Interview with Albert Borgman

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2901

Here is a link to an interview between a pastor and Albert Borgman. Borgman talks about focal things and practices and I think its interesting (and relevant to a Catholic school) the connections he makes to religion. It would seem his idea of a good life is consistent with many religious ideas of a good life.

The grander of the experience

As I talked about today in class on the discussion of Albert Borgmann and his idea of focal things, Henry David Thoreau is a perfect example of  living life with the grander of an experience not just about efficiency always. the words from his writing Walden, " I went to the woods because i wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life" in this sentence Thoreau is saying that he has to get away from the hectic everyday of modern society and all of its expectation  He understands that in the wilderness he finds peace and comfort in the grander of all the beauty. I feel the same way and as an Environmental science major i find the most comfort in the wilderness among the trees and rocks and hills. The wild is one of my focal things that i don't want modern civilization and technology to ruin, i can not image anything that can be a supplemental for the great outdoors. High adventure amusement parks that offer white water rafting or fake rock climbing try to fulfill the same actions that the wild provides but they are not the same just as the TV dinner is not the same as the thanksgiving dinner.  

Walden (Or, Life In The Woods) by Henry David Thoreau

Walden (Or, Life In The Woods) by Henry David Thoreau is one of my favorite novels of all times. I came across it in my junior year of high school in AP English III, when we read an essay from it in our AP text book. The essay reflected many thoughts that were similar to quite a few of my thoughts on technology at the time, so I thought I would go out and by the book for a summer reading. I’ve never read the entire book at once, but I have skipped through and read chunks throughout the book that seemed interesting at the time, some of which I have purposely reread up to four times because I enjoy it that much. I fell in love with this book, and it actually inspired me to take this class in the first place, so I figured I would share it with you guys in a blog post as a book I recommend for those who enjoy topics related to the ethics of technology, or anybody who has enjoyed the more current discussions in this class. This is because the novel shows many ideologies similar to those of the more classic philosophies of technology we have been discussing in class, while giving close up real life examples from the period of Industrialization that can easily relate to and show the intensity of these effects in modern society.

This novel is actual a collection of journal entries from Henry David Thoreau which he wrote during a retreat. This “retreat” was actually an escape from a society that he saw was falling apart to the extent that life was losing meaning. Thoreau discusses the effects he has seen technology have on society since Industrialization, and how technology was beginning to have the ability to control lives of individuals. He points out specific examples of people trying to make their lives better with technology but instead piling of complications and slowly taking away meaning of life. He decides to take a retreat in the woods living a simplistic lifestyle to find out what it really means to live.

Quotes from Walden, Or Life In The Woods:

 

 “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practise resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms.” 

"It is something to be able to paint a particular picture, or to carve a statue, and so to make a few objects beautiful; but it is far more glorious to carve and paint the very atmosphere and medium through which we look, which we morally can do. To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts."

Heideggar

According to Heideggar the greatest danger is that we lose human beings into resources. He saw the danger of technology in terms of the human domination and exploitation of all beings by instrumental means. The essence of technology is not technological to Heideggar, but yet more of a way of being. To some degree I can follow these beliefs. In the world we live in today it is like we can not let anyone or anything just be itself. We are constantly putting constraints on people and coming up with new ideas or gadgets trying to improve what already is which can cause stress and controversy. If we would sometimes just let things stand as is then we might find more comfort in our own lives.

Heideggar

Heideggar talks about humans and losing them to different resources. He claims that this is the greatest danger and I can see where he is coming from. Technology often leads to exploitation of human beings and we are constantly putting constraints on them. The important part of his point to me is the idea that people are constantly trying to improve what already is good and advanced. In some points this is good but in others it is not necessary. But these individuals that come up with this new technology dominate others and dominate the actual technology that is made available to the world. We have no idea what technology is actually available to everyone until it actually comes out. This is all something that we have to think about.

Robotic Pets

The other day in class... we were discussing robotic pets and how they are becoming more prevalent in our society. Although to some these may seem nothing more than just harmless children's toys, there are many people who would argue that these "pets" are slowly blurring the lines between robots and humans as Turkle suggested in the second chapter of her book.

What is the problem about this? As just suggested, there are many fears that these sorts of toys are not teaching our kids how to take care of pets, but instead, are teaching are kids that animals do not have emotions and no matter how much you abuse them, they will still get up, and keep doing what you want.

Another fear is that kids will not be able to tell the difference between animals and robots, and treat a robotic toy that loses power in its batteries as a pet dog dying.... what if children became more emotionally invested in a machine than a real animal? What if future generations become more invested in robots and robotic companions that they are unable to become emotionally invested in each other?

I know its a large stretch, and it seems pretty ridiculous, but the more I read Turkle's book the more I am being slowly convinced that this is a possible future we may be heading into...

robotic pets

On the idea of people having a pet, that really isnt alive i think it totally depends on the situation. If a young child wants a tomogatchi or a furby i dont think that is much of an issue. that could be used as an educaitonal experience to teach them. or even with adults who are allergic to pets getting robots. that all seems to be okay with me

the problem then arises when people like to be human qualities in anything that resembles a human. they think that the robot can actually think and has feelings just as we do. if you think about it, most of us do that. why is that? I dont have a for sure answer but if i had to say it seems like people just want someone to listen to them. Same idea with pets. People know they have no clue what theyre saying but every once in awhile its nice to have someone sit and listen without getting any back talk.

Subtle Analogy in Class Video

The video we watched in class Thursday, February 21, 2013 mentioned a trial from Auschwitz concentration camps in which the man’s excuse for not worrying about or helping the people being thrown in the ovens and burning to death was because he didn’t have time to worry about it, because he was focused on keeping the oven working, and because one little person couldn’t have done anything about it anyways. The man in the video says that is completely irresponsible, and that the man on trial let something terrible happen because his one and only goal was to attend to the needs of technology. The man in the video also makes a subtle comment afterwards, saying that this kind of irresponsibility is common in our society, and then gloomy pictures of the environment were shown to end the video. I was very happy with the subtle analogy being made.
What he was trying to get across to the viewers is that completely irresponsible behavior is going on in every day life to this day, but in more indirect ways. The environment has been completely torn to shreds because of highways, rushes to build bigger cities, exhaust gases, mining, chemicals, and many more common activities of today’s third world countries, and nobody thinks a think about it, because their only concern is accomplishing their tasks, which are often tasks brought on by the cycles of society brought on by the obsession with efficiency and technological advancements. Not only are people living in poor, unhealthy conditions as a result of this, and sometimes even dying, but the amount of pollution, deforestation, and destruction of the environment altogether is completely absurd, and the excuse for everyone not joining together and fixing the problem is that they don’t have time in their busy lives, and because no one person could stop it anyways.

 

Top Ten Causes of Environmental Damage:

http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2012/01/top-10-causes-of-environmental-damage/

 

Top 10 Most Polluted Locations, and Common Causes:

http://environment.about.com/od/pollution/a/top_10_polluted.htm

 

Ellul

With Ellul, we saw that machines or gadgets are not what he thinks of as technology. Ellul sees technology as a technique, a way of life reflected in a machine. This viewpoint of technology is a whole way of life and we cannot see the impact because it is so vital. The efficiency of this technique or technology shapes our ideas and social values. I would agree with Ellul. We use technology to make our life easier and we have become so wrapped around the concept of technology and how much easier it has made our lives, that we now begin to think of every aspect of life as being as efficient as possible, and that often times will involve technology.

On the Required Reading

Reading Pierro Scaruffi's thoughts on Artificial Intelligence there was one part that stood out to me. He said, "Furthermore, there's the meaning of action. The children who play soccer actually enjoy it. They scream, they are competitive, they cry if they lose, they can be mean, they can be violent. There is passion in what we do. Will an android that plays decent soccer in 3450 (that's a realistic date in my opinion) also have all of that?" For me this is the fundamental and powerful difference between robots and humans that make them unacceptable as replacements for humans in certain aspects of our lives. A robot can perform the function but there is no menaing behind what they do. Robots can perform the behaviors of emotions or someone who loves you but they do not actually feel those things or understand why they do them. Part of the human expereince is sharing emotions with other people, the reciprocity of that situation is important and with a robot you do not receive that.

Pet Robot-Dog in Chevy Commercial

I was at the movie theatres the other day standing in line at the concessions stand when I noticed a television screen on the wall for people in line to watch. As odd as I thought this was, probably only because I don’t watch much television and I don’t see why so many people spend as much time watching it as they do, I watched it anyways when I was standing in line because I didn’t have anyone standing in line with me to talk to. Once again, since I don’t watch much television, I don’t know if this commercial is common or not, but I saw a commercial that made a clear connection with some of our discussions in class for which I will have the think provided below. It was a car commercial where when the car stops, a robot dog is sitting in the back with the child, and he sticks his head out the window and interacts with a deer. Although I’m sure the robot dog was not the main thing being advertised in the commercial, the fact that people are comfortable enough with the idea and the fact that people also feel as if robots are now common enough, to replace pets even in advertisements caught my attention.
Not only that, but I found it also very interesting that not only are the humans accepting this robot dog so easily as if it is a real pet, but the deer the robot dog interacts with seems to be interested in it, but also seems to regard it as another animal. To me, this symbolizes an acceptance of technology into nature, and in a way it does seem like that’s an underlying theme of the commercial, because they’re trying to convince you that the car rides so smooth and is so quite that it won’t even disturb nature, because the deer comes right up to the car. The commercial, in a way, is portraying technology as something that is conforming to nature, which in my opinion is very contradicting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruZArNGgZ1Q

A.I. Reflection

After watching A.I. I found myself wondering not so much if technology like this was around or if we were capable of creating human robots, rather, I was more intrigued as to why we would create something like this. David proves countless times throughout the movie that he can't understand human emotion and love. This to me can become very dangerous and really is a road I would rather not explore. Don't get me wrong, I am all for the advancement of technology and even robotics. Robotics have proved to be invaluable, especially in the medical and assembly line industries. Where I draw the line though is where robotics and artificial intelligence are used to create human robots.

I believe that to create a robot that can fully understand and interact with a real human beings mind and emotions is simply impossible. There can be an unlimited amount of information and intelligence installed and stored into a robots hard drive but there can never be a substitute for real human emotion and feelings. Human life can be hard enough as it is, there is no reason to complicate things with the development of human robots; this is just going to throw a wrench into the machine.

Furby Infatuation

Dr. Langguth brought in his daughters Furby to class to raise the question of is this toy alive or not?  My initial reaction is of course not it is a battery operated toy.  But that is not how most children think.  As Turkle discusses in her book, children build such a strong connection with this toy that they go as far as wanting to "perform surgery" on it when the batteries die. This attachment to an inanimate object is very interesting.  Are these kids latching on to this toy because it gives them the attention they wish their loved ones would give them?  Or do they really, truly believe that it is real?  I found it interesting too that if you were to place a barbie upside down and a Furby, most people would flip the Furby right side up first simply because you can hear it complain or sound in distress.  If we can develop sentimental feelings for a simple robot as a Furby, imagine the attachment to a robot that looks and sounds like a human.

Kant

I found it interesting that Kant felt like maybe there is a process by nature to a perpetual peace, that in spite of ourselves we might eventually reach this peace. I think that humans are constanly learning and in battle with ourselves and society to fulfill our "role" given to us by society and once we feel like we have fulfilled our role we might find peace in ourselves. These conflicts shape us into who we are as a person which could detour us or lead us down a different path. Maybe this is what Kant was thinking about when mentioning nature as that process to perpetual peace.

Ellul

I really like Ellul's sociological perspective on technology. The examples he provided in the video of heart transplants technology (which is good) but is fed by the negative consequence of car accidents. He has a  very good point. Both theology and sociology study how progress leads to devastating consequences for others. More technology has led to an ailing environment and technological progress often comes at the expense of workers who make wages barely enough to live on. Before this class I had not thought of technological progress as negative in any way, but I am beginning to see that it does have clear negative consequences.

Furbies and Human Interaction

Today in class Dr. Langguth brought his daughter's Furby to our class. At first it was somewhat charming and funny to watch, and it is easy to see why children would attach to these creature-like toys. This is similar to what Turkle discussed, how children see the toy as a real pet they can interact with and develop a relationship with. However, I found it annoying how you can't turn it off, just like you cannot turn off a real pet. The difference is that one you know when to feed, but the toy Furby is more unpredictable and can turn evil if you feed it too much. I think that these toys are not teaching children how to develop relationships, but rather to rely more on their electronic toys, which can create addictions to electronic means of entertainment instead of promoting human interaction.

Alive or Not

Turkle talks about a toy referred to as a Furby. She talks about how children now feel that these things are acutely alive because of how real they seem. These things "need" various things or else they show a sort of emotion, similar to what a human might do. When I was a kid I had a Furby, but not nearly as advanced as the ones now a days. It still needed various things like the one now but not as much emotion was involved. I also had a tamagotchi growing up. These had to be fed and bathed and things and if they weren't taken care of correctly they would die and the game would start over. When mine would die, I would say it died it I wouldn't actually think it died like a human would die. These children that Turkle talks about would describe the Furby as alive and capable of love and death. 

I think that this is alarming for the future. If children can't distinguish between alive and not alive, the world is in trouble. 

"Alive Enough"

 The second chapter of "Alone Together" explores concepts such a robotic pets like Furbys or robotic dogs. If these toys are to evoke emotional responses from children, and appear to need care and affection, then are they essentially “alive”?  Whether the child is acting as teacher or a playmate to his/her Furby, he/she becomes attached to the robot to the point where if it dies, it loses all appeal, despite being able to be reset.  

However, this emotional and psychological response does not just apply to children. She conducted an experiment where the participants would hold the Furby upside down for as long as they wanted.  Even though the Furby has no emotions and is not living, most people could not hold the Furby upside down for very long before their emotions caused them to turn it back over.  If robots such as Furbys can already make us feel for them, it seems as though we are only waiting for the day when robots become better companions and confidants than real people. Will people start to rely more on computer generated “perfect” responses than the actual experience of other people, despite the potential for flaws and biases? And if so, is that bad? 

Alive or Not? From a Different Perspective

Here are my thoughts on the second chapter of Turkle. technology has been at a steep incline since the 1970's and every year more and more amazing things come out for both fun and necessities. Turkle speaks of two major machines that children believe are alive: Furby and Tamogotchi. I owned both a Furby and a tamogotchi, so I want to express the similarities from my own experiences with the stories in Turkle's book. One, Turkle says that children believe that these things were partly alive and children often got emotionally attached to the machines.

My tamogotchi was not a "pet" to me. I played with my tamogotchi for a long time but i never felt an emotional attachment to it. I had no pets at the time either so it was the closest thing to a pet I had, yet no feelings of remorse came over me when it died. Tamogotchi's, for me and my older brother, were a contest to see who could keep theirs alive the longest. When it finally "died" we would start over and play the game again. I would even say it died, but that did not mean that i ever thought it was actually alive. I believe it is just an easier wat to say the game died than it is to say the batteries ran out or I was neglectful. I use the smae vernacular today when i play a video game. When i get shot in a first person shooter game, I say that guy killed me, not that guy terminated my character. I think Turkle may be looking into this particular part of the study from a wrong angle. Saying the game died does not neccessarily mean the child thinks the machine was alive at one point, but simply a way of explaining something in the current era.

Lindman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Rj2Ga9Y7oU

Here is a link to Pia Lindman talking about her art and her experience for a class at MIT. I think it's pretty interesting how she showed that simulating the physicality of emotions leads to the real emotion.