Final Exam Blog

Distance Learning:

Dreyfus tackles "Distance Learning" in the second chapter of his book. He states that distance learning will never be able to exist independently of the traditional classroom setting because to master a topic or field, students need more than a computer screen and keyboard.

I agree with this statement. I am a transfer student from a rather large university. At my previous college, I took a class that was almost entirely online. We were strongly encouraged to come to lecture, as per college policy, but all tests, quizzes, and assignments were to be completed on the computer and sent to the professor via blackboard. There were quite a few problems with this method. The professor used lecture time to go off on tangents and talk about her children. We were left to do assignments and tests with no direction and to, basically, teach ourselves the information from the textbook. Assignments were difficult to submit because the Internet was not always functioning properly. And tests...Since we were not taking tests in the classroom and were not monitored, all tests were open book, open notes, which sounds great. However, since this was the case, the professor thought it appropriate to choose very hard questions and place a time limit on the exam. Since cheating was also a problem between students, all tests had questions in different orders (which is perfectly understandable, but hard to follow).

In the very beginning of the course, she told us we would either love the online exams or hate them. She used the fact that we could take it from the "comfort of our own home" as a perk. I love that phrase, "comfort of your own home". At that point in time, my home was not a very "comfortable" environment for test taking. I lived in an apartment with unreliable Internet, 3 roommates, 2 small puppies, and very rowdy neighbors. With all that going on, it didn't matter how comfortable it was to sit on my fluffy couch as opposed to a hard, wooden chair in a freezing classroom. While my hind end preferred the couch, my brain (and grade) preferred the quiet classroom.

Rebuttal:

Distance learning can exist independent of the traditional classroom setting. Distance learning opens up the realm of education to those that may not otherwise be able to experience it. As long as you have access to a computer and internet, you can learn. Larger Universities have already begun with Distance learning alongside classroom practices. In some cases, taking exams online has its perks. The climate of classrooms generally leaves much to be desired (ie—too cold or too hot, possible distracting noise from other students, etc). These inconveniences can be distracting, and hinder a student’s ability to perform. Another great factor about online exams is that they can generally be completed in a larger time window than traditional in class exams. Some windows last a period of days (the exam opens on Monday and you have till Wednesday to complete it). Most online exams are timed, but do not begin timing until you start the exam. If a student has a fight with a loved one, or is not in an appropriate emotional state, they have the opportunity to take the exam at a later time.

Distance learning also saves trees. No handouts or hard copies are required.

Robot Rights:

I know I may appear to be the bad guy here, but I do not believe robots should be granted rights. They are not people. They are machines designed to perform certain tasks. They would be programmed to act in certain ways that may resemble human behavior, but ultimately, is not. I couldn't help but think of the Furby when reflecting on robots. The Furby could be considered one of the first domesticated robots. It looked like a strange robot owl, and was kind of cute in a twisted way. While I would not advocate destroying a Furby for fun, I don't believe we should give it rights either. I know that a robot of the future would be far more sophisticated than a simple Tiger toy, but Furby's can talk. They can talk very much, in fact. With their own little annoying language. Some of them can dance...a very annoying little dance. Smashing a Furby with a hammer would probably make me cringe a tad, but robots should be able to be turned off, especially annoying robots. And humans should not have to fight court battles to determine rights in order to do that.

Rebuttal:

Robots should be granted rights if they are able to understand well enough to ask for them. In Bicentennial Man, Andrew is a robot that fights for his freedom and rights. Andrew seems to understand the concept of freedom and wants to obtain it because he feels it is his right. He also would like the right to be treated with respect by others. These kinds of robots should be given freedom from human control. They give Andrew rights, but they are not recognized by all people. Robots should be treated with respect and dignity, because a lot of work went into creating them. In respecting another human’s creation, we are respecting the human. One day, robots may look exactly like the rest of us and be completely indistinguishable from human beings. Instead of demanding every robot expose themselves, we should respect them just as we respect our fellow humans.

Final Exam Post #2 Reply

Original: Reason
I found it interesting in class when we were talking about how robots use to be portrayed. We were told that historically in science fiction stories robots were created by a "mad scientist" and then they would go "haywire." After this they would put human life at some sort of major risk and then humans would figure out a way to prevent it and defeat the robot.

In the story "Reason" this concept is sort of follows suit, but has a different twist. The guys put together the robot Cutie and then he stops listening to their commands. They think that he is putting the humans on earth at risk. Instead of figuring out a way to defeat him or gain his control Cutie has his way. In the end the robot actually did a better job maintaining the beam through the storm than the humans could have.

I'm not sure that in this story Cutie was programmed with the three laws. Not because he stopped obeying them and locked them out of the control room and engine room. He was following the first law by better protecting the humans on earth by controlling the beam himself. However, he told the humans several times that they were no longer of use and they would come to their end soon. What exactly did he mean by that? Were his intentions to terminate them himself?

New: Reason
The reason that stories were originally told this way is, because we need to at least think about these sorts of things. Because as mentioned we are unsure what Cutie’s intentions are with to do with the human crew since he considers them to be useless. If robots with super strength found us useless purely based on reason isn’t it plausible that they might wipe us out? I mention the robots as plurals, because once Cutie stopped obeying the human commands he manipulated the rest of the robots to also stop listening.

While it is true that Cutie actually did a better job than the human crew there was no certainty of that. As mentioned in the above paragraph what if reason led him to believe humans were a complete waste and needed to be destroyed. Remember he hasn’t been to earth. What if he discovers how humans treat earth? He wouldn’t even need a robot army. He could intentionally improperly guide the beam and destroy the humans.

As we saw in Bicentennial Man Andrew slowly started to manipulate the three laws. It doesn’t really matter if the three laws are programmed into him or not if he can come up with any justifiable reason to manipulate them. The problem is that the robot works purely off of reason. In stories like Gulliver’s Travel Part 4 by Jonathon Swift in which the houyhnhnms(the horses) represent reason we see how acting purely reasonable can turn out to be not so reasonable at all. Cutie does not know of the God we know and therefore does not find human life to be sacred. By not finding it sacred there is no reasonable explanation to preserve it. If programmed with the robot laws that is all he knows and it’s just a program that can be manipulated.

Final Exam

Write a detailed critical response to two of your own entries on the class blog. Your responses should reflect the point of view of someone who disagrees with various aspects of your previously held views.

In my second journal entry i wrote a response against distance learning.

Journal #2
Distance learning can be effective but it shouldn't be used. I think that someone can easily master many, but not all skills via distance learning. However, I do not think that they should be given the opportunity. Learning from a distance contributes to the problems already associated with American youth. Distance learning contributes to lack of social skills, if you could go to school in your bedroom why would you ever leave and interact with people.Distance learning also contributes to laziness. If you don't have to physically get up and go to class you probably won't get up to do anything during the day. Traditional learning also builds responsibility, you have to follow a routine to be successful. Distance learning doesn't require responsibility. Therefore i believe distance can be effective but there are more important skills that must be mastered before distance learning can be incorporated and not take away from the maturation of Americas youth

COUNTER ARGUMENT

Distance learning can be a very effective and should be used to the fullest extent possible. Distance learning can be used to learn skills and master almost all skills that could be taught in a traditional classroom and i believe that it should be pushed into the educational system in the United States. Distance learning would allow people to stay at home and still be able to receive an education. this would allow people to get more work done in the home and cut down on the amount of $4 gas they bought to commute to school. i think that distance learning could be extremely effective when used in situations where a person for some reason (pregnancy, suspended license, car trouble) couldn't get to school. Distance learning would not take away from the responsibility associated with education because students would still be required to show that they have a thorough understanding of the knowledge. Distance learning has been said to possible deteriorate the social skills of the people involved. but you could argue that at the point when someone had the skills to take a class through a distance learning setting they would already have acquired the social skills they need. Distance learning would not contribute to laziness that plagues American society because distance learning would require more work from the student than that of a traditional education. Students must be responsible enough to pay attention to the discussions, where as in a traditional classroom if you show up for class the teacher assumes you are paying attention. Students also have to take more intuitive when turning in assignments. Students could not simply hand them in but they would either need to e-mail them to the professor or make a special trip to hand them in. Distance learning should be introduced into the American educational system because there are no drawbacks associated with it and in most cases it would be more convienent that traditional learnig.

In my 5th Journal i wrote a response agreeing with Stuart Sim.

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.

COUNTER ARGUMENT

American a "culture of noise" are you kidding me? How can America be a culture of noise. people hardly ever talk to one another, most people spend all their time in a car by themselves or sitting in front of the TV or computer. Yeah they are experiencing some noise but that's all it is noise there is nothing meaningful coming out of it. people have driven themselves away from human interaction and into a routine that involves themselves, a TV and a computer. How many people sit down as a family and eat a meal, how many children never see one or both parents because they leave for work before they wake up and get home after they are asleep. Yeah American might be a "culture of noise" but its not because of all the human interaction people are experiencing. The other day i was in the waiting room at the dentist for about 25 mins with three other people, guess how many words we said to each other? Yeah that's right 0 instead we spent the 25mins watching some jackass on TV tell us how to brush our teeth and what great work he could do if you came to him for dental care. Yeah there was noise involved but the noise had nothing to do with culture. Because of this example and many others that take place everyday i cant agree with Stuart Sim..... yeah there's a lot of noise in America but it doesn't have anything to do with culture.

Net Neutrality

We discussed the internet in class--how it came to be and how we have used it for things other than its original use. But what implications come from the current uses of internet?

Net neutrality makes it possible to access most things on the net for free. Based on this, we are granted an indeterminable amount of information, videos, and access to other worlds. Anyone can access things online, regardless of race, social status, or disability. Sites run free of "content discrimination" and allow free speech. This, however, is just a very brief overview--check it out for yourself.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq

Jornal # 14

Should robots have rights?.........Should Your car have rights, Should your computer have rights, should your televisions have? That seems a little ridiculous but in reality it is essentially the same argument why should a robot have rights when they were designed and produced to perform a specific function. I think that robots are no different than your car and therefore should be allowed to have rights. Most importantly i think that we should not worry about robots having rights because as far as i know there aren't any fully self functioning robots that deserve the chance at having rights in the world today. I think that instead we should focus or discussion on rights to things that really exist such as animals and people. How can you give rights to a robot when traditionally some humans weren't given rights until they fought for them such as African Americans and women. Some humans still aren't given rights today .........so how could you justify giving robots rights..........especially since robots don't exist

Final Exam Post #1 Reply

Original: AI Response

While watching the movie one thing that really got my attention and I don't know if it was ever sufficiently answered is why Joe was going to be in trouble. Would he actually be capable of killing the woman? Or was he not allowed to take part in adultery? You would think if it was him being accused of the murder, then it would be simple for them to replay his memory and see that it was not him. Either way if either of these two things were what he would be in trouble for wouldn't he be programmed not to do either? Would they pin the murder on him just, because of the attitude some had against the robots?

Another thought that I had is that it still makes me wonder how we can get a proper feel for how we would perceive a robot boy, because in the movie he is played as a real boy. I understand that David is supposed to be undistinguishable from a real boy, but maybe that is impossible and if we were watching an actual robot possibly computer generated for the movie the audience would feel completely different.

Also, out of pure jealousy if there were robots like Joe, then they would be hated. Spouses would be constantly afraid of their significant other cheating on them. I would definitely see flesh fairs as a real possibility. For the same reason people like to watch trucks run over cars they just think the destruction is exciting. Combine that with the moving parts of robots and hatred some people will hold for them and it would be even bigger. The people in the crowd of the flesh fair reminded me of those you would see at a monster truck show or something.

While I felt sympathetic for David when he was about to be destroyed at the flesh fair I don't think it was as bad as I would have felt had it been a real boy. A little bit of sympathy was felt for every robot, but that doesn't make them human. People feel bad when animals are mistreated.


New: AI Response

Considering I just wrote a 6 page paper more along the lines of what my original response was this is going to take a little work to get those biased thoughts out of my head.

The reason Joe will be in trouble is, because they will pin the murder on him. He’ll get in trouble, because the robots and humans appear to be on the brink of war. The human population is being controlled while the robot population is growing and the robots are even replacing children. Humans are afraid that robots will take them over. You can see the hatred some humans hold for robots during the flesh fair. While the robots are caged one even says that its history repeating itself. I took that as when people perceive something as a threat they tend to fear it and want to destroy it. So yes it is very likely they could try to pin this murder on Joe. Also, while David has a perfect memory he is also a later generation. Joe could be lacking these capabilities.

In the future robots will look and act so real that by using a computer generated model for David would do the movie injustice. The point is that the robots will look that real so in order to grasp this concept completely a real boy must play the part of David.

People very well might hate the sex robots. But that doesn’t mean they would all be completely destroyed. Don’t people get jealous of each other? Of course, spouses cheat with other humans as it. What really is the difference when these robots appear to be so real? There is much of one at all. While some robots might be killed by a spouse for this the same thing happens to humans who participate in adultery. The robots are too handy to get rid of, because of something that will happen whether they do or don’t exist. Also look at the people attending the flesh fair. They appear to be ignorant rednecks. Racism occurs in this world and it results in human on human violence. There will always be at least a small percentage of people that don’t approve of robots, but as a whole they would be accepted.

It is understandable while watching to the movie to not feel as sympathetic for David as you would a real boy, because you know that David is a robot. However, the people in the stands can’t distinguish the difference. To them David is a real boy, because he looks so real and is pleading for his life. All of the other robots just accepted their fate with no emotion. A robot like David who is capable of fearing for and pleading for his own life shouldn’t be destroyed, because it is cruel.

Artificial Intelligence

Robots are getting closer to becoming more like humans in physical aspects. The dream of robotic science is to create an artificially intelligent robot that closely resembles human form, but also mimics human thought. Programs are being attempted to make this possible. They call this "Artificial Intelligence". Many debates have sprung from this topic raising questions such as defining intelligence. By some psychologist's standards, intelligence can be calculated by completing intelligence tests (IQ) such as the WISC (for children) or WAIS (for adults). A computer would easily be able to answer these questions from its data base, but some would argue that real intelligence has other aspects as well. There are also tests for emotional intelligence (EQ). Since human emotion has yet to be successfully reproduced by a robot, these tests may prove to be more of a challenge. If they pass the IQ test, but fail the EQ, they show competence in one area of intelligence, but not another. Also arises the problem of common sense. Even among humans, common sense is not so common. Each situation presents extraneous variables that require not only logic but also an awareness of overall surroundings and emotional comprehension. Most of these are things that are unable to be programmed, because not even we know how they work.

Exam Blog

Argument that counters my seventh blog. In blog seven I argued against the experience of kindle reading.


In an earlier blog, I argued against the kindle pretty heavily. I thought it was another case of technology trying to force out an older, more traditional system. Recently I found out that my uncle had purchased a kindle, so I decided to ask him for his opinion when it comes to the ‘ipod of books.’ His first three words were “I love it!” He initially admitted that he had numerous fears and doubts about the kindle when he purchased it, but said within the first couple of weeks those fears had vanished. My initial thoughts against the kindle made me want to give my uncles a try. I must admit, my stance as far as the kindle was concerned took a 180 degree turn. The kindle is so easy to use. When downloading a book, the wireless connectivity enables you to shop the Kindle Store directly from your personal kindle, whether your in the back of a taxi, at the airport, or in bed. Buying and downloading a book takes less than one minute thanks to its wireless, auto-delivery system. There are more than 115,000 books to choose from. The book selection was the only problem my uncle still had with the kindle, but he said he was more than willing to give them some time to improve that aspect of the e-book. Another thing he liked was the fact that you could get free book samples, in which you are able to read the first couple chapters from a selection before deciding whether or not to buy it. You can also have many top U.S. and international newspapers delivered to it wirelessly, along with over 300 top blogs from the worlds of various things such as business, sports, politics, and entertainment. The thing my uncle liked most about the kindle is the fact that it holds a large selection of books at one time. He, like most people who read a significant amount, is often involved in multiple selections at one time. The kindle allows these people the opportunity to have a large amount of selections available to them at the tip of their finger. With the kindle, you are connected to the same high speed data network as advanced cell phones, and the best part, there is no monthly wireless bill! This wireless service also includes free access to the online encyclopedia located at wikipedia.org. The feature that comes with the kindle that is most appealing to me is the fact that you can e-mail your word documents and pictures to the kindle. I can’t count the number of times I have finished a paper in the library, and wished I could just leave and edit my work at a later date. With the kindle, you could e-mail your various papers to the device and view them when you wish. Another great thing about the kindle would be its efficiency. How many people do you hear complain about the number of heavy books they have to carry around campus daily? It would be so nice to be able to download all your textbooks to the kindle, and only have the weight of 10.3 ounces in your hands as you walk from class to class. Like I said before, I, like most people, was initially very much against the idea of the kindle. Having done a significant amount of research, and in talking to various people who have experienced the kindle, my stance is now in favor of the kindle.


Argument that counters my ninth blog. In blog nine I argued that a robot, Data in particular, should never be viewed as more than just a machine.


In an earlier blog, I argued that a robot should never be viewed as more than just a machine. As the course progressed further and further, I found myself rethinking this issue, and I have even changed my stance on the subject all together. The main argument I would now use to say that robots could, and often should be viewed as more than just a machine is a result of having read The Bicentennial Man by Isaac Asimov. Throughout the story, the robot known as Andrew has been a significant part of the Martin family for a number of generations. Everyone in the family looks at Andrew as if he is more than a machine. When I think of a robot/machine, I think of something that is given human orders throughout the day in order to function. That was not the case with Andrew. When presenting the case for Andrew to the judge, Little Miss said, “Let’s understand what it means to be free in Andrew’s case. In some ways, he is free. I think it’s at least twenty years since anyone in the Martin Family gave him an order to do something that we felt he might not do of his own accord.” (Asimov p.255) The members of the Martin family obviously didn’t look at Andrew as a simple machine, but rather as another member of the family. When I think of a robot, I don’t think of something with a mind of its own. I think of wires, and switchboards which tell the robot what to think, and tell the robot how to feel. Andrew had a mind of his own. When the judge told him he ‘wasn’t a slave, he was a perfectly good robot,’ Andrew’s response was, “Perhaps no more than I do now, your honor, but with greater joy. It has been said in this courtroom that only a human being can be free. It seems to me that only someone who wishes for freedom can be free. I wish for freedom.” (Asimov p.256) A machine doesn’t reason like that. Thoughts like those take more than a machine. While I was reading this story, I found myself thinking about what it would be like to have an ‘Andrew’ in my family. A robot who has been with my family for multiple generations, and who has done nothing but serve my family proudly. I can’t help but think that I would view the robot as more than just a machine. In fact, I would have a hard time referring to the robot as robot. I am not sure that I am ready to refer to a robot as a human being, but I definitely think that after reading the later works of this class, I have changed my viewpoint, and I don’t think robots are merely machines. I would be the first person to argue now that robots could, and often should be viewed as more than just a machine.

Journal # 13

Would avatars make the best teachers? How could someone seriously think they would be? Avatars are a computer representation of your teacher.........not your teacher. Even if you could program the avatar to meet the specific learning styles of the students in your class i think that most people would still be skeptical about what they actually could learn. Dreyfus raises the argument against distance learning which could be raised against avatars. You cant get the hands on learning that you need to master a skill through interaction with an avatar. And with difference learning there is at least some accountability involved. I could easily see myself turning on the computer and pulling up the site with the avatar but not paying any attention to it, so how could that be the best teacher? if students arent going to listen to them they cant be the best teachers....... i think that people need to give more attention to real teachers and how they can improve there techniques than worring about avatars as teachers

Journal # 12

What one drink defines American Culture? Beer..... how could you argue against it. America is a cant-wait-till-the weekend society and then when the weekend is over you cant remember what you did on Monday. When i think of American Culture other than $5 gas and 28 year old star pitchers sleeping with 15 year-olds, i think of people who go to work everyday and cant stand their jobs. Then they go home or to a bar and drink until they feel better. Even people who don't hate their jobs drink beer, college culture heavily involves beer, high school culture involves beer, and adolescent culture involves thinking about beer and how cool it would be to drink some so because of this i think that the American culture can be defined by beer.

Journal # 11

The video with Will Wright and Brian Eno served to remind me how much i hate Brian Eno. I would rather watch a week long marathon of Golden Girls than listen to Brian Eno talk for 5mins. But Will Wright was very interesting. The game seemed like it could be cool but would probably take entirely too long to play. Brian Eno's music that accompanied Will Wright's talk was very creative and flowed with the talk well but i just couldn't stand listening too him

Final Exam Blog

In order to fully understand something and have great argument or simply just look at and understand both sides of the argument to give a go description on something. In this final blog it will dicusess the other view points that go in to thinking up a journal and maybe possibly change the way that I thought about something.

Blog on if Cyborgs are real?
The old argument

In class we talked about cyborgs but what are cyborgs? Are we cyborgs ourselves the term cyborg means a cybernetic organism that has both artificial and natural systems. This sound of part human and part machine, a machine is a thing built of different thing to works something like this can be a car, robot, and machines that make other things, they are made of mechanical parts to make them work but don’t humans them selves have mechanical parts to help them. For example, when people get a fake arm, but about pace makers that help people with heart problem to live on and not die so early even when people get new joints replaced such as knees and thing like that. I my self may be considered a cyborg because I have metal Anker’s in my shoulder to help it stay in place and also I weight life so I’m building up my body to make it better for better performance. Also what about people that wear the Bluetooth head sets that’s a device that’s mechanical so when that part of us does that make us Cyborgs in a way yes but is some this stuff that does this to us, helps our lives in every day life.

New entry

Now something to think about when trying to say that we are Cyborgs is do we truly have the mechanical parts on our body to make us half machine half human. And the answer to that is no some of the stuff that was said in this blog is sum what over the top when thing if we are Cyborgs. I really don’t consider my self a Cyborg because I weight lift which was one of the things that was brought up in that article that was posted. Also the article talks about that medicine is kind of technology that could consider us Cyborgs but medicines have been around for years dose that make the people of the past Cyborgs to I just have a hard time calling things that I take or do about every day making me a Cyborg I can understand when people have fake arms and legs and joints things like that, but that doesn’t make me think that im like the terminator or like the borgs from star track. The Cyborg is a scientific thing as of know and advancements in medical technology is just know advancement and nothing else.

Journal on Distance Learning?
Old entry
In class when we were talking distance learning It was a very interesting thing to think about, but how good would distance learning be? When trying to learn from a computer is a rather difficult thing to do. There are feelings in words that a computer can never understand the way in which you are trying to put it. The live face to face class room will never be taken over by the computer DreyFus says that the computer can not understand because the computer cant use the human body to reflect on. I believe that distance learning would also hurt kids with there social abilities for the real world in the class room you get that face to face interaction that is essential to life. But distance learning could be good for some situations for kids that live on farms that at are so far away that they would have to use it.

New entry

The thing with distance learning is that it is already happening whether we want to admit it or not kids at younger ages than I are learning from some of the new video that some website’s have to have kids learn and play at the same time I had these games as a kid I can only imagine what kind of games there are now. On top of that some of the bigger colleges and universities have online couses and I’m sure that these kinds of classes will grow. Yes the social aspect is something you can replace but now there is so many different ways of communicating through online play instant and things like that there is even the web cam for face to face things. But trying to say that distance learning will never work or replace the class room is something to re-think because it is already happening.