Is Google making us stupid???

As I think back to class discussions throughout the semester, the topic about the Internet and Google is the most interesting to me, probably because I use the Internet so much. It is so easy to think that if you have a question about something: "just Google it". I've heard that phrase many times before. It is so convenient to go to the Google website and type in anthing. Immediately there are hundreds and hundreds of responses. But how reliable are the answers? Honestly, I never thought about this until this class. I just assumed what I was receiving was legitimate. Clearly, I was wrong and naive. Those responses are not always going to be valid. Finding accurate sources using a search engine is like a needle in a haystack. I've learned that is so important to look for true, valid sources because the results that pop up from a search engine have no depth. There is no hiearchy of information; all information is on one single level. So while Google provides quick and speedy information at our fingertips, I'm a little sketchy of its reliability.

What makes us human?

In most of the blogs there is a question that comes up in almost every argument. What does it take to be human? I think there are a lot of ways to look at this question. The first argument would be made for our d.n.a makeup. If that is it than our we the parts that make up our body?. Is it our cognitive ability? If that is the case then is it our brain that makes us human? Would someone who doesn't have these things be less human? Not to mention items of belief such as a spirit or soul. I believe that it isn't simple that's why these questions constantly come up. It is the combination of all these attributes that make us who we are. There can be things like us but we are so unique that nothing else can be human. Once we come to a clear understanding of what a human is it is easier to get a better perspective of other questions.

Koko

Watching the movie Koko today in class was very interesting and I found myself starting to rethink emotions that can be felt not just by humans. But after having the conversation about the emotions koko was feeling as being up to level with humans it still remains, that the emotions humans feel are different than that of animals or robots. We talked about how if a dog gets scolded or given a treat it either shys away because it got yelled at or it jumps around because it is excited over getting the treat. These emotions are instinct and happen in any animal whereas when humans feel emotions we feel and think deeply into our emotions. and those emotions can change. Yes it is remarkable that a gorilla can learn and have the ability to be as smart as a young child and this amazes me but it still is not the same level that humans are on when dealign with learning and handeling emotions.

Reflection of the class this semester.

I really enjoyed the class ethic and technology this semester with Dr. Langguth. We explored a lot of issues going on with technology today from the internet to robots. When I came into this class I didn't think my view on technology would change, but it did. I use to think that Google was the best thing that could of happened for a student because it would save people time by just looking up information on Google rather than going to the library and reading books to get more valid information. I learned from Nicholas Carr that Google is really hurting the intelligence of our society in the article Is Google Making Us Stupid? Also before I took this class I didn't know what device paradigm was or what focal practice meant. I thought that technology was great, but once I read Albert Borgmann novel Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life I began to notice that people are losing family traditions for example instead of sitting down at the table to eat dinner families order fast food and eat in seperate rooms watching television. I'm starting to see that in my own family and thats why I believe people should understand what device paradigm mean which is devices taking over focal practice and a focal practices consist of making fires, eating dinner at the table as a family, or making music. Those things are really being replaced by technology we see fake fire places in people bed rooms, people walk around downloading and listening to music on their ipods rather than make it themselves. Before I took this class I didnt believe that technology is hurting society, but now I realize it is. I also enjoyed talking about robots. I truely enjoyed my ethics and technology class this semester.

December 2, 2008

I found today's discussion in class very interesting. I think the episode in Boston Legal was indeed comparative to the idea of synthetic parts. I do not think that taking a drug is illegal if it helps a person study. To me, it is the same as coffee, if it is used as a means to stay up and focus. I think a drug should be illegal like in the case of steroids. Those help build muscle to make athletes stronger. To me, a medicine or coffee do not necessarily make a person smarter. It may just give them the capactiy to retain more knowledge. I do not believe that is cheating. It isnt as if the person has the answers to a test written on their hand. I personally have never used a medicine like Ritalin in order to do better on a test or say up late and focus for a test. I prefer to stick to coffee and sugar!!!!

Robot After Life

I wouldn't want to become a robot after life. I think it would just be harder to move on for others because if I lost someone important to me I would just want them gone so I could move on. It would just be strange to know that everything that person was is in front of me, but it really isn't them. The person that I love and the warmth they gave me died when they did and to have a figure to make up for it isn't going to help me move on, it would just make it worse.

Star Trek

While watching Star Trek the only thing that came to mind was that fact the Data was so life like. Which definitely made me rethink my views on the matter if robots will be be able to have rights. When a robot can think and have feeling in the way that Data did makes me consider him a life like as me. But I also think that it is going to awhile before there are such machines as Data walking around our world. And I also don't think we are ready for such machines around us. I think it will be years before we are comfortable for having machines walking around as one with humans.

bicentennial man

In class this week we read a story titled Bicentennial Man, I thought the story was very interesting because the robot in the story was very creative. The robot in that story was different from other robots because he was a free robot. I thought that was interesting because I thought if you were free you didnt have to obey orders coming from someone that didnt have authority. The robot obeyed the two young men who told him to take his cloths off. I didnt understand how could they consider a robot free even though he obeyed orders from teenagers.

Please Read for Tuesday

From last week's Guardian:




Will machines outsmart man?
Scientists believe the point of 'Singularity' – where artificial intelligence surpasses that of humans – is closer than we thought
Wendy M Grossman
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday November 5 2008 00.01 GMT
The Guardian, Thursday November 6 2008
larger | smaller

Ray Kurzweil at a conference — as a hologram. Photograph: Ed Murray/Corbis

They are looking for the hockey stick. Hockey sticks are the shape technology startups hope their sales graphs will assume: a modestly ascending blade, followed by a sudden turn to a near-vertical long handle. Those who assembled in San Jose in late October for the Singularity Summit are awaiting the point where machine intelligence surpasses that of humans and takes off near-vertically into recursive self-improvement.

The key, said Ray Kurzweil, inventor of the first reading machine and author of 2005's The Singularity Is Near, is exponential growth in computational power - "the law of accelerating returns". In his favourite example, at the human genome project's initial speed, sequencing the genome should have taken thousands of years, not the 15 scheduled. Seven years in, the genome was 1% sequenced. Exponential acceleration had the project finished on schedule. By analogy, enough doublings in processing power will close today's vast gap between machine and human intelligence.

This may be true. Or it may be an unfalsifiable matter of faith, which is why the singularity is sometimes satirically called "the Rapture for nerds". It makes assessing progress difficult. Justin Rattner, chief technology officer of Intel, addressed a key issue at the summit: can Moore's law, which has the number of transistors packed on to a chip doubling every 18 months, stay in line with Kurzweil's graphs? The end has been predicted many times but, said Rattner, although particular chip technologies have reached their limits, a new paradigm has always continued the pace.

"In some sense - silicon gate CMOS - Moore's law ended last year," Rattner said. "One of the founding laws of accelerating returns ended. But there are a lot of smart people at Intel and they were able to reinvent the CMOS transistor using new materials." Intel is now looking beyond 2020 at photonics and quantum effects such as spin. "The arc of Moore's law brings the singularity ever closer."

Judgment day

Belief in an approaching singularity is not solely American. Peter Cochrane, the former head of BT's research labs, says for machines to outsmart humans it "depends on almost one factor alone - the number of networked sensors. Intelligence is more to do with sensory ability than memory and computing power." The internet, he adds, overtook the capacity of a single human brain in 2006. "I reckon we're looking at the 2020 timeframe for a significant machine intelligence to emerge." And, he said: "By 2030 it really should be game over."

Predictions like this flew at the summit. Imagine when a human-scale brain costs $1 - you could have a pocket full of them. The web will wake up, like Gaia. Nova Spivack, founder of EarthWeb and, more recently, Radar Networks (creator of Twine.com), quoted Freeman Dyson: "God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension."

Listening, you'd never guess that artificial intelligence has been about 20 years away for a long time now. John McCarthy, one of AI's fathers, thought when he convened the first conference on the subject in 1956, that they'd be able to wrap the whole thing up in six months. McCarthy calls the singularity, bluntly, "nonsense".

Even so, there are many current technologies, such as speech recognition, machine translation, and IBM's human-beating chess grandmaster Deep Blue, that would have seemed like AI at the beginning. "It's incredible how intelligent a human being in front of a connected computer is," observed the CNBC reporter Bob Pisani, marvelling at how clever Google makes him sound to viewers phoning in. Such advances are reminders that there may be valuable discoveries that make attempts at even the wildest ideas worthwhile.

Dharmendra Modha, head of the cognitive computing group at IBM's Almaden research lab, is leading a "quest" to "understand and build a brain as cheaply and quickly as possible". Last year, his group succeeded in simulating a rat-scale cortical model - 55m neurons, 442bn synapses - in 8TB memory of a 32,768-processor IBM Blue Gene supercomputer. The key, he says, is not the neurons but the synapses, the electrical-chemical-electrical connections between those neurons. Biological microcircuits are roughly essentially the same in all mammals. "An individual human being is stored in the strength of the synapses."

Smarter than smart

Modha doesn't suggest that the team has made a rat brain. "Philosophically," he writes on the subject, "any simulation is always an approximation (a kind of 'cartoon') based on certain assumptions. A biophysically realistic simulation is not the focus of our work." His team is using the simulation to try to understand the brain's high-level computational principles.

But computational power is nothing without software. "Would the neural code that powers human reasoning run on a different substrate?" the sceptical science writer John Horgan asked Kurzweil, who replied: "The key to the singularity is amplifying intelligence. The prediction is that an entity that passes the Turing test and has emotional intelligence ... will convince us that it's conscious. But that's not a philosophical demonstration."

For intelligence to be effective, it has to be able to change the physical world. The MIT physicist Neil Gershenfeld was therefore at the summit to talk about programmable matter. It's a neat trick: computer science talks in ones and zeros, but these are abstractions representing the flow or interruption of electric current, a physical phenomenon. Gershenfeld, noting that maintaining that abstraction requires increasing amounts of power and complex programmning, wants to turn this on its head. What if, he asked, you could buy computing cells by the pound, coat them on a surface, and run programs that assemble them like proteins to solve problems?

Gershenfeld is always difficult for non-physicists to understand, and his video of cells sorting was no exception. Two things he said were clear. First: "We aim to create life." Second: "We have a 20-year road map to make the Star Trek replicator."

Twenty years: 2028. Vernor Vinge began talking about the singularity in the early 80s (naming it after the gravitational phenomenon around a black hole), and has always put the date at 2030. Kurzweil likes 2045; Rattner, before 2050.

Turning back time

These dates may be personally significant. Rattner is 59; Vinge is 64. Kurzweil is 60, takes 250 vitamins and other supplements a day, and believes some of them can turn back ageing. If curing all human ills will be a piece of cake for a superhuman intelligence, then the singularity carries with it the promise of immortality - as long as you're still alive when it happens.

It is in this connection between the singularity and immortality, along with the idea that sufficiently advanced technology can solve every problem from climate change to the exhaustion of oil reserves, that gives the summit the feel of a religious movement. Certainly, James Miller, assistant professor of economics at Smith College, sounded evangelical when he reviewed how best to prepare financially. He was optimistic, reviewing investment strategies and assuming retirement funds won't be needed.

HowStuffWorks founder Marshall Brain, by contrast, explained why 50 million people will lose their jobs when they can be replaced by robots. "In the whole universe, there is one intelligent species," he said. "We're in the process of creating the second intelligent species."

The anthropologist Jane Goodall may disagree. She sees a different kind of singularity - the growing ecological devastation of Africa - and worries about the disconnection between human minds and hearts. "If we're the most intellectual animal," she said, "why are we destroying our only home?"

If Goodall's singularity comes first, the other one might never happen at all - one of those catastrophes that Vinge admits as the only thing he can imagine that could stop it.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008

What elements would you include if you were a robot?

Today in class, we discussed what elements we would include if we were a robot. I am a bit skeptical about the whole robot idea and mimicking human nature, so I was hesitant to even think about this aspect. I don't think that it will be possible in the near future for robots to mimic humans in every aspect, giving them freedom of choice. I think it will be a difficult task for researchers to accomplish because in my opinion, in order for robots to be given choice, emotion has to be present. Emotion is a huge aspect throughout the daily lives of people, and if robots didn't have this emotion, they are not experiencing the full capacity of freedom. I think if I was mimicked into a robot, I would for sure include this idea of emotion. Also, in class, Dr. Langguth asked whether we would include our flaws or not in our robot. My answer would be yes because I am who I am today because of the mistakes I've made in my past. If I didn't experience that, I don't think I would be the same person.

Star Trek

In class this week we watched and episode of Star Trek. I thought the episode benefit what we learned in class about robots. I agreed with the people who said since the robot was able to make decisions he shouldn't be treated like any other machine. In the James Bond series James never spoke to his vehicles as like they were machines. So I agreed with the final decisions. I like the episode.

Data: human or robot?

In the StarTrek episode that we watched in class today, the question was if Data was a person or a robot. He is defended well and it's very convincing in the episode to take his side that he should have the right to choose for himself. And this is ultimately the decision that is made. However, after thinking about the subject again, I still think that robots should not be considered as humans and they don't ultimately have the 'right' to choose. I don't think that a robot has a soul and can therefore not be considered human.

Reflection on Dr. Riehemann Speech

The speech that Dr. Riehemann gave was very interesting. It definitely made me think about what intelligence really is. Once we started talking about what intelligence would be considered, I really think intelligence would have to include emotions and humor. Showing emotion and having passion for something and to grow in learn, instead of being programed like a robot would be. So I wouldn't consider a robot intelligent until these features are reached. Humor and emotions would definitely be something that would be a key for me to be consider intelligent.

Robby the Robot

In class this week we watched a filmed that was made in the 1950's called Forbidden Planet and the main attraction of the film was a robot named Robby. I thought it was a real robot at first but then later the director said it was a man in suit. Robby the robot reminded me of the robot maid from the cartoon The Jetsons, they did basically the same thing they cleaned and was able to interact with their owners. I was wondering in class was the cartoon the Jetsons made before or after the film Forbidden Planet because both had the same ideas of what a robot was to look like. Both robots were parts of metal put together and they didnt look like humas at all. I'm really enjoying the topic of robots and is enjoying the novel Robot Visions.

Robby the Robot

I find the entire idea of robots rather fascinating. I didn't realize at all that the concept of robots has been used and developed for many years. I also didn't realize that Robby the robot himself had appeared in so many different films. I am very anxious to hear the speaker on Thursday. Technology is so amazing in our current time that I can only imagine the kinds of things the speaker will enlighten us on.

Robot Visions

I really enjoyed reading the chapter titled Robot Visions. It was sort of like a suspense to me because I was trying to figure out was life a hundred years from there time really like that. It seemed to perfect for humans to to live in harmony like that because according to some theroist conflict is necessary and what makes the world go around. Society according to RG-13 was to perfect for humans. When I got to the end of the section my jaw dropped in amazement because first of all there was no humans alive and the letter was sent to the future by a human like robot and that robot was the one telling the story.

Can thought go on without a body?

Can thought go on without a body? When asked this question I really don't think this could ever happen, and I think that is what makes humans so unique. We can think and have our own minds. Robots don't get to have this because they can only think and do what humans have programed into them. So it is still human with our own bodies and minds that give robots the chance to walk around. Minds are something only a human body can have, and I think no matter how much intelligence we may have a robots "brain" will never match a humans mind.

Robots

It really caught me off guard when the meaning of robots meant slave. Robots are the mechanical slaves to work of humans. It is strange for me to think of them as slaves and that does put me in fear because the first thing that I think of is, is the movie iRobot. If we are working to make the perfect robot to use in our homes what if we make them to smart and they end up having their own minds and want to over take humans. They would have the ablity to do just that since we have made them to be the strongest we could, stronger than humans. When we try to make a pretty much just better human being with a mechanical human, we just need to be careful in fear of our future and limit them to never be just like humans as much as we can. This is why I would never consider robots humans, because I never want them to actually have minds.

Wilderness as "focal things"

I love the wilderness but when we discussed the wilderness it opened my eyes to something. The fact that we need technology to conquer the wilderness that we see. If you think about it even when we think we are out in nature, most of the time it is some how made that way by man. I rarely am in an completely untamed area of land. In some way man has come in to play around with the land to make it easier. Either we go to a park to be outside but that is basically made by man or when we on a trial, made by man, you still even hear cars passing by, which takes away from the outside enviorment that would have been experienced 100 years ago.

Robots

Society is making enormous strides in the field of robotics, slowly but surely incorporating them in all fields of life. We have seen a tremendous advancement in robotics over the years in all aspectes of society. The introduction and adaptation of new surgical devices and methods has revolutionized the medical field. Industrial factors have shifted from the man-made method of construction to factories ran mainly by mechanics. The automobile industry has recently introduced vehicles that preform various task for the driver, eliminating a specific skill once required by the driver. These advancements seem to help adjust society by allowing us to become comfortable and trusting of technology. The age of a robotic society is approaching and soon we will have robots preforming most of our daily task. This advancement fuels our discussion in class, whether robot's have rights or not?

Robots

In class this week we began to talk about robots. I think this section is very interesting. I learned something new this week and that is robot stands for mechanic slave. We watched a movie in class about someone who mother had died and she came back to life in a robotic form. I very excited to start this section because I have always enjoyed learning about robots every since I was little with tv shows like the Jetsons.

Robots and Rights?

I'm looking forward to future classes regarding robots, however, I have never actually thought about robots receiving actual rights. It seems completely unuseful for robots to have rights. I must admit that I am a little weary about what the future holds in regard to robots. If people are smart enough to create a being that can replace human actions, what is going to stop the human popualtion from using those robots to replace every day things. I think Borgmann would be upset to find out that the invention of robots was replacing focal things and practices.

Robots and Rights

I also agree that robots should be given some form of rights but only if they are cabable of being able to experience the same things humans can. Such as feelings of sadness, anger, happiness all the emotions. I also believe that they only should be given rights if they are cabable of making their own decisions instead of just taking orders. Because just like any human being, if you do something wrong you suffer the consequences and if you do something great you reap the rewards. Same goes for a robot if they are capable of making their own decisions. they should be treated as humans if people are portraying them as humans and giving them human qualities. But i actually hope this never happens because it would take away from the actual form of a human being and take away from the whole truth of God creating us. Being human would have no siginificance if robots could be creating on the dot with thoiughts, feelings, and actions.

Robots

In class today we talked about robots and should we consider giving robots human rights. I believe that if technology becomes that advance and robots are able to experience some type of emotions I feel that we should give them some human rights instead of no rights at all. They wouldn't have rights such as being able to vote, or the right to bear arms. They should be given rights that protects them from the justice system like no excessive bail, the right to a speedy trial, no cruel or unusual punishment, and the right to an attorney. I believe that robots should have those rights because if they do something wrong such as break something or misplace an item of there owners the own may want to bring harm to the robot and those rights would protect the robots from being destroyed.

Straight Story

I really enjoyed watching Strait Story mainly due to the simplicity of things depicted in the film. It made me long for a more simple world. In today's world everyone is moving so fast and rushing including my own contributions to this. I wish we lived a more simple life without all the commodities offered by big corporations. It would make our world a more social and more family oriented one. I also liked this movie because I enjoy the country and appreciate the harversting of the corn field's and also of lawn mowers. I have been around those two things all my life and I was very comfortable in watching the movie and that is probably why I like it so much. All in all, I kinda wish I lived in the older days or in the country away from all the city rush.

Saddest Part of "The Straight Story"

I thought that the saddest and most movie part of the straight story was when Alvin was gathered around the camp fire with the bikers. First he is amazed by them when they ride by, so fast and able to move so fast. One of the bikers later that night asks him, "What the worst thing about being old." And Alvin says, "Remembering when you was young." I think that is so sad for him to be surrounded by so many youthful people and have that reminder of what he will never have again.

Technology and the Wilderness

Borgmann looks at the wilderness and nature as a matter of ultimate concern. He thinks that we should connect to the wilderness and nature, but the idea of a true wilderness is gone because of technology. He brings up two ideas from the book by Leo Marx about the garden and the wilderness. He says that the garden is unspoiled and full of promise while the wilderness is untamed, scary, and presents an image of what has yet to be overcome. So therefore, we needed technology to tame the wilderness which is now ultimately gone because we've destroyed it. Because of this the environment then becomes a focal thing. This is almost sad to think of because when we moved out West from Europe, we basically took over the land and destroyed the wilderness that was once here and we can no longer fully experience this.

"A straight story"

I disagree with the privous blog about the ending of the movie. Although the movie abruptly comes to a close leaving the brothers sitting on the porch in silence, the director feeds you enought information with the final shot. Prior to the credits, the dierector reveals a still shot of the enchanting night sky illuminated by stars. This scene represents the answer to the most important issue in Alvin's life. Alvin discribes his countless nights spent underneath the endless night sky with his brother while he is camping out in the cemetary. Their bond was strengthend from those late night conversations, learning more about the other than they truly knew about themselves. I personally enjoyed having an ending that didn't neccessarly "spell it out" for you. As for all of the other questions, how Alvin returned home and so on, those are insignifigant. The main point of the story dealt with his journey and rekindling the bond with his brother.

Focal Things and Practices in Relation to "A Straight Story"

Borgmann in his text pointed out that focal things and practices were vital in improving the modern day technology. The film, "A Straight Story," Alvin rode a tractor rather than driving a car. He is a family man, who appreciates all of the environment around him. In many scenes of the movie, the director would show Alvin admiring the scenery. Another important aspect would be camping out every night. Many people on road trips would stay in a hotel, but Alvin loved the scenery, loved the outdoors, so he would build his own campfire. Borgmann would definitely define these aspects as being focal things and focal practices because they involve engagement and emotional appeals. Alvin's brother would not have appreciated him coming to see him as much knowing it took him over 5 weeks to get to his house. Also, the risk taking of him not talking to his brother, but then taking this trip would be another good point in Borgmann's point of view.

Borgmann and A Straight Story

Comparing Borgmann with the Straight Story is through deictic discourse. Through the main character this was a way of showing focal practices and the importance of these focal practices. Through this demonstration of deictic discourse it makes people care about the reform that Borgmann has with using the art of in the movie, also the nature, and the relationships he has with other people. Borgmann's technology reform wants to make things more known and to appeal to people's better nature. He wants us to preserve our focal practices and not depend on technology.

The End of the Straight Story

The end of A Straight Story was terrible. It didnt really give us any indication on how Alvin got back home or did the two brothers fix their relationship with one another. I think David Lynch should start putting chapters in his dvd's because it's a lot of work to get back to the point you left off at.

A Straight Story

After watching the ending of this movie, I must admit that I was disappointed by the ending. I understand that Alvin accomplished what he set out to do, but I feel like there is more to the story. It would make a better ending and justify his entire purpose more if the audience knew how Alvin's relationship with his brother changed. If they stayed the same and didn't reconcile then his trip was useless. I like to think that the two brothers finally worked it out and remained close until their deaths. I think that life is too short to stay angry at someone for 10 years. I really liked the part in the movie where Lyle looks over at Alvin's tractor and asked if he rode that thing all the way there to see him. That part really put the movie into perspective and leads the audience to believe that the two brothers were going to end their feud. I can definitely see the correlation between this movie and Borgmann's concept of bringing into focus again the focal things and practices in life.

A Straight Story

I found this movie to be very moving. The desire for the old man to go forth on his way and travel to see his brother. This showed his strong sense of family, through his relationship with his daughter Rose and him traveling to see his brother, and to 'focal practices' . Some 'focal practices' would would be him connecting with nature through camping, also him learning about his machine, the lawnmower. Another would be the campfire circles where he would interact with people and share stories. But mainly his relationship with his machine, him wanting to know the past owner and wanting to fix himself, and wanting to travel the whole trip on his lawnmower even though it has been causing him some problems. He knew it would get him where he needed to get even though other thought there would be a better device, such as a car, to get him there, but he knew that a car wasn't the only way to get him there. He knew it would be hard and that is what made his trip mean so much to him.

A Straight Story

This week after watching some more of the movie the idea Borgmann stresses of using focal things and practices is becoming more apparent and visible. Some ways in which Alvin is using and practicing focal things and practices is by interracting with the environment around him. Instead of riding in a car and zooming by everything he is doing it his own way by taking a slow ride on his lawnmower and taking in every minute of it. He is appreciating everythign around him. He doesn't want to rely on anyone else to get him to his desitination. He says "I want to finish this one my own even if it seems impossible." Another way he is using focal things and practices is by talking to all of his people he is meeting along the way. He is interracting with them and staying engaged. The way he camps out every night and builds his own fires is another way. He doesnt sleep warm in a bed or doesnt have the easy access to cook things. He does it all without technology. Alvin also values the and appreciates the little things. He is a family man who appreciates the traditional idea of staying close to family and friends. Alvin is a perfect example of how Borgmann wants to reform technology.

Substantive vs. Instrumentalist Point of Views

Technology is further and further advancing, and because of this some may think they have no control over this (substantive). However, there are some who think they have total control over this (instrumentalist). As I look at it, I think I’m in the middle of the two point of views. Part of me believes that we have total control of it because people in the society are creating these advancements, however, part of me thinks we have no control because if something is easier, wouldn’t you use it also? Imagine going through stacks and stacks of books to look for information when one click on google will bring you right to what you need to know. Looking through books could take you hours, when the internet could take you less than one minute. Society is allowing the advancements, and to me, the society seems as if all the motivation is just making life easier, so where is the risk? Where is the emotional involvement?

Straight Story

The movie we started in class this week, A Straight Story, has very interesting meaning to it. First of all, Alvin is a very stubborn man and doesn't want much help with anything, even as he is getting old and does need help, particularly from a doctor. He is stuck in a lot of his ways and doesn't want to change. He gets news that his brother had a stroke and doesn't give much of a reaction at first, but ultimately decides he needs to visit him, and again, doesn't want help from anyone. He takes his lawnmower and a small trailer on a long trip because his medical conditions won't allow him to drive. This action by Alvin is very interesting, he is showing that nothing is as important as family. He also talks to the girl running away from home and expresses his views on family once again, which ultimately encourages her to perhaps go back home to them, because they will always love her no matter what, they are family. Thus far this movie has a lot of good points in it and is very interesting.

A Straight Story

I am enjoying the movie, A Straight Story. At first it was a little slow but aftere leaving class on Tuesday I reflected on the movie and realized that what Alvin is doing is something great. The idea of traveling that long of a distance seems a little unrealistic on a lawnmower. But overall I think it is a perfect opportunity to escape the reality of life, take time to yourself, and reflect on the things that are important in life. Which Alvin seems to be doing when he reminisces on the old times with his wife, children and rose. he also does this when he is talking to the pregnant girl when telling his story about the bundle of sticks and how it unifies family. I found that to be a very good analogy.

A Straight Story

I am not quite sure what to think of this movie. I find it very interesting that a man just decides one day that he wants to travel across the country on a tractor. But once I stopped and thought about it, the idea seems rather humbling. A jurney across the country could be a very valuable experience, and doing so on a tractor travelling at pretty much a snails pace can give someone the opportunity to reflect without the chaos and busyness of the real world. I am anxious so see where this movie is going to go.

A Straight Story

In class this week we watched a movie titled "A Striaght Story". I was about the life of Alivin Straight who was going to see his brother who recently had a stroke. He drove to see his brother on a John Deer lawn motor. I thought the movie was interesting and also inspiring because it was based on actual events. I enjoyed looking at the movie.

Leisure Time

After reading the texts of this class, as well as the dicussions in the class, I have relized that technology has become a prevalent part of what people do in their leisure time. For me personally, I spend much of my time on the internet. It is an easy way for me to stay connected to people and communicate. One thing that I also use a lot that has not been discussed much is television, but more specifically TIVO. Society as a whole, has become very busy and complex. People always have to be somewhere are have this thing to do. But at the same time, we have to watch that show at 9 pm. Tivo has made it very convenient for people to go on with their lives but atthe same time give people the luxury of being able to watch their favorite show whenever they get some free time.

Leisure Time

Reflecting on Borgmann’s text and the chapter particularly on leisure time really makes you think about what you do with that during your day. I feel as though that leisure time is a rare opportunity in my day. Between school and homework and playing a sport, I hardly find other time to sit down and relax. However, this weekend I had the opportunity to go camping with family. I feel as though I may have been able to get a lot of other things done in this time, however, there is also a feeling you get only with family that can’t be mimicked by anything else. I wish there was more time in every day that we could spend improving relationships and getting to know one another better.

Leisure Time vs. Virtue

As I began to read the chapter in Borgmann's text, I really began to think about what I do with the leisure time I do have. After work, I usually come home and do a whole lot of nothing. I could use that time doing other things such as reading or homework. Rather than getting things accomplished, I opt to spend my time doing unnecessary things such as browsing the internet for things that I am never going to buy or spending my day watching television that does nothing but bore me. Borgmann is correct about how humans tend to spend their leisure time. I agree totally because most of us think it is unnecessary to go to a museum when you can just go online in your avatar and avoid having to go out. However, where is the risk taking in this action? Why not go out and do virtuous tasks such as going to a museum or tasks that increase knowledge?

Intrumentalist

I suppose I would consider myself an instrumentalist as opposed to a substantive or a pluralist. I do not feel like humans have zero control because of technology as a substantive person would feel. I feel that we have total control and that we use technology to reach our goals. I mean after all...we are the ones who thought up and created the technology. I feel sorry for those who think that technology is out to get them or is out to ruin their life. I do agree that our lives become too revolved around technology and need to slow down, but I do not think that technology has some sort of hold or control over us.

Grace

I suppose I never really thought about what I am replacing by driving, going to the zoo, etc. Instead of driving I could walk to the grocery store, I could be more involved with nature, and maybe see something I wouldn't have if I had just driven. I thought that it was an interesting example that was brought up in class today about going into nature and bird watching vs. going to the zoo. As said in class, there is so much more risk involved with going out into nature yourself. At a zoo, you are guaranteed to see whatever is it you want but when you go hiking and are looking for a eagle, there might be a chance you dont find one, but if you do the reward will feel so much better than it would at a zoo.

Leisure Time

I feel that the majority of people, especially myself, use their free/leisure time either watching TV or surfing the internet. I have been catching myself recently when I am bored, that I just automatically turn on the TV and flip through a bunch of channels or get on Facebook and wastes hours. Then you look back on your day and think about what you have accomplished, while I might have accompllished a lot, I could have done a lot more if I hadnt of spent so much time watching TV or on the internet. Being in this class makes me stop and think about how much my life is wrapped up in technology!

2nd Life

In class today I learned some interesting facts about 2nd life. Its a virtual world which is created by the gamers. Its very educational some medical schools use 2nd life because it allows virtual surgeries. I also learned that there are some vandalism that goes on in 2nd life like repeatedly bumping into someone else avatar. I wanted to create me an avatar after class because it sounded like fun. I also learned another interesting fact in class today about Tommy the watch dog. I learned that the geese on campus had tricked him into getting in the water so they could drown him.

Sleeper

While I found the movie quite humorous I found the subject rather disturbing. The idea of going in for a routine surgery and waking 200 hundred years later and your life has changed. The future is very unpredictable, but I sincerely hope that it does not turn in what we saw in this movie. I idea of not having relationships and being less and less depended on human relationship is shocking. All humans need other people to be there for them, someone they can connect with. It helps people to grow into individuals and express our emotions. We will lessen our quality of life if our future looks anything like the future in this movie.

Sleeper

After watching a little bit more of the movie sleeper I could not even begin to imagine life being the way it is in this movie. Everything just seems too far fetched and if this is how life truly will be someday then our society is going to be pretty lazy. I know that the robot idea has already come into effect to some extent but if we get robots to actually do all of our house work and hostings for all of our gatherings then the traditional preparations for a party are being left out. The preparations for a party can all be a part or way to interract with others and to stay engaged with the party. We will no longer have to do anything for ourselves it appears. It goes back to what Borgmann says about the traditional culture of the table. The phrase refers to staying engaged and interractive with society and doing things the focal way with focal points and practices rather than doing it the new and easy way with the devices. To some extent our world is being taken over fully by technology and we are no longer doing things that make us independent and different from one another.

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.

American Culture in 2 words...Red Bull

When I think of modern culture, I think of fast-paced, impatient, and caffienated. What drink is more representative of that than Red Bull? In the hustle and bustle of everyday life, who has time to sleep?
Coca Cola may be classic and beer may be...well...beer, but America needs something a little more representative of the pace of culture. You can buy almost anything anytime you need it. We can stay up late and work into the wee hours of the night thanks to electricity and lights (and caffeine). Technology has enabled humans to do more today than they ever were before. And what fuels us to be more productive instead of sleeping? Red Bull!

Cyborgs

"I am cyborg". Kind of has a ring to it. Donna Haraway sees us all as cyborgs bc we eat technologically altered foods, take technologically produced vitamins, and wear tennis shoes. She presents a valid argument. While I do feel there is a strong difference between an athlete's training regimine and choice of footwear and steriod use, I do feel that most of her arguments make sense. Humans are constantly trying to become better. There comes a point when humans result to using technology as extensions of their own bodies. I believe that is the point when we all become cyborgs. We can extend our knowledge by surfing the web. We can extend our sense of touch by turning on a television screen. Even human error can be reduced by introducing complex machinery into operating rooms. Most of us cannot imaging being without cell phone and automobiles, but I believe that is what it would take to make us all less cyborg-ish.

Art or Noise?

The video we watched about Brian Eno made me think about random chance being considered as art. Andy Warhol was considered to be the one that blurred the line between art and controversy. You may recognize some of his pieces such as the Campbell Soup Can (I'm not sure if that's actually the title or not). He took everyday objects, plastered them on a canvas and called it art. There is actually much debate over his works. How can a representation of a soup can be called art?
This leads to the point: Brian Eno uses random sounds and a random computer generator to develop what is called "ambience music". Can this really be called art? If so, then random number generators such as the lottery and casino machines fall into the same category. Listening to some of his compositions actually bothered me. It sounded like nothing more than noise--distracting noise, at that. Art is a work that is created with a purpose, not random things thrown together to make a "complete" piece. And with something all that random, how can you even define completeness?

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.

Final Exam (Counterarguments - Journals 6 and 7)

This final entry contains my counterarguments to Journal 6 (on Stuart Sim and noise pollution) and Journal 7 (on the Kindle).

Journal 6 Counterargument

Stuart Sim sees a problem with our current society’s noise level. The electronics, industrialization, and the hustle and bustle of every day life is apparently too much for his ears. He explains the increased probability of hearing loss and the long term risks such as heart attack. However, can we really safely claim that those who work in noisy environments and suffer heart attacks were killed because of the noise? Personally, I say no. Sim only provided correlations and never accounted for any other possible causes; stress, genetics, poor diets, sicknesses, etc. These studies, although persuasive, can’t make any causal conclusions. Therefore, based on that information, we can’t conclude that the noisy work environments alone are responsible for increased heart attacks.

I think much of this is driven by a very personal distaste for western corporate capitalism. It’s hard to take him seriously if he’s so obviously biased toward life in western civilization. Sim needs to understand that nothing should be done about the noise level because it is not noise to the people producing it. Yes, they are higher decibel levels in a literal sense, but the lifestyles in western civilizations are very expressive. Music, cars, entire industries, and more are all expressed in a very outspoken way. However you word it or rationalize it, you are silencing them by not allowing them to be expressive. It is an insult to our way of life not to be outspoken. People embrace this way of life because it allows for an outing for our personality. This is just a way of life that Stuart Sim has to except. Taking it away would leave our society tragically empty and boring.

Journal 7 Counterargument

The Kindle is a device made by Amazon that is in many ways like the iPod, but rather than holding music, it holds literature. It is like keeping an entire library full of knowledge on your possession at all times. Unfortunately, it is also a very misunderstood device that is often shunned by many readers. It is simply a new and more efficient way of looking at reading, but because of its electronic and new-age appearance, its overall quality is questioned. What these people do not realize is that this device has endless capabilities. Imagine school without carrying those heavy textbooks around and having endless sources on your possession at all times. Imagine all the paper that could be saved by eliminating the old libraries. The experience itself is very similar to that of reading a real book. Some might argue that the experience can never be the same and they may be right, but it’s the contents of the writing that matter, not the feel of the book or the pages.

Some would argue that having an entire library on hand is completely useless, but I disagree. Don’t we already do that now? Why else would we carry laptops and phones with internet on them? It is so that we have access to cyberspace, which has a seemingly endless supply of “information”. However, we all know that not everything on the internet is necessarily true, so this is where the Kindle comes in. We already have compact versions of libraries on our possession, but they are inadequate and often blatantly incorrect. The Kindle would replace these devices with more valuable information; information that has been edited and published with acceptance of experts. People so often rely on the internet as their primary source of information. The Kindle would not only replace that, but also benefit all of us by limiting the spread of faulty information and increase awareness of more reliable sources.

Some people worry about their books being converted to software and having them all in one place because they fear that something might happen to them that would cause them to lose all of their files. It is understandable as to why people would worry about this, but one of the beauties of electronics is how easily files can be backed up and stored elsewhere. This worry of theirs is something that can easily be avoided simply by keeping copies of the files in other places. I don’t know a whole lot about how Kindle works, but it would most likely come with software that would hold all of your files. The files would then have to be uploaded onto the Kindle itself. That way, breaking your Kindle wouldn’t mean you’ve lost all of your files as well because they’d be safe on your computer. Just to be safe, people would most likely back up their computer files too. If they are seriously worried that the files will just one day disappear, they will periodically back up their files. Although, I will say that people who suddenly lose everything on their computers are typically people who are not good with computers to begin with and don’t know how to properly take care of them. That being said, the Kindle shouldn’t be held responsible for people losing files on a completely separate device. It seems fairly easy to use, so there wouldn’t likely be any serious complications leading to any detrimental losses. Even if there were, I’m sure there’s an online record of what you have and haven’t purchased so that you wouldn’t have to pay again. Basically, my point is that these worries and possible bugs in the product can easily be dealt within a reasonably short amount of time.

I would hope that the Kindle manages to overcome these negative views so that we may all benefit from its many uses. A complete transition from our old book style would be unrealistic, but to have the majority on the Kindle would make reading and owning literature extremely more efficient.

The Laws of Humanics

Asimov presents a very well thought out case in determining the laws of humanics in his Robot Stories. But are these laws enough? I feel they are inadequate. The first law states that "a human being may not injure another human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm". We have laws similar to this in our real world and culture, but these laws are broken by criminals everday. People murder other people and, in a much lesser extent, people lie to others, which causes harm. Humans are not logical beings and decisions are often clouded by emotional responses. These implications make it difficult to determine whether or not a human actually meant to impose harm on another or will, in the long run, do more harm than good. The second law states, "A human being must give orders to a robot that preserve robot existence, unless such orders cause harm or discomfort to human beings". My first issue with this law is that "discomfort" can mean a lot of things. Some people may feel discomfort with a robot being even remotely near them. Does this mean the person can give the robot the command to destroy itself just because a human feels that the robot looked at him funny and caused discomfort? And what if a robot accidentally steps on a human's toe? That could be really uncomfortable, but, hey, accidents happen. Is this discomfort to a degree that a human can give a command to destroy a robot? The third law can also be left to interpretation. As I stated previously, humans are not necessarily logical beings. In some of the stories we read, robots were disobeying orders by humans because the overall outcome was to protect humans. It may not have been seen at the time, but ultimately, it helped. When I was reading "Reason", I found myself thinking thoughts such as these. How would a human be able to come up with the existance of a "master" and all the other strange things QT comes up with in order to save the earth from the storm? Was the robot actually conscious of this, or did he seriously believe that there was a whole other explanation for existance? The odds of a human being able to save a robot in this fashion seem a little farfetched, to say the least...

Avatar Teachers?

In listening to the lecture about avatars overtaking the classroom, I couldn't help but think how silly that sounds. In the case of a Second Life classroom, a professor would have to construct the "learning headquarters", which in its own could be pretty difficult. They would have to familiarize themselves with the program, and then be able to develop a classroom setting that is intriguing, but not distracting. That, in itself could present quite a challenge. Variations among what people find aesthetically pleasing could greatly impact the learning environment. Other problems are also raised. Even though the professor may be able to alter their teaching styles online to appease each individual student, do we really want the leaders in education to cater to students like that when it is completely different than the real world? What does this ultimately teach the students? Other implications are also risen. Attendance could prove to be an absolute nightmare. In that kind of setting, a student could be there, but not really there. In the traditional classroom, a professor can generally tell when a student has "checked out" of a lecture. But with a completely unexpressive, always smiling avatar face, how can you tell if the student is confused, or is actually paying attention. Not to mention the fact that a student can get up from their computer to make a sandwich in the middle of the "class" and not even be noticed as missing. There is also the problem of some students not being able to access the internet, the internet being unreliable (because it never is in the actual classrooms :) ), and the lack of a quiet place for some students to be able to access the class. With these problems, just to name a few, how can people take this new idea of avatar teaching seriously?

Final Exam

Response to Week 3 Entry

Borgmann's portrayal of information in the technological age is overly pessimistic. His definition of technological information as information as reality, while insightful, is exaggerated. After all, when I see a picture of a bird, I do not believe it is actually a bird. I understand that reading an article on a website about birds is not the same as walking out into my yard and looking at the birds in the trees outside my house. While the definition may be indicative of a current trend, it certainly cannot be said to be true in every instance. Borgmann expresses a fear that the movement from natural and cultural information to technological information is destroying the first two types of information and eroding man's connection to the worls around him. While there may be a grain of truth in this, I believe it is a very small one. Technological information does enhance cultural information, and natural information too. Modern technology makes works of cultural information, such as books and music, much more readily available. Technology can allow people to learn to interpret natural signs when they may not have the time to do so in the natural world. This makes it even more enjoyable when they finally do get the chance to experience nature. It is easier to readjust to being back in nature when you have at least been reading and thinking about nature while you couldn't experience it. I think that this aspect of technologcal information keeps people closer to nature, because when nature remains on your mind, there is a desire to experience it, to make time to get away. When thought of from this perspective, technology helps keep us in touch with nature by keeping alive the desire to experience it. I don't think anyone truly believes reading about nature is enough to take the place of experiencing nature.

Response to Week 2 Entry


Dreyfus's arguements against distance learning are based on the notion of internet classes through chat rooms, and possibly seeing a picture of classmates or a teacher on a computer screen. While the arguements against this type of distance learning are valid, Dreyfus simply dismisses the possibilites of distance learning through telepresence by saying that telepresence technology will never overcome the embodiment issues raised. However, as aws discussed in class, new virtual classroom technologies have solved many of the problems Dreyfus has with distance learning. From this new perspective of distance learning, the educational capabilities are much greater. While itm seems unlikely that true mastery could be gained through distance learninr, I would argue that true mastery is not gained through traditional education either. Most people will tell you that you don't stop learning when you leave school. Many doctors will tell you that they learned as much in their 3 year residency as they did in their 4 years of medical school. True mastery cannot be reached in a classroom setting of any kind. The question becomes: what stage of education is reached in school? The answer, of course, depends on the degree of schooling, but it would be hard to argue that anyone could become a true expert before leaving school. In fact, Dreyfus admits that progressing from competence to proficiency occurs mainly through accumulating experience. Experiences can be simulated in school, but now they can also be simulated virtually. From this point of view, much of education as we know it today could take place as distance learning in advanced virtual classrooms and simulations.