Journal 11

While discussing Lyotard we went into a discussion about the inevetibility that one day our sun will die and all that we know will be lost. So what's the point of moving forward and creating new things; learning and achieving; establishing relationships and leaving a legacy? Why do all of this when one day it will all be forgotten? My answer is simple: Why do you need a reason? If we need a purpose for everything we do, what would be the point of concerning ourselves with something that's going to happen in about four billion years? How do we know that humanity will still exist by then? This whole idea seems to imply that our lives have some specific purpose, however there is no way to prove such a claim. In fact, we discussed the unanswerable questions that philosophers have asked for centuries: Immortality, God and the meaning of life. None of these will be answered because they are ultimate questions typically based on one's faith. There's appears to be no real purpose for asking questions that can't be answered, but people do it anyway and there's nothing wrong with that. People spend their lives trying to establish their own worth to the world. People create their own purpose and their reasons are typically unique. So the only truly pointless thing you can do with your life is waste it by worrying about something as inevitable as the death of the sun. Leave that concern for a generation that has the tools to solve it. We can't do anything about it now so we'll have to leave that in natures hands for the moment. Until then, fulfill what you feel to be your purpose.

Journal 10

In class we watched an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where the character Data, an android, faced a trial to prove that he was more than just property. The man accusing him of being nothing more than property because wanted him to be taken apart so that he could study him and make more like him, but unfortunately for him he was not entirely prepared for the procedure. He was not sure that he would discover anything so Data refused to undergo the procedure because it was not worth being dismantled if there was no guarentee of an advancement. The trial went on to attempt to prove that Data wasn't a person and didn't deserve the same rights, but his captain won the case by baffling the scientist with questions on what truly makes a person. I agree that Data deserved the same rights and that he is a living thing like us. He's not a human, but that doesn't mean he's not real. Data exhibited many aspects of humanity that he had clearly learned through experience. He is the ideal form of artificial intelligence that has a wide database as well as a capability to learn new things. His limitations are still evident, but all living things start with limitations. Data's character is not too different than anyone else. His physical makeup is different, but he values his individuality just as many of us do.

Journal 9

In a class discussion on virtual reality, we viewed the differences between an online picture of a wren's nest and an actual one that we passed around the classroom. The inferiorities of only viewing the virtual version quickly become evident while holding the actual nest in your hands. While looking at the actual nest, one can see the unique textures and complexities missed by the computer. The internet becomes a barrier between the person and the nest making it much harder to identify its true characteristics. Having the item present effects more than just sight, but all of our senses; we can feel, smell it, touch it, or taste it (Although in class I was merely making a point. I had no intention of eating mothballs. Thanks for you concern anyway.) My point was simply that with more senses being stimulated, one better recognizes an item as a part of reality. The internet picture can only partially satisfy one of our senses whereas the actual nest satisfies them all.

Steven Spielberg's A.I.

This past friday in the class, we watched Steven Spielberg's movie, Articial Intelligence. This was the first time I view this film and I think that it was interesting. Even though the movie shows that there's a possibility of A.I. existing in the future, the movie also points out many reasons why we can't fully achieved the concept of A.I. One reason is that despite the robots in the movie looking as realistic as humans, they can't never age like actual humans which an essential part of the lives. I remember in one scene when the robot boy asked the human mother how long she will be for alive. And then she response saying that she will be alive for 50 more years. The movie also pointed that A.I. will never achieved the characteristics of humans because they don't have digestive systems or experience being of hungary from food. I remember in one scene when the biological human boy challenged the robot boy in a eating contest at the dinner table,the robot boy started to malfunction as he was eating the collard greens. I was laughing when the techinican told robot boy that eating isn't for robots. Finally, the movie showed the A.I. can't fully achieved the idea of human free will and common sense. I remember in one scene when the biological human boy told the robot boy to cut his mother hair with the scioors while she was sleeping saying that she will be happy. But any idiot with common sense will know if you come to someone's bed while they are sleeping and they wake up, that person will think you going to kill them with the scisoors.

Journal 11

In Lyotard's essay, Can Thought Go On Without A Body?, he looks at several different views on artificial intelligence, including the thoughts of Dreyfus. In one part, Dreyfus argues that humans don't think based on binary code and isn't based soley on units of information. Humans think hypothetically and intuitively. Artificial intelligence can only think based on what is programmed into them and what is logical and reasonable based on facts. They must analyze data and base information on facts alone rather than information that could be considered ambiguous.
Dreyfus also points out that humans are able to understand what is important and what is unimportant without going into several exhausting trials be examining different series of information. Machines do not have the ability to reflect on information and decide which is important and which can be discarded until they have gone through all of the possible outcomes.

Journal 10

When watching the Star Trek episode is was interesting to see the trial held to decide whether the robot should have the same rights as the humans based on whether or not the robot contained human qualities. Artificial intelligence is a topic that can be widely discussed. Can thought go on without a body? Can you actually recreate human feelings and thoughts? I don't believe you can. I believe that you can create smart computers that can operate different complex functions, but you can't create feelings in a machine. In order for a machine to process something that a human may decide based on feeling, the computer would have to analyze the data, measure the different probabilities and make a decision based on logic and reason that has been installed in them. They are unable to reflect, but rather they have to reason everything. Just as in the episode of Star Trek, when the group was playing poker, the robot had to analyze the information and was thrown off by the poker face because he played the odds based on reasoning rather than the ability to lie or fool the other players.

Journal 9

In class we have been discussing the implications of a virtual reality. Virtual reality in reference to video games is just a substitute for being able to do the actual thing. Most people enjoy virtual video games because it allows them to feel like they can do something through the video game that they wouldn't be able to do otherwise. For example, a Wii Sports game gives people the ability to feel like they are actually playing tennis or are actually in a boxing match, when in reality, they may not be able to do either. The implications of these virtual reality games, though, can deter from people from actually getting out and trying these thing because they feel like they can actually enjoy them from the comfort of their living room.
Seeing something on a television, computer screen, or video game will never compare to the actual experiencing of an activity or object. For example, in class when we looked at the actual wren nest and the picture of the wren's nest on the computer screen, it is easy to understand the difference. With the actual nest, you could look at it from different angles, feel the textures and small the smells, whereas with the internet version, you think you are experiencing it, but you can only see it from one angle, can't smell it and can't touch it or feel it.

Artificial Intelligence

In class we have recently been watching the movie artificial intelligence. In the movie the world supplies are running low because of global warming and therefore birth licenses need to issued in order to have a baby. Since many people want to have children, an institution decided that they were going to create a robot child that is capable of loving the parents. When the institution decided this a working questioned the company stating if the child could truly love the parents could the parents truly love the child. This question was not answered and the child was created. A couple whose kid was dying and the doctors said there was no hope of living was given the opportunity to have a robot child. The parents decided that they wanted this opportunity. However, this turned bad when the dying son made a miraculous recovery. The robot child wanted to be loved more than his mom actually did so he listened to her real son and ended up hurting the mom. The robot also did not know that he was hurting the real son when he feel into the pool with him. The look at the future is expressed in a pessimistic view. In the movie the father never really accepted the robot as his own son. The mother seemed to generally care for robot; however, when things got hard she was going to get rid of him. This symbolizes that the world could not generally care for something that is not actually human. The robot which is suppose to resemble a human, when it becomes a problem is thrown away like a piece of garbage.

Movie: A.I.

From watching the movie in class the other day there are many issues or problems that come to my mind in regards to A.I. Firstly, from the movies point of view our future of A.I. is pessimistic. The idea of building a robot to love and to have all the emotions of a human “sounds” like a good idea, but it really isn’t. There are many reasons why A.I. is just a bad idea. To start off you can not build a robot to be exactly like a human being no matter how much you get it to look like a human being. This can be seen in the movie when they create David, a robot kid. David looks real and feels real, but he can’t eat and he almost drowns Martin because he didn’t know any better. Another issue that I have with A.I. is when you create a robot to be a five year old, does that mean they stay that age for the rest of their lives?? Robots can not grow up like normal human beings do and they certainly do not die like humans do, they could live forever if their system works correctly. This idea of learning and growing is absent with robots and in my mind can not be recreated because of how complex the brain is. Does the future of our world really consist of robots that do all the work for humans, so they can slack off and relax?? This to me does not appear to be a good direction and could create many problems.

Blog 11

In class we started to watch the movie Artificial Intelligence. This movie raises the question of when does a machine become human. In the movie the couple treats their robot son as a real son until their biological son returns. Their biological son treats the robot son as a toy. I think in the movie the robot son is not treated as he should be. The mother leaves him in the woods for him to vend for himself. Even though the robot child loves her.
In the Bible God gave humans souls and free will and intellect. That is the criteria for a human being. Yet, the consider a robot a human how can we tell if it has a soul if us humans cant tell if we have souls. They cant be seen by us. Some of the robots in the movie seem to have free will.
I believe at a certain point a machine can be considered humans. If they have feelings and can think for themselves they deserve to be treated as a human being.

Blog 10

Lyotard tried to answer the question, how can thought go on without a body? Lyotard suggest artificial intelligence to fix this problem. He suggest that A.I. is a way for humans to preserver their thoughts and memories after the sun explodes. Lyotard talked about how all human achievements are pointless due to the fact that one day the human race will end because of the death of the sun. This type of thinking that human achievement is irrelevant is not plausible. It is not realistic humans can not comprehend how long the billions of years are until the end of the world. His idea of saving human achievements in A.I. is a reasonably good idea. This will help ensure that if their is future life that they know our technology and our achievements.

Blog 9 : Star Trek / Data

The Star Trek episode we watched the other day brought about many questions that are very difficult to provide answers for. Throughout the episode they were arguing about whether or not the android Data, was indeed human. This question will only further complicate itself if we continue to strive for technology that flawlessly mimics the human experience. I think the best example of this problem is the terminology the characters use to refer to Data. The commander refers to Data as a ‘him,’ while the other man refers to Data as ‘it.’ If we do in fact come up with certain technology that mimics the human experience as close as they want, how will we know who is human, and who is in fact technology? The thought of AI is quite intriguing, but I can’t force myself to look at Data in the same fashion as I would look at a human being. Data is a machine if you ask me. I can’t view something composed of bones, a soul, and a heart on the same level as something made up of wires, and switchboards. I think the androids should be treated respectfully and be seen as a remarkable creation, but I just can’t see one of them ever truly mimicking a human in the way that AI supporters are hoping for.

Journal 11: The "Promise" of A.I.

How promising is the future that Lyotard presented to us in his chapter concerning the question: "Can Thought Go on Without a Body?". From the perspective of myself and I would imagine many others, the future isn't as grim as Lyotard's chapter presents. Yes, the eventual termination of life on this earth is inevitable...not only the individual sense, but the collective sense as well. Human life will not continue indefinitely and neither will our many material and intellectual achievements. For some, this idea places things a whole new light...After all, if we are going to all cease to exist anyway,what is our existence worth? What is the purpose of what we are doing, where we are going...if it will someday never exist? Or worse yet, if there is a future species after us who will never know what mankind had achieved. It is quite tempting to see the futility in it all.
Yet one thing seems to be a plausible solution according to this chapter...A.I, or artificial intelligence, by which humans could encapsulate their achievements and knowledge in a device that could sustain itself long after we have ceased to exist. The basic question is "How can we make thought without a body possible?" Lyotard suggests creating new "hardware" to support our cultural "software". In other words, we need to separate intelligence apart from matter and preserve it.
A.I. will then, presumably extend the limits of what will carry on after us. However, I want to raise the question: What will the future beings after us, if there be any, see us as? Will they truly see the reality of what we really were? If we were to contain the perfect version of ourselves, our greatest achievements, for example, would these future beings know that we were also capable of destroying innocent lives, or horrific deeds too numerable to mention? Would these future species understand that humans were creatures capable of error and underachieving? These questions and many others raise ethical concerns as well. How are we to decide who or what gets preserved in this new manner? What about those who cannot afford such methods of preservation?
Why does it really matter if those after our existence know about us? Are we that prideful to think that life cannot go on after us unless someone knew that we existed? Yes, our achievements have been many. Yes, our existence has left its mark on earth (and space on some occasions) whereby our species has arguably had one of the great impacts on the history of the universe. Yet, we are only man. We are a creature capable of death, individual and collective. Our existence matters for now and throughout human history. There is not futility in living in the moment, even if our species and achievements will one day vanish into thin air. Our lives have deep meaning and purpose, even for living in the present moment and the relative nearness of our human past and future.
Yet we do not know the achievements of those who will come after us, do we? What makes the knowledge of our existence more important than theirs? I cannot say entirely where I fall concerning my opinion on this issue, but these are the many issues which came to mind during class today.

Data: a robot or a human?

Last Tuesday, we were watching an episode from the hit TV show Star Trek: The Next Generation. The episode is about the cyborg, Data who is order by the Federation to be a subject for a research which may take artitical intelligence to a difficult. But problem is that this might lead to the termination of Data. The captain of the ship was angry about this decision because he views Data as a human despite him being a cyborg. This decision about Data being either human or cyborg eventually went to trial. During the trial, both the prosecutor and defendant good points. The prosecutor made several points stating the data can be turn off with a switch and did not have flesh and bones. The Defendant made a strong point that Data have the power of free will despite being program to do so. The defendant and the prosecutor showed they have a personal relationship with Data as if he was a actual human.

Are Humans Human?

In class we watched two movies that I would like to tie together to make a point that it could one day be impossible to take a person and define them as human? In the movie Clay when a person was scheduled to die their essence was incorporated into a technological device. I wanted to know if when the person was transferred into a technological device if they are still considered human? It seems in the movie Clay the people that were incorporated could me at all places at all times. This seems like it would be great. However, when Clay was mad at his deceased wife he turned her off. She was transformed into the essence of a person then an actual person.
In the television series Star Trek in the episode What Makes A Man the question of Datas rights as a man hood was placed into question. The prosecution turned off Data like a piece of machinery. This is the same thing that happened to the wife in the Clay episode.
Would it then be impossible to take a classify what is a person and what is a machine?

Data and his Rights

Is Data considered to be a robot or a human meaning? The question of the rights when it comes to artificial intelligence is a controversial one. Some may think of Data as a human, while others may see him as a robot. The reasoning behind ones decisions is based on the definition of what a robot or human is and mainly their interaction with it. For example in the episode of Star Trek that we watched in class one can see that the interaction and personal relationships that Captain Picard and Ricker had with Data influenced their thoughts about him. The emotional attachment that was created with Data made him appear to be more like a human and therefore they believed he had the right to refuse the experimentation. The Doctor Lady and the guy that wanted to do the tests on Data did not share the same interaction and personal involvement with him and therefore saw him as a robot. I believe this debate should have been made before they even began to develop robots. They need to have guidelines laid out. If you are going to create a robot that looks, talks, interacts, and almost thinks like a human then they should get the same rights as humans. Even though Data’s memory and ability to think is computer-like it seemed from the episode that he was beginning to think on his own and make decisions as we humans do. At the end he was talking with Ricker and thanked him for what he did and told him that it was because of him he doesn’t have to leave the Star Fleet. Just because Data is a robot and made artificially does that mean that we can treat him like a prisoner and turn him on and off or experiment on him?? For me I think this is obvious and everyone should be treated equally even if he is a robot.

What is a human being?

In class recently we watched Star Trek: Then Next Generation because different concepts that we have been discussing in class appeared in the television series. In this episode, Data an android that works on the spaceship enterprise essentially is told by command that he has no rights. The captain and the other members of the enterprise argue that Data does in fact have rights equivalent to a human even though he is a machine. Now this argument seems like something that is far fetched and never will materialize. However, with numerous people working to achieve artificial intelligence we can not rule the possibility that we will face this problem in the future. The question that needs to be addressed is what makes a person human? This question has been redefined numerous times throughout the ages. In America before the civil war African Americans were thought as property and therefore subhuman. In Germany this thought occurred during the time of Hitler when Jews were disposed of like garbage. However, none of these concepts are actually true despite how much people thought of African Americans as their property or Jews as trash they are still human and therefore endowed with certain rights. But again what makes us human? Is it our anatomy, our DNA, our thought process, or our emotions? It is hard to define a person based on their anatomy. Not all people have the same physical features…some people are born without hands, arms, sights. Are these people human? Some people have more than 23 chromosomes. Some DNA is altered and people can have defects where they have 23 and a ½ chromosomes. As far as our thought process not all people think the same way and there is differing degrees of thought. As far as emotions are concerned, people do not always show the same emotions to every experience. I also recall a medical documentary in which a girl in elementary school could not smile or frown. Although she may have been happy no one could tell. This became obvious when the DJ at the party asked why she was not happy and smiling like her sister. As far as I am concerned it is hard to discern what can be classified as a human being and given rights. So should not everything that has thought be treated as if it has some intrinsic value and is not just a mean to an ends?

Journal 10: Star Trek: What Makes a Human Being?

Star Trek: The Next Generation brings to light many questions about humans in relation to technology, especially concerning the android, Data. The Episode we saw, "The Measure of a Man", made me realize that the more human-like we make our technology to be, the more difficult it will become to distinguish between what is real and what is not. This is what Borgmann had to say throughout much of his work...finding a balance between information and reality. Unfortunately, the more inundated we are with near-copies of reality, the more confusing it will be to try and distinguish between what is real and what isn't. Reality will seem "too heavy" to be dealt with in all its entirety.
Data, in the Star Trek episode, is not supposed to have any emotion, but when questioned about his possessions, it seems that things and people really mean something to him. There was even a different in the Primary Commander calling Data "him", while the antagonist called Data "it", a "machine". Where do the boundaries lie when something looks and acts just like a human being, but really isn't on the inside? Our head might realize that Data is not human, but our heart might have a harder time understanding this.
Humans being s are endowed with souls at the moment of their conception, something that machines cannot contain. Data was created by a genius human being, who does not have this power to grant a soul. Data is limited to the abilities and will of his creator, and limited by what can and cannot be possibly programed into him. Yes, human beings are a type of biological "machine", but we are more than that. We are different from every species of the animal kingdom, and we are definitely unique from machinery. Human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, and they are given a soul and a possible share in God's divine life. This is something that androids are lacking.
Although the arguments made in the courtroom about giving Data the same rights as a human being, I cannot bring myself to see Data in this manner. Being able to merely imitate human beings through programming does not make the cut in determining whether someone is human or nonhuman. Data could merely be adjusting to the environment around him everyday, and begins to imitate emotional responses he finds in humans.
Data does have the ability to reflect on his own existence and see that he is different from those around him. Data has self awareness. This does not, however, make him an independent being, capable of rational thought. How do we know for sure that Data is having rational thought? It seems that we cannot get entirely acquainted with the complex processes that occurs every second in Data's mind. It is too much for us to fathom.
We do have to be careful how we treat androids, as they resemble human beings quite closely. The way we begin to treat androids may begin to be reflected in the way we treat each other, so we should continue to treat them with respect...not only for their sake, but for ours. Androids, though seemingly devoid of emotion deserve the respect of being incredible achievements of humanity, a reflection of how far we have come in the technological world. The only caution is in how we use them and treat them.

Distance learning is and always will be inferior to traditional learning

Before Spring Break, we watched a video in class which represents a fine example why distance learning will never completely replace traditional learning. The video was about the Automatic Professor Machine presented his virtual college/online class like it was a real college that has a traditional learning format. He mentioned that this college will eliminated that the traditional learning ideas of department builing and faculty. And that your home computer is supposed to represent everything what a traditional learning institution would offer. I remember towards the end of video that the virtual college even have their own mascot just like traditionl learning institution. He also said that his virtual college's cost of tutition will be the same as the average school that is set in a tradtional learning environment. The idea that this virtual school will lead to distance learning completely eliminating traditional learning is riduclous because distance learning can never replace the experience what you get from a tradtional learning enivornment. It is stupid to think that being on a computer all day can replace the wonderful experience of college life such as Fratnetry parties, sporting events, etc.

Blog 9

The discussion we had in class this week after seeing the birds nest really made me think. Noticing the difference between the birds nest we saw in class and the pictures of it on the Internet made me realize how these two things are the same yet totally different. This was a perfect example of Borgmann's idea of information as reality. I saw the picture of the birds nest on the Internet but I did not see the birds nest until I saw it in the plastic container. The real birds nest was an example of natural information. This example of seeing the birds nest in class shows how our society is distant from our natural environment. Seeing the nest on the Internet did not bring it justice. The picture on the internet does not allow you to see all the details in this piece of natural information.

Clay Movie

As I have thought more and more about that clay movie I feel like I know why that old man wanted to die. He couldn't get away from his past. He saw his dead wife everyday, and experienced what his younger life was like every night. The old man was not allowed the opportunity to grieve properly. His wife was dead, for all intensive purposes, but he was still experiencing her through the computer simulations. How terrible is that that the woman you love is still there but you cant truly feel her or kiss her. For me that would be a world of torture and pain. And knowing that one day he would or could be the cause of that pain for some one else was too much for him to bare. It reminds me of an old Diamond Rio song called "One More Day." The last line of the that song exemplifies what this post is about.

"Leave me wishing still, for one more day...with you"

Bodies Exhibit - My experience

I recently went to visit the Bodies exhibit at the Museum Center in Cincinnati with some friends of mine. When we arrived we were told that it would take us about two hours to view the entire exhibit and that of course all the bodies and organs where from real people. But it only took us an hour to complete the entire tour. When we reached the end I was shocked to realize it had only taken us that long and later I contemplated that thought. Why had it only taken us an hour? Where we jaded? Over exposed to blood and gory through movies, television, or the internet that those cleaned up blood-less bodies looked simply boring? As I think back on the tour I wish I would have taken more time to examine the bodies. It just didn't hit me that we were actually looking and someone. That had been a person, with a mom and a dad, maybe kids, who knows. And I'm not attacking the exhibit at all, thought it was fantastic, and as long as the bodies were obtained legally, then I have no problem. I just seemed as if the whole group was disintrested. That the bodies weren't exciting enough. I believe that was due to mostly to modern technology and the fact that we had seen all this stuff before, but in a more exciting setting. So seeing the bodies in posed positions really wasnt that "cool." Even thought the bodies were natural information, the previuos cultural information I had learned dulled my senses to the importance of what I was seeing. Perhaps Borgmann was right all along...

Sims vs. Monks - The difference in their silence

After watching "Into Great Silence" and reading Sims piece on silence I discovered there is a huge difference between the their types of silence. Sims wants silence because, well, everything is to loud for him. The monks want silence to gain enlightenment and closeness to their God. The Monks are doing what they do out of revernce for their God while Sims just seems to be complaning. I don't know were Sims lives but I live about 15 minutes away from campus and it's usually pretty quiet around my house except for the occasional dog barking or bird chirping, but I like that noise. I feel like there should be some noise other wise we (humans) would probaly go crazy. Now do we need the constant noise of TV or Radio? No of course not, and in that sense I guess I agree with Sims but I dont think humans should live in the silence that Sims describes nor do I think we could. Since the beginning of man we have created songs and dance to fill that silent void in our lives, that proves we will not and cannot live in silence.

Information Impersonating Reality?

After reading Borgman and his ideas on cultural information I believe a different use of words is needed for its description. Instead of information as reality, how about information impersonating reality? Information as reality, like the pictures of the carolina wren, are representations of true reality, not the acutal thing, so in that sense it is impersonating reality. Information as reality implies that the information is "being" the reality, which it isn't, it's a representation. You cant "be" something you're not. I cant "be" Lebron James, I sure can act like him or impersonate him, but I can't "be" him. And thats why I proposes to Albert Borgman that if he revises his book he should change the phrasing of his description of cultural information.

natural information vs. information as reality

When trying to understand something such as different things in nature for example plants, and animals, there is different ways of understanding theses things and finding out information about them. Two ways that was compared and contrasted is finding it on the internet and finding it in nature itself. There something you need to think about when trying to find out information for yourself about things like animals and plants and that is which is going to be a more rewarding experience and who deeply do you want to understand it. The question today that we wrote about was what is the difference between going out in to nature and seeing a Carolina Rend and its nest and seeing it on the internet and trying to up tan information about it? The difference that you get from personally going out into nature and finding the nest and bird compared to just jumping on the computer and looking it up is that it is more rewarding to see it for yourself and understand how the nest is made by looking and holding it and how the bird lives and exist. This is natural information that you get out of it compared to the information as reality that is the information that you get from the computer itself when looking up something on the computer about the birds nest and about the bird itself you just find picture and facts about the bird which is nice but you still don’t get that rewarding experience that you get from watching the bird in its natural habitat an under standing it to a deeper understanding.

Week 8 Entry

Borgmann makes an interesting distinction between buildin and reading a text or playing music. He talks about reading and playing in terms of realizing information. The idae is that a text or a musical score contains information that can be "realized" by people who have been trained to read the inforaion, whether it be the words in a book or the musical notes on a page of sheet music. The information is always there, but it must be realized to be realized or accessed. As Borgmann points out, it is easy to think of building in the same way. The information is contained on blueprints or architect's drawings, and the information is realized when the building is built. But Borgmann also points out that there is a difference between the process of building and that of reading a book or playing music. The difference is contingency. While a book or a piece of music may be interpreted differently or recieved differently each time they are read or heard, the information is the same every time. The words of a book don't change, and the musical notes making up the piece are always the same. The same cannot be said about building. The example Borgmann uses is the Freiburg Minster which took over 300 years to be constructed, meaning that multiple people were heading the construction during different time periods with different styles. While the example certainly proves the point Borgmann was trying to make, it is unnecessarily extreme. My father is a super intendent for a construction company, and one thing I've learned from him is that construction rarely goes as originally planned. Bad weather, or unexpected problems with designs are only a few areas where contingency can enter into the construction of a building. When Borgmann first made this distinction, I didn't really understand it, but the more I thought about it, I realized that it makes a lot of sense.

The APM

Langdon Winner's videos promoting the Automatic Professor Machine show that Philisophers probably do not make good comedians. At least in Winner's case, philosophers are much too long winded to be effective comedians. While I have to admit that it was entertaining for a certain period of time, and Winner did come up with a few gems such as Edu-Sham, the pesentation outlasted its entertainment value. Nonetheless Winner does present an effective critique of the idea of education being carried out entirely through distance learning. It seems to me that his APM is a somewhat unfair exaggeration of the prospects of distance learning, the point that education should not or could not be carried out through distance learning is a valid one. I firmly agree that the physical presence of students and teachers is an integral part of the educational process, and trying to avoid such presence is robbing the student of the optimal environment for learning, and robbing the teacher of the optimal environment in which to educate his/her students.

Week 4 Entry

Borgmann contrasts the modern world of technological information, or information as reality, with what he calls the ancestral environment, which requires a great degree of intamacy with eality and the natural world. The ancestral environment is one of natural signs and natural information. He presents this world as an "economy of signs and presences", which is inherently ordered, as opposed to technological information, particularly that found on the internet, which is often very much disordered. The great contrast between the ancestral environment of information and the modern environment of technological information couldbe used to show how far humanity has come, how greatly the technology we have developed has changed our lives, but Borgmann has a different view. Brogmann argues that spending time in the ancestral environment provides an intimacy with nature that is often lost or neglected in our world today, yet is inherently pleasant when it is experienced. Borgmann seems to be implying that our technology is destroying our connection with nature, and robbing us of the joy that connection can bring.

Into Great Silence

"Into Great Silence" paints a picture of a place almost completely opposite to the world most of us live in. Where we live in a world where people like Stuart Sim have gone so far as to suggest that there is actually a conscious assault on silence, the monks in this film have chosen to seek an almost entirely opposite environment. Where we live in a culture of noise, where silence is difficult to find, even when it is sought out, these monks live in a place where silence is the norm and noise is the exception. I don't normally thikn about the degree of noise everywhere around me, but it is all too evident when compared to the silence that these monks live in, especially when we can't even watch the film without hearing the noise from the hall, or the noise created by the scince lecture hall itself. It seems absurd to think of a room creating noise on its own, however it seems that this is becoming part of the world we live in. While most of us live in a world where noise is nearly unavoidable and silence is naerly unattainable, these monks live in a world where noise is almost entirely avoidable and silence can be found at almost any time.

Clay and the iPerson

The juxtaposition of clay, one of the oldest and simplest technologies used by humans, with the technologies of artificial intelligence, which are so advanced that we have yet to achieve them, presented in these films is very interesting. The iPerson raises some interesting questions about artificial intellignce, such as whether or not an artificially intelligent robot could have desires or this film suggests, even a longing for social interaction and companionship. However, I think the film "Clay" raises an even more interesting question. In the scene in which the Old artist's son is trying to convince him to get "downloaded," the artist is thinking about a work he has been comissioned to do by his son's company that he is apparently having trouble with. His son tells him that once he has ben downloaded, he will be able to finish the work in a matter of seconds, because of the abilities being downloaded offers. The old artist's response to this is "But would it mean anything?" That one line struck me more than any other in the films we watched. It raises one of the essential questions about life in the "downloaded" state that this movie presents. While it may seem that this is irrelevant, considering this is a science fiction film, the question is very important because there are people pursuing this type of existence. I believe that it is very important to ask the question: would such a life have any meaning? I'm not sure of the answer. While it could be said that much more could be accomplished, it could also be said that when any task can be completed in a matter of seconds it would be imposible to ever feel a sense of accomplishment. As I said, I'm not sure of the answer, but the qusetion is, in my opinion, both very interesting and very important.

Journal #7

I would almost believe that the APM was real had I not be warned before that it was a fake. The idea isn't really that ridiculous, it would be fairly easy to set up a university that didn't actually exist other than a drop off box to place your test and other material and pick it up. Its similar to the idea of home schooling or online universities, they may not be as credible but are still legitimate. The APM could easily be used with general study courses to gain background knowledge on a subject, this would especially be true at larger universities where the general studies courses consist of lectures and 2 exams. Why could you not buy a book for that class at the midterm pick up your exam at the APM and return it a designated time and go through the same process for the final exam. The test could then be graded by an actual professor and as long as it was based off the text it would a fair practice. This could be considerably cheaper and with the rising cost of fuel in America could cut out students having to come to campus everyday. I think that the APM could be a very successful invention if handled in the correct manner.

Journal #6

I thought that " Into Great silence" was a little ridiculous. Why do these monks have to be in total silence to become enlightened. there are other monks who don't live in total silence, are they not as successful in their pursuit of enlightenment. to me it seemed like the stuff they were doing could be a lot more efficient if they communicated amongst themselves. but I didn't choose that lifestyle, they did so i hope they are successful.
the silence that they experience is unheard of where i live. at no time is my neighborhood, my house, or my room ever that silent. i think that if i was ever faced with that type of silence it would be very unenjoyable. i often listen to music when i study and cant sleep without some background noise, two tasks that most Americans do require some silence to engage in. Because of this I would never become one of these monks and would never want to be one.

APM response

After watching the video of the APM, the automatic professor machine, I couldn’t stop from laughing. The way they went about just making fun of anything and everything was certainly hilarious. When you first hear it, it seems so sarcastic but in a sense, it can definitely be viewed as serious. If he wouldn’t of used names such as “Glow-Ball University” it would certainly make one convinced that this is a legit idea. All in all, this video was very creative and sarcastic in its own unique way. Thumbs up.

If it's too loud, you're too old!

In response to Stuart Sims’ “The Assault Against Silence and Why Silence Matters” it yet again brings the phrase “If it’s too loud, then you’re too loud” immediately to ones mind. Sims seems to simply just be whining about anything everything simply because he can. You can’t do anything about all of this noise or so-called noise pollution, why must he persist on crying about it? To me, Sims to lighten up and turn that volume knob up to MAX and just let loose. Enjoy noise.
John Cage came to my mind when reading this. Cage seemed to think everything is music. He indeed was one of a kind. I certainly don’t believe that Cage would ever agree with Sims completely, if even at all. I know it seems crazy to think that every little noise or sound could be music, and at times…it is a bit strange to think like that…i.e: Bjork. But it still is something you can’t really get away from. I don’t agree with Sims on this matter at all.

Robot Stories response

In response to the robot stories movie, I found it to be quite interesting. The first one, entitled “Clay” didn’t really keep my attention but the second one surely made up for it. To think that some day we could have robots doing jobs all around the world. But then what would that leave for the lesser intelligent…humans? Would they take away our jobs? I also found it to be quite funny when all they had this genius robot doing was inputting some sort of data into a computer. I mean come on, he’s a robot! Just seemed like such a waste.

I don’t doubt this happening sometime in my life, but when…I don’t really think anyone could guess how soon. Technology is indeed rapidly advancing everyday but this is a totally different story. It’s something that seems unheard of right now, but when it happens, it probably will be like the iPod…anyone who’s anyone will have one.

In response again towards “Into Great Silence” I don’t see how these monks do it. I know they’re searching for a deeper meaning in life, whatever it may be. It just seems to bring the phrase “If it’s too loud, you’re too old” to mind. Surely, there must be some sort of other way efficient enough that these monks could do. Why silence? I know it goes way back, but I honestly just don’t see how one could be enlightened in such circumstances. It’s nice to be alone and to be able to gather ones thought’s with little or no distraction, but for me it seems that this whole silence thing wouldn’t ever really become routine to me. I don’t think I would be able live life like these monks do in this documentary or anywhere for that matter. It just appears to be a boring lifestyle.

Into Great Silence...

After watching the documentary, “Into Great Silence” it came to my attention that I really never have silence like the monks in the film do, not even when I’m sleeping. I don’t think I could ever live the life the way those monks do. It just seems too far away. I’m completely surrounded by noise, and I don’t really mind it. There is always something around me that seems to be making some sort of sound or noise. I don’t mind silence, but that may be because I get it very seldom and when I do, it seems to be short lived. It makes one wonder about their health, but I don’t think I’m going to sweat over it. I honestly can’t even really think of a situation where I’m in complete silence. It seems to happen just out of no where and even when it does, I’m still not really in silence. There always seems to be some sort of distraction, no matter where I am.

Downloading

Downloading seems strange when thinking about it, but when you look deeper into it…could this really be something we have to consider in the future? I don’t really feel as though it is necessary at all. Surely enough, there are great minds in this world, everyone’s mind certainly is its own. Even though there are many geniuses and creative minds in this world, there are also ones who use their minds to do bad things. Would you want these minds to always be around? Would downloading be the smart idea then? There always seems to be some sort of thing that someone out there will always disagree with. This topic would definitely be quite the controversial one if this were to happen in later years. I for one would not want to be downloaded. When the body dies, it’s meant to. I will have lived my life all that I was intended to and that’s that. It’s as simple as that really. One can only wonder what the future holds.

journal #5

Stuart Sim believes that we are part of a "Culture of Noise". this idea is easy to agree with. How could you argue that Americans aren't faced with noise constantly. It is almost impossible to experience silence, America has become a place of background noise. You cant eat a meal, go to a library, walk down a street, watch a ballgame, or study without some constant noise. Cell-phones, I-Pods, cars, airplanes, radios, TVs, are always around and are always emitting some unbelievably annoying noise even when no one is paying attention. Americans, me included haven't become fed up with this noise yet so it remains and will probably only continue to get worse. Think of the most secluded place you have ever been , chances are it wasn't completely silent. However, I don't believe this is always a bad thing. Yes, i would like to have silence when i study or I'm trying to sleep but other than that silence is scary. The last time i can remember silence was watching TV on 9/11, then the room other than the TV was totally silent. Silence to me means that there is something wrong. Today Americans disregard silence for convenience.

journal #4

"This invention (writing) will produce forgetfulness is the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory." I believe that this couldn't be further from the truth. Writing things down helps me to remember, even if I loose the actual note that i wrote myself I would still be more likely to remember due to the fact that i wrote it down. Several people that I know study by writing their notes over and over, it seems to work pretty well for them but it might not work for everyone.
I think that forgetfulness is attributed to laziness not writing. Modern technology is increasing the laziness, forgetfulness is simply a reaction. Why would you want to actually remember something when you could make yourself a note on your computer or on your I-phone. People are more forgetful today because there is not accountability for there forgetfulness, not because of the increase in writing.

Journal 9: Going into (Great) Silence...literally

This past spring break, I decided to visit Kirkwood, Missouri and spend some time with the Carmelite Sisters of the Divine Heart of Jesus, http://www.carmelitedcj.org
I have come to know these Sisters very well over the past few years, and I was very happy to see them again. Being there reminded me much of what I learned from this class, especially concerning our discussions of the value of silence. Although these Sisters are much less strict than the Carthusian monks we watched a few weeks ago, they have times of silence and personal reflection throughout their day. For a little under a week I got to live like them, working and praying, much needless conversation set aside. These Sisters are not completely contemplative/cloistered. They live a semi-contemplative/active life in which they do the apostolic work of taking care of the elderly and having a Day Care for children on their convent grounds.
When I spent personal time in the chapel, I noticed that although it was easy to avoid the outside noise inside those convent walls, it was extremely difficult for the first day or so to turn off the noise in my mind...thinking of things I had to do, wondering how my family was doing back home, and a countless list of other things. After awhile, though, my lack of technology while there and the silence I got to experience at set points in the day was refreshingly beautiful. It was as if I learned more about myself and my faith in under a week than I had in the past several months. I came home with a great peace.
Interestingly enough, the biggest culture shock after all this was returning to the airport. As soon as I stepped in after my "experience of silence", I could not believe how much senseless noise was around me! People were in such a hurry, rushing, running with their cell phones...and I wondered, "What is this all for, anyway?" It made me wonder how I ever could have lived in this world of senseless noise for so long. Let's just say it has caused me to reflect deeply about what I want in life, where I am headed...and why.

Journal 8

In class, we watched a video about the APM or Automatic Professor Machine. It was a video that showed in a very sarcastic way, that distance learning is inferior to traditional. It did this by endorsing this goofy machine that would eliminate the costly buildings and teachers required for education. The APM would simply run you through various courses and spit out your diploma, an event they like to call "commencement." I found that part to be especially humorous. I also noticed that it still cost a lot of money to take the courses. In fact, if there were no schools and everyone just used the APMs, then everyone would have to pay the same amount. Not everyone pays the same amount for school. Some people look for cheap colleges while others look for more prestigious schools. All of that is lost with the APM because the experience is thrown away and education just becomes mindless computer courses with absolutely no variation. The thought that distance learning could eliminate traditional education is truly laughable, however it would have been funnier if the video was about fifteen minutes shorter. Still, the message was clear and I enjoyed the video for the most part.

Blog 8 : Borgmann

I found it very interesting when we were discussing chapter 10 of Borgmann the other day. I had never thought about the fact that building something involves chance. When I think about building I think of blueprints, sketches, and the large amount of precise calculations that must be done. The fact that contingency is a major factor of the building process had never occurred to me. I had always assumed that things were constructed precisely according to the blueprint, down to the last inch. The example Borgmann used in the book was the Freiburg Minster. It took over 300 years for the Freiburg Minster to be built, and over that time period, there were a couple of different builders that took part in the construction process. During the time it was being built, the design shifted from Romanesque to Gothic. The differing ideas brought into the project by each builder caused this particular church to be very unique. For example, the style used in building the steeple varied from that used to build the smaller towers. Contingency played a major part in the construction of the Freiburg Minster. I am sure the final outcome was not the same as the initial plans for the church, much the same way that the blueprints of one of today’s buildings don’t show exactly how the building will turn out after its completion. Until reading Borgmann, I had never realized the fact that chance played such a significant role in the construction of buildings.

Contingency: in buildings and music

A part of cultural information is buildings according to Borgmann. The information received from a building is realized information. An example that Borgmann goes into great detail about is the Freiburg Minster Church. It took 315 years to build this church. The original plans were for a Romanesque church, but because throughout the 315 years of building there were two different builders. Gothic style became more popular during the later years and that’s why the church became a unique mixture of a Romanesque and Gothic style. Contingency played a major role in the development of the church. Contingency is defined as chance or something unpredictable. The original plans for the church indicated a style of Romanesque, but because of contingency a flavor of Romanesque and Gothic style created a beautiful church. A lot of work is put into coming up with an idea, making the plans, and the physical labor of building. It is appealing how the plans can be very precise and informational, but the final outcome of the building will never exactly match what the plans indicate. For example, I can plan out exactly what pictures I want to use and the backgrounds I want to put in my scrapbook, but the actual constructing it brings new ideas and ways of putting it together. The plans that I made before beginning the project were not an identical match of the final outcome.
This is similar to what happens when music is performed live. There is a score which is the original notes of the music. Music on a CD is perfected to match almost exactly to the score where as music live uses the score as a basis, but goes outside the lines. Due to this difference the sound of music on a CD or radio compared to music live is very different. Part of this difference is because of contingency that Borgmann discusses. I believe this is one reason why live music is more exciting than music from the radio or CD. Concerts are unique because the musicians intend to play what they have written on a score, but there are many parts that are improvised or somewhat unpredictable and you get more of a real feeling of their voice that is not heard from a recording.

Whatever our souls are made of...

When Bormann described reading as an act of realizing information, I totally agreed. For me, reading has always had this purpose, connecting my imagination to reality in new and different ways. Reading compels me to examine my experiences and helps me to understand who I am more fully. Without doubt, I believe that good literature makes me more aware of myself. Thus, I could readily understand Borgmann’s concept of entertainment reading versus active reading.

According to Borgmann, reading for entertainment concerns immediate gratification while reading actively corresponds to higher-level thinking. Reading actively forces a reader to use all of his experiences and knowledge to interpret the story, making it difficult for one to grasp the full meaning of the novel on the first read. Therefore, multiple readings are often necessary when one is attempting to read actively.

For example, when I first read The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath, I did not completely understand it. However, my ignorance forced me to pick up the book again and reread it in order to grasp what the novel was conveying according to my experiences at the time. Now, every time I read the novel, I feel something different because the context in which I read it has changed.

There is no pain; you are receding.

Music has always represented a positive part of my life. It is always there to comfort me and inspire me – a constant companion and a sweet relief from the less beautiful clamors of society. However, it was not until I witnessed live music that I realized the all encompassing influence and power of music as a form of connection.

Music transcends the individual psyche and forces one to become aware of what is around him. The stage lights take on a more brilliant glitter. The body moves in harmony with the beat. The musicians guide the audience to a plane of higher thinking, forcing it to realize its own humanity while inspiring it to soar. The audience becomes one – a mass of moving beings – reveling in its connectedness.

This connection that one feels in a performance is what Borgmann describes as realized information. It is physical and psychological, connecting us to reality through the embodiment of a structure, a score, or lack of one. More importantly, however, it connects us to each other.

Contingency

When Borgmann first brought up the subject of contingency in building, I was slightly confused. Although aware that some form of chance was always present in construction, I did not understand how contingency could relate to style as well as the finished product (Borgmann’s realized information). Accustomed to structures representing one style at a time, I found it difficult to believe that two styles of architecture could coexist in the same edifice. However, Borgmann’s example, the Freiberg Minster, represents exactly what I originally could not fathom – ambiguous reality.

For me, an ambiguous reality is a reality where meaning cannot be contained. In truth, no two people are the same; therefore, their interpretations of the world will always be slightly different. This belief can be translated to the act of construction. To use Borgmann’s example, two different master builders sought to create a structure that represented God and the church using two very different styles of architecture that held some form of meaning for each. Thus, the very act of building affected the structure of these men’s’ lives as well as their individual experiences in different and unique ways.

Architecture: Real vs. Abstract

Although I have always been exposed to architecture (courtesy of my Dad), I never fully realized its connection to reality. Although buildings are made of tangible pieces of materials that, on their own, represent a form of reality, the actual finished work does not hold that same sense of the material. For me, walking into a cathedral, a skyscraper, a home, etc always holds an awareness of the abstract. I believe this sense of the intangible came from being exposed to the, one could say, “Blueprints” of architecture. In reality, an object under construction originates from an abstract idea that a man or woman forms and puts into reality only after touching a pen to paper.

Thus, I found it difficult to come to terms with Borgmann’s argument that architecture is a connection to reality through an ambiguous sign. I always viewed architecture as a representation of an ambiguous idea – intangible and rather awe-inspiring.

Meditation for the Masses

Ever since I started high school, I have been a fan of meditation. I find it to be a wonderfully liberating experience, relaxing the body and freeing the mind. However, I am ashamed to say that after starting college I began to skip my daily five-minute meditations, worrying instead about how to finish that paper or study for that test. One can imagine my shock, subsequently, when I discovered another way to meditate that involved one of my favorite pastimes – watching movies.

After watching the film Into Great Silence, I felt an overwhelming sense of calm. I was completely relaxed, attuned to everything. It was an amazing feeling, immersing oneself in the reality of the movie and the people it portrayed. After adapting to the originally uncomfortable silence, I found myself immersed in the lives of people who thrived in silence. Without doubt, it was an eye-opening experience.

Silence in the 21st Century

When I first read Stuart Sim’s “The Assault against Silence and Why Silence Matters”, I was astonished how much I agreed with his argument. Analyzing my own relationship with technology, I began to realize the extent to which technology affects me. Without doubt, I rarely spend time in absolute silence – a state of being that Sim says is required for thoughtful reflection. However, the fact remains that silence is difficult to experience in a culture of noise.

Through further examination of both my relationship with technology and our culture of noise, I have come to an impasse. Is it possible that our culture of noise has transformed our abilities for thoughtful reflection? Can our culture today, in fact, reflect without silence because of its continued exposure to noise?

As I type this, I am surrounded by noise (the computer, the radio, the creak of my chair), reflecting on a subject I have read about and discussed in class. Can my response still be deemed thoughtful although my environment is far from silent? I think so.

Blog 8

I saw a segment this week on the Today show and it made me think of this class. It was talking about the fact that baby boomers have better memories than those who are under thirty. This was due to technology. They said that technology was making them dumb. I thought it was interesting that those who should naturally be more forgetful could remember things that happen better than young people. One would expect the younger generations to be sharper minded. It also makes you wonder what will happen to people as they age. Alzheimer's seems to be more and more common. I wonder if the lack of exercising the brain can have an effect on this disease. The segment joked at the end for the young not to forget their memories( their Blackberries,etc.). It was humorous but scary to think about too as we have more advanced technology to make our lives easier everyday. Maybe someone will install brain builders into treadmills. We could exercise our brains along with the rest of our bodies.

Blog 7

In the Sim reading it mentions the noise that goes on in hospitals and how they should be quieter places for the patients to heal and recover. My grandmother recently had surgery and spent a few days in the hospital. Her biggest complaint about her stay was all the noise that occurred overnight. She thought the night shift was louder than the day shift. The overnight workers probably really don't make any more noise than those who work during the day, but the patients are more likely to notice when they are trying to sleep. It is hard enough to rest in a hospital when someone is constantly coming in to check vitals and give medication. In between the patients shouldn't have to worry about so much noise. It would be interesting to see if patients recovered faster if the staff was more conscience of the amount of noise they created. The last time I had to stay overnight in the hospital, I chose to leave a day early so I could go home and get some rest.

Blog 6

Silence in our house only occurs when everyone is asleep. As soon as the first person gets up, one or more TV's are turned on. Add to that all the noises kids make, dogs barking, appliances running, the phone ringing, and too many other sounds to list, it is far from tranquil. We get in the car and the radio plays mixed with the sounds of video games. There is music, laughter, and chatter in restaurants and stores. Nearly everywhere we go there is noise. To some extent I think you begin to block out many noises that are always there. I have gotten to the point that I have to have some sort of noise or I don't like it. I guess you have to wonder how it all really effects our health.

Blog 5

I don't think I would want to be downloaded. It seems that one of the reasons was so that great minds would not be lost. On the other hand, do we really want to preserve the minds of criminals and murderers. Do we really want these consciences around forever? I think the man in the video had the right idea, to die as we are all meant to die when our time comes. Another thing that seemed wrong to me was the fact that one would never be able to move on and accept that their loved one was gone. Sure, it would be nice to hold on to them and have them with you forever, but it seems that it would just be selfishness on the part of the living. I think the only heaven should be the one God created and that we should go there only when He decides it is our time.

Blog 4

During the robot video, something I found disturbing was the fact that the man was going to die from a lung infection that in the past would have been cleared up with antibiotics. It is hard to believe that they could come up with technology to download, but they can't find a way to fight off infections that have become resistant to penicillin and other antibiotics. My daughter and nieces have all had to take more than one round of antibiotics this winter to clear up strep throat and ear infections. It makes one wonder if that is where the world is going. There is technology to park a car or transplant an organ, but an infection might kill you.

Realizing Information: Building

In class we recently discussed if building was the same as playing and reading in realizing information. It was determined in class that building is not the same thing due to the fact that when constructing a building the architect does not have to follow a certain blueprint model. This means that a building can look like it was supposed to be constructed in a certain way but was changed throughout. With respect to this information I suggest that constructing a building results in the same realization of information as playing. When playing a musical score the musician has the same ability to change the final result as the person who is constructing a building. There seems to be a lot of musical works or even styles itself which were changed from the original to suit the secondary musicians abilities.
The same reasoning can be applied when considering building and reading. An author can change their plot throughout the development of the story. Just because a person plans to write about fairy tale that results in a happy ending does not mean by the end the author will be inspired to turn the book into a tragedy.
Therefore, it seems that the reasoning that Borgmann applied to considering reading and playing a type of realized information while building not is flawed. It does not seem that Borgmann's premise holds up throughout all three chapters of his book. Change from the original plan can occur in reading, playing and building therefore all three are a type of realized information

Merton and Borgman

"The reason for inner confusion and conflict is that our technological society has no longer any place in it for wisdom that seeks truth for its own sake, that seeks fullness of being, that seeks to rest in an intution of the very ground of all being." - Thomas Merton
When I read this quote from Thomas Merton all I could think of was Borgman and this class. It seems that Thomas Merton shares similar ideas on technology. Merton and Borgman would agree that technology is lessening meaning in our world. Now Merton and Borgman may be thinking of different technology (For Merton it is probably the television he was speaking of) but they both have similar opinions . Merton says that modern technology has made man callous and disillusioned. It is interesting that these two writings were done more than 35 years apart, in which numerous technological advances have been made but at the core of their writings they seem to be making the same points. Merton may be referring to television as this new modern technology that is changing the way people think. However this technology has become so common place it is seen as weird to not have one. I wonder if Borgman has read any of these works by Thomas Merton, and I wonder what Merton would have to say about our technology in 2008 as compared to 1968.

Life in the Monastery

This past week I spent time with both Franciscan and Benedictine monks. This was a tremendous experience for me. Life seems to move so much slower in the Monastery. In class we spoke of the Monastic reading being like walking in a garden, I always liked that image. This image however seemed to come to life at the Mount Tabor Monastery in David Kentucky. I attended morning prayer there with Benedictine nuns. The way they read during their morning prayer was so slow and relaxed. When we read we seem to rush through the reading to get finish it without taking the time to really reflect on the meaning. In the monastery it is very reflective and one pays attention to every single word. Reading seems to be a much more important experience in the Monastery than it does in our world today. At first it was hard for me to read at their pace and really meditate on the words. I wanted to speed through it but I was forced to slow down and read at their pace. Once I got used to this I really fell in love this way of reading and this form of prayer. It is a much more connecting experience than the normal way we would read. One really grasps the material at hand this way.

Journal 8: Building and Grace

In class recently, we have discussed Borgmann’s view on architecture as cultural information, specifically through the Freiburg Minster in Germany. Borgmann relates how the building of architecture, the reading of books and the playing of music are similar actions in that they are all ‘cultural information’ that connect one to reality through signs and help a person to ‘realize’ information in one way or another. Yet, for the most part, Borgmann focuses on how building is different from reading and playing. The main distinction between these actions is that building relies heavily on ‘contingency,’ or more loosely, ‘chance,’ in its creative process. A piece of architecture is not just the realization or fulfillment of the blueprint for that building, for example, because oftentimes, the blueprints (or the ideas behind them) do not match up exactly with the finished product: the building. Borgmann uses the Minster as his example. In 1200, when the initial blueprints were being created in Freiburg, the plan was to build a specifically Romanesque-style church. Taking over 300 years to finish, the Freiburg Minster turned out to be not just Romanesque, but a beautiful mix of Romanesque and Gothic in its style. Thus, the blueprint for this church changed many times, and none of these plans represent specifically the building that stands in Freiburg today. Indeed, building is not just a realization of a blueprint or an idea but a realization of a mix of blueprints and ideas. Furthermore, Borgmann contends that this mix of blueprints and ideas was put together by chance (and not, purposefully, by people). Contingency plays a key role in building, and this contingency is very obvious when one studies the building of the Freiburg Minster.
What I thought was very interesting about Borgmann’s discussion on building was his analysis of contingency. First, Borgmann examines how contingency is defined. Is it simply a matter of chance, having no purpose or meaning? For Borgmann, contingency is more than just chance, and it can have meaning, especially when it comes to building. The link, then, between chance and meaning, Borgmann assumes, must be grace or contingency as divine (an act of God, so to speak). This mixture of chance and meaning can be seen in the Freiburg Minster. Though not a single person planned the church to be what it has become, the Minster, in its melange of Gothic and Romanesque styles, has much meaning as a sign of cultural information. This meaning is ambiguous as well, and it can change with different people, times and places. Who could have the idea for such an incredible entity of embodied cultural information that means something different to every person and time? Only something or someone divine, Borgmann implies. I think this is a really beautiful explanation of the meaning and splendor of the Freiburg Minster and, indeed, all buildings everywhere. I, too, can see God at work in his Plan for these buildings.
Yet, being the Devil’s advocate, I have to ask: must there be a necessary connector between chance and meaning? Obviously, no one planned for the Freiburg Minster to be a Gothic/Romanesque mixture; it just happened that way, by chance. Yet it does have meaning to different people in different times and places. Why must there be a divine explanation for this meaning? Couldn’t the meaning just come from the human consciousness adapting to the changes they’ve made to the building overtime and from people searching for a purpose in these changes? Could it be that, for lack of a better explanation, Borgmann just decided that grace had to be the glue between chance and meaning? Again, I believe one can see God's plan in the building of things, but I can see where others would have an issue with Borgmann’s use of the ‘necessary divine’ here.

Blog 8

In class we watched a short film about the Automatic Professor Machine. The APM could be used an example of distance learning. This film also showed how our society is becoming dependent on technology and how fast our world is moving. The APM lets you take courses at your own speed allowing you to do four years of college in as little as a few weeks. The APM is an advanced form of distance learning, that does not look as effective as learning in a classroom.
The APM in my opinion could be compared to a diploma mill because it does not give you the essential learning enviornment needed. A program like the APM could be useful in some cases but will never replace learning in the classroom. It would never replace it because of the stages of learning mentioned by Borgmann. The last two stages need to be taught by a master to get the full understanding.

Journal 7: The Kindle and Reading

The Kindle, one of Amazon.com’s latest gadgets, seems to hold much promise for the lover of reading. Like an iPod for books, the Kindle is an electronic device into which a person can download his or her library of books! Without a ‘back-light’, the books downloadable for the Kindle are not so harmful to the eyes (and in fact, are more like physical books) to read. Indeed, the makers of the Kindle hold that their new creation is the most convenient way to read and store books. It is predicted, even, that the Kindle is the first of many electronic libraries which will eventually become the library of the future. Books with pages and ink are on their way out and the Kindle and its kin are on their way in, it seems.
However, as students in an Ethics and Technology class, we know Kindles cannot take over without certain consequences and ramifications. Indeed, according to Borgmann, reading is ‘realizing’ cultural information (information for reality), and thus, changing how we read can affect how we interpret reality. Borgmann also states that reading is important because it is a ‘focal experience’ which allows one to be connected intimately with the certain aspect of reality that a book highlights. Both the knowledge and the imagination of the reader, along with the quality of the book, are critical to how a piece of literature relates one to reality.
How, then, would the Kindles affect reading and how the reader is related to reality? It is true that the books the Kindle provides contain the same stories as physical books do (word for word). A reader could bring his knowledge and (arguably) his imagination to a classic work of literature on the Kindle in nearly the same way as he does with a ‘real’ book. Yet there is something ironic and hypocritical about using a technological device (conveying information as reality) to read a book that is supposed to relate a person back to reality. In one sense, the ‘e-book’ the person is reading (if it is good literature) can, if the human mind is a willing participant, conjure up thoughts about the nature of life and the world that would provide a focal experience for that person which would become crucial to his understanding of reality. Yet, what the person is reading is not a book but technological information suggesting the book. If the person takes the ‘e-book’ he is reading as a 'real' book, though he may be connecting to reality in one way (through reading) he is disconnecting from reality in another. Thus, if, indeed, the Kindle becomes the new library, a ‘trade off’ of sorts would occur within the minds of all readers, who would be both connecting to and disconnecting from reality all at once. Would this ‘trade off’ be worth the conveniences of the Kindle? Why wouldn’t someone just pick up a physical book and read it? In doing so, the person would only be connecting further with reality instead of both connecting to and disconnecting from it.
Furthermore, I believe the Kindle would affect reading negatively because it creates a sort of disembodied experience which, Dreyfus has shown us, is detrimental to the mental heath of human beings . With the Kindle providing the library of the future, never again could one walk into a physical library and experience all the sensual stimuli that it provides: the smell of old scripts, the feel of parchment pages, the sight of personalized dedication pages, the sound of others searching the shelves with you, etc. The embodied action of going into a library and all that it entails is crucial to the experience of reading, not only because it connects one to reality but also because it is easier to discern the different messages about life and the world that each book provides. The Kindle displays every document in exactly the same format, making it more difficult mentally to differentiate between one work and the next. Truly, despite the fact that it saves time, space, and trees, I would much rather gather cultural information by reading a book than reading what appears to be a book from a Kindle.

Journal 5: The Importance of Silence

According to Stuart Sim, a politician and author of Manifesto for Silence, human beings today are living in a Culture of Noise and are victims of the Politics (and, arguably, the Economics) of Noise. Although one should never be silenced (meaning, forced to be silent against one’s will), Sim argues, silence is necessary for people individually and for society as a whole, because, reminiscent of the ideology of philosopher Max Picard, silence is key to our humanity. Without silence, one is less human and indeed, even inhuman. Thus, we need to ‘turn down the volume’ on our society.
Sim gives several reasons for his defense of silence. First, he claims that too much noise is detrimental to a person’s physical health. Most obviously, exposure to chronic noise or extremely loud noise can cause permanent hearing loss or "tinnitus – hearing loss accompanied by an incessant ringing noise in one’s head." Both fates are ominous and maddening because while the first forces one into constant silence, the second forces one into constant noise. Second, Sim mentions that studies have shown a connection between exposure to chronic noise and the likelihood of heart attacks. Noise can be harmful in other ways, too. For instance, psychologically, noise pollution can cause panic, stress, and anxiety that can be disturbing and infuriating. Indeed, in extreme cases, loud noises are deliberately used in wars to confuse, terrorize, subdue and pacify those against whom war is being waged. A constant din of noise can also be used in capitalistic societies for advertising purposes: the more noise there is, the less one is able to think. If there is less pondering, there will be more buying. Truly, there are many reasons why extreme amounts of noise can be detrimental to human beings, whether it is used purposefully or not.
The author also demonstrates the virtues of silence. According to Sim, silence surrounds us with a spirit of humanity that is lost when noise constantly intrudes in our lives. First of all, silence helps people to think. The quieter the atmosphere, the more a person is able to contemplate. Expanding on this idea, silence can aid in the reflection on oneself, on society as a whole, and on life in general. Most religions, Sim points out, call for times and places of silence for the purpose of contemplative prayer and reading. Sim also holds that silence is key to philosophy and art as well, for both fields require much thought. Indeed, without thought, and especially without self-awareness reflection, a person’s sense of humanity dwindles away. Thus, Sim concludes, silence is imperative for human beings to be truly human.
Yet, as Sim extols the virtues of silence and the problems of noise, philosopher Marshall McLuhan tells his readers that the people of the world are moving towards a basically oral society (as discussed in my last journal). If, indeed, we are living in an oral culture (or are at least on our way into one), noise is the primary way in which we communicate, which would mean that the world will have to become much more noisy than it is already. However, noise, Sim says, is so detrimental to us, not only physically and psychologically, but also in the fact that it gets rid of silence, which is key to our humanity. What, then, is McLuhan trying to tell us when he says that we are living in an oral society due to technology? What does he mean when he says we should not worry about the changes but allow them to happen, as they are inevitable? Is it inevitable, then, that we are becoming ‘less human’ human beings? Could anyone just sit around and allow ourselves to become mere shells of what we once were? Of what we could be? For the sake of each individual and for the world as a whole, I hope McLuhan is incorrect in his ideas about the transformation of human society from visual to oral. Yet, if he is not, I know I will want to fight against the dehumanization of society, even though the battle be futile.

Journal 8

It is interesting to understand buildings as realized and cultural information that can connect us to reality. According to Borgmann, you must first have a design and the end result may not always be exactly as you planned from the beginning. I have never really thought about buildings as being realized or cultural information. It is interesting, though, because blueprints really are just ideas from one person that are put into action when the building is being built, and therefore connecting the rest of us to reality and the person's ideas.
In earlier discussions and chapters, we were introduced to realizing information in the form of reading and playing. In reading and playing, we use books and CDs to try and relate us to reality. Yet, interestingly, a building does the same thing as books and CDs, which is relate us to reality; they connect us to the ideas that have been formulated in the architect's mind and made into a concrete example of those ideas.
Also, just as with reading, a person can read a story and get particular ideas from it, yet, they can read it again several years later, and take something completely different from it. This is also true with buildings. When a building is first built, people can experience different thoughts about it or it could be used for one purpose, but as time passes, people's feeling and thoughts about the building my change and the use or purpose of the building may also change.

Journal 7

In class we have recently been discussing the Kindle. This device, which is probably going to be considered the new ipod for books, will be used to take your books with you wherever you go. Going along with some of the discussions we discussed in class, I don't think that I would like the kindle as a replacement for books. If we have the kindle, then it will take away from the feeling of having a book and calling it your own. The kindle would be great for carrying school books when you have a lot to carry. I'm not sure if you are able to highlight in the kindle, but if not, that would be hinderance in the classroom. Another thing that I'm not sure is a feature on the kindle, is the ability to write notes in the columns of the books. It is important for both of these features to be available, especially if they books on your kindle are school books used for studying.
Another reason why the kindle may be a hinderance is what we talked about in class, which is the inability to physically have a book for their own. It's very impotant to be able to have a book that is your own and not something that is saved on an ipod-type device. There would be no longer a use to give a book as a gift, but rather to give someone means of downloading the book that they want.
Along with not being able to have a book that's physically yours, you also have no connection to the past. It's interesting to have a copy of a writing that can connect you to the time of the author. With the kindle, all pieces of writing will be put on the same level; they will all be the same on the kindle, just text and not a piece of literature.