The Device Paradigm

Albert Borgmann brought forth this idea of the device paradigm. I haven't been able to completely agree with Borgmann on this topic. How can you state that there is a pattern to modern technology when modern technology follows many different paths in itself?
Our technology today is advancing in some many different ways I cannot comprehend how a paradigm can be established for it.
Borgmann says that the technology behind modern technology has become opaque to the users. Here I do agree with him, but isn't that the pattern with all technology? Wouldn't you think that the other cavemen would stare in amazement at the first wheel? What about the first steam engine? You can bet they did!
No one understands something as soon as it comes out, because its new. If everyone understood everything there would be no inventions as they would have already been done. It takes some new minds to coem up with something, and then 30-50 years down the road people, as they become more adapted in the new technology they understand it.
I will agree with him on the fact that most modern people do not understand the workings of a computer, but the people didn't understand the first train either. Give it time and this knowledge will come as similar knowledge already has.

Blog #3: Change and the Stasis of Our Lives…

How willing are we, as humans, to embrace change? As we discussed recently, the Luddites weren’t that impressed with change, especially change of the technological variety. But, it would seem as though our society is extremely preoccupied, and undoubtedly in a great many fashions, with the notion of “change.” Within the political sphere, change (i.e. progressive policies and legislation which work to better suit the current socioeconomic climate) oftentimes plays a critical role in garnering support. Our last great ‘national debate’ centered, at times, around the concept of change (e.g. “A Change We Can Believe In”). The desirability of change is implicit not only within the political realm but within others as well. Think about the way in which both you and I take up with life on a daily basis. Many of our daily activities are subject to our own preference for change. Take our food, for instance. Our daily diets are composed of a variety of forms of nourishment, as they should be. Moreover, our capricious taste, in and of itself, frequently orders up change; in fact, our tastes often demand change. Reactions to ‘leftovers’ demonstrate my point here. Our fondness for an array of food choices usually leads us to reject even a kind offering of last night’s meatloaf and potatoes. Isn’t that interesting, how our predilections for certain foods immediately change after we partake of those foods? Now, I know that there are definitely exceptions to the “leftover principle,” but the point is well taken, I think. We don’t want the same old “Hexagrain Crisps” (i.e. off-brand Chex Cereal) every morning for breakfast. That’s why we usually add yogurt and granola or change our cereal choice to Cinnamon Toast Crunch every now and then. We relish change. The absence thereof gets quite monotonous after a while. Just think about your own home. How many changes has your house gone through during the time in which you have resided in it? If I scraped through the paint on your walls, would I encounter varying colors the deeper I dug? What about the evolution of your room? Just think about how much time, not to mention the energy, you have spent rearranging your room. Over the course of my 15 years in my current house, I do believe that my bed has touched every wall in my room at one time or another. What about something even as simple as your bed sheets? Disney prints are usually popular selections for kids at first. As we age, we outgrow Princess Jasmine and Aladdin and move on to other themes, maybe of the animal or sports variety. However, we soon come to outgrow even the lion or baseball bat and adopt the mild, tone-matched, sheet pattern which may or may not possess an affinity towards stripes. Our common usage of the word “outgrow” here within this context is really interesting if you think about it. When we change our sheets, we usually don’t physically outgrow the linens we replace. We do, however, outgrow them from a dispositional standpoint. Our idea of what we once thought was rather cool has changed. Our aptness to outgrow certain things betrays our preference for change. Even when we’re older, we often welcome a fresh change of scenery, pace, and lifestyle. Within the digital and electronic world, humanity usually welcomes those changes which disburden us from the taxing qualities of older devices and appliances. It would seem as though we can’t escape change any more than we could flee from our own emotions and tastes.

However I’m perplexed, because a great many times in our lives we aren’t very open to change, and the power of this force seems, at times, equal to or greater than that of our affection for change. Although the label “set in their ways” is frequently applied to an older generation, I would argue that many younger men and women are just as comfortable with the static state of certain areas of their life. I would even go so far as to argue that a little Luddite, be it small or large, exists within each and every one of us.

At times, I’ll admit…I don’t like change. I remember as I kid, my family would always visit my paternal grandparents for Thanksgiving. Our Thanksgiving meal would always be composed of certain home-cooked staples: broccoli casserole, from-scratch mashed potatoes, green beans, lightly brown-sugared yams, fall-off-the-bone turkey, corn pudding, buttered rolls, and (of course) grandma’s homemade macaroni and cheese. The meal, however, usually played second fiddle when we actually sat down to eat together because conversation and familial remembering would take over, permeating the air and tightening the intimate bonds which were already closely knit. I recall those days and lament the fact that they have long since passed. I possess a certain antipathy towards change in this instance. Hostility to change can even take place, contrary to what is commonly propounded, within the technological domain; and here is where the Luddite within us peaks forth. Once again, an example from my childhood seems to beckon my telling it. As a kid, my cousins and I would always write letters to one another several times a year, most likely because they only visited once or twice in that same time span. Nothing was more exciting than opening a letter from my cousins. What stickers would they stick on the letter? What little magazine cut-outs would they place in the envelope? The suspense and sheer eagerness of opening that envelope and unfolding that tangible piece of stationary was always thrilling. And would you know it…I don’t ever get that same feeling when I open an e-mail.

Why?

Is it because of the transient and nearly ethereal constitution of the e-mail? Is it because of the lack of personality inherent in any regimented form of digital correspondence? Or is it because not enough time has accrued between my opening of the last message and the present one to fill me with anticipation? I would likely argue that all of these serve as ostensible reasons for my fondness of written mail. It’s not that I don’t appreciate the rapidity and ease of electronic communication, I do; it’s more likely that I appreciate the breadth of experience which comes with opening postal letters. I miss my pen pal days. I miss the days where people would actually communicate in writing. I know of very few instances where people still send handwritten letters to one another. The rise of the internet and cellular phone during my lifetime has negated the need to communicate via “snail-mail.” Swiftly approaching is the day when humanity will no longer correspond by means of handwritten, mailed letters. Although I’m not technophobic, and hence probably not a committed Luddite in the truest sense of the term, I am definitely more resistant to change in this area than in various others. Why are we sometimes resistant to change? Is it because of sentimentality? Probably more times than not. I will admit that, in both of my examples above, my resistance to change was due to a preoccupation with a certain degree of a sentimental nature. Those things and circumstances which become deeply enmeshed with our emotions and most sensitive feelings are those which oftentimes call us to resist any events which would jeopardize their continued existence. We don’t want to change those things to which we have become attached. The Luddite in me, at times, says “Keep the snail-mail.” What does the Luddite in you say?

iWant an iPad!!! ...but not really.

In this post I will be shortly discussing the new Apple iPad, and why it is yet another technological blunder. Essentially, the iPad is an oversized iPod Touch which offers the same applications as its predecessor, as well as the Amazon.com "Kindle"; however, even with such a plethora of features, I feel that the only reason to buy an iPad would be for the Kindle-like book reading technology. Thus, we come to a question: why buy an iPad if there is already the Kindle? Reading some forums, people have said that they love the design, as it is just like an iPod Touch- flat, sleek, and easy to operate. I think they are missing a little bit of the common sense in such a design. With one accidental drop of the iPad, i'm quite sure that the screen would be damaged, if not at least some parts of the inner workings; measuring .5 inches thin might be convenient for putting into a backpack, but it is very inconvenient for the durability of the item (I wouldn't be surprised if it snapped in half after a drop).

In looking at the book reading technology of the iPad and the Kindle, I think that it's a great idea, but at the same time people should not totally disregard books. The idea of owning a tangible book, and not an electronic file, is not only a more "safe way" of owning the reading (no worries about hardware issues), but it also offers a greater feeling of accomplishment once you finish reading it.

Again, as I stated in my last post, I think people are so concerned about convenience that they lose the enjoyable experience the old technology brings. I just fear that one day the old technology will become considerably obsolete, and that you will only find such items, like books, in museums.

Neat Neurological Advances

Nueroscience is drastically going to change our future. It sounds ridiculously science-fictiony to say we (yes, this generation) will be capable of being truly cybornetic. Most people don't have access to several of the interesting publications, or news articles, or videos relaying the gravity of the new paradigm that is on the horizon, in the next decade, maybe 20 years.
http://www.singularity.com/charts/page71.html
This link gives important graphs of changes that indicate growth into the singularity.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-11/digital-cat-brain-runs-blue-gene-supercomputer
The model of a cat brain. The human brain just requires more computers.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2160815834239891699#
BBC Did a 48 minute special on the topics of cybornetics, very insightful and covers a variety of topics and miles stones.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jeff_hawkins_on_how_brain_science_will_change_computing.html
An short engaging conversation with an electrical engineer who founded PALM computing and study theoretical neuroscience.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/20/technology/circuits/20NEXT.html?pagewanted=all
Brain Prostethics.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4226614.html
Brain Scans to read thoughts.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0720_050720_bluebrain.html
Computer Simulation of human brain, neuron for neuron.
http://www.touchbionics.com/ProDigits
Robotic prosthetics that are delicate enough to pick up chocolates out of a box.

These are only some examples of the massive amounts of research being funded around the world. Most people bat away the possibilities as simply sci-fi but this list of websites is just to get a glimpse of the strenght and momentum of the things that are to come. Just like the internet revolutionized the world, wheather or not your camera phone is part of your cerebal cortex may t be the big thing for our grandchildren, and whether or not we will be at the end of our lives is well, a different discussion.

Why Evolve Technology Anyway?

A solid question to explore is "why continuely build and expand technology that already efficiently achieves the desired end?" Let's step out of the device paradigm world and look at a simple technological advancement. Stone to metal. Stone certainly was readily available, and capable of being crafted into a variety of tools to achieve survival, now this example seems obivous. Well, obviously metal is sharper and stronger, but then why use iron instead of bronze? Well, obviously iron is stronger and sharper than bronze. Ahh... Well, if we continue this incremental advancement eventually we hit a point where the technological device reaches a local maximum of efficency, effectivness, availablity, etc. That logical reshaping of the device to continually strenght its qaulity and effectiveness seems only reasonable for a, say, tribal society trying to maximize their hunt. But this incremental advancement isn't always so clear, or simply and advancement to beter achieve a desireed end. Lets look a the telephone, At first it was very localized, then grew in distance, and grew in sound quality, and microphone qaulity... Each one of these incremental steps seems obvious, just like the arrowhead, of why you would improve upon. At what point does an advancement or change become unnecessary and just advancement for the sake of advancement? For the telephone, the jump from phone to camera/phone is hard to directly see how, having a camera somehow enhances the conversation over the phone? Sometimes advancements become unnecessary, take the baby monitor, is it NECESSARY to have a hand held LCD 3 way communication ifra-red video montior to watch your baby sleep? Why do we keep just addin' more and more techno-perks to products that their grandfatherly ancestors achieved at the same level of effecitveness?

Does Technology Lead to Greate Fulfillment in Life?

Jerome Wiesner, former president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said that the goal of technology was "to lead mankind toward a life of greater fulfillment." Bormann of course completely disagrees with this statement because he believes that technology has an inherent detrimental affect on technology and as it becomes more embedded into our lives its deep-rooted affects become less visible.

Our lives are constantly becoming more convenient however there is a huge loss of tradition. Some of my fondest family memories are during times when technology was completely set aside; cell phones, computers, email, television, etc and our family just has conversations. Technology may make our lives easier however it also prevents families and friends from being as close as they could and should be. It seems to becoming increasingly acceptable for devices to take precedence over real human interaction. Sometimes I believe that even I interact with computers more than humans. Between cell phones with text messaging and internet, laptops, ipods, and mp3 players people typically always have somesort of electronic device on them at all times. Even when passing by someone, rather than the now "historical" smile or friendly greeting people are more likely to keep their head buried in their device as if people are no longer important or they are just simply uncomfortable with eye-contact.

Although some may think the traditional family dinner is now insignificant and a thing of the past, there is an undeniable satisfaction and enjoyment that comes from the interaction and bonding that could never be replicated by an electronic device. I was always raised in a family that made every effort to sit down and have a family dinner. We would always share our day’s experiences and work on homework as a family activity. It seems to be much more acceptable for families to set aside little to no interaction or conversation about their days events. With their actions of emailing, chatting, and watching TV the overwhelming message seems to be that technology is now taking a center stage in our lives. Family and friends are supposed to be important aspects of our lives but we are increasingly spending less time being involved in those activities and more time with electronics.
I tend to agree with Bormann with the fact that technology is replacing the everyday things in our life. Traditional values are an extremely important aspect of human life and the elimination of them will yield detrimental results. Though they may not be immediately visible these affects will keep compounding until the damage is so great that it will be unrecoverable. Technology has allowed for many conveniences in life but if we don’t use it responsibly and in moderation the effects on our social relationships with others could be a thing of the past. If used correctly technology allows for many ways to bring families closer together but it creates even more ways to drive them apart.

The Good Ole Fireplace

In our Ethics and Technology class, we discussed how the television set is now the focal point of the family at home. Previous to this new "modern technological age", the fireplace was the main focus. The family had to provide the fire wood. First, they had to cut the tree, chop the wood, let it dry, bring it into the house, and feed the fire. It is very rare that in today's technological society that people have wood buring fireplaces.
About ten years ago, my parents moved the television from it's place in the living room to the basement. My brother and sisters, and myself were obviously not very happy. The basement was either too cold or too hot (depending on the season). The living room was a place for living, not sitting. Instead of the television, we have a wood burning fireplace. We live in an old house, in which the fireplace was probably the main source of heat years ago. During the winter, so now, we turn off the heat in the house and burn wood. My dad spends his extra time chopping wood outside. My sister and I usually help bring it in the house to dry, and we all pitch in at feeding the fire. I never realized that moving the television to the basement has affected my life. We do focus on working together to attain our goal- heat.
Often when we host parties at our house, we get compliments about the fireplace and hearth. People are no longer focused on what is on tv, but rather the conversation. They seem more interested in people's lives than what the lastest football play or what dress that celebrity wore to the Grammys. So, what we have talked about in class really does make sense. I have been in a front row seat in the change from fireplace to television, in both the good and bad affects it has had on the social atmosphere in the home. With a television there is no focus on the family, but we recieve quick information. With a fireplace, we have skills, warmth, and conversation.
I never realized my parents were that smart!

The new age of cell phones

In class there have been talks about our new age gadgets, and how much more advanced they have become. When thinking of these gadgets that are out there today, the one I own that I use the most would have to be my cell phone. The cell phone is no longer meant for calling it has so many more uses that would be unheard of ten years ago. The cell phone I have does almost everything for me; it has a vast amount of uses now a day that many people don’t know what they have under their finger tips. With my cell phone I can not only call, text, email, take video/ pictures, and listen to music which most phones today come standard with all that. My phone can browse the internet checking face book, shopping on eBay, and searching on Google. If not on the internet I can listen to Pandora which is internet radio, or get a live weather update and forecast for the week. I can check stocks if need be, and the phone can tell me the moon phases. With the brand new android market place the app store where mostly everything is free to download. I have lots of games to play if boredom sets in at any point. If I have to travel any where unfamiliar I have Google maps at my finger tips. If I don’t know a star I am gazing at I can open up the Google sky maps app and it will tell me every star in the sky. My new personal favorite app is remote droid, which turns my phone into a mouse/ key board. I plug my computer to my T.V. and control everything with my phone; I do not even use my laptop mouse pad or key board any more. I have essentially texted this whole blog from my phone. My phone has made it possible for me to do many things that I couldn’t do before without buying other gadgets and having a million devices on me. The phone I have has eliminated any other gadget id need.

Technology & Family

In our "Ethics and Technology" class, we have discussed many positives and negatives accompanied with modern technology. The positives can probably go without being discussed as many people feel that new technology only makes life easier. The people that feel this way are not wrong, they feel these gadgets have made life easier and they have. However, the easier these modern devices make things, the lazier people tend to get. I do feel like we should be using the advances in technology to assist us and help us get ahead in our career.

A hot topic in our class the past few weeks has been the idea of technology taking away from family interaction or togetherness. Borgmann proposed the example involving the fireplace and the heating system. Not only are we unable to fix the heating system on our own, but it also takes away from the possibility of gathering wood logs as a family and then huddling together on cold evenings near the fireplace. This could be stretching it a bit, I am aware. However, many solutions from this advancement in technology could be considered 'harmful' to a family. In class we discussed the idea of frozen dinners or pre-made food that just needs to be heated and serves. Of course a family could still enjoy this meal together, but its not Grandma's home cooking.

At first when discussing these things, I was not sure if they could really come between a family. Upon thinking of this, I decided to reflect on some experiences in my family. My family takes a vacation every summer. Most years we drive, although we have taken advantage of airplane transportation on some occasions. Coming from a busy family where the five of us do not have an excessive amount of time to bond just the five of us, one might think 12 hours in a car might be good bonding time. My family, like most, has the occasional argument, but looking back I wonder why we never did have a fun family discussion reflecting on previous vacations or play a fun car game. Suddenly, I realized, my sisters have their headphones in and are watching their movies, while my parents are up from listening to beach music, typically Dad enjoys Bob Marley, and I am in the back listening to my i-pod. Once again, the family is all running in different directions. My parents probably do not mind the headphones, because well it keeps the girls from fighting and occupied. For a long trip, everyone having their devices is appropriate and probably smart. My concern is when we are driving to church, or grandma's or to school, and my sisters feel the need to listen to their i-pods so that they do not need to converse with the rest of the family. The circumstances of a 12 hour car ride do not apply to a 10 to 30 minute car ride.

My family loves cards. We all learned how to play euchre one year on vacation. Now that my sisters are getting older, they have started to pick up on Texas hold 'em. We used to have card tournaments as a family, all of us playing at once, laughing and enjoying each other's company. Teams for euchre were always interesting, but it was fun because we would make sure to play a tournament where everyone got to be everyone's partner at least once. I have noticed now when I come home my youngest sister wants to play on the wii. Family game nights are not the same. My parents and I enjoy playing cards, it's what we have always done and we enjoy our traditions. The wii has been involved in a few family game nights, the sounds and noises are quite loud and take away from the communication that could have been going on at the card table. I cannot say we do not have fun, we still enjoy playing a competitive game, however, as soon as there is an issue with the TV, or wii counsel, or the remote, frustration begins to take over and game night eventually ends on a rough note.

Now, just as any argument, I feel that one can look at this and see positives. For example, I go to school 2 hours away from home. It is difficult to get home and i miss out on a lot of things. However, I cannot say I am ever out of the loop. The advancement in digital cameras and cameras on people's phones has made it very possible for me to receive pictures of my sister's broken arm, how many more grey hairs my dad has grown and how cool my little cousin looks with his new braces. In case that was enough, my mom also will forward my sister's video clips from cheer competitions. Not only can I receive pictures and video clips, but now the advances with programs such as Skype, I can communicate with family live. Cell phones were once considered huge and rare. Now they are practically a necessity, if someone does not have one, people wonder why and do not understand how people without cell phones get through a day.

Technophiles Anonymous

This week’s reading about reverse adaption featured the statement that “[. . .] in technology means sometimes determines ends and thus people become enslaved by their servant” (Borgmann 61). This statement rings true to the fact that human beings are now largely governed by an entity called technology. How many of us could live without the comforts of the shower, the heater, and the local grocery store, much less our personalized computers, our cell phones, and our iPods? Acquiring basic survival or even domestic skills is no longer viewed as a priority or even a necessity; indeed, developing these skills is now classified as a ‘hobby’ in programs like Boy Scouts and 4-H. In some ways, it appears that mankind is physically addicted to technology, and thus, we have become dependent on it for happiness and success.

Besides being physically limited, we also see that technology’s effects, such as reverse engineering, are limiting us mentally as the required learning curriculum becomes increasingly vast and shallow. Because the in-depth thinking that leads to personal growth cannot be measured on a standardized test, modern students are only required to memorize hollow facts and procedures. Even today’s Advanced Placement tests only evaluate students’ ability to robotically chuck out formal essays full of terms and topics that they may cease to fully comprehend or have any real opinion on. Without question, one of the most life-changing learning experiences in my academic career was the week in Junior High that my Social Studies and English teachers partnered up to conduct a unit on the Jewish Holocaust. Besides traditional pedagogy, the lessons included silent moments of personal reflection, emotional outlets like poetry and art projects, a fieldtrip to the local Holocaust museum, and a visit from a local survivor’s daughter. The experience has been a key proponent in my active passion against bigotry. Unfortunately, that kind of learning cannot be evaluated based on the black and white standards of the technological age, and therefore, few schools have the time and money to set aside for these types of programs. Even the methods of educating are becoming slave to technology. Apparently it is now acceptable to cancel class when the professor cannot get his PowerPoint up and running! As further evidence, during my first aid work experience in the local schools, around one-fifth of a class period was wasted as the students struggled to start and log onto the school’s new set of Netbooks. Despite these obvious hindrances, the field of education continues to push towards modern technology.

As a last thought, perhaps this lends some insight into the current obsession with James Cameron’s “Avatar”. We are enticed by the plot because it illustrates a scenario where these ideal, human-like beings can sustain themselves without modern technology and ultimately, triumph over machine to regain the role of ‘master’ over technology.

How do I Fix This Piece of Junk?

"Once a new technology rolls over you, if you're not part of the steamroller, you're part of the road." -- Stewart Brand

When I was looking around on the Internet about some of the material we talked about in class the last two weeks I came upon this quote by Stewart Brand. I found this quote to have a clear correlation with our material we talked about today in class. When I read this quote the for the first time I thought about how everyday the new computer I just bought is being outdated. The idea of new technology rolling over you makes that interpretation seem real. Many of us can turn on the television and find at least one new technological advancement that is supposedly going to make our lives much easier( The idea of Technologies Promise in Albert Borgmans Book). The only problem with this new device is once you buy that device its outdated and you have to look for an upgrade or worse off a new device to replace your old one. In my honest opinion I could not tell you all the new capabilities I have on my new lab top, but once I do it will probably be two years from now and many people will consider my computer an antique. So I think the whole idea of this quote is that many people who do not engage and try to understand all the new technologies in the world they will just get rolled over, because they will be incapable to adapt to our ever growing transition to new technology.

This whole idea goes back to our talking about the Device Paradigm. The idea that a device is taking over a focal thing. Our new technologies are taking over the important and significant aspects of our own character. Many of us can't begin to understand how to fix all of the devices in our household, let a lone tell you how that device even works. I don't necessarily find this to be an extreme issue, but I think that there does come a point were we need to understand what our own devices are and gain knowledge on how to fix those devices so we can make it significant to us. For example: ( You buy an old car, and want to restore this car to look the way it did thirty years ago. Many people would not be able to accomplish this sort of task without calling a mechanic or someone who possesses the proper skills to restore a car. I think that this antique car could become a focal thing because, If you don't understand how to restore this old car, but you know friends and family members that have an understanding of restoring a car, than this can become a real significant focal thing in your life. You gain skills and knowledge through your friends and family and gain a sense of comfort and conformity with the ones around you.) Instead of wanting to get the best new device that comes out we might want to stop and ask How do I fix this piece of Junk so one day we can gain the knowledge and skills to pass on to our kids or grand kids.

The Internet

The internet can be very useful. You can get things cheaper and find things a lot easier. But I think the internet is mostly used to fill time. I know people that just sit on the internet not really doing anything. You go on the internet and try to google something what you were looking for doesn't show up, you get a bunch of things that are useless.

The internet makes life easier. When you are writing a paper you can quickly look up something that you need and use. The internet puts everything in one place for you to find it.

Mostly I think that the internet is used to fill time. It has its benefits, but I don't know if the benefits are more than some of the problems with it.

Borgmann part 1

After reading the first few sections of Borgmann's book, I see a lot of his points in the real world. People are becoming more and more dependent of technology. They also have no idea what background effects it is having on them. However, there are some counter-measures being taken. Some people are conscious enough to take breaks from their digital lives and go do something more social and real. Some gaming consoles, such as the Wii, include occasional messages that encourage people to stop for a little while.
The responses on the Edge website also enlightens the class material. While most of the answers conclude that the effect of technology is positive, many add a caveat: you must be wary of the potential negative effects, or else they could consume you, and hurt you in the real world.

Blog #2: The Internet and an Engendered Passivity…

The focus of one of our recent class discussions regarded the internet and how it affects how we take up with the world around us, especially in a cognitive sense. After perusing through the myriad of online reflections upon the subject I would like to work out some reflections of my own as they relate to the internet. To me, the internet is still somewhat mysterious…

When I think of the internet, I usually envision it as a massive conglomeration of tangled and twisted wiring. I’m not really sure why I think of the internet in this way, but I do. As I sift (in my thoughts of course) amongst the excessively intertwined mess of cords and cables which provide transit to the stream of ceaselessly pulsing information, I wonder to exactly what fixture is this entire system grounded. Have you ever wondered that? It might help elucidate what exactly I’m talking about if I offer an example. Let’s, for instance, take a house. A house has many rooms and doors and hallways, all spaces through which one may travel when passing through one’s own home. These passages and spaces are fixed in place and provided their grounding from the structure upon which they are established. The firmament and edifice upon which these features are established provide the very foundation for their existence. Let’s apply this same scenario, in an analogous way, to the internet. Upon what do these cords and cables lie? Now I know that there aren’t really cords and cables which compose the “internet” per say (in reality there are actually some cords and cables involved; although culturally, we are increasingly moving in a wireless direction, but that’s another topic), but the illustration helps I think. Anyway, the internet is a streaming compilation of information and data shunted to and fro across our modern digital landscape. However, the question still stands: what supports all of this? Upon what structure does all of the information rest? Does it rest upon the several tens of millions of computers that are connected in tandem across the world? If so, these computers obviously make up an extremely large network, one which is evidently profound and extensive. Who maintains the integrity of this network? Where are the chief junctions which support the network? Who connects these terminals in a successful and efficient manner? What offers ultimate stability to these oftentimes unruly and dissident connections? And this question brings me back, in a rather circular way, to my original question: to what and how exactly is the internet grounded? When I think of the internet long enough, I come to realize exactly how little I actually know about it.

I think many times in our modern world we take things for granted to the point of passivity. And I think that humanity has done this generally with a great many things, including the internet. We are so enmeshed in an internet-driven world that we really could care less what exactly the internet is. All of us are a part of an unfathomably huge anomaly in the history of humanity, and for the most part we don’t really know anything about it. We are being passively carried along by an alien creation, a creation which in itself often works to spawn passivity and lethargy. Although I am somewhat wary of Borgmann’s disdain for modern technology, I must agree that we are increasingly drawn away from activity which uses skill and assemblages of proactive behaviors on our part. And I think that the internet may be one reason for this occurrence. I can only imagine how long it will be before our society trades the supermarket in for an internet-supported food market. I mean, think about it. By our standards today, the Nintendo Entertainment System is nearly a relic, one replaced by massive online multiplayer games and games which capitalize on the communal aspects of the internet. Fifteen years ago, who would have thought that that would have happened? Therefore, it’s not really that hard to fathom a time when almost all things will be consumed by the internet. Now don’t get me wrong, I appreciate much of what the internet does for humanity and would never wish it away; but with that being said, I will say that we need to work to better understand those things which we interact with on a daily basis (e.g. the internet). This may be the only recourse which routes the further engenderment of a passivity which already plagues humanity.

Why Do We Need This Technological Advance

As I write this I am sitting in my dining room listening to my brand new turntable filled with a Bob Segar album that is older than me by a good number of years. As I sit here I wonder why we had replaced this technology? It's perfectly functional and the sound is incredible! But yet i still have in the other room two MP3 players along with a mountain of CD's.
This brings me to the maing topic of this post. Why have we deemed it necessary to advance technology the way we have? Do we really need to have a phone that can also do a million other things? Honestly people just think about it, has that Iphone really improved your quality of living? Does your refridgerator have more food in it because of it? I would be safe in assuming that the answer to the questions above would all be "no."
The only thing man needs to survive is food, water, and shelter. I do realize that this technology makes life "easier" but its not necessary as some might think.
Technology is a vicious parasite that is invading every aspect of our lives. A perfect example of this would be how I have to post my homework on a blog instead of printing it and turning it in like would have occured only ten years ago.
Maybe I am too negative, maybe I am downright wrong, but it is my fundamental belief that if we do not do something about this parasite we may end up loosing ourselves into it. Who knows, maybe the Terminator movies predict the future.

Technology is dehumanizing!

With our discussions in class about Albert Borgmann and the technology question, I couldn't help but constantly think about how dehumanizing this world has become. When we want to contact someone, we do it in all the ways possible EXCEPT seeing them in person: if our phone dies during a text message we turn to email, and if the email isn't working we turn to facebook, etc. Its almost as if the importance of one-on-one interactions has ceased (convenience of communication is becoming increasingly important).

Speaking in sociological terms, our current technology is a of great benefit, but only to a certain degree. We rely too much on the internet and text messaging for the simple things: organizing a party, contacting a professor, asking someone out on a date, even grocery shopping (some people actually order their groceries online and have them delivered to their house). Sure, its O.K. to use facebook or use one's phone to get events together or make plans, but to make it their primary tool of communication and lifestyle is just sad; people need to get off their butts, live life, communicate in person more often and stop being lazy.

As a result of our dependence on convenience and our laziness, we now see a decline of human social skills; we don't know how to act to people around us anymore, nor do we depend as much on "normal language" when we communicate with our technology- ex. "LOL omg that vid wuz awsum. make sure to send it 2 steve b4 u d/l it! ;)".

I just hope that the world soon wakes up, and realizes that what is called "progress" may actually be an advance backwards.

the question

When posted with the question “has the internet changed the way we think?” I had to sit down and think of a time that was before the internet. The shocking thing is I have never been without the internet or computers. To some people this may be very odd to others this could be a normal statement. So I browsed the articles to see what others have been saying, and I find one titled “we are changing the way the internet thinks”. The article is very interesting; it has a good take on what the internet has become and how it has affected us. The internet and I have an intertwining relationship and I feel that people had much to do with how the internet is how it is today then we think. We shaped the web to fit our ever growing needs, our ever growing minds, and our ever growing ambitions. The internet has not changed us, and the people who think that are the men and women who refuse to accept that the world is in the twenty first century of technology. In the article he explains that the internet is becoming an “ever-growing conversation”, which in fact is very true with all of the new social sites that are out there. We share everything with everyone we are all connected; literally. We do think as we always have, it is just in its condensed internet form, and this is where some people might get the notion that the internet is changing our mind.

The Internet or Web :: #1

In class we briefly discussed the fact the most people, even the intelligent and well-informed, are confused about the difference between the internet and the web. Most people associate the internet as simply the medium in which they view their favorite websites or check their email but in fact the internet is so much more. The internet is a massive networking of networks and computers globally in which all the computers can communicate with each other. The web is just one of the many ways in which information can be retrieved from the internet. Many of us believe that the internet has been a huge innovation that is greatly changing and shaping our lives however we don’t even begin to grasp the scope of it. We may think that we only spend a couple hours a day using the internet but most of the time we probably don’t even realize that we are using it. Many of us may connect to our work computer from home, talk to friends using VOIP services, send and receive emails from our phones, downloads using peer-to-peer software, programming DVR’s via cell phones, only to name a few. We live in an environment of technology and though we may only spend a couple of hours a day on the web, most people spend a good portion of their day using internet resources. If the internet were to have a malfunction or be offline the repercussions would be even more catastrophic than just temporarily loosing your ability to surf the web, the way of life as we know it would cease to exist.

Blog #1: On the Device Paradigm…

Before I begin to catalogue some of my brief thoughts with regards to Albert Borgmann’s “Device Paradigm” I want to offer a slight disclaimer. Like most everyone in our class, save Dr. Langguth, I have yet to finish “Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life.” Much of the inquiry and examination which I apply to Borgmann’s way of taking up with technology and our global sociopolitical context is at a serious disadvantage at this stage in our discovery of Borgmann’s paradigm and earnest cogitations. Much, as I am quite sure, has yet to be procured through impending analysis. As such, much of what I comment on and argue in this and the following blogs will likely come to a point of reconciliation at a latter instance in Borgmann’s work. Thus, in hindsight several weeks from today, my reasoning in this my first blog may appear rather unfounded and trivial when taken in light of the necessary and final developments of Borgmann’s central apriorism. As the book is carefully worked through, I hope that any crude opinions and notions which I first envisaged are reformulated in an appropriate fashion. However, this point, in and of itself, offers the ardent learner and genuinely interested reader both much caution and help. Such a reflection alerts the reader to stave off any preconceived notion of how exactly Borgmann regards modern technology as of yet. We need not rain down a final judgment when the defense has yet to offer four fifths of the evidence in its favor. Nonetheless, there are a couple of issues which I would like to discuss.

The introductory chapters and topics, many of which work to diagram what the device paradigm is and how humanity takes up with its technological foreground and background, almost seem to come down as condemnatory of any technology which is not pre-modern. Those examples of modern technological features of our society, or features which were at least modern when Borgmann had his work published in 1984, seem to be demonized by Borgmann amidst the backdrop of an excessive romanticizing of what has once been. Take for instance the stereo set (this is actually kind of a throwback to the ‘80s isn’t it?). When speaking of this ‘device,’ Borgmann seems to want to imbue his rather negative ambivalence toward the object upon the reader when he states that there is “an extreme concealment or abstractness in the mode of [the music’s] production” (page 4). Here, Borgmann positions the device within an enigmatic context, and the reader has nowhere to turn but ambivalence towards the stereo set. He seems to do this with many of the examples he cites. I mean, yes. I guess he’s right. Other than the basic knowledge of magnetism, circuitry, and sound I acquired in my Elements of Physics course here at Thomas More College, I really couldn’t tell you exactly how the music I gather from a stereo set is procured. The ends seem very distinct from the means. I most certainly couldn’t fix a stereo set either. But at a much deeper level, I don’t think many people could tell you exactly how music from an orchestra is procured either. Yes, the musicians strum their instruments, blow into them, bang them, or what not to incur vibrations in the air, vibrations which stimulate our neuronal connections. But that knowledge of the acquirement of music is almost rudimentary when compared to the musician’s knowledge of the same subject. So, as it would seem, the means can also be quite concealed in such an object which likely constitutes a “thing” from Bormann’s point of view. When looking at such topics from this perspective, the line between things and devices becomes rather obfuscated.

Why would devices be so bad? Yes, things, in the Borgmann sense, do seem to offer more of a focus than devices sometimes do today but not always. There are many devices which seem to be a place of focus. It may sound rather ironic, but isn’t the modern family room with all of its electronics and media still a place of high focus for many families. I know that it is for my family. Sometimes, the television set draws my family together in order to rally around our favorite sports teams or listen attentively to our national leaders. Sometimes, the familial warmth and affinity which is cultivated around the television is more potent and stronger than that nurtured around the traditional hearth. Now certainly I know that many exceptions and arguments to the contrary undoubtedly exist, but these premises, along with a final thought, are worth our consideration. Have you ever considered the tradeoffs required to move along the evolutionary line from thing to device? And if you have, are those tradeoffs worthwhile?

Citizens of the Technological Age: (Un)lucky Us!

One statement in this week’s reading that stood out to me was the fact that one of the original ‘promises’ of technology was the benefit of extended leisure time. It seems appropriate to use technology to respond to this sentiment: http://i45.tinypic.com/2njes9l.gif. Although there are innumerable realistic advantages to our technological age, the luxury of leisure has not been one of them in my experience.

As computer applications, speedy transportation, cellphones, and all other sorts of advanced devices continue to impact schools and businesses, it seems that educators and employers are keen to respond to the aid that technology provides with more tasks, higher expectations, and more complicated procedures. Because of this, many individuals still wake before sunrise, return home just before dark, and end up falling asleep ten minutes into the movie that they were finally able to sit down and watch. To make matters worse, video games, YouTube, Facebook, and even Lolcats has made it so easy to procrastinate on academic, work-related, and domestic responsibilities, which also detracts from our free time.

I find it ironic that most American labor is now completed in a quiet, stationary position while many forms of leisure activities today involve outdoor physical engagement. Furthermore, I resent modern technology for taking away the simplicity of being able to curl up on the couch next to my family with a notebook and a pen to complete assignments. Now I spend my evenings insolated in a tiny room hunched in front of the glaring computer screen on a hard chair with the perpetual purr of the computer luring my mind into a drowsy haze. At this rate, I will be spending all of my future ‘leisure time’ in some doctor’s office collecting recommendations for neck and back pain medications or getting my eyeglasses prescription strengthened for the umpteenth time. Therefore, I conclude that toil and drudgery have not in fact been eliminated from our lives like the early technological theorists predicted. Now we are just experiencing it in hyper-speed.

Is It "A Small Price To Pay"?

This week, our ethics and technology class was assigned to look over some of the posts regarding the question of the year for 2010 "Is the Internet changing the way we think?". I found most of the experts responses very interesting as all of them seemed to take a different approach giving readers many different things to consider. The post titled "A Small Price To Pay" posted by Psychologist and Dean of Social Sciences at Harvard University, Stephen M. Kosslyn. The title struck me because in today's society, when I think of computers and technology, I think of big prices. We have to buy a piece, well multiple pieces of technology in order to use the Internet. In today's society everyone is trying to get the latest gadgets and the most high tech equipment, which of course is pricey.
However, as I continued to read Kosslyn's thoughts, I realized he was not referring to the technology that we access the internet but the internet itself. Kosslyn discussed how much we, as Internet users, can access just by having internet. Kosslyn stated "Even in its current state, the Internet has extended my memory, perception, and judgment". I completely agree and feel that if everyone looked at the internet in this form, then yes, we could say the internet has changed the way we think, and that this change was for the good.
I will be the first to admit that the internet can sometimes be more of a distraction then a resource. I have actually been interrupted by facebook a few times as I have been posting this blog. Facebook along with other sites have a tendency to take over our lives, but at the same time, it is so easy for me to "chat" a friend who is online if I happen to forget my homework or if I am in need of other information. As Kosslyn goes into detail on explaining how the internet has made these extensions, the memory extension parallel really stuck out to me. Obviously, everything we read online will not stay in our memory just because of us browsing, but because everything online is so accessible, Kosslyn points out how easy and helpful it is to remember where that information was to go back and use it if needed.
Internet can improve one's judgement if the internet is used properly. For example, Wikipedia is a website that can be edited, so when accessing information from that site, it is important to have back-up sources too. There are also many forms of gossip and rumors floating around in cyberspace, so again it is important to not trust everything you see online. However, as Kosslyn states in his argument, we can also use these sites to our advantage, to check and double check and triple check. In conclusion, if we all look at the internet in the same way as Kosslyn, the internet will change the way we think for the good.

Back in the Day

The beginning and the end of almost every story my grandpa tells me he usually says, "Back in the Day(and then his long long story)...these days you got it too easy". After reading the assigned material this week for class I began to hear those famous words from my grandpa. Now I don't know if that is a good thing or bad thing but usually I try to forgot about the stories I seem to hear over and over again. Though this time I think I might understand what he means by "These days you got it too easy".
After I read the assigned text I began to think about all the things that make our lives easier and in all honestly really comfortable. For instance, how about having easy access to food on almost every corner with your local grocery stores, or the idea of having an ever ending supply of water being pumped to your home. Something that really caught my attention is how many people these days can not change their oil, build a deck, fix a water leak, or just start an ordinary fire to heat a home. I know I was lucky enough to learn all of these things, but I can say that majority of my friends couldn't even tell you were to begin at checking your oil let alone change it. I think that technology has changed many peoples lives for the better, but one flaw that I seemed to take from the reading is that majority of people in my generation are losing the essential skills of survival and the understanding of how to live without having easy access to all the things we want and find essential to our survival. By being so technologically advanced I think that my generation is losing the basic aspects of life and what got us to where we are today. My grandpa always seemed to ask me "could I survive the way people lived two hundred years ago with the skills I have now". In all respect to my grandpa, I hope to God I don't have to because, "These Days we got it to easy".

Is the Internet Changing the Way We Think?

Please have a look at this website, on which you will find a wide range of responses to a related question: how is the Internet changing the way you think?

Is the Internet Changing the Way We Think?

Is Google making us stupid???

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

What makes us human?

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

Koko

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

Reflection of the class this semester.

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

December 2, 2008

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

Robot After Life

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

Star Trek

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

bicentennial man

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

Please Read for Tuesday

From last week's Guardian:




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

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

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

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

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

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

Judgment day

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

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

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

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

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

Smarter than smart

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

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

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

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

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

Turning back time

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

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

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

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

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

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

What elements would you include if you were a robot?

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

Star Trek

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

Data: human or robot?

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

Reflection on Dr. Riehemann Speech

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

Robby the Robot

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

Robby the Robot

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

Robot Visions

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

Can thought go on without a body?

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

Robots

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

Wilderness as "focal things"

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

Robots

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

Robots

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

Robots and Rights?

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

Robots and Rights

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

Robots

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

Straight Story

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

Saddest Part of "The Straight Story"

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

Technology and the Wilderness

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

"A straight story"

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

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

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

Borgmann and A Straight Story

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

The End of the Straight Story

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

A Straight Story

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

A Straight Story

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

A Straight Story

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

Substantive vs. Instrumentalist Point of Views

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

Straight Story

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

A Straight Story

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

A Straight Story

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

A Straight Story

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

Leisure Time

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

Leisure Time

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

Leisure Time vs. Virtue

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

Intrumentalist

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

Grace

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

Leisure Time

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

2nd Life

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