This reading was extremely interesting and eye opening for me. Having just received this handout and being able to compare this reading to the readings of Dreyfus proves very interesting. Reading, the alphabet, language is where technology first began. Before the formation of the alphabet, how could we formulate words? How could we compose a language and call it english? Without this technology we would not have the technology we have today. Something that caught my eye in this reading was the idea of being read to versus reading silently to yourself. Borgmann states that all is lost because we no longer sit down as family and read out loud. Which to some degree I do see what he is saying, but what is to say that when a family gets together to watch a show they aren't getting that same value or fix as listening to your father read to you. In both, paying attention is key and processing information is key. While most of the TV shows on today may be based on a bit different information than was in books, they both involve listening to a story. With both you still have that family time.
Yes technology has come a long way, but some very important things have been lost over the time. For people to spend more time watching TV than reading books I think is a problem. Reading is the foundation of knowledge and education. But the bottom line is that we are in a highly technological age. While reading is still essential, we have developed shortcuts for many things that once were done manually. Consider a calculator. You have the choice to enter mathematical formulas into a calculator or work it out on paper. Most would choose the calculator because it is easier and takes less time. This has become a big problem with elementary aged children, really with all Americans. They are taught the math, but know a calculator can do everything, so why learn it? Do we still need to know how to graph complex formulas, do we still need to know how to multiply, divide, add, or subtract??
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Hal 9000 as a tutor
I think that Dreyfus again points out some serious drawbacks to attempting to replace embodiment and traditional learning with "telepresence." I would have to agree that attempting to learn anything from a course taught solely over the Internet or television would be very difficult for me to do. But I think that technology still serves as a useful support to traditional learning, and that when used in conjunction with embodied learning that technology allows us to achieve the otherwise impossible.
Tools like books allowed us to spread information from an author to many people who had never been in contact with them. Similarly, I think that the Internet and telepresence allow us to share ideas, information, and carry on conversations with people throughout the world. The ability of so many to add to the Internet makes it a more cluttered space than is ideal, but it also means it is a wealth of knowledge of all those who contribute to it. It still has limitations, and I think that is why it would be difficult to master any subject in today's world purely by telecommunication. But I think that future advances in technology may make it more practical to learn while "unembodied." I think today's technology is too limiting in that it is difficult to fully adapt to a classroom setting and not intuitive enough that everyone can engage in it and feel comfortable with it. I certainly wouldn't feel like I was in class if I were watching a professor speak on a television screen. But something like a hologram I think could work well, especially if it is a sufficiently advanced hologram. Indeed, if a telepresence as realistic as "The Matrix" or a holodeck were made, would it even matter that it's "telepresence?" I would almost argue that if technology can make it real enough that we can't tell the difference, then there essentially is none. And although our technology probably will never be able to replicate a perfect copy of reality, I think in the future it will be possible for it to come close, and achieve what Drefus thinks is impossible.
Tools like books allowed us to spread information from an author to many people who had never been in contact with them. Similarly, I think that the Internet and telepresence allow us to share ideas, information, and carry on conversations with people throughout the world. The ability of so many to add to the Internet makes it a more cluttered space than is ideal, but it also means it is a wealth of knowledge of all those who contribute to it. It still has limitations, and I think that is why it would be difficult to master any subject in today's world purely by telecommunication. But I think that future advances in technology may make it more practical to learn while "unembodied." I think today's technology is too limiting in that it is difficult to fully adapt to a classroom setting and not intuitive enough that everyone can engage in it and feel comfortable with it. I certainly wouldn't feel like I was in class if I were watching a professor speak on a television screen. But something like a hologram I think could work well, especially if it is a sufficiently advanced hologram. Indeed, if a telepresence as realistic as "The Matrix" or a holodeck were made, would it even matter that it's "telepresence?" I would almost argue that if technology can make it real enough that we can't tell the difference, then there essentially is none. And although our technology probably will never be able to replicate a perfect copy of reality, I think in the future it will be possible for it to come close, and achieve what Drefus thinks is impossible.
Boldly Going Where No Web Cam Has Gone Before
When I think about Telepresence I immediately think about Star Trek. There are my occurrences in that glorious show/movies that the Captain (Kirk, Picard, Sisko, or Janeway) talks to another person over the large view screen that is located on their bridge. Now what that does is allows the Captain to discuss the matters of the episode with the opposing Captain or Alien leader. Now this experience may not be a very embodied experience, but it does allow the Captain to complete his missions. It brings two ships together in a way that would be difficult to accomplish in the future. In the same way varies technologies as Web cams and chatrooms do allow people to connect in a personal way that may they may not be able to do due to certain circumstances. I know that in my family my sister lives in Seattle with her husband and her 10 month old daughter. They were able to connect their camcorder to their computer. My parents bought a web cam, and now as a result we are able to connect to each other in a new way that is not possible due to geography. Being able to connect to each other has allowed my parents to see their grand-daughter grow. Previously people would have to wait for important holidays to see each other. Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, and family reunions were times where families would gather and share stories about their lives throughout the year. Now through the internet people can connect in between these holidays as well as on these holidays. This connection may not be as fulfilling as a personal interaction, but it is certainly an excellent alternative when embodied interaction may not be possible.
Robot stories video
I don't like the thought of scanning and downloading my brain and living forever. I need small crisis or hardships in my life to give me an obstacle to overcome and to feel achievement and success. I want to be able to set goals and to strive to meet them and death gives you a timeframe to achieve those in. Death makes living worthwhile, to look back and reflect on your life and to realize how lucky you were and how much fun you had and how many special people you had in your life who loved you and shared your heartaches and your tears and your good times. Death gives you sense of calming and achievement, to look back and be happy about the way you lived your life and the things you accomplished. What is the point in living if you don't feel and enjoy life and feel the interactions with others.
Blog 1
When people today think of technology we think of computers, dvd players, ipods, and an array of complicated machinery that allow us to explore new things and give us a sense of entertainment. You think of complex tools that help us accomplish many tasks. No one thinks of the alphabet or books. However they are probably the most basic and helpful technology of all that are completely overlooked and in some ways taken for granted.
We are taught the alphabet when we are toddlers. We use words when very young not really understanding how we know the words and how we learn to automatically communicate. We don't think of how difficult it would be to communicate to each other without a common alphabet that forms the language that we use. If we didn't have words how would we tell each other what we were thinking and how we feel at any given time? If the people who lived before us didn't come up with the technology of their time, a way to communicate and tell stories, how would we be able to communicate and to have come up with all of the technology we have today? All the philosophers and forefathers and people of the past have paved the way for our future and the world that we live in today.
We are taught the alphabet when we are toddlers. We use words when very young not really understanding how we know the words and how we learn to automatically communicate. We don't think of how difficult it would be to communicate to each other without a common alphabet that forms the language that we use. If we didn't have words how would we tell each other what we were thinking and how we feel at any given time? If the people who lived before us didn't come up with the technology of their time, a way to communicate and tell stories, how would we be able to communicate and to have come up with all of the technology we have today? All the philosophers and forefathers and people of the past have paved the way for our future and the world that we live in today.
Telepresence
I am not really a big fan of the internet beyond looking up information through the search engines and email. I believe that to really enjoy life you need to be hands on and experience things on your own. You need the interaction between yourself and other human beings to make life's experiences meaningful and personal. I don't like the idea of being disembodied and relying on the mind alone. I need to physically and mentally experience the world.
I feel the same way about the student and teacher relationship. To truly learn and understand a topic and to make the learning experience meaningful and useful in life beyond grades and school, you need to interact face to face. Teachers and students need to feed off of each other and learn valuable lessons from each other. You can't pick up the subtle cues like body language, gestures, voice inflections, and emphasis on certain topics that show you that a specific topic is important and relevant over the webcam and over the internet. You need to be present and get feedback from the environment.
The whole idea of doing internships and things over the internet is scarry. How can you master a skill and have confidence in performing a task that you have merely read about and learned facts on over the internet. If you do not physically try the task and take risks and deal with failure and achievement and get the experience that leads to success, how can you perform the task. For example, would you let a dentist drill on your teeth or perform a root canal if they had simply watched a professional on the internet but had never actually done one themself? I don't think so. That would be crazy and you would be very uneasy and uncomfortable.
In conclusion I do not like the idea of being disembodied and being involved in telepresence for the mere fact that physical experience and interaction is too important in life.
I feel the same way about the student and teacher relationship. To truly learn and understand a topic and to make the learning experience meaningful and useful in life beyond grades and school, you need to interact face to face. Teachers and students need to feed off of each other and learn valuable lessons from each other. You can't pick up the subtle cues like body language, gestures, voice inflections, and emphasis on certain topics that show you that a specific topic is important and relevant over the webcam and over the internet. You need to be present and get feedback from the environment.
The whole idea of doing internships and things over the internet is scarry. How can you master a skill and have confidence in performing a task that you have merely read about and learned facts on over the internet. If you do not physically try the task and take risks and deal with failure and achievement and get the experience that leads to success, how can you perform the task. For example, would you let a dentist drill on your teeth or perform a root canal if they had simply watched a professional on the internet but had never actually done one themself? I don't think so. That would be crazy and you would be very uneasy and uncomfortable.
In conclusion I do not like the idea of being disembodied and being involved in telepresence for the mere fact that physical experience and interaction is too important in life.
Telepresence
Telepresence what good does this do for us ? Honestly i dont thik any good becasue all it does is give humans more excuses not to expirience life to the fullest and also excuses to not be accountable for what we do. We already in todays society have problems with taking acount for our mistakes telepresence would even make it worse for todays society and alot easier. These telepresence connections would really be unmeaningful connections. This telepresence is a force that opposes our human nature which allows usto be human. It imits us ot not be able to communicate in a rich way like we would be able to do today face to face. There were many parts of this chapter that gopt me going a little bit but the one about the being present to be able to learn i agree with the most. I know from expirience that for myself in order to learn i need to be present when the teaching is present where as some people dont they can learn online but i dont thik that this is a very efficient way becasue i dont think the student can interact with other classmates and with the professor. Not only being present in the physical aspect you need to be present mentally. Being present mentally might be the most important part of learning. This is because being there mentally is where the information goes to when you hear it or see it. In conclusion when learing over the internet the student does not get the emphasis that a professor might put on a certain topic therefore the student will never know the importance of one topic from the other.
Who really needs people
I can see a time in the future when living your life on the internet will become a real possibility. I have been hearing for years that people have been buying Christmas gifts on the internet, but I personally never thought that I would. I always thought that doing something like that was not giving of myself enough, but we seem to be losing daily time as the years go by. I can see that telepresence is becoming more of an issue with me as well as some of the instances show in this chapter. Telepresence does something for us that we seem to want. It takes the personal out of dealing with sales people. We all dislike (maybe that's too gentle of a word) how we get pressure from sales people when we go into a store. through the internet, we have escaped this pressure. We use the internet to find dates, buy furniture, or even buy cars. We use it to put a barrier between us and reality and I think that that becomes the problem. Dreyfus is certainly concerned that we are becoming disembodied by not actually experiencing life. When you go into that store and get bothered by the sales person, you have a physical reaction. You're happy that someone is helping you, you are bothered by their presence, you might fall in love with them at first sight. Whatever happens, you had a physical reaction. When telepresence becomes embedded in your life, you begin to lose those sensations. Some of them might be uncomfortable, but most will give you pleasure in some way because I think the human body desires physical interaction that a computer screen can never truly give you. People that you meet are real. People on the internet are imaginary friends. Do you really know them?
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Telepresence
Telepresence, a seperation or escape from our bodies using an electronic device. What good does this do? It gives us an excuse to not experience life to the fullest, to not make meaningful connections with people, to not go beyond a mechanical and limited recall of the knowledge imparted to us. Telepresence is an unseen force that opposes our human nature to use "eye movements, head motion, gesture, and posture to interact in a much richer way." These are jsut some of the thoughts/reflections/modifications that crossed my mind while reading the chapter. The part of the chapter that really caught my interest was the part of learning. I agree that in order to learn you have to be present, both mind and body. If one would use the computer to learn, the person is limiting himself. He cannot see the greater picture of the subject, just the area the teacher is focusing on. Sometimes a teacher focuses on a specific point in order to drive the students to ask questions about the big picture. Sooner or later, everyone needs to ask those questions.
Telepresence or Teletrouble (Blog #3)
In chapter 3, Dreyfus discusses the possible benefits, but mostly the negative aspects, of what he terms “telepresence”. Telepresence, in essence, is distance presence. “Tele” is derived from Latin meaning something similar to “far off”. The individual is able to be present to things mentally, but not necessarily physically. An example of this would be a live web cast. The individual viewing is “telepresent” to the events taking place. Telepresence can extend even further. When people chat online such activity could also be considered telepresence since conversation is a traditionally embodied activity (increasingly less so since the invention of the telephone, however).
Dreyfus, not surprisingly, sees this trend as destructive; especially towards education. He runs through a series of examples, including medical school “teleinterns”. In addition to the issues he raised about distance learning in the past chapter, Dreyfus notes that if online classes were to become the norm, then traditional lectures would likely be offered only to students willing to pay a higher fee. This, he says, “would amount to an elitism not much different from the English elitism of Oxford and Cambridge vis-à-vis the other universities that don’t have tutorials” (63). He is also concerned that telepresence technology “deprives the learner of bodily involvement in a risky real environment where he has to interpret the scene himself and learn from his mistakes” (65).
Another area of concern for Dreyfus is online conversation. He finds that such interaction can never be entirely genuine, or trustworthy. Dreyfus sees a need for human contact (like a handshake, or a hug) to inspire trust. He believes that if this background trust were missing, “as it would necessarily be in cyberspace, we might tend to be suspicious of the trustworthiness of every social interaction and withhold our trust until we could confirm its justification. Such a skepticism would complicate if not poison all human interaction” (71).
Dreyfus’ second point, in my opinion, is the most fallacious. Dreyfus himself admits that one does not immediately trust another simply because of a handshake, or a hug. In fact, sometimes immediate contact inspires m
istrust. While one has to be cautious online (when in open forums and sites), I do not think every web surfer disbelieves the intent and content of other users. In everyday conversation, people enter with some measure of skepticism. People are highly skeptical creatures. The mistrust factor is further eliminated when the online forum is made up of friends, family or fellow students (as this blog is). In such a case, trust and understanding can only be expanded. Even in fan communities such familiarity is established. Frequently aficionados of Star Trek, Stargate or Firefly (to name a few) will attend conventions and meet other fans in person. Obviously, however, one has to be highly careful when meeting such individuals since there really is no easy way of determining their intent (they could be stalkers!!). This, however, has not deterred the hundreds, even thousands of people who meet like this.
While some measure of trust is lost in cyberspace, another layer is gained. Frequently, at least in my experience, when online, people tend to be more honest about many things. The opportunity to think and write out a response, as opposed to developing one “in the moment” gives the individual the ability to articulate their thoughts more effectively and, sometimes, more honestly.
I am not suggesting that we should join the Extropians and download our minds into cyberspace, as the sculptor in the film was urged to do. I do believe, however, that the ability of the internet to connect individuals next door and worldwide should not be rejected. What we are able to do with this blog would not really have been possible ten years ago. As with all technology and advancement human beings must be careful and develop a coherent and effective ethic to manage our relationship with that technology. After all, how could we ever turn our backs on something Al Gore invented???
Iris
Dreyfus, not surprisingly, sees this trend as destructive; especially towards education. He runs through a series of examples, including medical school “teleinterns”. In addition to the issues he raised about distance learning in the past chapter, Dreyfus notes that if online classes were to become the norm, then traditional lectures would likely be offered only to students willing to pay a higher fee. This, he says, “would amount to an elitism not much different from the English elitism of Oxford and Cambridge vis-à-vis the other universities that don’t have tutorials” (63). He is also concerned that telepresence technology “deprives the learner of bodily involvement in a risky real environment where he has to interpret the scene himself and learn from his mistakes” (65).
Another area of concern for Dreyfus is online conversation. He finds that such interaction can never be entirely genuine, or trustworthy. Dreyfus sees a need for human contact (like a handshake, or a hug) to inspire trust. He believes that if this background trust were missing, “as it would necessarily be in cyberspace, we might tend to be suspicious of the trustworthiness of every social interaction and withhold our trust until we could confirm its justification. Such a skepticism would complicate if not poison all human interaction” (71).
Dreyfus’ second point, in my opinion, is the most fallacious. Dreyfus himself admits that one does not immediately trust another simply because of a handshake, or a hug. In fact, sometimes immediate contact inspires m
istrust. While one has to be cautious online (when in open forums and sites), I do not think every web surfer disbelieves the intent and content of other users. In everyday conversation, people enter with some measure of skepticism. People are highly skeptical creatures. The mistrust factor is further eliminated when the online forum is made up of friends, family or fellow students (as this blog is). In such a case, trust and understanding can only be expanded. Even in fan communities such familiarity is established. Frequently aficionados of Star Trek, Stargate or Firefly (to name a few) will attend conventions and meet other fans in person. Obviously, however, one has to be highly careful when meeting such individuals since there really is no easy way of determining their intent (they could be stalkers!!). This, however, has not deterred the hundreds, even thousands of people who meet like this.While some measure of trust is lost in cyberspace, another layer is gained. Frequently, at least in my experience, when online, people tend to be more honest about many things. The opportunity to think and write out a response, as opposed to developing one “in the moment” gives the individual the ability to articulate their thoughts more effectively and, sometimes, more honestly.
I am not suggesting that we should join the Extropians and download our minds into cyberspace, as the sculptor in the film was urged to do. I do believe, however, that the ability of the internet to connect individuals next door and worldwide should not be rejected. What we are able to do with this blog would not really have been possible ten years ago. As with all technology and advancement human beings must be careful and develop a coherent and effective ethic to manage our relationship with that technology. After all, how could we ever turn our backs on something Al Gore invented???
Iris
Disembodied Telepresence
This past chapter makes us wonder to what extent the internet is capable of going. There will be a day when the internet could possibly give a person all the materials to where he or she could accomplish everything. The internet expanding can be a great thing in my opinion, it could open a vast majority of opportunities in which we could explore different things we never thought possible. so in that aspect i do not think the internet is a bad thing by any means.
But it does have it bad things as well as the good. As was mentioned, learning and internships may start to become available on the internet. I, like Dreyfus, find it hard to see where a person learning or doing internships on the internet can be "proficient." Nothing can replace experiencing something actually in person. There is no way i would want a doctor to examine me or perform surgery on me if he learned by watching the teacher or surgeon on the internet. And I am one where i need to be present in order to understand what the teacher is teaching. Many times I would need help in the classroom and if I was learning by distant learning, I would be screwed. Those are a few of the bad things the internet expansion can hold.
I do believe that the internet has the capabilities to reach that level, but I think that society won't allow the internet to have that prfound of an impact and control our daily lives like people are afraid it might. I also think/hope people will see that distant learning will hurt more than help and society won't convert all schooling into distant learning....I think the future is bright for the internet, as long as we as a society keep it from getting too powerful.
But it does have it bad things as well as the good. As was mentioned, learning and internships may start to become available on the internet. I, like Dreyfus, find it hard to see where a person learning or doing internships on the internet can be "proficient." Nothing can replace experiencing something actually in person. There is no way i would want a doctor to examine me or perform surgery on me if he learned by watching the teacher or surgeon on the internet. And I am one where i need to be present in order to understand what the teacher is teaching. Many times I would need help in the classroom and if I was learning by distant learning, I would be screwed. Those are a few of the bad things the internet expansion can hold.
I do believe that the internet has the capabilities to reach that level, but I think that society won't allow the internet to have that prfound of an impact and control our daily lives like people are afraid it might. I also think/hope people will see that distant learning will hurt more than help and society won't convert all schooling into distant learning....I think the future is bright for the internet, as long as we as a society keep it from getting too powerful.
Disembodied Telepresence
This chapter of On the Internet really makes me believe that the internet will grow so much that we will be able to sit at home the entire day and accomplish everything, without moving from the computer.
Years ago, I could only imagine that one day you could order your groceries online. A couple months ago, I got an ad in the mail from Flick's Foods (A local grocery store in Hebron) and their new feature. You can now order your groceries online and just go through the drive thru at the store and your items will be placed in your car. I'm still surprised they haven't decided to just deliver them to your house for you. Sooner or later, a 5 minute drive to the grocery will be too much exercise for one day.
In my life, I can already see how my conversations with people have taken a change from using the internet so much. Instead of having an actual face-to-face conversation, I email, or IM, or even blog. Now I go out and try to have a conversation with a friend and I have to remind myself how to act or how "lol" won't work in a vocal conversation.
Yes I believe that one day the internet will give access to everything. Work, School, you name it. Everything will be accessible from it and there will be a sense of "telepresence."
Years ago, I could only imagine that one day you could order your groceries online. A couple months ago, I got an ad in the mail from Flick's Foods (A local grocery store in Hebron) and their new feature. You can now order your groceries online and just go through the drive thru at the store and your items will be placed in your car. I'm still surprised they haven't decided to just deliver them to your house for you. Sooner or later, a 5 minute drive to the grocery will be too much exercise for one day.
In my life, I can already see how my conversations with people have taken a change from using the internet so much. Instead of having an actual face-to-face conversation, I email, or IM, or even blog. Now I go out and try to have a conversation with a friend and I have to remind myself how to act or how "lol" won't work in a vocal conversation.
Yes I believe that one day the internet will give access to everything. Work, School, you name it. Everything will be accessible from it and there will be a sense of "telepresence."
Dreyfus- Ch. 3: Disembodied Telepresence
The technological age is not only prominent today more than ever, but is quickly expanding. The human race has become largely dependent on electronic devices, so much that it is impossible to return to prior generations. There is no turning back now, and as time passes society will continue to become even more super absorbed with these inventions. The idea of telepresence or electronically transporting human beings to different locations using channels of radio waves for audio, visual, and other components, is no longer a far fetched idea. Telepresence would significantly effect education and enables the idea of distance learning. However, I believe along with many others that telepresence will not produce the same effect found within the classroom.
In my opinion this age of the future is already here. Human communication in this day and age is no longer personal or face to face. The Internet has developed into such a giant network and source of vast amount of information. It is central to our lives. People now can efficiently live their entire lives practically without even leaving the privacy of their own home due to the Internet. Everything has become impersonal, not requiring physical presence, only mind and intellect at a distance. Descartes' philosophical ideas are primarily true that humans do not directly experience the external world. However there is a limit to how much technology can bridge the gap between complete electronic communication and personal interaction. The environment is necessary for human development because it provides viable risks and uncertainties which characterize life. Merleau- Ponty's theories support these ideas, that humans need the world and human interaction because it provides motivation and the creation of coping mechanisms. These genuine risks are not present using telepresence, especially when used for education. Throughout this Dreyfus proves that telepresence is not as an effective or complete replacement for the traditional school. Proficiency, competence, and situation based decision skills can be used by electronic instruction and observation. However telepresence's shortcoming is that it cannot possibly create the mood of a classroom or an experience. The fear to be correct, generated in a classroom when a student is called on by the teacher, is not able to be created in an online atmosphere. Also actually experiencing situation in person will help in predicting outcomes and handling stress and emotions. These aspects are also not included in telepresence. Although telepresence is useful for individuals who are not capable of attending school at their own leisure, in my opinion it should never replace the classroom. Telepresence does not completely train individuals to be the most qualified in their field of expertise, only mediocre professionals.
In my opinion this age of the future is already here. Human communication in this day and age is no longer personal or face to face. The Internet has developed into such a giant network and source of vast amount of information. It is central to our lives. People now can efficiently live their entire lives practically without even leaving the privacy of their own home due to the Internet. Everything has become impersonal, not requiring physical presence, only mind and intellect at a distance. Descartes' philosophical ideas are primarily true that humans do not directly experience the external world. However there is a limit to how much technology can bridge the gap between complete electronic communication and personal interaction. The environment is necessary for human development because it provides viable risks and uncertainties which characterize life. Merleau- Ponty's theories support these ideas, that humans need the world and human interaction because it provides motivation and the creation of coping mechanisms. These genuine risks are not present using telepresence, especially when used for education. Throughout this Dreyfus proves that telepresence is not as an effective or complete replacement for the traditional school. Proficiency, competence, and situation based decision skills can be used by electronic instruction and observation. However telepresence's shortcoming is that it cannot possibly create the mood of a classroom or an experience. The fear to be correct, generated in a classroom when a student is called on by the teacher, is not able to be created in an online atmosphere. Also actually experiencing situation in person will help in predicting outcomes and handling stress and emotions. These aspects are also not included in telepresence. Although telepresence is useful for individuals who are not capable of attending school at their own leisure, in my opinion it should never replace the classroom. Telepresence does not completely train individuals to be the most qualified in their field of expertise, only mediocre professionals.
Telepresence Blog #3
After reading the chapter, ready to respond, I got already to have this discussion. However, the system had some glitch to where it took me 30 minutes to rectify. Thus, validating my opinion. While computers, and the various technology we have is wonderful it can also be very frustrating. I can hear below me, the kids laughing, and interacting. Meanwhile I am upstairs trying to get my blog account to update so I can actually communicate myself. So for me, I need the interaction. I need people. I also have to think of why I am pursuing my career and furthering my education is solely due to the fact of wanting to have interaction with people. We can also see in various studies where the fact that children and elderly adults who have not had human contact lack so many social skills, growth, and their personalities, confidence, demeanor, and overall being is dramatically effected. So we must live, we must interact with human beings. Without interaction, I know my life would be very unfulfilled.
Robot Stories
In response to the short film, Robot Stories, it is my belief that this form of electronic immortality is not only unnatural but unethical. Even if you do not belief in God or a higher power, logically there was some outside power which catalyzed the creation of earth and life. Such a complex form of living could not have formed out of no where without some outside intervention. It is my opinion that, we, as products or creations of that supernatural genius, do not possess the human right to take or give life. The potter, in this short film, realized the artificial nature of downloading his memory into a new body, and therefore blatantly refused conformity. Such a society in which legally you must participate in this practice is, in my opinion, corrupt and per say "overstepping human boundaries." Also the reality of death, in that it is inescapable, is a human motivator. Death reminds people that time on earth is precious and should be lived to the fullest. Endless existence downplays how precious and unstable life is, therefore living would be taken for granted if there was no way to take it away. Also what is life without sadness, sickness, pain, fatigue? These qualities, although negative are part of the human experience. Lastly if a person was to live forever, the world would most definitely take advantage of him. Without death there is no life, just existence and "drifting through the ages."
after reading this chapter i firmly believe telepresence would not benefit society as a whole. i know it wouldnt benefit me. Technology has done great things in the world and made life easier to alot of people however we cannon cut out day to day interections between humans. learning would be completly different and athletics in my mind could not be as competative. I agree with what coach Barry Lamb in the chapter says. I have played football my whole life and have learned a lot about the game and my opponents through studying film. This puts one at a great advantage however if you dont go and act out what you have learned then you really dont have an understanding of what really is going on. Also one does not feel the emotion of the game through film. This also goes for understanding concepts in the classroom with interacting between individuals and having class discussions broading ones perspectives on life.
Blog 3 on telepresence
After reading chapter three on diembodied telepresence, I felt really weird on all the ideas that were presented. First of all telepresence just doesn't seem like a good idea at all even if it were possible. Like the text mentions, who wants to be hugged by a robot contolled remotely by its user. I think no one probably, no matter how real it may seem. Humans crave social interactions. These are the interactions that drive people to even get out of bed in the morning, to make interactions with other human beings. I have friends on the other side of the country that I talk to every once in a while, but it certainly is not the same as when we're together in the same place hanging out. Like i said before we need this real-life interaction. Humans have always been social creatures and I dont think any technology could get rid of it with any success.
In Addition, the text mentions distance learning and telepresence. It makes a good point of saying there is no risk involved for the teacher or the student when are not together in the same place but have a disembodied telepresence. Again we need the real-life interaction. Humans can't live happily without this interaction, and so we probably can't learn without it either.
In Addition, the text mentions distance learning and telepresence. It makes a good point of saying there is no risk involved for the teacher or the student when are not together in the same place but have a disembodied telepresence. Again we need the real-life interaction. Humans can't live happily without this interaction, and so we probably can't learn without it either.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Blog 3: Disembodied Telepresence
This chapter was very interesting and covered many topics. I for one hope that we never live in a life of telepresence. To not have human contact is unimaginable to me. There are times when I just need that interaction. I think that this idea of "living on the net" would in fact lead to isolation and therefore depression. There are times that I am alone for a while writing a paper, researching, or whatever it may be and then as soon as I'm around another human being I can't stop talking. You need that sense of human interaction. When I sit and talk to my sister I want to actually be sitting next to her. If a friend is in trouble and just needs a hug; can we do that through the internet? Another topic I found interesting was the extension on distance learning. The idea of how distance learning would effect the students and the teachers. Teachers feed off of their students and as mentioned in the book many use eye contact. How can one really get a feel for what the mood of the room or how the class is feeling through a camera? It's just like the difference between listening to cd and being at a concert or (as mentioned in the text) being at a play or watching a movie. They just aren't the same. There is a completely different feel due to the face-to-face/human interation. Another example mentioned in the text that really brought things together was the idea of a football player learning to play football simply through game tapes. It simply can't be done. You have to experience. You have to fail and determine how to correct that failure. This is all very interesting stuff that gets you to thinking. I surely hope that we do not come to time where everything is done on the Net.
Never Die
The idea of 'life eternal' has fascinated story writers for ages, but to this date a "fountain of youth" has never been found. However, some have proposed that technology might serve as a solution to people's most powerful fear: death. In a brief section from the movie "Robot Stories" technology has advanced such that human minds can be scanned into a computer; thus, providing what could be commonly referred to as eternal life. I agree with a statement made in class earlier today. It would appear that though the mind was copied into a computer, it remains only a copy, nothing more. It did not appear (or at least one cannot assume) that the mind could prolong existence of the entire human being. It would be similar to reoccurring memories that would adapt to different scenarios as they presented themselves via recollection. I would wonder if the copied mind could choose, of its own, will to act any differently according to new experiences.
I do question the mentality of the individual who would want to live forever. Metaphysically, one could make an argument that our being's direction is focused toward one point. All experiences builds toward a final resolve that is the accumulation of our being. We meet this at our deaths. The fear of looking beyond can be eased by the possibility of looking beyond. And from that possibility, is the reality that there is a beyond to be looked at (and experienced).
I do question the mentality of the individual who would want to live forever. Metaphysically, one could make an argument that our being's direction is focused toward one point. All experiences builds toward a final resolve that is the accumulation of our being. We meet this at our deaths. The fear of looking beyond can be eased by the possibility of looking beyond. And from that possibility, is the reality that there is a beyond to be looked at (and experienced).
What? live forever?
In considering the robot short movie: Clay, I would say it is not all that great of an idea to live forever. There is something to say about accomplishments that take place despite our condition of embodiment. Even though Descartes said " I think therefore I am" and this would suggest that it is possible to live forever if your consciousness can continue despite the physical death of our bodies, I would like to discontinue my thoughts at some point. Death gives us a time frame with which to accomplish as much as we can in life prior to our demise. We can then look back and be proud of our accomplishments that we were able to achieve during our lifetime while laying on our death beds. I think we need death in order to appreciate life. Because if death never comes how do we define one's life?
I want to live forever
I thought this short film showed that we need to believe that we actually make a difference in this world. The man knew that the relationship with his wife was fake and even though in real life, it would have been horrible, it would be real. I think he didn't want his mind becoming part of an unreal world. I would like to live forever too, but can we live with the pain of several life times?
Robot Stories
The film was definitely kinda weird. I'm not a big Sci-fi buff myself, but the film definitely made you think about "what if..." Who knows if our future will be anything like the film, i personally do not think so. I know if it was, i would be like the old man, and i wouldn't let them download me. Life is all about being born, living, and dieing. If you never die, it would leave a blank spot in your life. I personally do not want to live forever. I want to live a happy, successful life and when the end comes I hope that i have lived my life to the fullest. The way that the people lived in the movie is not really living. If you are not truly living, what is the point. Just seams like it pushed the grieving process even longer for the old man.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Robot Stories
Ah, where to start with this film. First of all, I did not enjoy it. In my opinion, there are too many things that come into conflict in my personal life that would make me hate this way of scanning your brain into a computer.
It was mentioned in class that we each have some sort of accomplishment when we reach a goal, when we visit a different country, etc. The fact that scanning your brain into a computer where you can do everything? Where is there an accomplishment in that?
My second problem with the film is religion. In my won life, religion is a major part of the way I live. And through the Bible, I have an idea of what will happen to me when I pass from this world. Being described as "paradise", there's no way scanning my brain onto a computer and "living" on Earth forever will be as good as paradise.
I see the future of technology to have astronomical changes. But things like this would create too much controversy to actually exist in our world. A good film, but something that won't happen.
It was mentioned in class that we each have some sort of accomplishment when we reach a goal, when we visit a different country, etc. The fact that scanning your brain into a computer where you can do everything? Where is there an accomplishment in that?
My second problem with the film is religion. In my won life, religion is a major part of the way I live. And through the Bible, I have an idea of what will happen to me when I pass from this world. Being described as "paradise", there's no way scanning my brain onto a computer and "living" on Earth forever will be as good as paradise.
I see the future of technology to have astronomical changes. But things like this would create too much controversy to actually exist in our world. A good film, but something that won't happen.
Robot Stories (Blog for film)
What is the point of putting someones mind into a computer? You are not truly living on. You cannot take body form. As this film showed, the computer doesn't necessarily download your true personality/character. In the film it seemed as though the best was always portrayed. This simply isn't realistic. Why would we want to have a "fake" remake of ourselves? It just doesn't seem like the way things should be down. Yes I would love to have my loved ones with me for the rest of my life, but the memories of our loved ones will always stay in our minds. They live on within us. Would you sit around with a computer form of your mother, grandma, brother, sister, etc.? Where does it end? In some sense there is a need for an end. What happens when all your loved ones are computers?
This is all very interesting to think about. I would have thought that being able to live on would be a good thing, but when you think of living as a computer and not being able to touch/feel anything, develop new thoughts, run/walk, etc. I simply just don't see the point. You just not yourself in true form.
This is all very interesting to think about. I would have thought that being able to live on would be a good thing, but when you think of living as a computer and not being able to touch/feel anything, develop new thoughts, run/walk, etc. I simply just don't see the point. You just not yourself in true form.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Robot Stories objections
As an Aristotelian and a computer science major, I have problems with the clip from Robot Stories.
My first objection deals with how would it be possible to copy a mind. Some would say the mind is immaterial, so how could you make a physical or virtual copy of it. Others might say the mind is the interconnections between neurons. If this is the case, to copy the mind would be to map all of the interconnections, which would be a formidable feat, since there 100 billion neurons in the adult human brain.
My second objection is what happens when the copy is made. Are there now two copies of the person's mind. If so, do both continue existing? Could some event change the outcome of the two minds? Or, does the person cease to exist once the mind has been copied?
My third objection is what type of hardware could support the procedure? If there was a way to copy a mind, it would seem like it would take a large amount of resources. Multiply this by a very large number of people who have been copied, and suddenly the requirements seem unattainable.
*Insert witty title for blog entry here*
I believe that we would no longer be living according to our current definition of life if we were to lose our embodiment, we would merely "exist" as variable forms of Artificial Intelligence. If you have taken Biology you would have learned that most biologists define life as having 5 properties:
1. Every living organism has order. (Atoms make up molecules, molecules make up organelles, organelles make up a cell, etc.)
2. Every living organism responds to stimuli.
3. Every living organism grows develops and reproduces.
4. Every living organism regulates, they perform actions when needed so there is no waste.
5. Every living organism undergoes homeostasis.
According to these 5 fundamental properties of living organisms, we would no longer be living if we were to become disembodied. We would have to rethink our current definition of life, a new definition which would, ironically, exclude every other living organism.
When we consider the movie (Robot Stories: Clay) that we watched in class, we see the gift of immortality provided by technology has made life meaningless to those who have chosen to "live" under such conditions. I believe that this is why the sculptor's wife went from "It is real" to "It doesn't matter". When I look at the summary of chapters in Dreyfus' book On the Internet, I see that he has come to a similar conclusion.
We have heard it over and over throughout the Disney movies of our childhood (Think The Lion King): "Death is a natural part of life...". Depending on a person's values, an immortal life would be meaningless since death gives our lives meaning. Without death we lose the romantic beauty of the brevity of our lives.
1. Every living organism has order. (Atoms make up molecules, molecules make up organelles, organelles make up a cell, etc.)
2. Every living organism responds to stimuli.
3. Every living organism grows develops and reproduces.
4. Every living organism regulates, they perform actions when needed so there is no waste.
5. Every living organism undergoes homeostasis.
According to these 5 fundamental properties of living organisms, we would no longer be living if we were to become disembodied. We would have to rethink our current definition of life, a new definition which would, ironically, exclude every other living organism.
When we consider the movie (Robot Stories: Clay) that we watched in class, we see the gift of immortality provided by technology has made life meaningless to those who have chosen to "live" under such conditions. I believe that this is why the sculptor's wife went from "It is real" to "It doesn't matter". When I look at the summary of chapters in Dreyfus' book On the Internet, I see that he has come to a similar conclusion.
We have heard it over and over throughout the Disney movies of our childhood (Think The Lion King): "Death is a natural part of life...". Depending on a person's values, an immortal life would be meaningless since death gives our lives meaning. Without death we lose the romantic beauty of the brevity of our lives.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Blog #2 Dreyfus
Relevance seems to be the big issue with Dreyfus. Information on all sorts of topics are available to a person. The library has carefully collected this information and organized it for us. This establishes a clear system for us to use, but is time consuming. When compared to the internet, the information can be searched quickly using a search engine and appears in a matter of seconds. However, the search engine is defined by certain parameters to simulate common sense to produce relevant meaning. In a sense, the programmer is creating a pseudo-embodiment of the human for the computer. But in order for the common sense/relevance to take place, doesn't one have to have self awareness? Don't we have to know ourselves as humans in order to make decisions relevant to a particular event? Let's take food allergies for an example. You might have an allergy to peanuts like my neighbor. After discovering your allergy, you decide on food that does not contain anything to do with peanuts. Will a computer know not to display a link to a website that contains viruses? Would it be aware that a virus could infect it and thus scan for it?
Hyper Link Horror Stories
Dreyfus states that one of the many problems with using a hyper link system for organizing web pages is that it is too broad. He states that it is easier for one to find relevant information in a library by using such ancient technologies as say the card catalog. However, Dreyfus does not take into full account the fact that library's have a much smaller amount of information stored upon their stacks. The internet has billions of web pages, much more information than a library. It would be relatively impossible to find any relevant information if I were to just walk along the rows of shelves and scan the titles for something that seemed relevant. It would be even harder to make my way around on the internet looking at every web page in an attempt to find relevant information. Hence the creation of search engines and card catalogs. These search tools help to narrow down your search for relevant information. However, as Dreyfus suggests, these internet search engines are not quite what they could be. They narrow down your search, but due to the myriad of available web sites there is still thousands of hyper links to consider. All of this information that the internet contains cannot fully overcome the library. Libraries have been in existence for quite some time, and as long as people value books they wont be kicking the bucket anytime soon. However, this is not to say that the face of libraries are not changing. Libraries today are trying to offer more and more technology within their walls. When a library talks about expanding nowadays they are not talking about the amount of books on their shelves, but the amount of computers and modern technology that they offer. Libraries are changing the way that they attract people. They still offer the moldy old tombs of knowledge, but now they have the bright and shiny computers of techdom. The internet is a great tool, as well as a good way to kill time, but it has its flaws and limitations.
Hyperlink, Dreyfus
I found this chapter of Dreyfus very interesting because humans don't realize how much we take for granted and don't realize. It is difficult for a computer to take on human characteristics of looking at relevance. on the internet everything is related in one way or another to everything else so how can a computer sort out what is relevant to you when they don't know what you are thinking and what exactly they are looking for. The internet is useful because it has so much information available on any subject you could think of being interested in. However it is very hard to sort out all of the possible links by searching with just key words. there are many relevant sites that you don't come across when looking on the net because the computer can't tell that they are relevant. only you know what you are looking for. For some people using the library is easier because they can go in and search for exactly what they are looking for and not have to sort through the information that isn't really relevant. It just isn't as user friendly because you have to find each source and then pull them off the shelf and read through it to see if it was what you were looking for. it is very time consuming to the use the library.
The internet is a great place to wherewe can search and find out an extreme amount of information that does us alot of good....but it is also a place that is full of an extrmeem amount of useless information that some person put in without any truth to that or not. Anyone who is anyone can make a website and put whatever he or she feels. It is our job to really search the internet and see which sites are really those we can trust and which is just full of bull. When searching the internet, we need to have a watchful eye because we look at the internet for vital information about certain things and if we are misinformed, it could lead to trouble on our part.
No More Mr Roboto
I think Dreyfus is trying to tell us two different things in this passage. The first is rather simple and we all know it from the time we spend on the internet researching a topic. While the internet is a great tool for looking up information because it gives us more areas than we ever dreamed was possible, it's also a poor research tool because there's no proper organization of material. The library was set up in an ordered and controlled way that allows you to research a topic more specifically. Where is the Dewey Decimal system for the internet?
The second and really the most important topic is what the internet has done to us as people. We use the internet to communicate and it does make it more efficient. And yes, that works great because we can do it so fast, but we also lose the personal touch that we as humans need to maintain between each other. We are humans and we need emotional connections with other humans to feel. That's all. That's it. We need the love, the sadness, the joy, and the heartache. We just need to have real feelings that we get when we're with each other. The feeling we get over the net is so superficial that we begin to separate our mind, body, and emotions. We cease to exist. We are no longer relevant. Eventually, we become another machine to some other person a thousand miles away and we become a machine to ourselves.
The second and really the most important topic is what the internet has done to us as people. We use the internet to communicate and it does make it more efficient. And yes, that works great because we can do it so fast, but we also lose the personal touch that we as humans need to maintain between each other. We are humans and we need emotional connections with other humans to feel. That's all. That's it. We need the love, the sadness, the joy, and the heartache. We just need to have real feelings that we get when we're with each other. The feeling we get over the net is so superficial that we begin to separate our mind, body, and emotions. We cease to exist. We are no longer relevant. Eventually, we become another machine to some other person a thousand miles away and we become a machine to ourselves.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Blog # 3 Telepresence
I believe that Dreyfus has the right view on this, when it comes to telepresence and how so much will be lost. Yes telepresence would make things such as teaching easier and more efficient for teachers and students. Though the engagement and embodiment of being face to face would be lost. A big part of learning is done by reading expressions and body language which we may not even notice because we do it so effortlessly. Another problem Dreyfus talks about is the use of camera's and how teachers as well as students wouldn't be able to focus on what the students are taking interest in or what the teacher seems to put much emphasis towards. Dreyfus uses a doctor performing surgery with a camera showing everything he sees to teach medical students but the camera only shows the patient it doesn't show the surgeon and his passion for doing a good job so the students are missing the significant of the situation. In the end face to face communication cannot be replaced by telepresence because you lose so many important aspects that are needed to achieve mastering in what ever it is that you are pursuing.
Surf's Up (Blog #2)
Hubert L. Dreyfus discusses the nature of the internet and its numerous search engines. He highlights the weaknesses of such engines and artificial intelligences throughout the chapter. Ultimately, he concludes that “the loss of embodiment would lead to loss of the ability to recognize relevance” (7).
Dreyfus begins by establishing the vastness of the internet. He notes that the Web has “over a billion pages and it continues to grow at a rate of at leas a million pages a day” (8). The statistic is astounding. It’s not surprising that search engines have such difficulty finding needles in the proverbial haystack. There are no boundaries in cyberspace. It is huge and ever-growing. The linking system can chain together hundreds of sites sometimes having little to do with one another. It is this that leads Dreyfus to believe that:
“The use of the hyper library would no longer be a modern subject with a fixed identity who desires a more complete and reliable model of the world, but rather a postmodern, protean being ready to be opened up to ever new horizons. Such a being is not interested in collecting what is significant but in connecting to as wide a web of information as possible” (11).
Dreyfus further points out that some, namely postmodernists, “embrace hyperlinks as a way of freeing us form anonymous specialists organizing our databases and deciding for us what is relevant” (12).
For Dreyfus, this new world is not desirable. While I agree with and understand many of his concerns, I understand the postmodern view as well. The internet and traditional libraries are two very different things. And neither should be eliminated or overhauled to match the other. Internet and computers can help facilitate library searches. The Kenton County Library is a great example. They have catalogued thousands of newspapers dating back to the 1800s online, making research must faster and more profitable. Searching information on the web at large, however, is not peer reviewed or closely monitored—nor should it be. When seeking info on the web at large, it is very difficult to find exactly what one seeks. This can be a good thing, however. Sometimes, we really don’t know what we want to find, or, at least, we can be turned toward fruitful new avenues of inquiry.
For example, I was searching information about actor William Katt of “Greatest American Hero” fame--not exactly the highest philosophical pursuit, but it pertains to the discussion. I ended up uncovering a totally unrelated item, a 1980s sitcom called “Sledge Hammer”. The premise so intrigued me that I bought the DVD. It turned out to be a great production. The only search element that linked the two, however, was the DVD production house for both “Greatest American Hero” and “Sledge Hammer”.
Sometimes random, loosely linked, information can be good. We are not so much disembodied; rather, our imaginations are given more free space to roam. In addition, and almost ironically, the internet has a very human element as well. It has developed organically over the years; reflecting the interests of specific people or large groups. It can even promote community. Message boards, blogs and fan communities are huge online. It has expanded the conversing public that Immanuel Kant believed was crucial for an enlightened society. While much of online chatter could scarcely be described as conversation, let alone scholarly debate, there are exceptions, like the blog we are posting in right now. As with education, it is up to the individual to make the best of what they discover and use it to better themselves and others. Of course, time should always be made for trivial pursuits. You never know what you might unearth.
Iris
Dreyfus begins by establishing the vastness of the internet. He notes that the Web has “over a billion pages and it continues to grow at a rate of at leas a million pages a day” (8). The statistic is astounding. It’s not surprising that search engines have such difficulty finding needles in the proverbial haystack. There are no boundaries in cyberspace. It is huge and ever-growing. The linking system can chain together hundreds of sites sometimes having little to do with one another. It is this that leads Dreyfus to believe that:
“The use of the hyper library would no longer be a modern subject with a fixed identity who desires a more complete and reliable model of the world, but rather a postmodern, protean being ready to be opened up to ever new horizons. Such a being is not interested in collecting what is significant but in connecting to as wide a web of information as possible” (11).
Dreyfus further points out that some, namely postmodernists, “embrace hyperlinks as a way of freeing us form anonymous specialists organizing our databases and deciding for us what is relevant” (12).
For Dreyfus, this new world is not desirable. While I agree with and understand many of his concerns, I understand the postmodern view as well. The internet and traditional libraries are two very different things. And neither should be eliminated or overhauled to match the other. Internet and computers can help facilitate library searches. The Kenton County Library is a great example. They have catalogued thousands of newspapers dating back to the 1800s online, making research must faster and more profitable. Searching information on the web at large, however, is not peer reviewed or closely monitored—nor should it be. When seeking info on the web at large, it is very difficult to find exactly what one seeks. This can be a good thing, however. Sometimes, we really don’t know what we want to find, or, at least, we can be turned toward fruitful new avenues of inquiry.
For example, I was searching information about actor William Katt of “Greatest American Hero” fame--not exactly the highest philosophical pursuit, but it pertains to the discussion. I ended up uncovering a totally unrelated item, a 1980s sitcom called “Sledge Hammer”. The premise so intrigued me that I bought the DVD. It turned out to be a great production. The only search element that linked the two, however, was the DVD production house for both “Greatest American Hero” and “Sledge Hammer”.
Sometimes random, loosely linked, information can be good. We are not so much disembodied; rather, our imaginations are given more free space to roam. In addition, and almost ironically, the internet has a very human element as well. It has developed organically over the years; reflecting the interests of specific people or large groups. It can even promote community. Message boards, blogs and fan communities are huge online. It has expanded the conversing public that Immanuel Kant believed was crucial for an enlightened society. While much of online chatter could scarcely be described as conversation, let alone scholarly debate, there are exceptions, like the blog we are posting in right now. As with education, it is up to the individual to make the best of what they discover and use it to better themselves and others. Of course, time should always be made for trivial pursuits. You never know what you might unearth.
Iris
Blog #2 Hyperlinks
As technology has continued to increase our patients as a modern day society has continued to decrease. That's what we view technology as a quicker more efficient way to achieve or get what ever it is we want. Such as what Dreyfus talks about, the use of the Internet and hyperlinks over going to the library. It's true the Internet is a lot less time consuming and more efficient in getting the information that is needed. Though there is still the advantages of going to the library, that being that the information you find will be of legitimate sources and state the facts. Were using the Internet can be risky, because unless you can type in exactly what your looking for or you're very good in weeding out the useless sites. The information from the Internet can be from illegitimate sources and state the opinions of others rather then the facts that are desired. The Internet is a large space for hyperlinks to find exactly what you are looking for which causes the finding of useless sites, but in the end libraries will almost certainly become non existent and computers will take its place.
Blog #2- Hubert Dreyfus
Yes, while we must have common knowledge to be able to utilize the various search engines to obtain information we are seeking on a particular subject. It is imperative to also take the time to research, delve into many facets that are available. But just like our society today in the "fast food" world, we want everything right now and without spending the maximum of time in order to obtain it. We as a society want everything quickly. That is why we depend on technology to give us what we want as fast as possible, not to mention with little effort on our part. So we must also look at this as a way of seeing this is no different, on some levels we will at times have to spend more time obtaining what we want. We must realize that at times we will have to make that extra effort, seek out information through other imaginative alternatives. Above all, while we can appreciate all that technology has brought us, we still rely on the basics of knowledge.
Yes, while we must have common knowledge to be able to utilize the various search engines to obtain information we are seeking on a particular subject. It is imperative to also take the time to research, delve into many facets that are available. But just like our society today in the "fast food" world, we want everything right now and without spending the maximum of time in order to obtain it. We as a society want everything quickly. That is why we depend on technology to give us what we want as fast as possible, not to mention with little effort on our part. So we must also look at this as a way of seeing this is no different, on some levels we will at times have to spend more time obtaining what we want. We must realize that at times we will have to make that extra effort, seek out information through other imaginative alternatives. Above all, while we can appreciate all that technology has brought us, we still rely on the basics of knowledge.
i often have trouble researching on the internet due to finding numerous sights that give me useless information on my subject. There are so many hyperlinks and sites that it is hard for the internet to find what everyone needs. its like finding information in a library. one must know where to look first and have a starting point instead of just wondering around the library and searching for books. This goes for the internet also. One needs to have a starting point and know where to search on the internet. There are also common misunderstandings and mistakes on the internet. You cant always believe what you read on the internet. Not all the information come from reliable sources. Anyone and there brother can make a web site and write something on it acting like it is legit information
#2 Blog: "On the Internet"- 1st Chapter
Dreyfus begins his book "On the Internet" by presenting his readers with the comparison between the age of the library and present day technology, the World Wide Web. Before diving into the complexities and results of the creation of the Internet, Dreyfus investigates the "Contrast between the old library culture and the new kind of libraries made possible by hyperlinks." The creation of the WWW allowed people to access millions of pages of information at the click of a mouse in their own homes. No longer are trips to the local libraries necessary. The card catalogue has most definitely become a thing of the past being replaced by hyperlinks. Hyperlinks not only make searching for information much faster but a personal process, no longer requiring the aid of a librarian. However Dreyfus also writes about the disadvantages of the Internet. One main problem is the fact that search engines find materials with even weak associations to the subject matter, resulting in an enormous amount of unusable information. All info on the WWW is on the same level, which is drastically different from the hierarchy of materials which can be obtained by using a library. Deciding what information is relevant to the topic has become a personal responsibility.
Dreyfus also addresses scientists like Douglas Lenat's research and work to create electronic solution to the issue of determining relevant information on the Internet. Lenat's CYC model was a breakthrough Artificial Intelligence technology which attempted to store and use basic human "commonsense knowledge" needed to pick out material related to a certain topic. However, in the end, Lenat failed to create a robot with reasoning abilities similar to humans. Eventually scientists realized that it was completely impossible to replicate the idea of embodiment in an electronic device. As humans with a physical and psychological body we not only of our bodies internal workings, but also possess the natural human instinct and innate knowledge. This characteristic is irreplaceable and cannot be man made even with the complicated and impressive technology which has become available.
Overall the age of the library is quickly dying as the human race passes into an electronically advanced age. This transformation is irreversible, and therefore people must adjust themselves to utilize these technologies like the World Wide Web. New skills must be learned, and search engines must be updated and reconfigured in order to make searches more successful. The fact that only 30% of web pages uploaded from a search will be relevant to the topic is completely unacceptable and impractical. Making web searches more effective should become the main focus of scientists and inventors in order to better cater to the human race.
Dreyfus also addresses scientists like Douglas Lenat's research and work to create electronic solution to the issue of determining relevant information on the Internet. Lenat's CYC model was a breakthrough Artificial Intelligence technology which attempted to store and use basic human "commonsense knowledge" needed to pick out material related to a certain topic. However, in the end, Lenat failed to create a robot with reasoning abilities similar to humans. Eventually scientists realized that it was completely impossible to replicate the idea of embodiment in an electronic device. As humans with a physical and psychological body we not only of our bodies internal workings, but also possess the natural human instinct and innate knowledge. This characteristic is irreplaceable and cannot be man made even with the complicated and impressive technology which has become available.
Overall the age of the library is quickly dying as the human race passes into an electronically advanced age. This transformation is irreversible, and therefore people must adjust themselves to utilize these technologies like the World Wide Web. New skills must be learned, and search engines must be updated and reconfigured in order to make searches more successful. The fact that only 30% of web pages uploaded from a search will be relevant to the topic is completely unacceptable and impractical. Making web searches more effective should become the main focus of scientists and inventors in order to better cater to the human race.
Hyperlinks
Reading the first chapter of On the Internet proves how much of a mess the internet is. The part that struck me the most is the example of trying to find one specific person in a football stadium, or finding one specific book in a library. As hard as that would be (especially the football stadium), the internet is much worse. Unless you have enough keywords to describe what your topic is, you're in trouble.
Gordon Rios' summary of search engines is an amazing example of the information we're not able to access on the internet. 20-30% precision on reasonable queries? That could be a good and bad thing. Good because the 20-30% of precision is keeping out about 10-20% of crap. Bad because it's keeping out a lot of information that could assist us in writings, research, etc.
The use of hyperlinks has considerably gotten better though. Unless your visiting a page from a 14-year old on Geocities, most pages now have links that will help you with a lot. Again, there does exist some web sites that are no help at all, but it is a lot better than trying to use a search engine to find a specific topic.
Gordon Rios' summary of search engines is an amazing example of the information we're not able to access on the internet. 20-30% precision on reasonable queries? That could be a good and bad thing. Good because the 20-30% of precision is keeping out about 10-20% of crap. Bad because it's keeping out a lot of information that could assist us in writings, research, etc.
The use of hyperlinks has considerably gotten better though. Unless your visiting a page from a 14-year old on Geocities, most pages now have links that will help you with a lot. Again, there does exist some web sites that are no help at all, but it is a lot better than trying to use a search engine to find a specific topic.
Let's all give up and have a nap...
In his first chapter about hyperlinks and the organizational structure of information systems, Dreyfus emphasizes what he views as the limitations of the internet as a source of relevant data. He states that we possess commonsense knowledge by having individual thoughts and bodies, and that machines will be incapable of sorting information based on a commonsense they cannot possess. He also describes the current rather imperfect system in place for finding things on the internet. While I think he brings up many good points, and makes the reader consider things normally taken for granted, I found his first chapter very defeatist overall. He laments the lack of any decent system to organize the swarm of information on the web, and ultimately states that no such system is even possible. He criticizes the work of those like Lenat on systems that try to take a first step towards more intelligent computer retrieval systems, even though their success (on even a small level) would accomplish some of the intelligent organization Dreyfus seems to desire.
I think it's fine and well to say whether something is theoretically possible or not, but all Dreyfus seems to say is that our system is lousy, people haven't had too much success with making it better, and it probably won't ever get any better. That doesn't seem like a very constructive or useful approach to me. Granted, if it is indeed impossible to improve the system in any way it will save time by not wasting effort trying to improve it. But I think advances in computer technology and software are still on a fast enough level that it may be possible for people like Lenat to achieve breakthroughs at some point in the future. Personally I don't rule out the possibility of AIs somewhere far in the future, it would certainly be an exciting, if not altogether likely, development.
I think it's fine and well to say whether something is theoretically possible or not, but all Dreyfus seems to say is that our system is lousy, people haven't had too much success with making it better, and it probably won't ever get any better. That doesn't seem like a very constructive or useful approach to me. Granted, if it is indeed impossible to improve the system in any way it will save time by not wasting effort trying to improve it. But I think advances in computer technology and software are still on a fast enough level that it may be possible for people like Lenat to achieve breakthroughs at some point in the future. Personally I don't rule out the possibility of AIs somewhere far in the future, it would certainly be an exciting, if not altogether likely, development.
Blog #2 The Hyperlinks
People today normally use the Internet everyday. We use search engines and try to search for information, we use it to download music, play games, and many other things. When searching for information, we often get information that is not what we want. There is so much information on the Internet that it is hard for a computer to find something specific without looking through multiple websites to find what you are looking for. When a computer searches for information it is like person searching for a book at the library. We make assumptions on where to look, and what to look for. The computer does a very similar process except for humans can make assumptions because we have common sense and computers can not. This is why we can only achieve 30% on searching the Internet. The Internet is too big for the computer to find exact or specific information. We have to put a non-specific idea for the computer to search, and then we have to look through the information for the specific information we need.
I agree with the article, because computers never seem to answer the question you are searching for. Computers are not humans, and they cannot assume what we are exactly looking for. The Internet is something that has grown merely for its entertainment purposes, but it is nice and convenient when you do find what you are looking for.
I agree with the article, because computers never seem to answer the question you are searching for. Computers are not humans, and they cannot assume what we are exactly looking for. The Internet is something that has grown merely for its entertainment purposes, but it is nice and convenient when you do find what you are looking for.
Blog #2 The Hyperlink
People of todays society normally do not think about the internet and especially not the internet hyperlinks. When we go to search engines and try to search for information the results that we get are not always what we want we get many of things that tend to come up. In todays society it is even very hard for a computer to find something so specific sometimes. This is why sometimes we dont always get what we want becasue there are so many areas that a computer can pull from to get information. When a computer is searching for certain information it is like human searching a library and the computer must be programed to make certain assumptions that us humans may think are not very important. Humans can make assumptions becasue we have the ability to whereas a computer doesnt have the common sense that us humans have to make these assumptions. This is why Dreyfus says that when counting on a computer we can only achieve 30% on searching the internet. This is because there are so many differences between a human doing research and a cumputer database doing it for you. The internet is a very hard place for a computer to get specific information from such a large area without being able to make assumptions.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Blog 2: The Hype about Hyperlinks
I believe that this reading shows real truth. I can’t tell you how many times I have gone onto the internet in search of information about a speech I am doing or a paper I need to write and everything that pops up is irrelevant to what I need. One thing that really caught my eye about this topic was the idea that computers are not humans. Computers do not comprehend a question you want to answer. It is far easier to call someone who can in fact understand what they are asking. While not every person knows everything about everything; each person has there own expertise. How else would the information get on the web in the first place? In addition to this, there are millions of people on the web every day. There may be two people looking for the same material on the web, using different terms in order to find this information. The computer simply cannot understand what people want. It doesn’t know the meaning of each word. It does not understand the wants or meaning of each person. Just by putting in a word in it finds all the articles that have that one word contained in them.
The Internet is something that has grown merely for its entertainment purposes. When it comes to looking for information, let’s say on Google, you have to narrow your search engine. Even once you narrow your source that does not mean you find what you need. The Internet is something that has great interest in the recent years. However, you have to go through hoops in order to find needed information. Should we never use the internet for information? The percentage that it works is low, but the convenience of it is nice.
The Internet is something that has grown merely for its entertainment purposes. When it comes to looking for information, let’s say on Google, you have to narrow your search engine. Even once you narrow your source that does not mean you find what you need. The Internet is something that has great interest in the recent years. However, you have to go through hoops in order to find needed information. Should we never use the internet for information? The percentage that it works is low, but the convenience of it is nice.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Dreyfus I: Hyperlinks and Search Engines
Hyperlinks allow a way to link information. They allow static content to be related. In the beginning of hypertext, the novelty of this linking ability was overused. One just needs to look at web pages from around 1996 to see how bad things were in the beginning.
By now the web has matured, some sites have become recognized sources of information. Instead of links being thrown in a page at a whim, now pages and sites require a lot of planning. Companies spend millions running usability tests on their site to make sure it is well organized.
Also, there still exist some spammers and spoofers, who use keywords to boost their rankings in search engines, but any good search engine will find ways to work around this. While some search engines use bots to scour the web (i.e. Google), some make use of editor-reviewed directories (i.e. Yahoo).
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Blog 2 reading on hyperlinks
the organization of the internet, especially hperlinks isnt something one normally thinks about. It is true as when one goes to a search engine that the return results that retrieve information are certainly not perfect. So this poses the question: is it better to use the internet to retrieve relevant information or to go to the library and use the old version of data retieval? to answer this question you have to take into account the meaninfulness of the information desired. Yes you want to retrieve info but how relevant is it? due to the sheer size of available information on the net. this makes this a daunting task even for a computer. especially since a computer must attempt to search for the info it is being asked for in a similar way human being search for info in a library. in order to do this the computer/database must be programmed to make assumptions that many humans take for granted when they search for info. The computer can not imagine things like we can, nor do they possess our common sense knowledge. Thus, this is why dreyfus says the most precise we can hope to achieve on a net search is 30% due to the differences between the human searcher and the artificial intelligence (computer) searcher. The internet is just a hard place to have organization to to its large amount of information and its concept of having the AI sercher in charge of data retrieval.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
can two people ever be satisfied at the same time
It is a contrast by the two different writers that one laments the idea that technology may be the end of the book as we know it today. One looks at the book with a fondness that some may have looked at the original writings and feels as if his ‘home’ is being destroyed before his very eyes. He never thinks about how others before him may have felt the same way about books as he does about how computers will replace books. The other writer is more concerned with how enjoyable reading is and how emotions can be stirred by escaping our world and living an imaginary and possibly exciting life through our reading. The second does have concerns in his own way about how technology has hurt the reader. He sees the old ways of reading aloud as key to understanding and that so many in our country have been left behind and don’t have the ability to enjoy reading.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
"CyBorgmann": The Silent Reader
The idea that silent reading is now an intrinsic skill that was at one time a rather extraordinary skill to possess is very thought provoking. Language originated as an oral tradition that was handed down through generation. The advent of an alphabet, a technology, allowed people to write down what they were already sharing orally. Everyone has memories about times spent listening intently to a story being told because they are able to hear the words and thus engender in their minds an image that correlates with the story. It makes perfect sense, as Borgmann states, that books were originally read aloud before they were read to oneself. As people became more and more literate the development of reading silently came into wider usage. However, people today still read some texts aloud, especially when a sentence may seem particularly tricky or confusing. People today do, as Borgmann states, try and put themselves in the correct environment for reading silently. Silent reading requires a certain amount of concentration on the part of the reader, it forces the reader to be more involved with a text. Reading aloud can make the listener a passive participant and thus the contemporary reader loses a certain connection to the literature. Borgmann discusses the impact of emotion when reading silently as well as how books can offer an escape as people go about their everyday lives. Silently reading causes the reader to be emotionally involved with a text since it requires more involvement from the reader. This heightened state of involvement leaves the reader with a lasting impression, especially if the reader was emotionally involved in the text.
The Noisy Libraries of Yesteryear
Looking at the differences between how reading was approached in the Middle Ages and how we go about it today, I was amazed that such a fundamental act as reading in silence was once a rarity. By modern standards, we are all trained and taught to (eventually) treat reading large texts and novels as a private, silent act. Learning that such a display was once thought impressive, and was difficult for many people, reveals what impressive progress has occurred in people's ability to examine texts. It seems we have advanced from needing to hear something read out-loud in order to comprehend it to comprehending a work just by immediately understanding the written words in our minds. I thought Borgman's analogy to an amateur musician who must actually play music out loud in order to know what it sounds like was a useful comparison. The fact that we have become more sophisticated in this aspect of our reading also makes me wonder if it will continue to evolve in new ways. It would be interesting if at some point in the future the less common practices of today such as speed reading became a near universal ability among the literate.
I also thought this was intriguing when looking back on the way some things were written before silent reading became common. In particular, the fact that all of Plato's works were compiled as dialogues. I don't think this reflects a simpler form of composition on Plato's part, but that he knew that his work would be easier to understand when it was constructed as a actual conversation. But I think it also reveals that Plato's choice to write in this way shows that in at least some way he was writing his works knowing that they were meant to be read.
I also thought this was intriguing when looking back on the way some things were written before silent reading became common. In particular, the fact that all of Plato's works were compiled as dialogues. I don't think this reflects a simpler form of composition on Plato's part, but that he knew that his work would be easier to understand when it was constructed as a actual conversation. But I think it also reveals that Plato's choice to write in this way shows that in at least some way he was writing his works knowing that they were meant to be read.
Blog 1: Ivan Illich and Albert Borgmann Handouts
Albert Borgmann speaks of a process where one analyzes symbols into meaning. He calls this process realizing information. The ordinary person does not think of obtaining information as a process. We generally do not tell ourselves to take one step after another in order to absorb the information in front of us. Of course, these steps happen in quick succession. However, he brings these important steps to light. I found his explanation interesting. He begins at the mechanical areas where one has to scan the page, single out the words, and converte these words to sounds. Besides the mechanical work, he states comprehension is the next step for assimilating the information. The reader's comprehension is reflected by his or her intellect. Even thought his explanations seemed obvious while reading them, I did not give any thought to them before the article.
I have never really thought about the alphabet and books being technology due to the wide arrange of technology our generation has. We seem to take for granted the great technology the past has given us and books and the alphabet has to be one of the greatest if not the greatest technology one person can have. It was interesting to see the different perspectives and viewpoints that both authors gave us and for me atleast it really opened my eyes because i never looked at books and the alphabet to be considered a piece of technology. People in our society seem to think that books and the alphabet are simple since we have been taught the alphabet so early in our lives and we are given books to read at such a young age that we see them and something plain and dull in our lives because we have so many new things. People tend to think that technology is an extremely complex piece of equipment that affects our daily lives. But if one thinks about it, to come up with books and the alphabet took many many years and trials that to people from the past, books and the alphabet was a huge achievement.
No Title
I have never really thought of books or even the alphabet as technology. I just took it all for granted. Of course now that I think about it, the use of books has enabled us to make numerous advancements for every aspect of life. Borgmann says quite simply that writing provides information about reality and reading is really comprehending. I found it hard to understand Borgmann's last paragraph on page 92. It seemed to me that he is telling us that a person who is illiterate can never fully comprehend the world in which he or she lives. I believe that Borgmann is not giving illiterate people enough credit. Illiterate people are not dumb, they can still understand the world through interaction and examination. There is more than one way to understand something that does not include looking it up in a book. It was amazing to see the extensive detail that Illich put into our assigned reading. It was interesting to see how Illich unfolded the history of the alphabet and the book. Today many people take books for granted and even how books are organized. I couldn't even imagine a world without these advancements in our communication.
Blog # 1Borgmann and Illich Chapter
Borgmann provides readers an interesting and intuitive out look on the importance of the written word. These chapters emphasize the power of language not only to inspire, but also to allow for seemingly unreachable goals and aspirations to become a viable reality. Borgmann views the book as a crucial passage for unorganized, incomprehensible ideas to be conveyed logically and effectively to the public. Books encompass forms of "instructions" for life or how to do something according to Borgmann. However, human beings must use these literary devices to put these plans into action. The written word can be interpreted differently depending on the person, and reactivity to literature is a personal responsibility. Borgmann also presents written language as a form of technology due to its continuous improvement and refinement, and how it has expanded and enriched human culture. The written word can be broken down, analyzed, and translated. Through the centuries word has evolved from primarily being read aloud to being a private and silent practice. Intelligence is required to be able to determine the underlying meaning behind the printed page.
While Borgmann provides a more abstract passage on the deep meaning behind literature, Illich takes a more direst approach. Illich focuses on tracking developments and new technologies which have been produced throughout the existence of mankind. Beginning with the creation of the Phoenician alphabet to the Greeks prefection of the alphabet into the modern form. Also covered in these chapters are the the introduction of the stylus, parchment by the Egyptians, ink, wax tablets, and the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg and their specific effects on writing. Illich describes how Hugh's masterpiece Didascalicon caused the transformation from oral to silent reading. Beginning with the Bible, literature continues to evolve as the editing process, the glossary, the index, use of titles, summaries, and quotations making book easier for the public to read. Eventually authors began to create their own work rather than editing works of previous generations. Lastly the portable book and a mechanical way of producing text would prove to be the most influential inventions catalyzing modern literature.
While Borgmann provides a more abstract passage on the deep meaning behind literature, Illich takes a more direst approach. Illich focuses on tracking developments and new technologies which have been produced throughout the existence of mankind. Beginning with the creation of the Phoenician alphabet to the Greeks prefection of the alphabet into the modern form. Also covered in these chapters are the the introduction of the stylus, parchment by the Egyptians, ink, wax tablets, and the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg and their specific effects on writing. Illich describes how Hugh's masterpiece Didascalicon caused the transformation from oral to silent reading. Beginning with the Bible, literature continues to evolve as the editing process, the glossary, the index, use of titles, summaries, and quotations making book easier for the public to read. Eventually authors began to create their own work rather than editing works of previous generations. Lastly the portable book and a mechanical way of producing text would prove to be the most influential inventions catalyzing modern literature.
Silent Understanding (Blog #1)
Both Borgmann's Ivan Illich's study book/text development was fascinating; especially the subtle progression from reading text aloud to silent reading. It never ocurred to me that reading silently was an impressive skill. Borgmann reports that St. Augustine himself was impressed by St. Ambrose's ability to read text to himself:
"...when he was reading, his eyes were led across the pages and his heart uncovered insight; his voice and tongue however, were silent" (90).
It is important to understand how differently texts were composed and copied during Augustine's time to understand his amazement. Borgmann and Illich note that spellling, grammar and punctuation were not formalized. Quotations were especially difficult to read. Styles like the one I employed above did not become formalized for quite some time. It would take a keen and perceptive mind to understand a text without the aid of inflection and vocal rhythm. Spoken language and the written word can often differ markedly. For example, in early China (and most likely today), dialects differed markedly, but the people could communicate universally with the written word. In short, the connection between spoken and written language cannot be taken for granted.
Illich, moreso than Borgmann, identifies the changes in this rather informal method of text composition and copying during the Middle Ages as a technological advancement. For me, this was the greatest revelation of the readings. As a culture, we tend to think of technological advancements in purely scientific, almost electronic terms. But changes in language and writing that facilitate communication should be considered new "technology" as well. Just as in the sciences, language and language changes, are highly contentious subjects. The post-colonialist/post-modern Irish writer Brian Friel explored the importance of language change and alteration in much of his work, for example. The changes Illich discussed were smaller, but no less impacting.
The one that fascinated me most was the development of refernecing and the shift to silent reading. When silent reading became the norm, Illich interestingly points out, increasingly became repertories "of the author's thought" and less a "record of the author's speech" (95). This change helped change the purpose of a book or text in the mind of readers. It became a "storage room" of knowledge to be mined rather than an "adventuresome pilgrimage" (Illich 95). Whether this was an unfortunate change, or a complete one, is left up to the individual to decide.
The second one I found highly interesting is connected with teh first. Illich pointed out that scholars like Abelard and Peter Lombard began to add more personal comment to texts and organize them in a more readily accesible fashion. It is fascinating that silent reading is so connected with increasing indvidualism. Authors and audience alike were less dependent on each other and more interested in developing their own understanding of a text.
The devlopment of better referencing/organizing systems particularly interests me. In my own life time, with the explosion of the internet, search engines have become tremendously more advanced, so much so that "google" has become a verb. It not only shows the changing nature of language and text, but of the categorization of information. Things that might take hours to uncover, no matter how mundane, like discovering who played Merlin Jones in the 1960s Disney films, are seconds from our fingertips. We can even search for specific words in a text with the "ctrl+f" function.
What do all these changes mean for people? Maybe more knowledge, perhaps more independence, but there is the possibility it is damaging as well. By losing the wonder, and sense of mystery that used to accompany the writings of great authors, and treating their wisdom as a tool, maybe we lost an important path to deeper understanding. Maybe the long, and often grueling, quest to uncover answers from a text, including having it read aloud, was part of the process of acquiring wisdom.
...And for all those interested, Tommy Kirk played the title character in the Merlin Jones films.
Iris
"...when he was reading, his eyes were led across the pages and his heart uncovered insight; his voice and tongue however, were silent" (90).
It is important to understand how differently texts were composed and copied during Augustine's time to understand his amazement. Borgmann and Illich note that spellling, grammar and punctuation were not formalized. Quotations were especially difficult to read. Styles like the one I employed above did not become formalized for quite some time. It would take a keen and perceptive mind to understand a text without the aid of inflection and vocal rhythm. Spoken language and the written word can often differ markedly. For example, in early China (and most likely today), dialects differed markedly, but the people could communicate universally with the written word. In short, the connection between spoken and written language cannot be taken for granted.
Illich, moreso than Borgmann, identifies the changes in this rather informal method of text composition and copying during the Middle Ages as a technological advancement. For me, this was the greatest revelation of the readings. As a culture, we tend to think of technological advancements in purely scientific, almost electronic terms. But changes in language and writing that facilitate communication should be considered new "technology" as well. Just as in the sciences, language and language changes, are highly contentious subjects. The post-colonialist/post-modern Irish writer Brian Friel explored the importance of language change and alteration in much of his work, for example. The changes Illich discussed were smaller, but no less impacting.
The one that fascinated me most was the development of refernecing and the shift to silent reading. When silent reading became the norm, Illich interestingly points out, increasingly became repertories "of the author's thought" and less a "record of the author's speech" (95). This change helped change the purpose of a book or text in the mind of readers. It became a "storage room" of knowledge to be mined rather than an "adventuresome pilgrimage" (Illich 95). Whether this was an unfortunate change, or a complete one, is left up to the individual to decide.
The second one I found highly interesting is connected with teh first. Illich pointed out that scholars like Abelard and Peter Lombard began to add more personal comment to texts and organize them in a more readily accesible fashion. It is fascinating that silent reading is so connected with increasing indvidualism. Authors and audience alike were less dependent on each other and more interested in developing their own understanding of a text.
The devlopment of better referencing/organizing systems particularly interests me. In my own life time, with the explosion of the internet, search engines have become tremendously more advanced, so much so that "google" has become a verb. It not only shows the changing nature of language and text, but of the categorization of information. Things that might take hours to uncover, no matter how mundane, like discovering who played Merlin Jones in the 1960s Disney films, are seconds from our fingertips. We can even search for specific words in a text with the "ctrl+f" function.
What do all these changes mean for people? Maybe more knowledge, perhaps more independence, but there is the possibility it is damaging as well. By losing the wonder, and sense of mystery that used to accompany the writings of great authors, and treating their wisdom as a tool, maybe we lost an important path to deeper understanding. Maybe the long, and often grueling, quest to uncover answers from a text, including having it read aloud, was part of the process of acquiring wisdom.
...And for all those interested, Tommy Kirk played the title character in the Merlin Jones films.
Iris
Blog 1 Borgman & Illich Readings
The alphabet is actually considered technology. People probably were excited to learn about this when it was first invented. The alphabet must have taken a while to understand when it became a new technology. With the different sounds the letters make, the alphabet must have been a very difficult thing to understand. There is a lot more technology today, and it seems to be a lot easier but it makes us more lazy. Due to the alphabet, life has become a lot easier.
Books are also considered technology. People use to tell the stories aloud, and they were just passed on from person to person. Reading and writing have had many changes. Some changes in books are divisions, changes in page layout, changes in typography, organization, and reference works. There have been so many advancements in technology, that it is easy to see how technology effects our lives. Many of us do not even use pen's and paper to write.
We talk, write, play, and many other things on computers. Our cell phones let us talk to whoever whenever and they act as our alarm clocks, calenders, camera's, and many other things. The old technology of pen and paper has been replaced with the new. But the old form is still technology. It is the basis of all technology we have today.
Books are also considered technology. People use to tell the stories aloud, and they were just passed on from person to person. Reading and writing have had many changes. Some changes in books are divisions, changes in page layout, changes in typography, organization, and reference works. There have been so many advancements in technology, that it is easy to see how technology effects our lives. Many of us do not even use pen's and paper to write.
We talk, write, play, and many other things on computers. Our cell phones let us talk to whoever whenever and they act as our alarm clocks, calenders, camera's, and many other things. The old technology of pen and paper has been replaced with the new. But the old form is still technology. It is the basis of all technology we have today.
Evolution of books
Originally, books were a record of an author's speech. As a result, books would be read aloud and understood verbally.
The first development in book technology was divisions. For the first time, the text was divided into paragraphs. Groups of paragraphs were given a chapter title. Also, books began to be numbered by chapter and verse.
A second development was changes in page layout. In the early Middle Ages, editors and scribes would write notes in the margins of a book. This practice was superceded by organizing the book into a dominant text and a smaller commentary.
A third development was changes in typography. To help distinguish important parts of the page, keywords were underlined with red lines. Primitive quotation marks were also used. Along side, references to the source of the quotation was given. Scribes also began to calculate letter size.
A fourth development was topic order. In the past, the commentator would follow the order of the text used. Authors began providing the "ordinatio" or order in which topics were discussed. Thus, the book had become a representation of a thought-through argument.
A fifth development was organization. Once authors began determining the order the book would go in, they developed a specific organization to each chapter. An introduction would state what question the chapter would discuss. A list of arguments would be placed in a numerical sequence. A rhetorical question would follow the arguments. An "auctoritas" or quote expressing doubt would follow the rhetorical question. Finally, the author would respond with a "responsio" to the objections.
Finally, a sixth development was reference works. Books began to be organized by alphabetization of topics and also the new table of contents. Entire collections of books were organized by indices, library inventories, and concordances.
Blog 1
To think that the alphabet is actually a technology is mind-blowing. I can only imagine what people thought about it in their time period. It's amazing to see how much has changed since that time when reading, listening, and speaking were "the things to do." With the alphabet being a new technology, it must have taken a while to understand it. With the different sounds the letters "gh" make with words such as rouGH and GHost, the alphabet was a very difficult thing to understand. Technology seems to be a lot easier today, as inventions such as an IPod or computer may take a day or two to learn/operate. Life has become a lot easier...
New technology is constantly being discovered and evolving. To me it is overlooked that the alphabet is a technology and that reading and writing has evolved through the centuries. Its amazing reading has evolved from reading aloud to reading silently and until medieval times one read out loud. This shows howt technology has evolved. Withought obtaining this skill and using the technology to its fullest, one would have a hard time understanding the world and its reality. This technology is essential to our well being
Blog #1
It's easy to see from these two pieces that the advancements within writing, books, and even writing utensil's have been over looked and not considered to be great advancements within technology. When in fact they were very needed advancements because they improved communication between long distances and let people in the future know of what people within the past thought and went through during their lives. Without the advancements of technology in this area we would not know much about our past, and history would almost certainly be non-existent. The development of the book must be viewed as technology because the ideas of past people were written down and further enhanced by more modern day readers therefore improving technology. Even alphabetization is an advancement within technology do to the speed and efficiency that has developed in finding the things that you want to read about more quickly. With these technologies and the improving of them over years the human life has became easier and much more effective.
Borgman & Illich Readings
To read is to comprehend; therefore, gaining knowledge or revealing our lack of. It always amazes me to learn something new. A catchy phrase that otherwise I would not have known. i.e. " fruit flies like bananas, time flies like an arrow" . One I had not heard before. Just as important is comprehension, the fact that our interpretations are varied. For me, reading has always been my favorite past time. When I had my children I read aloud to them from conception, infancy, until they were able to read themselves. Then it became a game. They to0 were challenged to add inflection, excited voices & make believe voices. Then surpassing to gain their own knowledge. That leading to discussions on what they learned. Then sparking debates of interpretation. So to have this forum of communication has been times for me that I can reflect upon, rejoicing that they were moments in time. Now in the present to go a step further and communicate via e-mail, blogs. To have conversations with people you otherwise would not have had the chance of meeting to express your opnions or interpretations with. But, when it comes right down to it, the written word is where it begins, how it is translated, and now the countless medias in which it can be expressed... now that's amazing.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Borgmann Readings
Both of these readings reflect the technology that us humans never really thought would ever be considered technology. Humans never would have thought that the simple thing as writing with ink on paper would ever be technology when really it was a very important form of technology. This form of technology let us have a new form of communication between one another. Rather then just having the traditonal communication of talking and having smoke signals the writing allowed people to communicate through letters. This made communication much more efficient and people did not have to see the person face to face to communicate. This technology is something that we should really appreciate for the simple fact that is helped us so much.
Blog 1 on Borgmann and Illich
I think these two readings reveal a technology many of us take for granted and may not even realize is a technology. The invention of letters, words, all the way up to the book was a major advancement of the human condition. It gave humans a way to communicate at a new level, not only could we communicate with more individuals but this technology allowed us to communicate with the future. Historical philosophers and other writers I bet never could have imagined their works would be read so far into the distant future to them. I'm sure Aristotle, Plato, the Bible writers, this country's forefathers, or Charles Darwin never thought audiences would read their ideas so long after their death had passed. Letters, words, books gave these writers a way to do this and in doing so leaving their mark on the rest of humanity that they outherwise would have been incapable of doing. With the invention of letters, words, and then books, humanity was changed forever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)