something called kader(destined future) your future is already written out for you and you will leave your lives exactly as it states. There are so many other risks in our lives which can end all of our lives in seconds and at this stage especially when we know a lot more about the world, it would be wrong to state that technology will be the main factor to do so. Many people rather majority of the people are not exposed to technology as much as the people in the states. Their cultures, histories, or environmental factors do not allow them become one with technology but disengaged bodies which humans see it as a tool. Its very valuable to learn to not become the toy of technology especially as the citizens of the Western world.

Reflection on Idhe

Idhe, like Borgmann and Dreyfus, is a philosopher who does not believe that technology is a value neutral tool that can be applied to just one thing. Idhe views technology as several small manifestions (techonologies) rather than one huge force (Technology). He talks about a sensory perception or micropercetption, meaning technology is always there whether we are aware of it or not. I agree with this aspect of his view on technology as I often find myself doing or using things without technically realizing it. Idhe provides the example of someone who wears glasses, which overtime become apart of them and the person does not even realize they are there anymore. I am one of those people who has to wear glasses and after they have been on for awhile, I forget they are even there and I can't even feel them. I also wear contacts more often and though they help me view the world in a new way as I otherwise could not see very well, I don't even think about them being there. According to Idhe we are mediated to the world through technology, which shapes our environment. Though it is out of our control that we relate to the world, we can change technologies by conducting experiments which then allow us to reflect on how technology shapes our relation to the world and others. It is through these experiments that Idhe believes we can make any needed changes in technology. I tend to agree with Idhe on this aspect as well, as experimental results can make an impression on the way in which we are living, providing us with information to make changes.

Lem Book

Well, I just finished the book, and wow! That was crazy. I don't want to give away the ending, but I wish we had narcotics like those people did. If it weren't for the fact that overpopulation ruined the earth that might actually be a really cool place to live. Except for the whole panting thing, I was wondering if Lem was ever going to tell us the reason for that. I don't find this book creepy, more eye-opening really. What better way to control people than to sedate them and let them think they have everything. Whatever Lem was on when he wrote this book, I think we need to give to Borgmann and Dreyfus, maybe it will calm them down a bit.

Futurological Congress

Today I started reading the Lem novel, The Futurological Congress, and it is extremely strange. The crazy thing is, though, I didn't expect to like it, but I have almost finished it in one day. Lem's vision of the future is so colorful and wild and it's supposed to take place in the year 2039, which is not even that far away. Some of the thoughts in the books are quite scary, such as being able to eat books in order to consume knowledge, the ability to reinvent oneself completely if unsatisfied, and characters that can come out of the television and hurt the viewer. The most frightening idea in the book so far is the concept of eternal life. In the story it is common for the dead to be brought back to life or to have their brain transplanted to a healthy body. I can't imagine going on forever and never being able to die. I still have more to read so I will continue this later...

Comment on second view of video

Unlike some of the previous posts, the second time seeing part of this movie wasn't anymore enlightening to me because I think the message the first time was obvious. Nature is good; technology is bad. I think the main element of the picture that really make the message clear is the music. If it was a silent film and only the images were shown, I know it wouldn't have been anywhere near as clear, but I'm still not sure that just seeing the images wouldn't have evoked some of the same negative feelings that the music helped in evoking. There was an image of some metal being melted and reshaped (I think) that had a negative connotation. Especially when there was what almost seemed like an explosion towards the end of the metal shaping did it become the most negative. So.....music or not, the message to me was clear the first and second times we watched it: Nature is good; technology is bad.

Education and Technology,

I thought Winner's video was good but typical. I tend to watch such things during my leisure time. I do believe we are certainly headed where Winner thinks we are going with the comical video and the equipment he has shown related to the future of education.

Why do we seek the need for technological education (distant learning)? Since I come from a different nation Im more exposed to experience because everything around me is different than my own culture and I can relate everything that I learn in my courses to the so called "real world." Why does the education not seem so interesting to a native American student and why are they disinterested? It has become a systematic teaching method. Most students are craving to gather information that would relate to the real world and help them out once they complete their education. In courses like Ethics and Technoloy, many are interested because computers are something we are exposed to. There are various courses as such on the one hand but there are other courses that are based on technical, memorization based concepts which you can not attach to the real world and therefore make it something interesting and useful. Another good question to ask is do we have the leisure and the time to learn courses that are systematic and memorization based just for the fun of it? I would say no because my life might be so much different than somebody else, I might be rich and other person might be getting education so he can have a diploma to survive in the real world.

It always interests me that education and the real world are totally to different worlds of institutions. What you learn in school can not be applied to "real world" in most cases. Once you are out of school, you start a new school so called the "real world" I do think that education is based on experiences and the risks you'd be taking (Dreyfus) but one can not deny the fact that these risks and experiences are a lot different in the so called "real world" and one has to learn the language of that world. Even in our school think of how many students are business majors and why not so many are philosophy or communication majors or even art majors? Some of the questions I receive from peers are what will I do with my communications and philosophy degrees? I really do not think I should be able to do anything with them rather than grow my own personality and most importantly my human nature. In fact, I will not do anything with any of my degrees but will apply them to my life so I can communicate with other beings and use my philosophical knowledge to shape my life in a peacful state. They will be great treasures I have gathered by taking huge risks which are traveling and exploring new thnings in a new culture.

One must ask where education is headed? Grading systems, systematic course requirement to get a diploma, professors or teachers who enjoy teaching the subjects or are just teaching just to teach and for their own survival. Im not saying our education system is bad but students need to be exposed to exploration and traveling a lot more so they can be more interested in what they are learning. Once we limit their perception or what they are exposed to they will not seek to need to learn the points many philosophers and communicators are making about today's world. They will continue to be locked up in their towns or houses without a passion. We will see more of the computer based distant learning. How can one expect college students to deal with the problems of the world if they do not learn much about it or provided the passion to do so? The simple answer comes out we just do not care and its their problem! With education, lets do it without thinking and some will survive and others wont and they will absorb the so called distant learning.

film

i think after learning more material about the film before seeing the film the second time and getting a better background base of knowledge about the subject, the film was easier to grasp
it was also easier to understand because i could relate the images to some of the ideas from the various people we have read about and how they are saying the same thing or contradicting the image the film is trying to portray
i think the message the film is trying to bring across comes to the mind more naturally after we have had a more educated background in the topic
the first time we watched the film, you really had to think about everything you were seeing and it was almost like a puzzle trying to figure out everything thats going on and how it relates to everything we have been studing and now that it comes easier as a concept it was more benefitial the second time around

i dont think it is fair to consider the monster as a cyborg
i agree with the idea that they are both in a sense borderline cases, but its still 2 completely different things. thats comparing 2 things that are on the opposite sides of humanity if you think about it
although the monster is artificially made, it does not fall into the category in which we are considering a cyborg
i think the monster could be better compared to a human because i dont think that in this case the fact that he was artificially created has as much effect as the fact that physically he doesnt look like a normal human and cannot function like one but still possesses human qualities and has the instinct for survival, companionship, etc
the problem in comparing a cyborg to a monster would be in that the normal idea of a cyborg is a fairly extreme definition of one, in that the machinery plays a very key role in the body, mostly the mind
the monster has no machine mind, it is purely human in that sense, and all his parts are also human parts
so in conclusion i think the monster should not be considered as a cyborg because it has no machinery, and although artificially created, it is physically 100% natural and has the same instincts as anything in nature of survival, seeking companionship, and fear

Comment on the movie

After watching the movie the second time, I was able to understand it alot better. It made more sense in the relation between nature and technology. It made a point that technology is starting to intervine with nature. The director points out the fact the people can not even go to a beach and there not be a factory right behind them. Technology is starting to become apart of every aspect of our culture. As the movie showed the people seemed to not even notice that the factory was behind them. This is seeming o be the way our nation is turning into. We are now used to things like that being around us all the time. This may be the sign of change in everyday life.

Cyborg Campfire: Ethics and Technology

Cyborg Campfire: Ethics and Technology The film that we watched on Wednesday morning having to deal with nature and technology. This was the second time that we watched the film. I think that I understand the film and where the director was trying to go with the film. I found it a lot more interesting this time around. The family was laying on the beach in front of the huge factory, now that is not what I think of a vacation. Apparently now a days you can't even get a way from the city and factories when you are on the coast. Is this what our nation is coming to. Our need for advancement in technology has now become part of our leisure life as well.

Langdon Winner

Langdon Winner begins by talking about "The Whale and the Reactor" essay in which he was overwhelmed by the contrast between the two powerful symbols in which they were in such close quarters of each other. The first of which was the power of nature while second was the power of human artiface. When he saw these two images it truely hit him that the moral and political dilemmas of technology were closer to his itellectual roots than he ever imagined. Winner was often uncomfortable with the uncritical acceptance accorded all the latest technologie sand devices. I feel the same way as Winner on a lot of issues because I often wonder if the new technologies are in fact a mixed blessing rather than gifts sent from God. I questoin whether certain things are better the way they are now much like Winner questioned the milk in the reading. I like the part where Winner talks about technologies and how they often affect not only everyday behavior but also norms and values, our self-understanding, our perception, and our ideas about space and time. As we were discussing in class on Monday we would not know how or when to end class without the technology of the watch, we wouldn't know what type of clothes to wear to school if the thermometer was never created. As Typhun mentioned in class we would not even be able to discuss anything without the English language. So many things came from technology that are necessary that we could not even begin to dig ourselves out of technology. An example that Winner uses is medical practice and the fact that technology has not only changed medical practice, but also the very definaition of medical care and human health. We are much healthier with the new vaccines that have been created, and some pills have been a goodthing, but others have just caused more damage. I think one of the best lines in the chapter in the book is "we must avoid the depths wothout direction and details without meaning. A lot of times philosophers will make a pretty good point and you question them on it and they really have nothing to go along with what they had just said. People like to make general statements without having to be held accountable for the repercussions of the statement. The prestige of technical activities has risen through the belief of progress through reason; while politics has fallen because of the things it has caused like wars and social disruption. Many times people fight when there is an idea that is thrown out there without anything behind it because people read different things into what is said. The best argument is one that has a lot of support because then the opposing person knows exactly what is being said so nothing has to be read into the statement.
Winner goes into the topic of Frankenstein and how if technology is not carefully and completely supervised, technology can lead to harmful and horrible outcomes. There is a moment in Frankenstein where Victor Frankenstein realizes that the monster has come to life and he flees in fear realizing what he has done. The reason that the horrible deeds are committed by Frankenstein are because Victor did not carefully watch over his creation. By Frankenstein Winner does not mean that technology is monstrous; but that the monster became what he is by unnurture by his creator. A great point that has to be pointed out is the fact that when a new technology is introduced people immediately take the technology and run with it without completely finishing it to see what could come of the new idea. It happens all too often that people are on to something and then they forget about trying to continue their technology because they are in such a hurry to use it. I compare this to getting a new toy that needs assembly. I mean as soon as yo get what you essentially need for the toy to function you begin playing with and you forget about putting the final touches on it. Although if you wait and finish the directions the toy would be significantly better you cannot wait and the toy ends up falling apart at an early age because it wasn't put together properly in the beginning. Winner wants to dismantle former technologies in an approach called "epistemological Luddism". Not a literal smashing, but a deconstruction of social and political conditions of technological systems. He would like to see what happens when we do without different modes of technolgy such as the automobile and television, and telephone. This would allow people to understand the way we use technology in the way of communicating with each other and the dependency that we have on technology.

monster = cyborg?

The definition I have come to understand is of a cyborg is that it is part human, part robot/technology. Frankenstein's monster was made up of all human parts, enough to classify him as human, but the parts at the time he was made up were inanimate objects, despite the fact that they were connected and functioned as something alive at one point in time. I guess that could make him a cyborg. Some of the conflicts he found himself with were trying to find out where he belongs, or what his purpose would be, given that he was created by a man from some spare body parts rather than the good, old-fashioned way. Those could be some turmoils suffered by a cyborg, if he was mostly robot rather than mostly human. I'm sure a grandmother hasn't begun questioning her place in life now because she has just had a pacemaker 'installed.' It just depends on what kind of cyborg Frankenstein's monster is compared to when trying to determine if Frankenstein can be considered a cyborg.

The Myth of Cyborgs

The similarity between Haraway's cyborg and Frankenstein's monster that is much less on the surface is beneath the way the cyborg and the monster's feelings about the human world. Haraway's cyborg was one, which was devoid of a human history so that it was the embodiment of nothing but social progression and social equality. The monster was not created with this intent but with the intent of overcoming death and the promise of being able to create humans. However, Frankenstein quickly learns that his monster like the Cyborg was without a human history and could not function within society. Haraway would only see this as a positive and this conflict as just one of many on the way the way to true equality by way of Cyborgs. But, is it really the myths and shared human history that forces upon us old social structures? From the beginning of Myth, it has played the part of explanation of forces not understandable not a religious purpose (the Golden Bough is about this and I agree with it). Yes the myths bring people together but they bring people together in the realization that we in fact know nothing about the world and so there must be some greater force controlling. Myths do not perpetuate social structures because most of us (except fundamentalists) are smart enough to realize that slavery is wrong regardless of what the Bible says (For me myth is a fantastic exaggeration of concrete event so it doesn't bother me to place the Bible in this context.) What's interesting is that the Monster disproves Haraway's thesis that Cyborgs will bring about true equality because it too falls prey to human acts of kindness and love; not because Frankenstein has told him any stories of Zeus and Leda but because he has observed other humans interact and wants to be the same way. In this manner Frankenstein seems more human than Cyborg because he is able to observe and feel others but in the end his Cyborgosity prevents this from ever fully taking shape. I read an interesting article Foreign Policy that said patriarchal structures are doomed to still rule the earth even after feminism because feminists, environmentalists, great thinkers of our time etc... Are less likely to reproduce than say a patriarchal evangelical family. Thus, Cyborgs aren't the key to equality as Harway theorizes but the willingness to think about the future of our humanity is. One has to ask the question, "Do I want intolerant people to undo 50 years of social growth in one generation?"
N.B. The article in Foreign Policy is called The Return of Patriarchy. There's also a companion article called The Geopolitics of Sexual Frustration, which gives empirical evidence for the previous article. I would link the articles but the site won't let me however they're both on ebscohost and not in the library because it doesn't stock Foreign Policy.

Of the philosophers we've studied so far Haraway has been the most difficult for me to understand. To be honest it's probably because the minute you start throwing around wildly feminist rhetoric, it is my nature to tune it out. I've never bought into the whole notion of "men bad, women good"...I know too many women!
In terms of comparing her ideas on cyborgs and Frankensteins monster, I'm not sure where I stand. Both things were created not born, but the monster was created from human parts and would therefore, I think, be more susceptible to human understanding and behavior. According to the movie the monsters behavior was reactionary, but does that really excuse it? Ultimately does it matter why, for example , the arsonist burns down the building murdering its occupants, or does it merely matter that he chose to do it? The opinion that we are all cyborgs is also difficult for me to grasp. I believe in free will, so to be told that because we use technology we are cyborgs, and that living without technology is impossible, seems to me to be discounting what it is to be human in the first place...the ability to make choices.
I think Haraways idea that if we are all cyborgs then we will no longer have an "us and them" issue is a bit idealistic, not to mention unrealistic. Everything evolves eventually, and not always for the better. She even says that, "illegitimate offspring are often exceedingly unfaithful to their origins", so I'm curious as to how the assumption can be made that the outcome will be positive. I mean really, didn't she see The Terminator?

Frankenstein and Cyborg Relation

After viewing The Bride of Frankenstein and reading the article "Gender in Monstrosity, Cyborgosity and (Post)Humanity," I have finally been able to come to my own state of beleif that Frankenstein too is a cyborg. The article suggests that if Frankenstein would have been created by a woman than his life may have been different. However, I beleive the author is more correct when she states that Frankenstein was created and that procreation would have made a difference. Because Frankenstein was created, reguardless the fact of by a male or not he is still a created monster of the western culture due to his actions, which stemmed from the treatment that he received due to his appearance. He is turned into a fiend/monster of civilization that is due to the perversion of the actual creation as the article states. However, despite this monster is the softer side of Frankenstein where he does not master but rather dabbles in the arts of language and music. Due to this dabbling the article tells us that still visually he is a monster, but verbally he has become rather sympothetic and has developed feelings one of which just happens to be "hate" which he repeatedly proclaims throughout the movie and continues to drive the western personification of the monster. Therefore, Frankenstein the monster has actually been turned evil by the people that he encounters and the misery he experiences due to these encounters. Even the creation of a bride doesn't help, he is even despised by his own kind. He actually desires feelings of understanding, bonding, and connection. The article states that these feelings are the same ones that a cyborg would need as well.
Nonetheless Frankenstein is still a cyborg. He is a product of technology and science and his actions and personality are dictated by society and culture. However, he is just an embodiedment of man and not really human nor entirely machince therefore a cyborg. Both Frankenstein and cyborgs have no true origins and thier nature and culture are reworked due to thier surroundings. Both are truely a whole of parts as the article suggests and their behavior in Frankenstein's case especially are dictated by these parts one of which being the environment where they are created and live. Frankenstein much like ourselves is a "theorized and fabricated bybrid of machine and orgaism."

I am cyborg...Hear me roar!!!

After reading Donna Haraway I feel very confused. I am not sure where some of her thoughts come from, but I must say that her thoughts are very interesting. Borgmann was very clear cut in his ideas; whereas, Haraway is more difficult to read and understand. The main point that Haraway is trying to get across is that every human being on this earth is also a cyborg. I agree with many of the other posts in that at first glance of this concept, I totally disagreed. I know that the true definition of a cyborg or "man machine" is an individual who has some sort of machine part on them, such as my fiance and his insulin pump, which he relies on in order to survive. After opening my mind a bit; however, Haraway is correct in saying that we are all cyborgs. Technology was once thought of as a luxury or something nice to have around. Then technology became somewhat necessary for most people and now...technology seems to be indespensable. We have come to totally rely on technology and use it for just about everything such as: work, transportation, communication, pleasure, cooking, and even survival. It is kind of frightening to think about how much our lives depend on technology. For example, people thought that the world would end when the year 2000 arrived mainly because they thought all computers would shut down. It is strange to think that there was once a time when nothing was done on a computer. In fact, I am being a cyborg right now because I am using a computer to type this!!

Cyborgosity vs. Monstrosity vs. Humanity

After reading Donna Haraway's thoughts on cyborgs, I was left a bit confused. I ultimately had more questions than answers. Then, I read the article comparing Frankenstein's monster to Haraway's cyborg. I think the article's authour took a very interesting and unique viewpoint. There were times, however, I felt she was stretching things a bit too much to prove similarities between the two. I think she raised some interesting points about the emotional side of monsters and cyborgs. The author points out that we are afraid to be labeled as monsters, yet we are perfectly content with being calleds humans. Why is this? Are humans that much different from Frankenstein's monster? Of course we weren't created in the same way as the monster, but I believe we all contain the want and need for human companionship and we seek to find others who are like us and understand the hardships we face. Humans, in my opinion, are just as capable, if not more so, than monsters of doing some pretty awful things, yet we are the ones with the conscience. It seems a bit odd that some people are so afaraid of the implications of monsters, or more realistically, cyborgs. I do think, however, before society advances to create the ultimate cyborg, we need to think of the effects this would have. Like Frankenstein's monster, would the cyborg be able to feel? Would the cyborg know right from wrong? Could you kill a cyborg? Could a cyborg kill, and if so, how would it be punished? These are all questions that need to be discussed before technology advances any further. We mst first be responsible as "creators" before "bringing to life" cyborgs.

Frankenstein

After watching this movie and reading the original Frankenstein, killings aside, he was an outcast from the beginning. Everyone was scared of him just based on that fact that he looked different and did not act like everyone else. It took a blind man in the movie to realize that Frankenstein was a "person" like anyone else and the blind man befriended him. That point in the movie was the only time that Frankenstein trusted someone and was not scared. Even when the Bride was made for Frankenstein, she did not accept him as a friend. She herself was scared of him.
As far as a cyborg, Frankenstein as a good example in that fact that he was created of parts. At that point in time he would be compared to a walking and talking robot in our near future. And if you think about it we all can relate to Frankenstien. There are times that we all feel left out and the outcase. He had showed emotion just like we do, even though he may have expressed it differently then what we would have done. So if you think about it we may not be too much different then this monster in the movie.

Frankenstein

After watching The Bride of Frankenstein I began to realize that such a creature can develop feelings, love, and friendships. Frankenstein developed a connection with the old, blind man and grew to love music. Even thoughFrankenstein is unaware of his killings, he still develops tender emotion through the old man's music. Frankenstein recieves moments of kindness which suggests that there is some religious meaning to the monster.

Frankenstein is like a cybord in that he has no family or kinship. They both have a mixture of artifical and human parts. Both are also in between categories: natural and not natural. Cyborgs might have a human hand, arm, or leg but the way they are put together is non human. For both cyborgs and Frankenstein there is no hope for completeness because they can't share human history.

Frankenstein the Cyborg

According to Haraway, cyborgs are any combination of animals, human beings, and technology: they are borderline creatures. Cyborgs blur the line between what is really human, animal, and/or technology. Frankenstein truly breaks the essence of the orgin of human beings as he is created from the dead and has no kin. It is this kin that relates all other human beings, however at the same time, Frankenstein exhibits human qualities as he begins to show emotion and can talk. Frankenstein expresses his yearning for a mate and shows despair when he loses his blind friend. Are this not qualities that make us all human: love, affection, yearning to be accepted? It is the fact that Frankenstein shows these emotions, which confuses us as to what he really is, as he was created by a scientist yet he can talk, walk, and show emotion. Cyborgs are seen as being marginal and Frankenstein is just that, as he is half human and half technology. He is real yet his origin makes him artificial as he ought not to exist. In true reality we can not make a human being from the dead which makes him unhuman and alien-like. Frankenstein is viewed by those who can see him as a monster, yet the blind man becomes his friend. The blind man has no sense that Frankenstein is alien-like based on the way he knows him. It is almost as if we view someone as human based more on the fact that they look like everyone else rather than if they act like everyone else. Frankenstein was treated as an outcast because of the way he looked. He was not a normal human thus he was considered not human. The fact that there are cyborgs, though, shows potential for society based on Haraway's belief that it is cyborgs who allow us to understand the world in terms of there being no single human essence. Without this essence we are all cyborgs, and there is no longer the distinction of the so called "others."