We should not generalize the concept that robots will take over....

During today's discussion, it came to my attention that we began speaking how in the future there is a slightly great possibility that robots might take over and we will begin this war between technology and human race. If you think of this state of war in a more radical content this war already began. Sometimes technology strikes againist us and we try to fix it to get it running again. There are various fields where technology does not always take orders; airplane crashes, space shuttle mission failures, failure of hospital equipments to treat patients,etc.

When we speak of technology taking over our lives, we must take the world as a whole which would be impossible to do. As I have brought this up before, there are various regions of the world maybe majority of the world where technology has not touched and is not capable of touching because of environmental conditions. North Pole and desserts of Africa and Middle East are some of the examples of various other earthly conditions.

Yes, its very good to look at various uses of technology especially how it can be destructive but our human lives are very fragile. I TOTALLY DISAGREE we are all cyborgs. I think Harraway is sort of caught up with the state of men and how they are all robots with no emotions. Im sorry for her experience with her husband and it did not work out. Going back to the fragile human nature, a small disease which is unknown to human knowledge can wipe out a whole human race. A small example of such crises like bird flu can be one of the greatest example of such.

In the eastern world culture, eastern europe, middle east and asia, many people believe something called kader(destined future) your future is already written out for you and you will leave your lives exactly as it states. There are so many other risks in our lives which can end all of our lives in seconds and at this stage especially when we know a lot more about the world, it would be wrong to state that technology will be the main factor to do so. Many people rather majority of the people are not exposed to technology as much as the people in the states. Their cultures, histories, or environmental factors do not allow them become one with technology but disengaged bodies which humans see it as a tool. Its very valuable to learn to not become the toy of technology especially as the citizens of the Western world.

Reflection on Idhe

Idhe, like Borgmann and Dreyfus, is a philosopher who does not believe that technology is a value neutral tool that can be applied to just one thing. Idhe views technology as several small manifestions (techonologies) rather than one huge force (Technology). He talks about a sensory perception or micropercetption, meaning technology is always there whether we are aware of it or not. I agree with this aspect of his view on technology as I often find myself doing or using things without technically realizing it. Idhe provides the example of someone who wears glasses, which overtime become apart of them and the person does not even realize they are there anymore. I am one of those people who has to wear glasses and after they have been on for awhile, I forget they are even there and I can't even feel them. I also wear contacts more often and though they help me view the world in a new way as I otherwise could not see very well, I don't even think about them being there. According to Idhe we are mediated to the world through technology, which shapes our environment. Though it is out of our control that we relate to the world, we can change technologies by conducting experiments which then allow us to reflect on how technology shapes our relation to the world and others. It is through these experiments that Idhe believes we can make any needed changes in technology. I tend to agree with Idhe on this aspect as well, as experimental results can make an impression on the way in which we are living, providing us with information to make changes.

Lem Book

Well, I just finished the book, and wow! That was crazy. I don't want to give away the ending, but I wish we had narcotics like those people did. If it weren't for the fact that overpopulation ruined the earth that might actually be a really cool place to live. Except for the whole panting thing, I was wondering if Lem was ever going to tell us the reason for that. I don't find this book creepy, more eye-opening really. What better way to control people than to sedate them and let them think they have everything. Whatever Lem was on when he wrote this book, I think we need to give to Borgmann and Dreyfus, maybe it will calm them down a bit.

Futurological Congress

Today I started reading the Lem novel, The Futurological Congress, and it is extremely strange. The crazy thing is, though, I didn't expect to like it, but I have almost finished it in one day. Lem's vision of the future is so colorful and wild and it's supposed to take place in the year 2039, which is not even that far away. Some of the thoughts in the books are quite scary, such as being able to eat books in order to consume knowledge, the ability to reinvent oneself completely if unsatisfied, and characters that can come out of the television and hurt the viewer. The most frightening idea in the book so far is the concept of eternal life. In the story it is common for the dead to be brought back to life or to have their brain transplanted to a healthy body. I can't imagine going on forever and never being able to die. I still have more to read so I will continue this later...

Comment on second view of video

Unlike some of the previous posts, the second time seeing part of this movie wasn't anymore enlightening to me because I think the message the first time was obvious. Nature is good; technology is bad. I think the main element of the picture that really make the message clear is the music. If it was a silent film and only the images were shown, I know it wouldn't have been anywhere near as clear, but I'm still not sure that just seeing the images wouldn't have evoked some of the same negative feelings that the music helped in evoking. There was an image of some metal being melted and reshaped (I think) that had a negative connotation. Especially when there was what almost seemed like an explosion towards the end of the metal shaping did it become the most negative. So.....music or not, the message to me was clear the first and second times we watched it: Nature is good; technology is bad.

Education and Technology,

I thought Winner's video was good but typical. I tend to watch such things during my leisure time. I do believe we are certainly headed where Winner thinks we are going with the comical video and the equipment he has shown related to the future of education.

Why do we seek the need for technological education (distant learning)? Since I come from a different nation Im more exposed to experience because everything around me is different than my own culture and I can relate everything that I learn in my courses to the so called "real world." Why does the education not seem so interesting to a native American student and why are they disinterested? It has become a systematic teaching method. Most students are craving to gather information that would relate to the real world and help them out once they complete their education. In courses like Ethics and Technoloy, many are interested because computers are something we are exposed to. There are various courses as such on the one hand but there are other courses that are based on technical, memorization based concepts which you can not attach to the real world and therefore make it something interesting and useful. Another good question to ask is do we have the leisure and the time to learn courses that are systematic and memorization based just for the fun of it? I would say no because my life might be so much different than somebody else, I might be rich and other person might be getting education so he can have a diploma to survive in the real world.

It always interests me that education and the real world are totally to different worlds of institutions. What you learn in school can not be applied to "real world" in most cases. Once you are out of school, you start a new school so called the "real world" I do think that education is based on experiences and the risks you'd be taking (Dreyfus) but one can not deny the fact that these risks and experiences are a lot different in the so called "real world" and one has to learn the language of that world. Even in our school think of how many students are business majors and why not so many are philosophy or communication majors or even art majors? Some of the questions I receive from peers are what will I do with my communications and philosophy degrees? I really do not think I should be able to do anything with them rather than grow my own personality and most importantly my human nature. In fact, I will not do anything with any of my degrees but will apply them to my life so I can communicate with other beings and use my philosophical knowledge to shape my life in a peacful state. They will be great treasures I have gathered by taking huge risks which are traveling and exploring new thnings in a new culture.

One must ask where education is headed? Grading systems, systematic course requirement to get a diploma, professors or teachers who enjoy teaching the subjects or are just teaching just to teach and for their own survival. Im not saying our education system is bad but students need to be exposed to exploration and traveling a lot more so they can be more interested in what they are learning. Once we limit their perception or what they are exposed to they will not seek to need to learn the points many philosophers and communicators are making about today's world. They will continue to be locked up in their towns or houses without a passion. We will see more of the computer based distant learning. How can one expect college students to deal with the problems of the world if they do not learn much about it or provided the passion to do so? The simple answer comes out we just do not care and its their problem! With education, lets do it without thinking and some will survive and others wont and they will absorb the so called distant learning.

film

i think after learning more material about the film before seeing the film the second time and getting a better background base of knowledge about the subject, the film was easier to grasp
it was also easier to understand because i could relate the images to some of the ideas from the various people we have read about and how they are saying the same thing or contradicting the image the film is trying to portray
i think the message the film is trying to bring across comes to the mind more naturally after we have had a more educated background in the topic
the first time we watched the film, you really had to think about everything you were seeing and it was almost like a puzzle trying to figure out everything thats going on and how it relates to everything we have been studing and now that it comes easier as a concept it was more benefitial the second time around

i dont think it is fair to consider the monster as a cyborg
i agree with the idea that they are both in a sense borderline cases, but its still 2 completely different things. thats comparing 2 things that are on the opposite sides of humanity if you think about it
although the monster is artificially made, it does not fall into the category in which we are considering a cyborg
i think the monster could be better compared to a human because i dont think that in this case the fact that he was artificially created has as much effect as the fact that physically he doesnt look like a normal human and cannot function like one but still possesses human qualities and has the instinct for survival, companionship, etc
the problem in comparing a cyborg to a monster would be in that the normal idea of a cyborg is a fairly extreme definition of one, in that the machinery plays a very key role in the body, mostly the mind
the monster has no machine mind, it is purely human in that sense, and all his parts are also human parts
so in conclusion i think the monster should not be considered as a cyborg because it has no machinery, and although artificially created, it is physically 100% natural and has the same instincts as anything in nature of survival, seeking companionship, and fear

Comment on the movie

After watching the movie the second time, I was able to understand it alot better. It made more sense in the relation between nature and technology. It made a point that technology is starting to intervine with nature. The director points out the fact the people can not even go to a beach and there not be a factory right behind them. Technology is starting to become apart of every aspect of our culture. As the movie showed the people seemed to not even notice that the factory was behind them. This is seeming o be the way our nation is turning into. We are now used to things like that being around us all the time. This may be the sign of change in everyday life.

Cyborg Campfire: Ethics and Technology

Cyborg Campfire: Ethics and Technology The film that we watched on Wednesday morning having to deal with nature and technology. This was the second time that we watched the film. I think that I understand the film and where the director was trying to go with the film. I found it a lot more interesting this time around. The family was laying on the beach in front of the huge factory, now that is not what I think of a vacation. Apparently now a days you can't even get a way from the city and factories when you are on the coast. Is this what our nation is coming to. Our need for advancement in technology has now become part of our leisure life as well.

Langdon Winner

Langdon Winner begins by talking about "The Whale and the Reactor" essay in which he was overwhelmed by the contrast between the two powerful symbols in which they were in such close quarters of each other. The first of which was the power of nature while second was the power of human artiface. When he saw these two images it truely hit him that the moral and political dilemmas of technology were closer to his itellectual roots than he ever imagined. Winner was often uncomfortable with the uncritical acceptance accorded all the latest technologie sand devices. I feel the same way as Winner on a lot of issues because I often wonder if the new technologies are in fact a mixed blessing rather than gifts sent from God. I questoin whether certain things are better the way they are now much like Winner questioned the milk in the reading. I like the part where Winner talks about technologies and how they often affect not only everyday behavior but also norms and values, our self-understanding, our perception, and our ideas about space and time. As we were discussing in class on Monday we would not know how or when to end class without the technology of the watch, we wouldn't know what type of clothes to wear to school if the thermometer was never created. As Typhun mentioned in class we would not even be able to discuss anything without the English language. So many things came from technology that are necessary that we could not even begin to dig ourselves out of technology. An example that Winner uses is medical practice and the fact that technology has not only changed medical practice, but also the very definaition of medical care and human health. We are much healthier with the new vaccines that have been created, and some pills have been a goodthing, but others have just caused more damage. I think one of the best lines in the chapter in the book is "we must avoid the depths wothout direction and details without meaning. A lot of times philosophers will make a pretty good point and you question them on it and they really have nothing to go along with what they had just said. People like to make general statements without having to be held accountable for the repercussions of the statement. The prestige of technical activities has risen through the belief of progress through reason; while politics has fallen because of the things it has caused like wars and social disruption. Many times people fight when there is an idea that is thrown out there without anything behind it because people read different things into what is said. The best argument is one that has a lot of support because then the opposing person knows exactly what is being said so nothing has to be read into the statement.
Winner goes into the topic of Frankenstein and how if technology is not carefully and completely supervised, technology can lead to harmful and horrible outcomes. There is a moment in Frankenstein where Victor Frankenstein realizes that the monster has come to life and he flees in fear realizing what he has done. The reason that the horrible deeds are committed by Frankenstein are because Victor did not carefully watch over his creation. By Frankenstein Winner does not mean that technology is monstrous; but that the monster became what he is by unnurture by his creator. A great point that has to be pointed out is the fact that when a new technology is introduced people immediately take the technology and run with it without completely finishing it to see what could come of the new idea. It happens all too often that people are on to something and then they forget about trying to continue their technology because they are in such a hurry to use it. I compare this to getting a new toy that needs assembly. I mean as soon as yo get what you essentially need for the toy to function you begin playing with and you forget about putting the final touches on it. Although if you wait and finish the directions the toy would be significantly better you cannot wait and the toy ends up falling apart at an early age because it wasn't put together properly in the beginning. Winner wants to dismantle former technologies in an approach called "epistemological Luddism". Not a literal smashing, but a deconstruction of social and political conditions of technological systems. He would like to see what happens when we do without different modes of technolgy such as the automobile and television, and telephone. This would allow people to understand the way we use technology in the way of communicating with each other and the dependency that we have on technology.

monster = cyborg?

The definition I have come to understand is of a cyborg is that it is part human, part robot/technology. Frankenstein's monster was made up of all human parts, enough to classify him as human, but the parts at the time he was made up were inanimate objects, despite the fact that they were connected and functioned as something alive at one point in time. I guess that could make him a cyborg. Some of the conflicts he found himself with were trying to find out where he belongs, or what his purpose would be, given that he was created by a man from some spare body parts rather than the good, old-fashioned way. Those could be some turmoils suffered by a cyborg, if he was mostly robot rather than mostly human. I'm sure a grandmother hasn't begun questioning her place in life now because she has just had a pacemaker 'installed.' It just depends on what kind of cyborg Frankenstein's monster is compared to when trying to determine if Frankenstein can be considered a cyborg.

The Myth of Cyborgs

The similarity between Haraway's cyborg and Frankenstein's monster that is much less on the surface is beneath the way the cyborg and the monster's feelings about the human world. Haraway's cyborg was one, which was devoid of a human history so that it was the embodiment of nothing but social progression and social equality. The monster was not created with this intent but with the intent of overcoming death and the promise of being able to create humans. However, Frankenstein quickly learns that his monster like the Cyborg was without a human history and could not function within society. Haraway would only see this as a positive and this conflict as just one of many on the way the way to true equality by way of Cyborgs. But, is it really the myths and shared human history that forces upon us old social structures? From the beginning of Myth, it has played the part of explanation of forces not understandable not a religious purpose (the Golden Bough is about this and I agree with it). Yes the myths bring people together but they bring people together in the realization that we in fact know nothing about the world and so there must be some greater force controlling. Myths do not perpetuate social structures because most of us (except fundamentalists) are smart enough to realize that slavery is wrong regardless of what the Bible says (For me myth is a fantastic exaggeration of concrete event so it doesn't bother me to place the Bible in this context.) What's interesting is that the Monster disproves Haraway's thesis that Cyborgs will bring about true equality because it too falls prey to human acts of kindness and love; not because Frankenstein has told him any stories of Zeus and Leda but because he has observed other humans interact and wants to be the same way. In this manner Frankenstein seems more human than Cyborg because he is able to observe and feel others but in the end his Cyborgosity prevents this from ever fully taking shape. I read an interesting article Foreign Policy that said patriarchal structures are doomed to still rule the earth even after feminism because feminists, environmentalists, great thinkers of our time etc... Are less likely to reproduce than say a patriarchal evangelical family. Thus, Cyborgs aren't the key to equality as Harway theorizes but the willingness to think about the future of our humanity is. One has to ask the question, "Do I want intolerant people to undo 50 years of social growth in one generation?"
N.B. The article in Foreign Policy is called The Return of Patriarchy. There's also a companion article called The Geopolitics of Sexual Frustration, which gives empirical evidence for the previous article. I would link the articles but the site won't let me however they're both on ebscohost and not in the library because it doesn't stock Foreign Policy.

Of the philosophers we've studied so far Haraway has been the most difficult for me to understand. To be honest it's probably because the minute you start throwing around wildly feminist rhetoric, it is my nature to tune it out. I've never bought into the whole notion of "men bad, women good"...I know too many women!
In terms of comparing her ideas on cyborgs and Frankensteins monster, I'm not sure where I stand. Both things were created not born, but the monster was created from human parts and would therefore, I think, be more susceptible to human understanding and behavior. According to the movie the monsters behavior was reactionary, but does that really excuse it? Ultimately does it matter why, for example , the arsonist burns down the building murdering its occupants, or does it merely matter that he chose to do it? The opinion that we are all cyborgs is also difficult for me to grasp. I believe in free will, so to be told that because we use technology we are cyborgs, and that living without technology is impossible, seems to me to be discounting what it is to be human in the first place...the ability to make choices.
I think Haraways idea that if we are all cyborgs then we will no longer have an "us and them" issue is a bit idealistic, not to mention unrealistic. Everything evolves eventually, and not always for the better. She even says that, "illegitimate offspring are often exceedingly unfaithful to their origins", so I'm curious as to how the assumption can be made that the outcome will be positive. I mean really, didn't she see The Terminator?

Frankenstein and Cyborg Relation

After viewing The Bride of Frankenstein and reading the article "Gender in Monstrosity, Cyborgosity and (Post)Humanity," I have finally been able to come to my own state of beleif that Frankenstein too is a cyborg. The article suggests that if Frankenstein would have been created by a woman than his life may have been different. However, I beleive the author is more correct when she states that Frankenstein was created and that procreation would have made a difference. Because Frankenstein was created, reguardless the fact of by a male or not he is still a created monster of the western culture due to his actions, which stemmed from the treatment that he received due to his appearance. He is turned into a fiend/monster of civilization that is due to the perversion of the actual creation as the article states. However, despite this monster is the softer side of Frankenstein where he does not master but rather dabbles in the arts of language and music. Due to this dabbling the article tells us that still visually he is a monster, but verbally he has become rather sympothetic and has developed feelings one of which just happens to be "hate" which he repeatedly proclaims throughout the movie and continues to drive the western personification of the monster. Therefore, Frankenstein the monster has actually been turned evil by the people that he encounters and the misery he experiences due to these encounters. Even the creation of a bride doesn't help, he is even despised by his own kind. He actually desires feelings of understanding, bonding, and connection. The article states that these feelings are the same ones that a cyborg would need as well.
Nonetheless Frankenstein is still a cyborg. He is a product of technology and science and his actions and personality are dictated by society and culture. However, he is just an embodiedment of man and not really human nor entirely machince therefore a cyborg. Both Frankenstein and cyborgs have no true origins and thier nature and culture are reworked due to thier surroundings. Both are truely a whole of parts as the article suggests and their behavior in Frankenstein's case especially are dictated by these parts one of which being the environment where they are created and live. Frankenstein much like ourselves is a "theorized and fabricated bybrid of machine and orgaism."

I am cyborg...Hear me roar!!!

After reading Donna Haraway I feel very confused. I am not sure where some of her thoughts come from, but I must say that her thoughts are very interesting. Borgmann was very clear cut in his ideas; whereas, Haraway is more difficult to read and understand. The main point that Haraway is trying to get across is that every human being on this earth is also a cyborg. I agree with many of the other posts in that at first glance of this concept, I totally disagreed. I know that the true definition of a cyborg or "man machine" is an individual who has some sort of machine part on them, such as my fiance and his insulin pump, which he relies on in order to survive. After opening my mind a bit; however, Haraway is correct in saying that we are all cyborgs. Technology was once thought of as a luxury or something nice to have around. Then technology became somewhat necessary for most people and now...technology seems to be indespensable. We have come to totally rely on technology and use it for just about everything such as: work, transportation, communication, pleasure, cooking, and even survival. It is kind of frightening to think about how much our lives depend on technology. For example, people thought that the world would end when the year 2000 arrived mainly because they thought all computers would shut down. It is strange to think that there was once a time when nothing was done on a computer. In fact, I am being a cyborg right now because I am using a computer to type this!!

Cyborgosity vs. Monstrosity vs. Humanity

After reading Donna Haraway's thoughts on cyborgs, I was left a bit confused. I ultimately had more questions than answers. Then, I read the article comparing Frankenstein's monster to Haraway's cyborg. I think the article's authour took a very interesting and unique viewpoint. There were times, however, I felt she was stretching things a bit too much to prove similarities between the two. I think she raised some interesting points about the emotional side of monsters and cyborgs. The author points out that we are afraid to be labeled as monsters, yet we are perfectly content with being calleds humans. Why is this? Are humans that much different from Frankenstein's monster? Of course we weren't created in the same way as the monster, but I believe we all contain the want and need for human companionship and we seek to find others who are like us and understand the hardships we face. Humans, in my opinion, are just as capable, if not more so, than monsters of doing some pretty awful things, yet we are the ones with the conscience. It seems a bit odd that some people are so afaraid of the implications of monsters, or more realistically, cyborgs. I do think, however, before society advances to create the ultimate cyborg, we need to think of the effects this would have. Like Frankenstein's monster, would the cyborg be able to feel? Would the cyborg know right from wrong? Could you kill a cyborg? Could a cyborg kill, and if so, how would it be punished? These are all questions that need to be discussed before technology advances any further. We mst first be responsible as "creators" before "bringing to life" cyborgs.

Frankenstein

After watching this movie and reading the original Frankenstein, killings aside, he was an outcast from the beginning. Everyone was scared of him just based on that fact that he looked different and did not act like everyone else. It took a blind man in the movie to realize that Frankenstein was a "person" like anyone else and the blind man befriended him. That point in the movie was the only time that Frankenstein trusted someone and was not scared. Even when the Bride was made for Frankenstein, she did not accept him as a friend. She herself was scared of him.
As far as a cyborg, Frankenstein as a good example in that fact that he was created of parts. At that point in time he would be compared to a walking and talking robot in our near future. And if you think about it we all can relate to Frankenstien. There are times that we all feel left out and the outcase. He had showed emotion just like we do, even though he may have expressed it differently then what we would have done. So if you think about it we may not be too much different then this monster in the movie.

Frankenstein

After watching The Bride of Frankenstein I began to realize that such a creature can develop feelings, love, and friendships. Frankenstein developed a connection with the old, blind man and grew to love music. Even thoughFrankenstein is unaware of his killings, he still develops tender emotion through the old man's music. Frankenstein recieves moments of kindness which suggests that there is some religious meaning to the monster.

Frankenstein is like a cybord in that he has no family or kinship. They both have a mixture of artifical and human parts. Both are also in between categories: natural and not natural. Cyborgs might have a human hand, arm, or leg but the way they are put together is non human. For both cyborgs and Frankenstein there is no hope for completeness because they can't share human history.

Frankenstein the Cyborg

According to Haraway, cyborgs are any combination of animals, human beings, and technology: they are borderline creatures. Cyborgs blur the line between what is really human, animal, and/or technology. Frankenstein truly breaks the essence of the orgin of human beings as he is created from the dead and has no kin. It is this kin that relates all other human beings, however at the same time, Frankenstein exhibits human qualities as he begins to show emotion and can talk. Frankenstein expresses his yearning for a mate and shows despair when he loses his blind friend. Are this not qualities that make us all human: love, affection, yearning to be accepted? It is the fact that Frankenstein shows these emotions, which confuses us as to what he really is, as he was created by a scientist yet he can talk, walk, and show emotion. Cyborgs are seen as being marginal and Frankenstein is just that, as he is half human and half technology. He is real yet his origin makes him artificial as he ought not to exist. In true reality we can not make a human being from the dead which makes him unhuman and alien-like. Frankenstein is viewed by those who can see him as a monster, yet the blind man becomes his friend. The blind man has no sense that Frankenstein is alien-like based on the way he knows him. It is almost as if we view someone as human based more on the fact that they look like everyone else rather than if they act like everyone else. Frankenstein was treated as an outcast because of the way he looked. He was not a normal human thus he was considered not human. The fact that there are cyborgs, though, shows potential for society based on Haraway's belief that it is cyborgs who allow us to understand the world in terms of there being no single human essence. Without this essence we are all cyborgs, and there is no longer the distinction of the so called "others."