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!
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
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?
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.
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.
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.
Exam Blog
In my blog "Jacking In" I talked of how technology is slowly taking over our lives. In my response to "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence", I discussed David and how he is the purest character in the film. Here is my rebuttal to both of these blogs.
In our class it has been discussed that technology has been slowly taking over our lives, from the introduction to kindles and the growing number of iPods in everyday activities. I don't believe that technology is taking over our lives. In fact, it's been a part of our lives since day one.
The cavemen used blunt objects to obtain food and fire to cook it. We go to the store and cook it in our ovens. Alexander Graham Bell created the telephone (supposedly) as an experiment. We now have portable phones that are hands free. Before, books were a rare commodity published through the church. Now, we've invented ways for everyone to own books, even without having a physical copy of it in front of you (the Kindle).
Technology has evolved, yes, but its become a way for us to make our lives easier. Just because it has changed over time does not mean we are becoming slaves to it, it just means that we've learned to manipulate it and shape it to our own uses. Would you say that the C.G.I. in films means that we can't make movies that don't have alien monsters and huge explosions? No, plenty of non-blockbusters use C.G.I. to ENHANCE the experience, giving filmmakers a chance to create realistic backgrounds or place actors in scenes they weren't there to film.
Technology has been and always will be a crucial part of our lives. The fact that its changed does not make that different, nor does it make it alarming. It just means that humanity has become more ingenious in its uses of technology. If anything, technology is something to be celebrated, rather than spurned.
---
Steven Spielberg's "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence" tells the story of David, the first Mecha of his kind. He is forever locked in the form of a child, provided as a surrogate for those couples who can't obtain child licenses. Throughout the film David is seen showcasing what many have referred to as actual human emotion. However, I believe that these displays are programming; no matter how different he is from the other Mecha, he was created to be that way.
When David imprints himself onto Monica his demeanor changes from that of a stilted, "Shatner-esque" robot to that of an actual child. He loves his mother and he in turn wants to do everything he can to make sure that she loves him. Look at how he treats Monica's husband, though. Since he has not imprinted onto her husband he calls him by his first name, rather than father or daddy. His robotic personality comes through in their exchanges.
Also, David was PROGRAMMED to act like an actual child. His displays of love and affection is part of what he was created to do. That Hobby regards him as an anomaly doesn't mean that he might have some human tendencies, it means that somewhere along the line the Professor screwed up. After all, David was a prototype.
And consider the SuperMecha at the end. They want to study David because he had contact with humans. They want to study how this contact affected him, how his programming reacted to it. Since they were not created to be surrogate children, and since they didn't have any human contact, their interests are purely scientific. They are fulfilling their function, just as David is seen throughout the film fulfilling his.
In our class it has been discussed that technology has been slowly taking over our lives, from the introduction to kindles and the growing number of iPods in everyday activities. I don't believe that technology is taking over our lives. In fact, it's been a part of our lives since day one.
The cavemen used blunt objects to obtain food and fire to cook it. We go to the store and cook it in our ovens. Alexander Graham Bell created the telephone (supposedly) as an experiment. We now have portable phones that are hands free. Before, books were a rare commodity published through the church. Now, we've invented ways for everyone to own books, even without having a physical copy of it in front of you (the Kindle).
Technology has evolved, yes, but its become a way for us to make our lives easier. Just because it has changed over time does not mean we are becoming slaves to it, it just means that we've learned to manipulate it and shape it to our own uses. Would you say that the C.G.I. in films means that we can't make movies that don't have alien monsters and huge explosions? No, plenty of non-blockbusters use C.G.I. to ENHANCE the experience, giving filmmakers a chance to create realistic backgrounds or place actors in scenes they weren't there to film.
Technology has been and always will be a crucial part of our lives. The fact that its changed does not make that different, nor does it make it alarming. It just means that humanity has become more ingenious in its uses of technology. If anything, technology is something to be celebrated, rather than spurned.
---
Steven Spielberg's "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence" tells the story of David, the first Mecha of his kind. He is forever locked in the form of a child, provided as a surrogate for those couples who can't obtain child licenses. Throughout the film David is seen showcasing what many have referred to as actual human emotion. However, I believe that these displays are programming; no matter how different he is from the other Mecha, he was created to be that way.
When David imprints himself onto Monica his demeanor changes from that of a stilted, "Shatner-esque" robot to that of an actual child. He loves his mother and he in turn wants to do everything he can to make sure that she loves him. Look at how he treats Monica's husband, though. Since he has not imprinted onto her husband he calls him by his first name, rather than father or daddy. His robotic personality comes through in their exchanges.
Also, David was PROGRAMMED to act like an actual child. His displays of love and affection is part of what he was created to do. That Hobby regards him as an anomaly doesn't mean that he might have some human tendencies, it means that somewhere along the line the Professor screwed up. After all, David was a prototype.
And consider the SuperMecha at the end. They want to study David because he had contact with humans. They want to study how this contact affected him, how his programming reacted to it. Since they were not created to be surrogate children, and since they didn't have any human contact, their interests are purely scientific. They are fulfilling their function, just as David is seen throughout the film fulfilling his.
Exam Blog
Chris Reynolds
Final Exam Blog
Blog 9 (Discussed robots not being a good representation of humans if the world would only later be populated by machines)
Blog 11 (Discussed that even though Andrew was able to die, it didn’t make him anymore human)
Opposing arguments:
If the world’s population of humans were to ever be replaced by machines, or artificially intelligent robots, the world would finally be balanced perfectly. There would be so many different things that wouldn’t need to be worried about. Just the thought of worrying about something wouldn’t even take place. There wouldn’t be any need to. Everything would be equal, and the world would finally be at its peak.
At last, the world wouldn’t have to have any concern towards crime, sadness, or any form of discomfort. There wouldn’t be things such as starvation or hunger. The world would simply just be the way it should be, it would be complete. It would be a complete turn-around. There wouldn’t even be any need for hope. What would there be left to hope for? You wouldn’t need to. Robots would live on knowing that their lives will always be tranquil, or serene. They would be the image of how intelligent humans were before they became extinct. A race of robots would prove how much humans have allowed technology to grow and flourish. These man-made machines would reflect on a history of hard-work and dedication that ordinary humans possess.
It would be a world where there would be no need for practice making perfect. Everything would already be perfect, and it would stay perfect for eternity. There would be absolute happiness, all because of humans making these magnificent machines to live on their legacy, and finally…live in equality.
In “The Bicentennial Man”, Andrew’s yearning to be completely human seemed like it would always be unfulfilled. As time went on, Andrew proved to get more and more human. Even though he had made various amounts of modifications or changes in order to appear more human, he still was just viewed as a robot. It seemed as though it would always be like this, but when he had the idea of dying, it at last, made him nothing but human. One of the key differences between humans and robots are that humans are mortal, while machines are immortal. By Andrew dying just like the rest of us, he became human.
Plain and simple, Andrew was definitely viewed as a human after this event. He, unlike other robots or machines, was able to experience something that only humans can. He became mortal just like every other human. It was the one and only thing that was really keeping him from being completely human. By him seeming mortal, everyone else was able to accept him as one of their kind. He died just like you, your brother, your dog, and anyone else you know will in the end. Andrew wasn’t a robot after this. Andrew is and always will be, human.
Final Exam Blog
Blog 9 (Discussed robots not being a good representation of humans if the world would only later be populated by machines)
Blog 11 (Discussed that even though Andrew was able to die, it didn’t make him anymore human)
Opposing arguments:
If the world’s population of humans were to ever be replaced by machines, or artificially intelligent robots, the world would finally be balanced perfectly. There would be so many different things that wouldn’t need to be worried about. Just the thought of worrying about something wouldn’t even take place. There wouldn’t be any need to. Everything would be equal, and the world would finally be at its peak.
At last, the world wouldn’t have to have any concern towards crime, sadness, or any form of discomfort. There wouldn’t be things such as starvation or hunger. The world would simply just be the way it should be, it would be complete. It would be a complete turn-around. There wouldn’t even be any need for hope. What would there be left to hope for? You wouldn’t need to. Robots would live on knowing that their lives will always be tranquil, or serene. They would be the image of how intelligent humans were before they became extinct. A race of robots would prove how much humans have allowed technology to grow and flourish. These man-made machines would reflect on a history of hard-work and dedication that ordinary humans possess.
It would be a world where there would be no need for practice making perfect. Everything would already be perfect, and it would stay perfect for eternity. There would be absolute happiness, all because of humans making these magnificent machines to live on their legacy, and finally…live in equality.
In “The Bicentennial Man”, Andrew’s yearning to be completely human seemed like it would always be unfulfilled. As time went on, Andrew proved to get more and more human. Even though he had made various amounts of modifications or changes in order to appear more human, he still was just viewed as a robot. It seemed as though it would always be like this, but when he had the idea of dying, it at last, made him nothing but human. One of the key differences between humans and robots are that humans are mortal, while machines are immortal. By Andrew dying just like the rest of us, he became human.
Plain and simple, Andrew was definitely viewed as a human after this event. He, unlike other robots or machines, was able to experience something that only humans can. He became mortal just like every other human. It was the one and only thing that was really keeping him from being completely human. By him seeming mortal, everyone else was able to accept him as one of their kind. He died just like you, your brother, your dog, and anyone else you know will in the end. Andrew wasn’t a robot after this. Andrew is and always will be, human.
FInal Exam
Hank Backer
Ethics and Technology
Final Exam
5/1/2008
It’s a valuable exercise to look at what we thought at the beginning of the semester and compare it to how we are thinking now. This blog, and the Internet as a whole, is especially handy for just such a record keeping. I’m personally surprised at what I originally posted on Cyborg Campfire. It’s not as though what I was saying was wrong, but we really have seen a lot of differing views of technology, and this has really helped to deepen my understanding. I can’t just say “cyborgs are bad” or that “the internet is good” anymore. One really has to devote precise phrasing and judicious thought to talking about technology.
1. Sincerity and Technology
In this blog, I quoted Robert Frost and applied what he said about the poetry to the Internet, and such social networking websites as Facebook and Myspace. I don’t know how Robert Frost possibly got linked with Facebook in my head, but there it is, I wrote it. I do stand by my contention that both of those websites are a “collection of dead selves,” and I think that’s rather fine phrasing. And while I think my point still stands that it really is difficult to convey real, human emotion while writing on somebody’s Facebook wall, I applied this to the general category of technology, and I now know this to be incorrect.
After seeing a film like AI, it would be barbaric of me to say that David, while part of technology, is incapable of expressing sincerity. David is sincere in almost all of his actions, much more so than most children. He was much more sincere than Monica’s human son, who was often deceitful and maligning to David. So, if a being of Artificial Intelligence was able to be created, bypassing the limitations that philosophers like Dreyfus have pointed out, then it’s very possible that the machine will be more sincere than the man: in fact, likely, as I seriously doubt that we would emphasize deceit and insincerity when creating Artificial Intelligence. Why would we want to create a deceitful being? But perhaps it’s unavoidable.
Isaac Asimov stands up for machines, as well. Andrew Martin is very sincere in his efforts to become a man—and he doesn’t just succeed in becoming a man, he becomes an exemplary man. Like David loves his mother, it seems obvious that in Asimov’s world, Andrew Martin loved Little Miss, as his last words were her name. And yet again, humans turn out to be deceitful and conniving, especially the CEOs and politicians in Asimov’s world (which actually seems somewhat true to life). The CEO of the company that created Andrew, through many generations, is thwarted by Andrew’s honest and sincere efforts.
So while this class didn’t change my mind about sincerity regarding websites like Facebook, it did deepen my understanding of the issue. I still would hand write a letter to someone if I wanted to show my sincerest affection instead of writing an email, but something tells me Andrew Martin would feel the same way. So technology as a whole cannot be considering insincere. Even the Internet has sincere moments, and in our last classes, we discussed the game Second Life—perhaps there, too, some sincerity can be found.
2. A Poem as a Blogpost?
I realize that my poem was horribly obscure and probably not useful to anyone, as far as philosophical discussion is concerned. So I am going to kill the poem the surest way I know how—I’m going to talk about it. Poems are much like jokes in that way, you know?
What I was trying to say in my poem is that if art survives, humanity is saved. In Lyotard’s dialogue, “Can Thought Go on Without a Body,” the “He” speaker thinks that humanity will survive the sun’s inevitable death is to create Artificial Intelligence that is able to operate on some resource not dependent on our sun, as our whole way of life is. In the poem, I imagined the robot surviving us, floating through space (the fact that the robot is gold is borrowed from Thomas Aquinas’s Golden Man, also discussed in class) with “little poetry chips, thousands of them, billions of poems on each chip!”
Now, it’s great that we have a robot that has billions of poems in its brain, but unless the robot is able to write new poems, while using the influences but in its own voice, then there is no forward motion, and humanity would be dead. Unless the robot is able to move art forward, then everything in the robot’s brain is just an elaborate recording, which is great, if any extra-terrestrials were to find the robot, but still, it would be like saying dinosaurs are alive because we have their bones arranged correctly in museums. If this proverbial robot were able to write a poem, though, then it seems like we would have fully succeeded in passing on our culture into a metal, more durable shell, and in a sense could say we survived.
This is supported by Andrew Martin’s character in “The Bicentennial Man.” The first notion that there is something human-like about Andrew is that he’s able to make a beautiful wood carving for Little Miss, and he enjoys doing it—it makes his circuits flow more smoothly. Lyotard and Asimov seems at odds, here, or at least the “He” from Lyotard’s dialogue. “He” seems to think that the only qualification for humanity enduring is that we’ve made Artificial Intelligence. However, here in Asimov’s story we’ve succeeded in doing this, but Andrew really has to work at becoming human—it takes the sacrifice of himself, whereas “He” would value the robots ability of preservation past the sun’s death for the preservation of humanity.
I tend to agree with Asimov rather than “He,” and Lyotard himself seems aware of this with his response to “He,” “She.” Otherwise, humanity very much seems like the situation played out in “Robot Visions,” where all humanity has perished and it’s just robots living out a semblance of human life. Sure there’s less negative aspects to life among robots, but with those negative aspects, humanity is also gone.
Exam Blog
(1) In my original blog labeled “Technology vs. Reality”, I chose to analyze the influence of technology on society, as well as its consequential effects on reality. My point of view in this first blog was rather pessimistic. I did not see how a balance, as Borgmann described it, could be achieved between the influx of information technology and reality. I believed that technology was not meant to limit one to reality, but rather to blur the barriers between the surreal and the tangible – in effect, eliminating any hope of balance between the two components. However, one analyzing my argument would find many weak points in my logic.
For instance, I use an example of reality as it is illustrated in movies to demonstrate how technology exaggerates reality. While this argument is relevant to a certain degree, I limited myself by focusing on only one facet of the entire purpose of technology. In addition, I did not give credit to aspiring directors, actors, screenwriters, musicians, and authors who seek to rip away the glossy exterior of a contrived reality (frequently created through technology) to reveal the gritty, tangible side of reality that is often hidden. Taking into account the new artists who desire only to utilize technology to exemplify reality at its best and worst, I find that my original argument was rather exclusive.
Hence, after a thorough analysis of my original argument, I have determined that a balance is growing between information technology and reality. I believe the crux of this new argument is the fact that information technology is now being used to emphasize reality in all its gritty glory instead of disguising and exaggerating it. Thus, I think that a balance will soon emerge as people move away from the glamour of a virtual reality littered with technological gadgets and return to a reality that is emphasized and celebrated with technological advancements.
(2) Nevertheless, the pessimistic view discussed above is not limited to one blog. I demonstrate this pessimism frequently in my blog entries, especially in the blog labeled “Thoughts on Lyotard”.
In this blog, I discussed the two differing views of Lyotard’s two narrators – “He” and “She” – in his essay “Can Thought Go on without a Body”. Originally, I sided with the second narrator, “She”. “She” held that artificial intelligence was not advanced enough to characterize or to provide future generations with a sense of humanity. “She” believed AI technology was severely limited in its analysis and understanding of society and humanity. Without doubt, “She” saw technology as a bane rather than a helpful necessity. However, “He” believed that artificial intelligence would provide meaning to one’s otherwise meaningless life through the storage of the thoughts and the memories of humanity.
Analyzing my view in accordance with the views of both “He” and “She”, I find that I am sympathetic to both. However, I believe my original argument, like my argument above, was weak and failed to take into account all aspects of the argument. His argument is as relevant and important as her argument in reference to the benefits of artificial intelligence.
“He” makes an interesting point in reference to technology’s possible influence on the collective future of society. “He” believes a human’s consciousness can be contained in a technological device. If this fact were true, the possibilities for learning about the past would be limitless. Imagine going to the museum and listening to the consciousness of Cicero orating about the natural law! Without doubt, humanity would have little or no boundaries in the acquisition of knowledge. Lives would take on new and unique meanings as humanity’s consciousness expanded and encompassed the entire world.
Thus, I believe that technology can be useful in the distant future as a storage tool aimed at providing meaning to lives that would originally be lost to the ages. Truly, death would be the only limit to the body, and there would be no limits to the mind. Naturally, this is an appealing alternative to death and the cessation of thought.
For instance, I use an example of reality as it is illustrated in movies to demonstrate how technology exaggerates reality. While this argument is relevant to a certain degree, I limited myself by focusing on only one facet of the entire purpose of technology. In addition, I did not give credit to aspiring directors, actors, screenwriters, musicians, and authors who seek to rip away the glossy exterior of a contrived reality (frequently created through technology) to reveal the gritty, tangible side of reality that is often hidden. Taking into account the new artists who desire only to utilize technology to exemplify reality at its best and worst, I find that my original argument was rather exclusive.
Hence, after a thorough analysis of my original argument, I have determined that a balance is growing between information technology and reality. I believe the crux of this new argument is the fact that information technology is now being used to emphasize reality in all its gritty glory instead of disguising and exaggerating it. Thus, I think that a balance will soon emerge as people move away from the glamour of a virtual reality littered with technological gadgets and return to a reality that is emphasized and celebrated with technological advancements.
(2) Nevertheless, the pessimistic view discussed above is not limited to one blog. I demonstrate this pessimism frequently in my blog entries, especially in the blog labeled “Thoughts on Lyotard”.
In this blog, I discussed the two differing views of Lyotard’s two narrators – “He” and “She” – in his essay “Can Thought Go on without a Body”. Originally, I sided with the second narrator, “She”. “She” held that artificial intelligence was not advanced enough to characterize or to provide future generations with a sense of humanity. “She” believed AI technology was severely limited in its analysis and understanding of society and humanity. Without doubt, “She” saw technology as a bane rather than a helpful necessity. However, “He” believed that artificial intelligence would provide meaning to one’s otherwise meaningless life through the storage of the thoughts and the memories of humanity.
Analyzing my view in accordance with the views of both “He” and “She”, I find that I am sympathetic to both. However, I believe my original argument, like my argument above, was weak and failed to take into account all aspects of the argument. His argument is as relevant and important as her argument in reference to the benefits of artificial intelligence.
“He” makes an interesting point in reference to technology’s possible influence on the collective future of society. “He” believes a human’s consciousness can be contained in a technological device. If this fact were true, the possibilities for learning about the past would be limitless. Imagine going to the museum and listening to the consciousness of Cicero orating about the natural law! Without doubt, humanity would have little or no boundaries in the acquisition of knowledge. Lives would take on new and unique meanings as humanity’s consciousness expanded and encompassed the entire world.
Thus, I believe that technology can be useful in the distant future as a storage tool aimed at providing meaning to lives that would originally be lost to the ages. Truly, death would be the only limit to the body, and there would be no limits to the mind. Naturally, this is an appealing alternative to death and the cessation of thought.
journal # 10
Does Data deserve rights? Yeah, I think that in the situation presented in the Star Trek episode he does deserve rights. He is, as far as I know, the only robot that is a member of the crew and he seems to show that he is a contributing member so i believe that he should be given rights. however, in a future where there are hundreds of Data robots around I think that his rights go out the window and he should be treated more like a tool, even if he is a friend of the other members of the crew. How can you give him rights? If you wanted to do something that he didn't agree with you could simply turn him of and proceed as normal. So in that case why does he even need rights, they should have turned off his power and let that other scientist take him apart and data would have never known the difference.
Journal # 9
Would robots be a quality representation of humans in a future where humans no longer exist? I doubt it. I feel that one of the most important qualities of humans is that they aren't perfect. Humans make mistakes and use their mistakes as a reference tool to further their development. What would robots do? There are several human mistakes that have come to define our culture, without these mistakes we wouldn't be what we are now as a culture. Perfect robots would life in a perfect world and make no mistakes, I feel that this would end our culture. Because of this robots would not be able to take the place of humans if humans were extinct.
Exam Blog
Should there be laws of humanics that should be “programmed” into humans? These laws of humanics would make humans treat other humans the same way robots treat other robots. Robots treat each other with respect and if humans did the same the world would be a much safer place. For example in “Bicentennial Man” some teenagers ask Andrew the robot to take himself apart. This shows how bad humans can treat robots. Yet, if the laws of humanics could be programmed into humans it would prevent this type of treatment towards robots and humans
The previous paragraph explains my views about how it is wrong to abuse robots. A rebuttal to my previous argument would be that robots are only scrap metal and they don’t have feelings. Robots should not have rights because their “life” purpose is to satisfy humans and obey our commands. Since robots are just property there should be no guidelines or rules of how they are treated. If someone wants to harm their robot or make it do destructive behavior to itself for entertainment it should be the owner’s choice. It is better for robots to cause self harm and harm to each other than it is for humans. Robots should not have rights because they are just machines that are human property.
Lyotard tried to answer the question, how can thought go on without a body? Lyotard suggest artificial intelligence to fix this problem. He suggests that A.I. is a way for humans to preserver their thoughts and memories after the sun explodes. Lyotard talked about how all human achievements are pointless due to the fact that one day the human race will end because of the death of the sun. This type of thinking that human achievement is irrelevant is not plausible. It is not realistic humans can not comprehend how long the billions of years are until the end of the world. His idea of saving human achievements in A.I. is a reasonably good idea. This will help ensure that if their is future life that they know our technology and our achievements.
An opposite view of this blog would be that human culture is pointless. That human culture and achievements will not go on after the world has ended. Humans should start living in the mind set of that nothing matters because one day the world will end. What is the point of doing great things and being considered a good person if it is not going to mean anything? Once the world ends if there is A.I. who is to say that they will carry on our culture instead of starting a new culture.
The previous paragraph explains my views about how it is wrong to abuse robots. A rebuttal to my previous argument would be that robots are only scrap metal and they don’t have feelings. Robots should not have rights because their “life” purpose is to satisfy humans and obey our commands. Since robots are just property there should be no guidelines or rules of how they are treated. If someone wants to harm their robot or make it do destructive behavior to itself for entertainment it should be the owner’s choice. It is better for robots to cause self harm and harm to each other than it is for humans. Robots should not have rights because they are just machines that are human property.
Lyotard tried to answer the question, how can thought go on without a body? Lyotard suggest artificial intelligence to fix this problem. He suggests that A.I. is a way for humans to preserver their thoughts and memories after the sun explodes. Lyotard talked about how all human achievements are pointless due to the fact that one day the human race will end because of the death of the sun. This type of thinking that human achievement is irrelevant is not plausible. It is not realistic humans can not comprehend how long the billions of years are until the end of the world. His idea of saving human achievements in A.I. is a reasonably good idea. This will help ensure that if their is future life that they know our technology and our achievements.
An opposite view of this blog would be that human culture is pointless. That human culture and achievements will not go on after the world has ended. Humans should start living in the mind set of that nothing matters because one day the world will end. What is the point of doing great things and being considered a good person if it is not going to mean anything? Once the world ends if there is A.I. who is to say that they will carry on our culture instead of starting a new culture.
Final Exam
In Journal 7, I discussed the idea of the Kindle and its inability to replace books. In my discussion I brought up the ideas of how the Kindle could not replace books because you wouldn't be able to have a book and call it your own; the physical presence of the book would not be there and therefore you would not be able to call it "your own." Yet, when comparing the relationship of the Kindle to books to the relationship between an iPod and CDs, I find that it wouldn't be that much of a hinderance at all. CDs used to be the same as books where it was important to own the actual CD to be able to call it yours, yet, in today's age, people are happy to just own the songs by ordering them on iTunes. The idea of the CD still works. For example, in your car, with an iPod and an adapter, you are able to listen to all of your songs just as you would a CD, but now, you don't have to continue to change the CD when you are through listening to the 12-14 tracks on one CD. The same is true for the Kindle; after it is around for a few years like the iPod, people will just be excited to have many different books at their disposal without having to take up so much space with the actual books. As far as giving CDs or books for gifts, there would still be the opportunity to give the actual book, but there would also be an option to give a gift card, such as an iTunes card, so that the person could download any book they would like. The Kindle would also offer better ways of carrying school books; you would no longer have to carry around multipe heavy school books in a backpack, but you would be able to carry your Kindle around and have all of you books at hand. This would also be helpful so you wouldn't have to try to remember to bring your book, but you would always have it with you. Also, if you have your Kindle with you wherever you are and you have a spare time to cram before that next exam, you have your book right there to study. The Kindle would be an upgrade to make accessing information and books easier.
In Journal 9, I discussed the problems with virtual video games and virtual reality and how they can hinder a person's drive to go out and do the actual activity. I mentioned the Wii Sports game and how you can feel like you are actually playing through the game, but it is not the same as actually going out and playing the game itself. The truth is, it's not going to be exactly like going out and playing that sport, but it is very similar. For example, when personally playing the Wii sports games, you have to concentrate on timing and power just as you would in the actual sport. As with tennis for example, you must aim where you would like to hit it and you must also swing with how much or little force you would like. You also feel the soreness of playing the Wii game as you would a regular game. I've heard several stories that individuals can become sore while actually swinging the racket or actually punching the punching bag. It will never be identical to the actual sport because you aren't actually outside playing, but in your living room, but it does come very close to being just like the actual game. Virtual games and virtual reality offer so many different opportunities for people. If a person is in a wheelchair, for example, and they can't walk or stand, they will be able to experience what it would be like to play the sports. Also, if you can't actually do something such as being a secret agent or jumping out of an airplane, virtual reality can give you the opportunity to experience those things that you wouldn't be able to do in real life. Virtual reality games won't deter people from wanting to go out and do the actual activity, but in fact, they will make them appreciate the real activity so much more.
In Journal 9, I discussed the problems with virtual video games and virtual reality and how they can hinder a person's drive to go out and do the actual activity. I mentioned the Wii Sports game and how you can feel like you are actually playing through the game, but it is not the same as actually going out and playing the game itself. The truth is, it's not going to be exactly like going out and playing that sport, but it is very similar. For example, when personally playing the Wii sports games, you have to concentrate on timing and power just as you would in the actual sport. As with tennis for example, you must aim where you would like to hit it and you must also swing with how much or little force you would like. You also feel the soreness of playing the Wii game as you would a regular game. I've heard several stories that individuals can become sore while actually swinging the racket or actually punching the punching bag. It will never be identical to the actual sport because you aren't actually outside playing, but in your living room, but it does come very close to being just like the actual game. Virtual games and virtual reality offer so many different opportunities for people. If a person is in a wheelchair, for example, and they can't walk or stand, they will be able to experience what it would be like to play the sports. Also, if you can't actually do something such as being a secret agent or jumping out of an airplane, virtual reality can give you the opportunity to experience those things that you wouldn't be able to do in real life. Virtual reality games won't deter people from wanting to go out and do the actual activity, but in fact, they will make them appreciate the real activity so much more.
Journal 14
The other day in class we discussed avatars and their new affect on distance learning. The thought of having a teacher being exactly what I want and always doing the actions and voice tones that I would like seems unbelieveable to me. I don't come to class each day with the same mind-set; some days I am tired, some days I am wide awake, some days I have so many things on my mind, and some days I may not have anything on my mind. It would be very interesting if they avatar teacher would be able to read my mood and adjust accordingly, yet, if the avatar were able to do that, wouldn't it be more like an actual person rather than a piece of technology? I don't see how it is possible for a piece of technology, such as the avatar teacher, to have such a wide range of abilities that it would be able to adjust to your avatars mood that could change by the minute. If the student "comes into class" in one mood and the avatar teacher adjusts to that mood, will the avatar be able to also adjust if the mood of the student changes throughout the class? Or for example, say the student is very tired once they arrive, but the teacher would like to wake them up, will the teacher be able to speak at a louder to tone to wake up the student just by reading whether they are tired or not? And once the student wakes up, will the teacher be able to take their tone of voice back to a regular tone? The idea of having such technologies in distance learning that you can have the exact teacher that you want to learn seems farfetched. I also enjoy having to adjust and learn different ways with different teachers, so if I am constantly being taught only my ideal way of learning, how will I ever learn if thrown into an actual classroom with a different style of teaching?
Journal 13
When considering the laws of Humanics, it was intersting to compare and contrast those laws to the laws of robotics. The laws of humantics basically states that humans must not harm other humans or robots unless them themselves are in danger. For robots, it is protect a human at all costs, including if it means taking your own life. I find it interesting to think about these ideas because I believe that basic law should be to defend yourself if someone attempts to harm you, but you should also desire to follow a sort of moral law where you don't allow harm to come to you unless it is to protect your fellow man, or even in some cases, to protect your fellow robot. If robots could in fact take on such human likenesses and characteristics, why should we not value there existence and want to protect them as much as we would our fellow human? If artificial intelligence were in fact achieved, we would then have to go back to questioning their human-like qualities as in the case of Andrew Martin. He slowly developed many characteristics of humans and even desired to die like a human. In a case like Andrew Martin, I believe that the one basic law of protecting yourself and the moral law of protecting your fellow "being" should definitely be considered.
Final Exam Bog
February 10: MP3 vs. CDs
On my February 10 bog, “MP3’s vs. CDs: I argued that I prefer MP3 over the CD because it is cheaper obtain music it is to purchase a CD for 15 dollar. But this time I’m arguing why purchasing a CD is better than purchasing a MP3. For one reason buying a CD from the store is better than dealing with the risk of the RIAA giving you a hefty fine for downloading a couple songs. I know that the likelihood of getting busted by the RIAA police is very slim, but I heard stories of people getting caught downloading music from the internet. I remember one morning I was watching the local news hearing about that a 10 year old boy receiving a 10 thousand dollar fine for illegally downloading a few songs off the internet. This proves that the RIAA are so serious about people downloading songs illegally that they are willing to fine a little kid over a couple.
Another reason is that you might experience some technical difficulties downloading stores from internet sites such as iTunes, Napster, and Amazon. Some of my friends who actually download songs legal from these sites experience some technical difficulties when the downloader crashed. This usually occurs when they send an email to the sites in order to get them to unlock the album and allow them to redownload the songs. Another problem is that a big concern is that may ask you to retry again which might lead to the websites charging you double from the same song.
CDs are much better than MP3 player because if your computer crash or caught a virus then there’s a possibility of your music files being lost or destroyed. But with the CD, your music will be in storage. Even if your CD is scratch, you can purchase a CD cleaner for less than 40 dollar at your local Wal-Mart. The 3 benefits what CDs have over a MP3 player is that they gave you the archival copy, better sound quality, and the album art.
Distance learning is and always will be inferior to traditional learning : March 15
On this I argue that distance learning is and always will be inferior to traditional learning, but this I argue that distance learning better than traditional learning. One reason why distance learning is better than traditional learning is because you can do the distance learning online session on your computer at time of the day you prefer. Distance learning can make your schedule much more flexible by easily balancing it with other priorities such as work, leisure time, and take care of your family. Instead of sacrificing you work hours by attending 8 am class on chemistry you can do the chemistry class online on your free time. Another benefit of distance learning over traditional learning is that a school can downsize the number of faculty members which eliminate the cost a school have to pay for faculty members who some do a half-ass job in teaching. Also eliminate the cost to give salaries to faculty member won’t take a blow to the school’s budget.
Schools that chose distance learning over traditional learning won’t have to deal with the conflicts among student and faculty. Distance learning would reduce the likelihood of disgruntled teachers going on strike over the school not giving them a better salary. Distance learning is beneficial at the grade school level because the schools won’t deal with students skipping class, getting into fights, or smoking marijuana in the school’s restroom facilities. Schools wouldn’t have deal to with students who are labeled as outcasts, bringing an AK-47 or M-16 starting a World War II just because they have been a victim of ridicule from their local classmates or some their secret admirer rejected their offer to be the shooter’s date for the senior prom. “Does anybody remember Columbine High School or Virginia Tech?”
On my February 10 bog, “MP3’s vs. CDs: I argued that I prefer MP3 over the CD because it is cheaper obtain music it is to purchase a CD for 15 dollar. But this time I’m arguing why purchasing a CD is better than purchasing a MP3. For one reason buying a CD from the store is better than dealing with the risk of the RIAA giving you a hefty fine for downloading a couple songs. I know that the likelihood of getting busted by the RIAA police is very slim, but I heard stories of people getting caught downloading music from the internet. I remember one morning I was watching the local news hearing about that a 10 year old boy receiving a 10 thousand dollar fine for illegally downloading a few songs off the internet. This proves that the RIAA are so serious about people downloading songs illegally that they are willing to fine a little kid over a couple.
Another reason is that you might experience some technical difficulties downloading stores from internet sites such as iTunes, Napster, and Amazon. Some of my friends who actually download songs legal from these sites experience some technical difficulties when the downloader crashed. This usually occurs when they send an email to the sites in order to get them to unlock the album and allow them to redownload the songs. Another problem is that a big concern is that may ask you to retry again which might lead to the websites charging you double from the same song.
CDs are much better than MP3 player because if your computer crash or caught a virus then there’s a possibility of your music files being lost or destroyed. But with the CD, your music will be in storage. Even if your CD is scratch, you can purchase a CD cleaner for less than 40 dollar at your local Wal-Mart. The 3 benefits what CDs have over a MP3 player is that they gave you the archival copy, better sound quality, and the album art.
Distance learning is and always will be inferior to traditional learning : March 15
On this I argue that distance learning is and always will be inferior to traditional learning, but this I argue that distance learning better than traditional learning. One reason why distance learning is better than traditional learning is because you can do the distance learning online session on your computer at time of the day you prefer. Distance learning can make your schedule much more flexible by easily balancing it with other priorities such as work, leisure time, and take care of your family. Instead of sacrificing you work hours by attending 8 am class on chemistry you can do the chemistry class online on your free time. Another benefit of distance learning over traditional learning is that a school can downsize the number of faculty members which eliminate the cost a school have to pay for faculty members who some do a half-ass job in teaching. Also eliminate the cost to give salaries to faculty member won’t take a blow to the school’s budget.
Schools that chose distance learning over traditional learning won’t have to deal with the conflicts among student and faculty. Distance learning would reduce the likelihood of disgruntled teachers going on strike over the school not giving them a better salary. Distance learning is beneficial at the grade school level because the schools won’t deal with students skipping class, getting into fights, or smoking marijuana in the school’s restroom facilities. Schools wouldn’t have deal to with students who are labeled as outcasts, bringing an AK-47 or M-16 starting a World War II just because they have been a victim of ridicule from their local classmates or some their secret admirer rejected their offer to be the shooter’s date for the senior prom. “Does anybody remember Columbine High School or Virginia Tech?”
Arguing Against Myself – Final
In the first blog entry I wrote of the impending doom that Dreyfus warns us about in his book. I related it to the move “The Matrix” and about how everyone might end up in this computer simulated world, while in reality they are lying motionless is some pod somewhere. This is not all that bad if you think about it. First of all there is no disease, no death, no cancer, and no real danger at all. We could live our lives without worry or fear. There would be no need for money; we could do what we wanted, when we wanted with really no one or nothing to answer too. This, according to Thomas More himself, is called Utopia or a perfect world. Now we could take a page from the “Matrix” book and use our bio-electricity to support the system and could develop interfaces so that people inside the virtual world could fix any problem with the programs from the inside. Granted this would take many years to develop and could cost millions of dollars. But by charging a one time entry fee you could easily cover the cost, and if we can use bio-electricity to power the program and computers there would be no continuing cost. I don’t know how much outside maintenance computers require, like replacing circuits or processers, but that could be solved by building in the ability to remove ones self from the program. Now of course the only people who could or would want to would be computer programmers or people who could repair that type of stuff. And think about the impact the program would have on the environment, little to none. No burning coal or natural gas to power the system, no production of cars, houses, or buildings. No human waste either biological or man-made. No more landfills or garbage dumps, burning of fossil fuels, hunting of animals anything. It would be like it was before humans ever existed. The world could return to its natural state and everything could be in balance. And we don’t need to force any one to join, eventually everyone will see the advantage to being in a virtual world and join on their own. Then people will be plugged in from birth, with the knowledge there is an outside world, and even then we could give them a choice, here or there. The world itself would just be better off if we as humans did this. Of course not everyone could afford this so there would still be an outside world that people within the program could go out to. This again gives the option of whether or not a person would want to stay in the program.
In another blog I argued that Sims was simply complaining when he says, in simple terms, we need more silence in our lives. Now I can understand where he is coming from. There is literally no way to get away from the noise we create as humans. Everywhere we go there is usually some source of noise there, whether it is at the mall, a baseball game, or our own homes. TV’s, Radio’s, and PA systems blast our senses with useless and endless amounts of noise. And what is the purpose of this? To advertise or influence? This is simply demeaning our society because it is implying that we cannot decide for our selves what we want or need. Every you go there is an ad or sponsors for something telling us we need this or we need that. When in all honesty we really don’t. When was the last time you need a new pair of $120 Nikes or a $60 shirt. I am not saying we need to not wear clothes, I’m saying there is no need to purchase a $120 pair of shoes. And granted we all have a choice, but we need not let that choice be influenced by large companies or conglomerates. This is partly to blame for our struggling economy. It is largely service based so if the economy falters slightly people try to save money and do not use or use as little services as possible, therefore driving our economy down farther. Companies have advertised so much and placed so much on their service sectors that when the economy falters a little bit, it absolutely kills them. If we as a society would buy only the products needed and base that purchase on product quality we would develop a very solid economy that would be very unlikely to falter. This is because companies would not be able to bet on people buying excess product for there own enjoyment, and would therefore have to focus inward on themselves on products and there employees. Advertising would be a small and insignificant part of there business strategy and would remove much of the advertising from our daily life. And how much noise would be removed from our lives if advertising was virtually eliminated? I’d venture to say almost all of it.
In the first blog entry I wrote of the impending doom that Dreyfus warns us about in his book. I related it to the move “The Matrix” and about how everyone might end up in this computer simulated world, while in reality they are lying motionless is some pod somewhere. This is not all that bad if you think about it. First of all there is no disease, no death, no cancer, and no real danger at all. We could live our lives without worry or fear. There would be no need for money; we could do what we wanted, when we wanted with really no one or nothing to answer too. This, according to Thomas More himself, is called Utopia or a perfect world. Now we could take a page from the “Matrix” book and use our bio-electricity to support the system and could develop interfaces so that people inside the virtual world could fix any problem with the programs from the inside. Granted this would take many years to develop and could cost millions of dollars. But by charging a one time entry fee you could easily cover the cost, and if we can use bio-electricity to power the program and computers there would be no continuing cost. I don’t know how much outside maintenance computers require, like replacing circuits or processers, but that could be solved by building in the ability to remove ones self from the program. Now of course the only people who could or would want to would be computer programmers or people who could repair that type of stuff. And think about the impact the program would have on the environment, little to none. No burning coal or natural gas to power the system, no production of cars, houses, or buildings. No human waste either biological or man-made. No more landfills or garbage dumps, burning of fossil fuels, hunting of animals anything. It would be like it was before humans ever existed. The world could return to its natural state and everything could be in balance. And we don’t need to force any one to join, eventually everyone will see the advantage to being in a virtual world and join on their own. Then people will be plugged in from birth, with the knowledge there is an outside world, and even then we could give them a choice, here or there. The world itself would just be better off if we as humans did this. Of course not everyone could afford this so there would still be an outside world that people within the program could go out to. This again gives the option of whether or not a person would want to stay in the program.
In another blog I argued that Sims was simply complaining when he says, in simple terms, we need more silence in our lives. Now I can understand where he is coming from. There is literally no way to get away from the noise we create as humans. Everywhere we go there is usually some source of noise there, whether it is at the mall, a baseball game, or our own homes. TV’s, Radio’s, and PA systems blast our senses with useless and endless amounts of noise. And what is the purpose of this? To advertise or influence? This is simply demeaning our society because it is implying that we cannot decide for our selves what we want or need. Every you go there is an ad or sponsors for something telling us we need this or we need that. When in all honesty we really don’t. When was the last time you need a new pair of $120 Nikes or a $60 shirt. I am not saying we need to not wear clothes, I’m saying there is no need to purchase a $120 pair of shoes. And granted we all have a choice, but we need not let that choice be influenced by large companies or conglomerates. This is partly to blame for our struggling economy. It is largely service based so if the economy falters slightly people try to save money and do not use or use as little services as possible, therefore driving our economy down farther. Companies have advertised so much and placed so much on their service sectors that when the economy falters a little bit, it absolutely kills them. If we as a society would buy only the products needed and base that purchase on product quality we would develop a very solid economy that would be very unlikely to falter. This is because companies would not be able to bet on people buying excess product for there own enjoyment, and would therefore have to focus inward on themselves on products and there employees. Advertising would be a small and insignificant part of there business strategy and would remove much of the advertising from our daily life. And how much noise would be removed from our lives if advertising was virtually eliminated? I’d venture to say almost all of it.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
FINAL BLOG
Final Exam
Anti Journal: Lost in the Flood
In this journal entry I spoke about Borgman’s views on reading and telling stories. These activities take away from information as reality, but there is no real need for this. Technology is becoming so advanced that one can experience everything one could possibly want from the comfort of their own living room. One no longer needs to read or tell stories because it has become outdated. In the technological age, everything can be experienced through computers or home entertainment systems.
Through the internet one can get any information they wish to receive just by typing a few words. One no longer has to have an experience to know something. You only know about it you don’t know it through actual experience. This is sufficient because one can gain much more knowledge about many more things. It becomes much more convenient not to have to go out and take the time to actually have these experiences. It almost seems silly to have to go to a place like Yellowstone park to experience it, when you can experience “Yellowstone the Movie” that plays on a giant screen. This movie can show you everything you could possibly want to see there, without having to spend the time and money to actually go there. This way you know you won’t miss anything because everything thinkable is being presented. If you go on your own you are liable to miss something.
The concert is something that is becoming ever more convenient. The latest technology in home theater systems can bring the sound right to your living room. One almost no longer needs to go to concerts because it seems every artist has a live DVD out. You can watch this live DVD and get a better view than most people who were actually at the concert did. The best part is one doesn’t have to spend an arm and a leg in order go see their favorite band. One can now sit in the comfort of their own home, enjoy a nice beverage that they didn’t have to pay seven dollars for, and enjoy the show.
Anti Journal: AI Response Can Robots Love?
In my previous journal I stated that the love David presents is simply infatuation, and that infatuation was as close as a robot could ever get to really loving. In this journal, I will review the ways in which David loved and other robots could love.
Can robots be programmed to love? The concept of love in the film AI is very real. Love can be programmed. It can be programmed because you program the robot to do anything for the human it is supposed to love. The robot willingly gives itself completely to the human. If this isn’t love, I don’t know what is. Sure this is programmed, but it is real because of the attachment to the human. David doesn’t know exactly why he loves Monica other than she is his mother. This is something that is just like any other human child. The only difference is David was programmed this way.
David is not simply infatuated with Monica. He loves her. Love is the reason he does all of the things that he does in the movie. He goes all over searching for the Blue Fairy. He puts himself in danger for the sake of love. He is willing to do, and does, things that are irrational because he is acting out of love. He is doing just as a human who is madly in love would do.
A robot would have to be destroyed if they were to be taken back to the place where they were built because they cannot love anyone else. In a way, this is a love more perfect than most human love. Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce because the couple no longer loves each other. The robot’s love could be considered superior because the robot never grows tired of the human.
The main argument I posed in the previous blog was that love can only be defined by the human who is in love. David, however, was programmed to love by various humans who have had experiences with love. So in the film, David does act of love. It is just that this love may not be his own, but it is a result of the way the humans who created him defined love.
Anti Journal: Lost in the Flood
In this journal entry I spoke about Borgman’s views on reading and telling stories. These activities take away from information as reality, but there is no real need for this. Technology is becoming so advanced that one can experience everything one could possibly want from the comfort of their own living room. One no longer needs to read or tell stories because it has become outdated. In the technological age, everything can be experienced through computers or home entertainment systems.
Through the internet one can get any information they wish to receive just by typing a few words. One no longer has to have an experience to know something. You only know about it you don’t know it through actual experience. This is sufficient because one can gain much more knowledge about many more things. It becomes much more convenient not to have to go out and take the time to actually have these experiences. It almost seems silly to have to go to a place like Yellowstone park to experience it, when you can experience “Yellowstone the Movie” that plays on a giant screen. This movie can show you everything you could possibly want to see there, without having to spend the time and money to actually go there. This way you know you won’t miss anything because everything thinkable is being presented. If you go on your own you are liable to miss something.
The concert is something that is becoming ever more convenient. The latest technology in home theater systems can bring the sound right to your living room. One almost no longer needs to go to concerts because it seems every artist has a live DVD out. You can watch this live DVD and get a better view than most people who were actually at the concert did. The best part is one doesn’t have to spend an arm and a leg in order go see their favorite band. One can now sit in the comfort of their own home, enjoy a nice beverage that they didn’t have to pay seven dollars for, and enjoy the show.
Anti Journal: AI Response Can Robots Love?
In my previous journal I stated that the love David presents is simply infatuation, and that infatuation was as close as a robot could ever get to really loving. In this journal, I will review the ways in which David loved and other robots could love.
Can robots be programmed to love? The concept of love in the film AI is very real. Love can be programmed. It can be programmed because you program the robot to do anything for the human it is supposed to love. The robot willingly gives itself completely to the human. If this isn’t love, I don’t know what is. Sure this is programmed, but it is real because of the attachment to the human. David doesn’t know exactly why he loves Monica other than she is his mother. This is something that is just like any other human child. The only difference is David was programmed this way.
David is not simply infatuated with Monica. He loves her. Love is the reason he does all of the things that he does in the movie. He goes all over searching for the Blue Fairy. He puts himself in danger for the sake of love. He is willing to do, and does, things that are irrational because he is acting out of love. He is doing just as a human who is madly in love would do.
A robot would have to be destroyed if they were to be taken back to the place where they were built because they cannot love anyone else. In a way, this is a love more perfect than most human love. Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce because the couple no longer loves each other. The robot’s love could be considered superior because the robot never grows tired of the human.
The main argument I posed in the previous blog was that love can only be defined by the human who is in love. David, however, was programmed to love by various humans who have had experiences with love. So in the film, David does act of love. It is just that this love may not be his own, but it is a result of the way the humans who created him defined love.
14: Rights of Robots
In our class we spoke several times about if robots should have rights. It has been discussed in the texts such as The Bicentenial Man and in Star Trek. I don't know if robots should have a full set of rights but they should be protected. They shouldn't have to do anything that puts them at risk unless something is in direct harm to humans. In The Bicentenial Man there are laws to protect robots, however these laws are not strictly enforced. The laws that they have are adequate, if there is an adequate enforcement. If there is not an adequate enforcement people will use robots for whatever they want, whether it is for good, bad, or simply entertaining. Unless these laws would become strictly enforced the robot will never get a considerable amount of respect. They won't be respected as long as they are bound to do whatever a human tells them to just because the human is a human. As long as this exists the robot will never be seen as anything more than a common tool. The robot unlike the character, Andrew, will never fully become recognized as a human. Part of this is because humans would fear robots because they will be outlived by them.
13: Cyborgs
Haraway has an interesting way of looking at cyborgs. This is something that I never thought of. When I thought of cyborgs I traditionally thought of creatures like the Borg in star trek. I think about a half robot half human. Thinking of us being cyborgs simply because we have running shoes is interesting. There are lots of technological advances that have occured in the existence of humans. Maybe this is an evolution to a new level, or maybe it is just people learning better how to use resources to make things that improve their lives. Does wearing tennis shoes make me a cyborg? I don't think so. I think this may be just because I have always had such a different view of what a cyborg is. I think that we maybe cyborgs already but for a different reason. I tend to think it is our connection with computers and the internet that makes us cyborgs. Its these computers that bring us closer to becoming cyborgs because it brings us closer to finding technology to create robots. With this technology we could actually become half man half computer. I think the computer is already such a part of most of our lives that the connection is there.
12 : Avatars As Teachers
In class we spoke about Avatars as being the best teachers. This a concept I simply cannot agree with. I don't feel that a virtual classroom will ever match a real classroom and a virtual professor just isn't the same thing. I don't feel one gets to actually know the professor if he or she is an avatar. It is interesting that an avatar can be programmed specifically to what the needs of the student, however I don't think this is necessarily a good thing though. Part of the learning process is experiencing different ways of learning and seeing different ways of presenting material. If one is simply presenting lectures in the say way over and over again one loses interest in that as well. I think it is a nice feature that a professor won't react in a negative way to a student with a wrong answer or a wrong idea. This isn't a reality though. My avatar may show that I don't like it when a teacher gets frustrated with me, but it is a better way of learning. I don't want to have a professor that just smiles all the time and shows no emotion. That being said how much emotion can an avatar really show? It doesn't seem to me like a virtual program can capture human emotion. If this program cannot capture human emotion I believe the Avatar then becomes an ineffective teacher. The best professors are the ones who get passionate about a subject. It engages the students because the teacher really cares about what they are teaching. I don't think that the avatar can achieve this, therefore the avatar will never be a superior teacher.
Final Exam: Blogs Revisited
Crucial to understanding one’s own beliefs is to explore the beliefs of others. Indeed, one of the best ways to develop how one truly feels about a subject is to research and understand the viewpoints of the opposition on that issue. Certainly, there is no better way to end our Ethics and Technology class than by rewriting blogs in the opposite point of view in the spirit of understanding. Truly, this exercise will help each one of us come closer to discovering our true sentiments about the controversial topics discussed throughout the semester in this class.
Anti-Journal 1: The Internet’s Boons
In my first journal, I discussed the disembodiment problems associated with the Internet as discussed by Hubert Dreyfus in his book, On the Internet. Here, I will take the opposite viewpoint, writing about the positive aspects of the Internet.
In Hubert Dreyfus’ book, On the Internet, one of the most powerful tools created by man which connects and informs the populace is under fierce attack. According to Dreyfus, the Internet disembodies human beings by forcing them to spend time in the virtual world, and this disembodiment is a negative contribution because as sentient, embodied beings, humans need physical interchange. Indeed, Dreyfus states, the only way we can know the world is through our body and how it reacts to outside stimuli. When we are disembodied, Dreyfus continues, we are depressed and feel alone and disconnected in this unnatural state. Thus, the Internet appears to have a very negative effect on its users.
Yet, Dreyfus’ argument against the Internet is not perfect. In fact, it has some serious flaws. First, it is indeed true that the Internet ‘disembodies’ its users by providing virtual rather than physical experienced. However, there are many other types of learning tools and entertainment that, in their own way, ‘disembody’ humans. When one reads a good book, for example, one becomes lost within the story. The reader is not experiencing the events of the story physically at all, but rather mentally. Yet, Dreyfus does not attack reading by saying it ‘disembodies’ humans. In fact, reading is looked upon highly in our society. Truly, a child who reads is far less likely to be scolded by his parents than a child on the Internet. Another accepted ‘disembodying’ agent is the theatre. While watching a play, the audience is not focused on how their body reacts to the events in the story. Rather, they are entertained and sometimes even challenged by these events mentally and emotionally. Dreyfus does not attack plays either, for going to the theatre is also a time-honored tradition in our culture. From these examples, it is evident that, in partaking in any event that emphasizes mental and/or emotional involvement, people are being ‘disembodied’ daily and have been for thousands of years. The human race has not been ‘depressed’ or ‘lonely’ as a whole for that long, obviously. Further, it would appear that Dreyfus takes a rather dim view of humanity if he believes the physical to be so important. Does he not believe that humans can transcend the physical to participate in mentally engaging activities? Or does he think we are simply animals unable to move beyond primal instincts and urges?
Beyond the disembodiment issue, Dreyfus simply does not give the Internet enough credit for all of its positive attributes. Though he calls the Internet "the perfect technological device" he barely mentions the Internet’s boons, and even when he does write something positive, it is only to write one paragraph later that these ‘pros’ are far fewer than the ‘cons’ of Internet use. Yet his argument for these ‘cons’ is not as strong as he would like the readers to believe. As proven above, the disembodiment issue is not so uncommon or so dire. Also, Dreyfus’ proof that disembodiment harms human being psychologically is weak at best. Consulting a study done on Internet usage by Carnegie-Mellon University, Dreyfus states that one can imply from the numbers in this research that depression and increased time spent online are linked. However, this one study is not even conclusive and rests on circumstantial evidence. The boons of the Internet cannot be denied, though. First, the incredible store of information that is the Internet is mind-blowing. A researcher wanting to find information on a topic can almost always get his/her start on the Internet. I do not know a student who can avoid using the Internet for a class. This huge ‘pro’ is enough to discredit Dreyfus’ argument that the disembodiment ‘con’ makes long-term Internet use not worthwhile. Also, the Internet is an incredible social connecting tool. Not only can one speak to friends from home over AIM, Facebook and other social networking sites, but it is possible to speak instantly and keep in daily contact with friends from all over the world. Without the Internet, it would be so much harder to keep in touch with my friends Pierre and Carole from Dijon, France. Yet, today I can and do speak with them over MSN chat daily. Truly, these are just two huge ‘pros’ to Internet use. Though I do believe the Internet (like everything, even reading and going to plays) should be done in moderation, I do not think Dreyfus gives the Internet enough credit in his book On the Internet.
Anti-Journal 10: The Measure of a Man?
In my tenth journal, I reviewed the Star Trek episode "The Measure of a Man" and argued with my own definition of personhood that Data was indeed a person and deserving of rights. In this journal, I will discuss why Data is not a person with a new definition of personhood.
Should Data the android have been granted the right to chose his fate by Star Fleet in the episode "The Measure of a Man"? This question is contingent on the definition of personhood. Is Data a person, then, deserving of respect and rights? In the episode, Captain Picard is able to prove that Data is a person by showing that he is a self-aware, conscious, sentient being. Thus, according to the writers of Star Trek, all that personhood requires is self-awareness, consciousness and sentience. To me, this is too vague, inclusive and precautionary a definition of personhood.
The first issue that arises with this definition is the question of self-awareness and consciousness in animals. In recent studies, it has been proven that elephants have shown a high degree of intelligence by recognizing themselves in a mirror. Does this not show a degree of self-awareness and of a low level of consciousness? Yet, elephants do not have special rights or respect that are given to persons. Also, much research done on the Great Apes has proven that they, too, are aware of themselves and develop a definite identity. Coco the gorilla is a good example of an ape with a distinct personality. Coco knows who she is; she is self-aware and conscious, and she has proven this many times over. Yet even Coco, who can sign, paint, recognize colors, numbers and letters, and who even has a sense of humor, is not considered a person by the general public. Yet Data, also self-aware and conscious, is considered a person at the end of this episode. Is it because Data looks like a human? If so, that would be a very superficial and arrogant reason for other humans to consider a being a person. If one dressed Coco up as a human, could she then be considered a person? Why does Data, a machine and a tool with a humanesque appearance programmed to be self-aware by humans, appear to get more rights and more sympathy than Coco, an organic creature that just does not look human on the outside? Why would people be inconsistent and treat Data differently than Coco?
Another problem that arises is sentience. In the episode, Data appears to be a sentient being. The key word, though, is "appears". Indeed, members of Captain Picard’s starship crew love Data for his courage and kindness and see him as a friend. Yet, Data is neither courageous nor kind, nor can he be a true friend. All Data can be is what he is programmed to be. Data is made to be the best member of the starship crew that he can be, and this includes having bravery and kindness programmed into him. He does not consciously choose these virtues. Data is what he is. Similarly, Data appears to feel deeply for his fellow crewmates. However, Data is programmed to do so. He does not choose to like them. In fact, Data the machine does not like or dislike. He only appears to his human peers to like them and to be friendly because it is in his programming. Therefore, whether or not Data is actually sentient is arguable.
It is by no means sure that Data is a person, then, for not only is his sentience called into question, but also the definition of personhood is, too. There is much more to being a person than being self-aware, conscious and sentient. Data could never be considered human because he is not human; he is a robot. Data was not born of a human mother, he does not have a human body and so he cannot truly experience the world the way human beings do. Because his experiences are different, so, too, are his thoughts, thus disqualifying Data further from being called a human.
Personhood, to me, can be defined as being born of a human mother and father. Any human, then, is a person. Anything not human is not. Certainly, being a non-person does not mean that other beings, like animals and robots, do not deserve certain (limited) respect and rights. Of course, no robot or animal should be mistreated for malicious reasons. As tools, robots can be respected for their exquisite (human) craftsmanship and for the work that they do. However, robots are just that – tools. If a robot needs to be harmed for the greater good of one human or all humans, that is perfectly acceptable. It is important not to forget who made the robots and who are in charge of and responsible for them – human beings.
Indeed, to know the opposite point of view is to know oneself better. I believe this was an excellent final exam exercise and a great way to end the semester for our Ethics and Technology class – in the spirit of courteous debate and intellectual discussion as well as tolerance and understanding.
Anti-Journal 1: The Internet’s Boons
In my first journal, I discussed the disembodiment problems associated with the Internet as discussed by Hubert Dreyfus in his book, On the Internet. Here, I will take the opposite viewpoint, writing about the positive aspects of the Internet.
In Hubert Dreyfus’ book, On the Internet, one of the most powerful tools created by man which connects and informs the populace is under fierce attack. According to Dreyfus, the Internet disembodies human beings by forcing them to spend time in the virtual world, and this disembodiment is a negative contribution because as sentient, embodied beings, humans need physical interchange. Indeed, Dreyfus states, the only way we can know the world is through our body and how it reacts to outside stimuli. When we are disembodied, Dreyfus continues, we are depressed and feel alone and disconnected in this unnatural state. Thus, the Internet appears to have a very negative effect on its users.
Yet, Dreyfus’ argument against the Internet is not perfect. In fact, it has some serious flaws. First, it is indeed true that the Internet ‘disembodies’ its users by providing virtual rather than physical experienced. However, there are many other types of learning tools and entertainment that, in their own way, ‘disembody’ humans. When one reads a good book, for example, one becomes lost within the story. The reader is not experiencing the events of the story physically at all, but rather mentally. Yet, Dreyfus does not attack reading by saying it ‘disembodies’ humans. In fact, reading is looked upon highly in our society. Truly, a child who reads is far less likely to be scolded by his parents than a child on the Internet. Another accepted ‘disembodying’ agent is the theatre. While watching a play, the audience is not focused on how their body reacts to the events in the story. Rather, they are entertained and sometimes even challenged by these events mentally and emotionally. Dreyfus does not attack plays either, for going to the theatre is also a time-honored tradition in our culture. From these examples, it is evident that, in partaking in any event that emphasizes mental and/or emotional involvement, people are being ‘disembodied’ daily and have been for thousands of years. The human race has not been ‘depressed’ or ‘lonely’ as a whole for that long, obviously. Further, it would appear that Dreyfus takes a rather dim view of humanity if he believes the physical to be so important. Does he not believe that humans can transcend the physical to participate in mentally engaging activities? Or does he think we are simply animals unable to move beyond primal instincts and urges?
Beyond the disembodiment issue, Dreyfus simply does not give the Internet enough credit for all of its positive attributes. Though he calls the Internet "the perfect technological device" he barely mentions the Internet’s boons, and even when he does write something positive, it is only to write one paragraph later that these ‘pros’ are far fewer than the ‘cons’ of Internet use. Yet his argument for these ‘cons’ is not as strong as he would like the readers to believe. As proven above, the disembodiment issue is not so uncommon or so dire. Also, Dreyfus’ proof that disembodiment harms human being psychologically is weak at best. Consulting a study done on Internet usage by Carnegie-Mellon University, Dreyfus states that one can imply from the numbers in this research that depression and increased time spent online are linked. However, this one study is not even conclusive and rests on circumstantial evidence. The boons of the Internet cannot be denied, though. First, the incredible store of information that is the Internet is mind-blowing. A researcher wanting to find information on a topic can almost always get his/her start on the Internet. I do not know a student who can avoid using the Internet for a class. This huge ‘pro’ is enough to discredit Dreyfus’ argument that the disembodiment ‘con’ makes long-term Internet use not worthwhile. Also, the Internet is an incredible social connecting tool. Not only can one speak to friends from home over AIM, Facebook and other social networking sites, but it is possible to speak instantly and keep in daily contact with friends from all over the world. Without the Internet, it would be so much harder to keep in touch with my friends Pierre and Carole from Dijon, France. Yet, today I can and do speak with them over MSN chat daily. Truly, these are just two huge ‘pros’ to Internet use. Though I do believe the Internet (like everything, even reading and going to plays) should be done in moderation, I do not think Dreyfus gives the Internet enough credit in his book On the Internet.
Anti-Journal 10: The Measure of a Man?
In my tenth journal, I reviewed the Star Trek episode "The Measure of a Man" and argued with my own definition of personhood that Data was indeed a person and deserving of rights. In this journal, I will discuss why Data is not a person with a new definition of personhood.
Should Data the android have been granted the right to chose his fate by Star Fleet in the episode "The Measure of a Man"? This question is contingent on the definition of personhood. Is Data a person, then, deserving of respect and rights? In the episode, Captain Picard is able to prove that Data is a person by showing that he is a self-aware, conscious, sentient being. Thus, according to the writers of Star Trek, all that personhood requires is self-awareness, consciousness and sentience. To me, this is too vague, inclusive and precautionary a definition of personhood.
The first issue that arises with this definition is the question of self-awareness and consciousness in animals. In recent studies, it has been proven that elephants have shown a high degree of intelligence by recognizing themselves in a mirror. Does this not show a degree of self-awareness and of a low level of consciousness? Yet, elephants do not have special rights or respect that are given to persons. Also, much research done on the Great Apes has proven that they, too, are aware of themselves and develop a definite identity. Coco the gorilla is a good example of an ape with a distinct personality. Coco knows who she is; she is self-aware and conscious, and she has proven this many times over. Yet even Coco, who can sign, paint, recognize colors, numbers and letters, and who even has a sense of humor, is not considered a person by the general public. Yet Data, also self-aware and conscious, is considered a person at the end of this episode. Is it because Data looks like a human? If so, that would be a very superficial and arrogant reason for other humans to consider a being a person. If one dressed Coco up as a human, could she then be considered a person? Why does Data, a machine and a tool with a humanesque appearance programmed to be self-aware by humans, appear to get more rights and more sympathy than Coco, an organic creature that just does not look human on the outside? Why would people be inconsistent and treat Data differently than Coco?
Another problem that arises is sentience. In the episode, Data appears to be a sentient being. The key word, though, is "appears". Indeed, members of Captain Picard’s starship crew love Data for his courage and kindness and see him as a friend. Yet, Data is neither courageous nor kind, nor can he be a true friend. All Data can be is what he is programmed to be. Data is made to be the best member of the starship crew that he can be, and this includes having bravery and kindness programmed into him. He does not consciously choose these virtues. Data is what he is. Similarly, Data appears to feel deeply for his fellow crewmates. However, Data is programmed to do so. He does not choose to like them. In fact, Data the machine does not like or dislike. He only appears to his human peers to like them and to be friendly because it is in his programming. Therefore, whether or not Data is actually sentient is arguable.
It is by no means sure that Data is a person, then, for not only is his sentience called into question, but also the definition of personhood is, too. There is much more to being a person than being self-aware, conscious and sentient. Data could never be considered human because he is not human; he is a robot. Data was not born of a human mother, he does not have a human body and so he cannot truly experience the world the way human beings do. Because his experiences are different, so, too, are his thoughts, thus disqualifying Data further from being called a human.
Personhood, to me, can be defined as being born of a human mother and father. Any human, then, is a person. Anything not human is not. Certainly, being a non-person does not mean that other beings, like animals and robots, do not deserve certain (limited) respect and rights. Of course, no robot or animal should be mistreated for malicious reasons. As tools, robots can be respected for their exquisite (human) craftsmanship and for the work that they do. However, robots are just that – tools. If a robot needs to be harmed for the greater good of one human or all humans, that is perfectly acceptable. It is important not to forget who made the robots and who are in charge of and responsible for them – human beings.
Indeed, to know the opposite point of view is to know oneself better. I believe this was an excellent final exam exercise and a great way to end the semester for our Ethics and Technology class – in the spirit of courteous debate and intellectual discussion as well as tolerance and understanding.
Final Exam
Bethany Brown
4/29/08
In a previous entry I discussed how computers were taking away our contact with other humans. We don't need to leave our houses to shop, pay our bills, or go to the library. We don't have to talk to people at the grocery store or gas station. And probable most annoying is the fact that you never talk to a person when you need customer service. Now I will point out some reasons why loosing contact is just progress. Our lives have become so busy that anything that can save us even a few minutes is welcomed. The lines in the grocery stores seemed to be getting longer due to fewer cashiers. Often the self-check lines are shorter and I don't have to make small talk with the person checking me out or tell her whether I found everything I was looking for. Would she really be able to get it for me anyway? Pay at the pump tanks are great. Stopping for gas with small children can be a headache. It is very inconvenient to unstrap a two year old and newborn from carseats just to run in to pay for gas. However, without being able to pay outside, parents have no other choice. It is too dangerous to leave them in the car. Shopping online is a great way to save on gas and avoid long lines and crowds. I can click on what I want, give my information, and have my purchase delivered right to my door. Anything that can make live more convenient is a plus. I can get more errands finished and spend more time at home with my family, they are the important people to interact with every day.
In my entry discussing the AI movie I stated that it seemed that a robot would need to be a child in order to become like a human. My thought was that it should be even younger than David was because human children learn from their environment from the time they are born. Now I would like to talk about why even a young robot could never be more than a machine. A robot is a machine created by humans, nothing more. It would be no different than this computer that I am working on right now, it would just look different. We would not think about how we treat a computer ( many times I would like to take a ball bat to mine! ) or worry about their rights. A robot is nothing more than a walking, talking computer that some one has programmed for a certain purpose. No mater how young of a robot is created, it will never be able to "grow up" like a human child does. It will not be free thinking and be able to grow and learn from life experiences. In the movie, the creators wanted to have a robot that could love. Love is not something that can just be programmed. David didn't really know anything about love, only that it was programmed to respond in a certain way when the mom read certain words. A love between a parent and child is instant and unconditional ( or rather, it should be ) this was certainly not the case for this family. Robot children will never be able to take the place of human children. I don't think there will be a shortage of children who need homes any time soon. Trying to make robot children who can love is not necessary and will never happen.
4/29/08
In a previous entry I discussed how computers were taking away our contact with other humans. We don't need to leave our houses to shop, pay our bills, or go to the library. We don't have to talk to people at the grocery store or gas station. And probable most annoying is the fact that you never talk to a person when you need customer service. Now I will point out some reasons why loosing contact is just progress. Our lives have become so busy that anything that can save us even a few minutes is welcomed. The lines in the grocery stores seemed to be getting longer due to fewer cashiers. Often the self-check lines are shorter and I don't have to make small talk with the person checking me out or tell her whether I found everything I was looking for. Would she really be able to get it for me anyway? Pay at the pump tanks are great. Stopping for gas with small children can be a headache. It is very inconvenient to unstrap a two year old and newborn from carseats just to run in to pay for gas. However, without being able to pay outside, parents have no other choice. It is too dangerous to leave them in the car. Shopping online is a great way to save on gas and avoid long lines and crowds. I can click on what I want, give my information, and have my purchase delivered right to my door. Anything that can make live more convenient is a plus. I can get more errands finished and spend more time at home with my family, they are the important people to interact with every day.
In my entry discussing the AI movie I stated that it seemed that a robot would need to be a child in order to become like a human. My thought was that it should be even younger than David was because human children learn from their environment from the time they are born. Now I would like to talk about why even a young robot could never be more than a machine. A robot is a machine created by humans, nothing more. It would be no different than this computer that I am working on right now, it would just look different. We would not think about how we treat a computer ( many times I would like to take a ball bat to mine! ) or worry about their rights. A robot is nothing more than a walking, talking computer that some one has programmed for a certain purpose. No mater how young of a robot is created, it will never be able to "grow up" like a human child does. It will not be free thinking and be able to grow and learn from life experiences. In the movie, the creators wanted to have a robot that could love. Love is not something that can just be programmed. David didn't really know anything about love, only that it was programmed to respond in a certain way when the mom read certain words. A love between a parent and child is instant and unconditional ( or rather, it should be ) this was certainly not the case for this family. Robot children will never be able to take the place of human children. I don't think there will be a shortage of children who need homes any time soon. Trying to make robot children who can love is not necessary and will never happen.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Donna Haraway
Should we embrace cyborgosity or not? I think Donna Haraway has some good points about our culture--even down to our very shoewear, we're told we can be better, faster, more athletic than before. I mean, I don't even play sports, but for some reason I feel compelled to buy fifty dollar New Balances when I could get something to wear on my feet for much less. Why would I need running shoes when I don't run? I don't know, they're just fashionable, I guess.
And the idea of pharmaceutical cyborgosity is intriguing as well--it doesn't just stop at steroids and famous athletes, almost everything we eat is pumped full of growth hormone. It's almost impossible to get away from technology in America--unless vegetables are grown organically, they too are artificially augmented.
I wonder, though, how she can actually view all this as positive. There's just something repulsive I always associate with food pumped full of growth hormone, or at least being made aware that what I'm eating is mainly technology. Sure, it helps feed more people, but I don't think technology can always move us in the right direction. As Heidi mentioned in her last blog post, I think a combination is required between the thinking of Albert Borgmann and Donna Haraway. Technology can help us live in certain ways, but even down to the food we eat, the medicine we need to take to fall asleep? A balance is required.
Distance Learning Revisited
Without doubt, our discussion concerning distance learning has only enhanced my original view of the subject. I believe that, while distance learning is a helpful tool in the classroom, it will never replace the classroom setting. Students need contact with their professors if they hope to achieve a level of mastery in any subject. Truly, distance learning does not provide students with realistic relationships or the tools with which to succeed in the outside world. However, I am intrigued by the philosophy of Ivan Illich, particularly his “de-schooling of society”.
I find his belief that real learning does not occur in the classroom very interesting, and in some ways, I agree with Illich. I find that my best learning experiences occur outside of the classroom setting. However, I believe that the things I am taught in the classroom provide me with the tools to understand and grasp better what I am learning in the world outside the classroom. Without doubt, the classroom provides me with the tools to succeed and learn in the outside world. Hence, distance learning cannot replace learning in a traditional setting because the classroom provides us with the crucial tools needed to survive in the real world.
I find his belief that real learning does not occur in the classroom very interesting, and in some ways, I agree with Illich. I find that my best learning experiences occur outside of the classroom setting. However, I believe that the things I am taught in the classroom provide me with the tools to understand and grasp better what I am learning in the world outside the classroom. Without doubt, the classroom provides me with the tools to succeed and learn in the outside world. Hence, distance learning cannot replace learning in a traditional setting because the classroom provides us with the crucial tools needed to survive in the real world.
Cyborgs II
After digesting our discussion concerning Donna Haraway and her positive view of technology, I find that I agree with her on many points. Without doubt, technology affects the way we perceive ourselves and others, enmeshing itself so completely into our lives that upon encountering a person who lacks what one could term the basic technological necessities we are unsettled. Hence, technology influences us in all aspects and nuances of our lives. However, is this dependence healthy?
Taking into account the arguments of Borgmann and Dreyfus, I believe such an obvious dependence on technology is dangerous. While there are many technological advances that are beneficial to society as a whole, technology can also produce dramatic, negative effects on our psyche as well as our bodies. For instance, long hours spent developing relationships through the internet can result in a separation from reality that constitutes an altered and potentially disillusioned view of embodied contact and humanity. In addition, these long hours spent sitting in front of the computer take away from time that could be spent in activities benefiting the body and mind such as exercise.
To conclude, although technology offers improvements for our quality of life, we must find a balance between technology and reality. Without doubt, in order to be deemed cyborgs, technology must play an integral part of our lives. However, that technology must not disguise or discredit what connects us to reality.
Taking into account the arguments of Borgmann and Dreyfus, I believe such an obvious dependence on technology is dangerous. While there are many technological advances that are beneficial to society as a whole, technology can also produce dramatic, negative effects on our psyche as well as our bodies. For instance, long hours spent developing relationships through the internet can result in a separation from reality that constitutes an altered and potentially disillusioned view of embodied contact and humanity. In addition, these long hours spent sitting in front of the computer take away from time that could be spent in activities benefiting the body and mind such as exercise.
To conclude, although technology offers improvements for our quality of life, we must find a balance between technology and reality. Without doubt, in order to be deemed cyborgs, technology must play an integral part of our lives. However, that technology must not disguise or discredit what connects us to reality.
Journal 14: Avatars the Best Teachers?
The teaching avatars we talked about in class during our last week sound fantastic on the surface. Online learning with teaching avatars (which look ‘remarkably lifelike’) appears to have many advantages. Distance learning brings together minds that normally are separated by ‘temporal and spatial limitations.’ The new teaching avatars of the virtual world allow for optimized information consumption as well. Every student, for instance, can sit in the ‘sweet spot’ – that is, directly in the teacher-avatar’s vision – which has been proven to boost comprehension and grades. The teacher-avatar can also appear differently to each student depending on his/her learning needs. Indeed, the avatar can be modified to be ‘the perfect teacher’ for each student. Finally, the new teacher-avatar can mimic each student at same time, as it has been proven that mimicking behavior enhances learning. With all of these personalized advantages made available by the teacher-avatar (in addition to all of the advantages already available through distance learning), no wonder the claim would be made that ‘avatars make the best teachers’.
However, there are some serious flaws with the teaching avatars if one revisits the philosophy of Dreyfus and Borgmann. First, because these teacher-avatars are still in the virtual world, the embodiment issue raised by Dreyfus is not yet solved. Humans are bodily creatures – the only way we can experience the world is through our body and its reactions to outside stimuli. Virtual reality forces humans to leave their bodies behind, which is not only severely disorienting but problematic to learning, according to Dreyfus. Due to the embodiment issue, distance learning and teacher-avatars can provide only information about a subject. No true experience, crucial to learning, can be gained, even with teacher-avatars. Plus, mastery of a subject, in Dreyfus’ point of view, requires tutelage under a plethora of different teachers with different styles of teaching. With the teacher-avatar, only one style of teaching is provided, which would ironically stunt the student’s growth in learning how to learn. The teacher-avatars, because they are based in virtual reality, would cause a problem for Borgmann too. According to Borgmann, the teacher-avatars would be information posing as reality, which would produce a light-lite kind of reality for the students immersed in this type of distance learning. Being shoved out into the ‘real world’ after graduation would be difficult, then, because the students would not have developed any kind of advanced social skills applicable to actual reality.
Indeed, teacher-avatars are an interesting new development in technology. Obviously, they are not worthless and could be used as a supplement to classroom activities. However, I would never say that teacher-avatars are the best teachers – far from it. They have serious flaws, some of which are made obvious by the arguments of Dreyfus and Borgmann.
However, there are some serious flaws with the teaching avatars if one revisits the philosophy of Dreyfus and Borgmann. First, because these teacher-avatars are still in the virtual world, the embodiment issue raised by Dreyfus is not yet solved. Humans are bodily creatures – the only way we can experience the world is through our body and its reactions to outside stimuli. Virtual reality forces humans to leave their bodies behind, which is not only severely disorienting but problematic to learning, according to Dreyfus. Due to the embodiment issue, distance learning and teacher-avatars can provide only information about a subject. No true experience, crucial to learning, can be gained, even with teacher-avatars. Plus, mastery of a subject, in Dreyfus’ point of view, requires tutelage under a plethora of different teachers with different styles of teaching. With the teacher-avatar, only one style of teaching is provided, which would ironically stunt the student’s growth in learning how to learn. The teacher-avatars, because they are based in virtual reality, would cause a problem for Borgmann too. According to Borgmann, the teacher-avatars would be information posing as reality, which would produce a light-lite kind of reality for the students immersed in this type of distance learning. Being shoved out into the ‘real world’ after graduation would be difficult, then, because the students would not have developed any kind of advanced social skills applicable to actual reality.
Indeed, teacher-avatars are an interesting new development in technology. Obviously, they are not worthless and could be used as a supplement to classroom activities. However, I would never say that teacher-avatars are the best teachers – far from it. They have serious flaws, some of which are made obvious by the arguments of Dreyfus and Borgmann.
Journal 13: Laws of Humanics
Isaac Asimov is famous for creating the 3 Laws of Robotics. Yet, the 3 Laws of Humanics, which he created later, are also intriguing (if not, in my opinion, completely adequate). I think the first Law of Humanics is perfect. Mirroring the first Law of Robotics, this Law says that humans shall not harm other humans nor let other humans come to harm. Not only does this Law help the robots follow their own first Law, but, if followed, it would create a more peaceful world than the world has ever known. Also, Asimov makes a good point: why ask robots to do something we ourselves are unwilling to do? Why make them unable to harm humans if we ourselves do so all too frequently?
The second Law of Humanics poses a slight problem. It states, "A human being must give orders to a robot that preserve robotic existence, unless such orders cause harm or discomfort to human beings." The word I have a problem with here is ‘discomfort.’ I believe that human beings should not (unless necessary to save a human - see third Law) order a robot to do something that would harm it physically, mentally, or (if it is a sophisticated-enough being) emotionally. Indeed, humans must strive to give orders that are not only not harmful but "preserve robotic existence." Yet, if a human must give an order that does not preserve robotic existence, it should be only when a human’s safety is truly at stake. If an order given to a robot to preserve its existence only discomforts a human being (and I cannot even imagine what such an order would be), then that human bothered can consult the human ordering the robot about his/her situation or just leave the area. There is no need to put such a word as ‘discomfort’ in the second Law. I think ‘harm’ is sufficient to what Asimov is trying to say.
Finally, the troublesome third Law: "A human being must not harm a robot, or, through inaction, allow a robot to come to harm, unless such harm is needed to keep a human being from harm or to allow a vital order to be carried out." The first part of this Law is excellent. Human beings should have a responsibility to not harm robots, if only for the reason that they are fantastic works of human ingenuity and intellectual/technological pursuit. I do not have an issue with a robot being harmed if it is to keep a human being from being harmed either, but I think this part of the Law needs to be more specific. In my opinion, the amount of harm allowed to come to a robot should equal the amount of harm that would have come to the human the robot saves. For instance, a robot should not be allowed to shut down just to save a girl from scraping her knee. The biggest issue I have with the third Law, however, is the last phrase about carrying out a vital order. No ‘vital’ order should be made that jeopardizes a robot’s safety. A robot should not be used as a self-sacrificing device at human beings’ disposal. A robot, for example, should not be made to go into a burning building to save a precious document if it means that robot would have to be shut down afterward. The last part of the third Law, I think, is an infringement on the rights that robots should have. It is denying them personhood. Granted that, whenever the term ‘robot’ is used, it is referring to an Asimov robot – a sentient, intelligent being capable of self-reflection, reason and sometimes emotional feeling – it would be a crime to allow the last part of the third Law to stay.
The second Law of Humanics poses a slight problem. It states, "A human being must give orders to a robot that preserve robotic existence, unless such orders cause harm or discomfort to human beings." The word I have a problem with here is ‘discomfort.’ I believe that human beings should not (unless necessary to save a human - see third Law) order a robot to do something that would harm it physically, mentally, or (if it is a sophisticated-enough being) emotionally. Indeed, humans must strive to give orders that are not only not harmful but "preserve robotic existence." Yet, if a human must give an order that does not preserve robotic existence, it should be only when a human’s safety is truly at stake. If an order given to a robot to preserve its existence only discomforts a human being (and I cannot even imagine what such an order would be), then that human bothered can consult the human ordering the robot about his/her situation or just leave the area. There is no need to put such a word as ‘discomfort’ in the second Law. I think ‘harm’ is sufficient to what Asimov is trying to say.
Finally, the troublesome third Law: "A human being must not harm a robot, or, through inaction, allow a robot to come to harm, unless such harm is needed to keep a human being from harm or to allow a vital order to be carried out." The first part of this Law is excellent. Human beings should have a responsibility to not harm robots, if only for the reason that they are fantastic works of human ingenuity and intellectual/technological pursuit. I do not have an issue with a robot being harmed if it is to keep a human being from being harmed either, but I think this part of the Law needs to be more specific. In my opinion, the amount of harm allowed to come to a robot should equal the amount of harm that would have come to the human the robot saves. For instance, a robot should not be allowed to shut down just to save a girl from scraping her knee. The biggest issue I have with the third Law, however, is the last phrase about carrying out a vital order. No ‘vital’ order should be made that jeopardizes a robot’s safety. A robot should not be used as a self-sacrificing device at human beings’ disposal. A robot, for example, should not be made to go into a burning building to save a precious document if it means that robot would have to be shut down afterward. The last part of the third Law, I think, is an infringement on the rights that robots should have. It is denying them personhood. Granted that, whenever the term ‘robot’ is used, it is referring to an Asimov robot – a sentient, intelligent being capable of self-reflection, reason and sometimes emotional feeling – it would be a crime to allow the last part of the third Law to stay.
Journal 12: Robot Visions
Isaac Asimov’s story Robot Visions is intriguing and interesting on many levels. As a science fiction short story, it is complex, dealing with not only time-travel and humanoid robots but also some very deep philosophical questions. I think the most important of these questions concerns the future without biological humans but with androids living humanely in perfect peace and harmony. This idea of a completely humane utopia without humans has conjured up many disturbing thoughts in my head.
When asked whether I thought this was a horror story or a hopeful story, I said horror for many reasons. Though it is true that the humanoid robots of this future seem to carrying out our human culture in a peaceful future, in my mind, truly human society dies when the last human does. No matter how hard robots try to be like humans, in the end, they are not human. They are robots. They do not have the bodily experiences we do, and thus they could never produce a truly human culture and society. Also, it is human to make mistakes. Utopia (at least in this stage of world history) is nearly impossible for us to achieve. So it is very ‘un-human’ to be living in such a perfect world. As negative as they are, fighting and conflict are a part of the human condition. Sometimes, in fighting, we learn valuable lessons and grow significantly as humans. Indeed, these sentient humanoid robots of the future are obviously persons with the ability to think intelligently, reason and possibly even feel emotions. They would be deserving of respect and rights. Also, if the human race had to die out necessarily, having these robots live out something like human culture would be ideal. However, due to no fault of their own, these androids were made robots and thus could never perfectly imitate the human experience.
Also, I think there is something very fishy (if you will) about this story. First of all, in this idyllic future, what happened to all the humans? The humanoid robots say in the story that there was a ‘sad time,’ after which all the humans disappeared. ‘Sad time’ must be a gross under-exaggeration, for that would have meant that, during one period in history, all 9 billion humans were wiped off the face of the earth. The fact that the robots will not explain what happened during the sad time makes me suspicious. Also, these robots are obviously very intelligent. The narrator robot in the story is able to not warn the humans about their eminent destruction by bending the 1st Law of Robots (we assume) and believing that the robot civilization of the future is more humane then any human society could be. Yet, if these robots are intelligent enough to get around the 1st Law like that, why would the robots even pretend to care about humanity in the future? There are no humans left so it would be very easy to find loopholes in the 1st and 2nd Laws. In fact, even the glimpse the reader gets of the robotic future may not be correct. The humanoid robots knew that Archie, a simpler robot sent by humans from the present, would be coming, so they could have just showed him what they wanted him to see and report back to the humans. In fact, maybe the ‘humane’ future is really anarchic, with robots believing in the value of preserving human civilization are fighting robots who want a culture of their own? Or maybe the future civilization has completely (for all intents and purposes) forsaken humanity and was just covering that up when Archie came? Indeed, when pondered, Robot Stories is a lot more than just a time-travel sci-fi story.
When asked whether I thought this was a horror story or a hopeful story, I said horror for many reasons. Though it is true that the humanoid robots of this future seem to carrying out our human culture in a peaceful future, in my mind, truly human society dies when the last human does. No matter how hard robots try to be like humans, in the end, they are not human. They are robots. They do not have the bodily experiences we do, and thus they could never produce a truly human culture and society. Also, it is human to make mistakes. Utopia (at least in this stage of world history) is nearly impossible for us to achieve. So it is very ‘un-human’ to be living in such a perfect world. As negative as they are, fighting and conflict are a part of the human condition. Sometimes, in fighting, we learn valuable lessons and grow significantly as humans. Indeed, these sentient humanoid robots of the future are obviously persons with the ability to think intelligently, reason and possibly even feel emotions. They would be deserving of respect and rights. Also, if the human race had to die out necessarily, having these robots live out something like human culture would be ideal. However, due to no fault of their own, these androids were made robots and thus could never perfectly imitate the human experience.
Also, I think there is something very fishy (if you will) about this story. First of all, in this idyllic future, what happened to all the humans? The humanoid robots say in the story that there was a ‘sad time,’ after which all the humans disappeared. ‘Sad time’ must be a gross under-exaggeration, for that would have meant that, during one period in history, all 9 billion humans were wiped off the face of the earth. The fact that the robots will not explain what happened during the sad time makes me suspicious. Also, these robots are obviously very intelligent. The narrator robot in the story is able to not warn the humans about their eminent destruction by bending the 1st Law of Robots (we assume) and believing that the robot civilization of the future is more humane then any human society could be. Yet, if these robots are intelligent enough to get around the 1st Law like that, why would the robots even pretend to care about humanity in the future? There are no humans left so it would be very easy to find loopholes in the 1st and 2nd Laws. In fact, even the glimpse the reader gets of the robotic future may not be correct. The humanoid robots knew that Archie, a simpler robot sent by humans from the present, would be coming, so they could have just showed him what they wanted him to see and report back to the humans. In fact, maybe the ‘humane’ future is really anarchic, with robots believing in the value of preserving human civilization are fighting robots who want a culture of their own? Or maybe the future civilization has completely (for all intents and purposes) forsaken humanity and was just covering that up when Archie came? Indeed, when pondered, Robot Stories is a lot more than just a time-travel sci-fi story.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
The Three Laws
Are the three laws of robotics adequate? I believe the three laws that Asimov created would not keep robots safe. The robots could still be taken advantage of by humans. The boys in The Bicentennial Man were given Andrew orders to destroy himself. Also the laws can be interpreted differently and therefore could cause harm. In the movie I, Robot this is exactly what occurs. V.I.K.I stands for Virtual Interactive Kinetic Intelligence and controls the uplinks to all the NS-5 robots. She interprets the three laws in her own way and this causes harm to the humans. The three laws from the movie I, Robot and The Bicentennial Man do not seem sufficient enough and may need to be revised so interpretation can not come to question.
Avatars
The digital avatars seem to make the best teachers, but what happens after you are finished with school?? If the avatars make the best teachers because they aid to your every need and change their expressions because that’s what you want. This is not a positive advantage in the end. The problem comes with a student moves to the real world and learns that not everyone caters to you. This would come to as a big shock if you were taught by a digital avatar, but you learn these lessons with traditional education. Your boss is not going to cater to your needs. You need to learn how to adapt to different styles of learning to make it in the real world. College isn’t just about learning the information in all your classes, but about other lessons you learn because of college. Students learn vital lessons such as, dedication, time management, social skills, and leadership that one couldn’t learn from a digital virtual reality.
Final Exam Blog
Final Exam
Ethics and Technology
Emily Hagedorn
In a previous blog entry I discussed the reasons why distance learning will never be able to replace classroom education. I am going to refute these ideas and explain why distance learning is up and coming and might eventually replace classroom education.
A new type of education is quickly becoming available to grade schools, high schools, and colleges. This creation is called second life where individuals create an avatar, which is your persona in a virtual world. A professor at the College of Mount St. Joseph has already adapted second life and believes it is a great idea. Second Life has become popular and retailers like Brookstone are using it as a marketing tool. You are able to buy their items that they would have in a real store and they will be shipped to your home. P&G is using second life as a place where they can have meetings in a virtual conference room. This is a great advantage because employees that have to do a lot of traveling to meet with someone from a different company could just meet in a conference room on second life. This would save money and time. Also many professionals need continuing education and instead of driving to the meeting place, they could just get on second life and have the meeting without the hassle of driving. The University of Cincinnati and Ohio University are on second life. Detailed images of their campus, buildings, and classrooms are available. In coming freshman would be able to get on second life tour the campus and be able to learn where all their classes will be held so they won’t feel as overwhelmed on the first day of school. The Ohio University has a virtual lab where middle school students can do science projects.
Second life allows people to interact with people from all around the world. People can come in contact with someone who is learning the same subject matter and allow them to discuss their ideas in a virtual setting that looks like real life. For instance, they could meet at a park to have a discussion about their class or meet at a restaurant to talk. This is incredible and allows people to further their knowledge by having conversations with people around the world.
There is also what is called digital teacher avatars. A teacher avatar allows a teacher to interact with many students in a single setting. This would help students get more of a one-on-one interaction with the teachers. There can be a class full of students that live in different parts of the world that can tune into the same lesson about chemistry or any other subject matter. There are many things an avatar can do that a human teacher just simply cannot do. For example, if a teacher’s teaching strategy does not work for you that can be changed to a way that will work for you so you can learn to your full potential. The tone of their voice or certain gestures they make that bother you can be altered. The avatar can mimic each student so they learn more effectively. If you are not a morning person you could create your classes so they all appear in the afternoon. Second life is a virtual reality that looks like real life. The students meet in a virtual classroom so no gas and time has to be wasted to get to class.
Second life appears to be quickly advancing and may take over traditional education. It is more convenient for busy, working students. They can tune into this technology around their other schedules. A virtual reality helps students excel academically to the best of their abilities because it can cater to a student’s every need.
My previous blog entries about Andrew and David argue that these robots are not considered to be human and never will be. I am going to refute my previous belief and discuss how advanced robots such as, Andrew and David should be considered human.
The Bicentennial Man is a short story written by Isaac Asimov. There is a robot named Andrew who was processed to be a maid. One day Andrew develops his own thought process by showing his creativity. This was not what he was designed to do, but he went outside the boundaries of his capabilities. Andrew creates original pieces of furniture, which he sells and makes money off of. This instance brings Andrew a step in the direction of being human because we as humans do this same thing. We think outside the box and come up with solutions to problems that arise in life all the time. Another instance that makes Andrew human is when he decides on his own to be free. Andrew wants to live in his own house and be governed by his own rules. This is the essence of human beings. As we grow up and get married we move into our own homes and make our own rules. To feel more human Andrew wears clothes. The last step that Andrew chooses to do is to have surgery to get a more organic/human-like brain. This surgery ultimately kills Andrew. Because Andrew sacrificed his life to become a human he should be considered a human due to his decision. Andrew took it upon himself to be free, live life like a human, and die like a human so he should be considered a human because we virtually do the same things. We are free beings who live life and eventually pass away.
David is a robot boy that is created in the movie Artificial Intelligence. When Martin comes home from the hospital David grows an attachment to him and begins to mimic what he does. For example, in the movie Martin is sitting at the dinner table eating and David decides to try and eat food also even though it shuts his system down and he has to get fixed. This mimicry that David does is what all children do as they grow up. They mimic what their mother or father is doing to learn. David is learning like a child learns and therefore is like a human. David also has an emotion love. He shows unconditional love for Monica, his mother. This emotion makes David like a human because all humans have love. David devotes the rest of his life to become a “real” boy so he can go home. He spends 2,000 years praying in front of a blue fairy that he thinks can make him into a real boy. This dedication and hope to be real, makes him think like a human. David truly believes he is different and one of a kind and that would make him human because every human is unique in their own way.
Ethics and Technology
Emily Hagedorn
In a previous blog entry I discussed the reasons why distance learning will never be able to replace classroom education. I am going to refute these ideas and explain why distance learning is up and coming and might eventually replace classroom education.
A new type of education is quickly becoming available to grade schools, high schools, and colleges. This creation is called second life where individuals create an avatar, which is your persona in a virtual world. A professor at the College of Mount St. Joseph has already adapted second life and believes it is a great idea. Second Life has become popular and retailers like Brookstone are using it as a marketing tool. You are able to buy their items that they would have in a real store and they will be shipped to your home. P&G is using second life as a place where they can have meetings in a virtual conference room. This is a great advantage because employees that have to do a lot of traveling to meet with someone from a different company could just meet in a conference room on second life. This would save money and time. Also many professionals need continuing education and instead of driving to the meeting place, they could just get on second life and have the meeting without the hassle of driving. The University of Cincinnati and Ohio University are on second life. Detailed images of their campus, buildings, and classrooms are available. In coming freshman would be able to get on second life tour the campus and be able to learn where all their classes will be held so they won’t feel as overwhelmed on the first day of school. The Ohio University has a virtual lab where middle school students can do science projects.
Second life allows people to interact with people from all around the world. People can come in contact with someone who is learning the same subject matter and allow them to discuss their ideas in a virtual setting that looks like real life. For instance, they could meet at a park to have a discussion about their class or meet at a restaurant to talk. This is incredible and allows people to further their knowledge by having conversations with people around the world.
There is also what is called digital teacher avatars. A teacher avatar allows a teacher to interact with many students in a single setting. This would help students get more of a one-on-one interaction with the teachers. There can be a class full of students that live in different parts of the world that can tune into the same lesson about chemistry or any other subject matter. There are many things an avatar can do that a human teacher just simply cannot do. For example, if a teacher’s teaching strategy does not work for you that can be changed to a way that will work for you so you can learn to your full potential. The tone of their voice or certain gestures they make that bother you can be altered. The avatar can mimic each student so they learn more effectively. If you are not a morning person you could create your classes so they all appear in the afternoon. Second life is a virtual reality that looks like real life. The students meet in a virtual classroom so no gas and time has to be wasted to get to class.
Second life appears to be quickly advancing and may take over traditional education. It is more convenient for busy, working students. They can tune into this technology around their other schedules. A virtual reality helps students excel academically to the best of their abilities because it can cater to a student’s every need.
My previous blog entries about Andrew and David argue that these robots are not considered to be human and never will be. I am going to refute my previous belief and discuss how advanced robots such as, Andrew and David should be considered human.
The Bicentennial Man is a short story written by Isaac Asimov. There is a robot named Andrew who was processed to be a maid. One day Andrew develops his own thought process by showing his creativity. This was not what he was designed to do, but he went outside the boundaries of his capabilities. Andrew creates original pieces of furniture, which he sells and makes money off of. This instance brings Andrew a step in the direction of being human because we as humans do this same thing. We think outside the box and come up with solutions to problems that arise in life all the time. Another instance that makes Andrew human is when he decides on his own to be free. Andrew wants to live in his own house and be governed by his own rules. This is the essence of human beings. As we grow up and get married we move into our own homes and make our own rules. To feel more human Andrew wears clothes. The last step that Andrew chooses to do is to have surgery to get a more organic/human-like brain. This surgery ultimately kills Andrew. Because Andrew sacrificed his life to become a human he should be considered a human due to his decision. Andrew took it upon himself to be free, live life like a human, and die like a human so he should be considered a human because we virtually do the same things. We are free beings who live life and eventually pass away.
David is a robot boy that is created in the movie Artificial Intelligence. When Martin comes home from the hospital David grows an attachment to him and begins to mimic what he does. For example, in the movie Martin is sitting at the dinner table eating and David decides to try and eat food also even though it shuts his system down and he has to get fixed. This mimicry that David does is what all children do as they grow up. They mimic what their mother or father is doing to learn. David is learning like a child learns and therefore is like a human. David also has an emotion love. He shows unconditional love for Monica, his mother. This emotion makes David like a human because all humans have love. David devotes the rest of his life to become a “real” boy so he can go home. He spends 2,000 years praying in front of a blue fairy that he thinks can make him into a real boy. This dedication and hope to be real, makes him think like a human. David truly believes he is different and one of a kind and that would make him human because every human is unique in their own way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)