Lyotard’s polyvocal essay ‘Can Thought Go On Without A Body?’ (Lyotard, 1991), is full of convolutions as a result of his two-sided conversation with the abstract. Lyotard stages the conversation as a dialogue between a ‘He’ and a ‘She.’ The essay frames a discussion of the nature of thinking through a typically Lyotardian conceit. Lyotard’s conceit, technically speaking is that of how it thought itself might continue in the wake of the imminent explosion of the Sun, an event of unprecedented catastrophe due sometime towards the latter part of the next four and a half billion years. Of course, as Lyotard tells us, it is impossible to think such an end, because an end is a limit, and you need to be on both sides of the limit to think that limit. So how could thought – as we know it or otherwise – go on? This is the question that postmodernist Lyotard is asking of the “post-human” world.
The ‘He’ and ‘She’s subjects are opposing views. In the ‘He’ Lyotard states that artificial intelligence is necessary because it will allow humanity to save its thoughts, providing meaning in lives that would otherwise be meaningless at death. However, the view, developed in the “She” section, questions the ability of artificial intelligence to characterize and provide others with a sense of humanity. The “post-human” is the society that develops after this earth and our race’s inevitable demise. Human is the human race’s current state of existence. The ‘He’ and the ‘She’ are arguing over not ‘what is post-human?’ but ‘is post-human even possible?’ Despite Mary Shelley’s gender, her vision of the post-human is not femininely questioning our ability to create artificial intelligence that can retain and exhibit humanness; instead she shows us that it is possible.
Shelley’s representation of the post-human is Frankenstein’s “monster” or creation. Compiled of dead human parts, and a spark of light, Frankenstein’s creation is Shelley’s example of artificial intelligence. Light reveals, illuminates, clarifies; it is essential for seeing, and seeing is the way to knowledge. Just as light can illuminate, however, so can it blind; pleasantly warm at moderate levels, it ignites dangerous flames at higher ones. Light is balanced always by fire, the promise of new discovery by the danger of unpredictable—and perhaps tragic—consequences. Being analogous to knowledge, the light that struck the composition of dead body parts is Shelley’s example of what Lyotard is talking about in the ‘He.’ If we think of Frankenstein’s creation as a robot and the light as the humanness that Lyotard feels should live on, then we have artificial intelligence onto which humanity can save its thoughts.
Frankenstein’s creation gives hope to the ‘She’ argument as a result of Shelley’s emphasis on his very strong human emotions, crying, desire to love, loneliness, and need for revenge. Shelley produced in the creature what Lyotard felt was impossible, a true post-human. The post-human recognizes imperfectability and disunity within him or herself, while also understanding the world through context and heterogeneous perspectives while maintaining intellectual rigor and a dedication to objective observations of the world. Frankenstein’s creation is but a year or two old, however his knowledge of things and ability to understand is increasing exponentially.
While Shelley makes a good example of combining the arguments/concerns of the ‘He’ with those of the ‘She,’ the story’s final fate for the creature, in which he ends his own life is essentially unraveling any hope for the possibility of having a post-human that is both human enough to demonstrate what Lyotard feels is the most important human emotion, pain, but also utilitarian enough to maintain the utmost of intellectual rigor. The creature’s death states that the only way to create something human enough to car on our thoughts past our inevitable end is to literally make it a human. By definition if it is human, it is not artificial, and as human it’s life will end as any of ours could.
Shelley’s example of the post-human is more like a statement of her non-belief in such a thing. Frankenstein’s creature is considered part “monster” and part human, however he died like a human making him less monster than human, or similarly less artificial or robotic than human.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Option 1: Can thought be mimicked into immortality?
Lyotard, among other things, attempts to explain human thought and the complexities which surround the process in such a manner that we may build a body which may perpetuate this ability beyond our earthly, closed and solar-dependent existence. In short, he describes human thought as a reflexive process which must be properly understood in order to be captured in the form of artificial intelligence that may survive beyond the immanent storm of nuclear fires which threatens to terminate all earthly thought and meaning in the suns last throws before extinction. In the laboring process of describing human thought however, Lyotard presents his ideas in a very challenging set of analogous comparisons and conclusions which at first appear to be drawn out of nowhere. In order to better understand this segment of his passage however, one must read deeper beyond the philosophical appearance of the matter and look to the technical conclusions it ascertains. As Lyotard begins his essay, philosophical questions must, “remain unanswered to deserve being called philosophical.” From this, we will find no conclusions on the matter of human thought, and immortality through artificial intelligence will forever be out of reach.
Reflexive thought, as Lyotard describes it, is, “a mode of thought not guided by rules for determining data, but showing itself as possibly capable of developing such rules afterwards on the basis of results obtained ‘reflexively.’” He continues by pointing out that, “reflexive thought…does not hide what it owes to perceptual experience.” At a glance, it appears that Lyotard is saying that human thought references itself within its own processes in order to function. In referencing itself, we rely on our experiences and existence as a sentient being with a tangible body to draw experience in which thought can be derived. What does this mean though? How does this idea help to explain human thought in such a way that we can adequately model artificial intelligence to mimic it?
Thought doesn’t just present itself as an analogy to perception. Thought requires perception in order to proceed. Without physical being to draw experience from, thought fails to exist. Lyotard explains here that thought requires analogical reference to the physical being which presents the sentient “human” thought rather than the circuit logic that can be performed on a binary computer system. Logic can exist as a set of rules rooted in reality, but sentient thought can only proceed when there is being to draw experience from, when there is a system in which thought can reflexively build on itself as it develops. It requires a system as diverse and rooted in the physical state as a fine tuned biological organism such as ourselves to reach beyond logic and rules and gain the ultimate goal of thought that can operate and change as the environment that creates that thought changes.
In essence, Lyotard explains in this particular paragraph that in order to create an immortal expansion of our thought that will survive the test of time beyond the early reaches of our own doomed existence; we must create a system rooted in a physical being that can draw on the experiences of that being. Only then will any artificial intelligence be able to immortalize the power of human thought rather than creating a record of logical outputs forever mimicking the past. Is this really a technically conclusion on the nature of thought though? Does this give a simple answer that can be overcome to achieve immortality in the form of artificial beings with true human intellect? I don’t believe it does, but instead it returns to Lyotard’s philosophical realm; a realm dominated by the lack of answers and technical conclusions. Thus the reason surfaces as to why Lyotard presents this idea in such a complex and deeply confusing manner. Philosophical questions, by his definition, are those that do not draw conclusions, but instead provoke thought which may lead to further questions. The nature of thought really can’t be summed up simply as an entity which is dependent on a physical state to draw experience from. The nature of sentient thought reaches far beyond this simple understanding and paradoxically requires far more understanding than any technical conclusion can provide. In the complexity of his philosophical understanding of thought, does Lyotard actually conclude anything? Or does he simply lead us to the reality that human thought can never truly be explained in a technical form suitable for replication into the immortal realm of artificial intelligence?
Reflexive thought, as Lyotard describes it, is, “a mode of thought not guided by rules for determining data, but showing itself as possibly capable of developing such rules afterwards on the basis of results obtained ‘reflexively.’” He continues by pointing out that, “reflexive thought…does not hide what it owes to perceptual experience.” At a glance, it appears that Lyotard is saying that human thought references itself within its own processes in order to function. In referencing itself, we rely on our experiences and existence as a sentient being with a tangible body to draw experience in which thought can be derived. What does this mean though? How does this idea help to explain human thought in such a way that we can adequately model artificial intelligence to mimic it?
Thought doesn’t just present itself as an analogy to perception. Thought requires perception in order to proceed. Without physical being to draw experience from, thought fails to exist. Lyotard explains here that thought requires analogical reference to the physical being which presents the sentient “human” thought rather than the circuit logic that can be performed on a binary computer system. Logic can exist as a set of rules rooted in reality, but sentient thought can only proceed when there is being to draw experience from, when there is a system in which thought can reflexively build on itself as it develops. It requires a system as diverse and rooted in the physical state as a fine tuned biological organism such as ourselves to reach beyond logic and rules and gain the ultimate goal of thought that can operate and change as the environment that creates that thought changes.
In essence, Lyotard explains in this particular paragraph that in order to create an immortal expansion of our thought that will survive the test of time beyond the early reaches of our own doomed existence; we must create a system rooted in a physical being that can draw on the experiences of that being. Only then will any artificial intelligence be able to immortalize the power of human thought rather than creating a record of logical outputs forever mimicking the past. Is this really a technically conclusion on the nature of thought though? Does this give a simple answer that can be overcome to achieve immortality in the form of artificial beings with true human intellect? I don’t believe it does, but instead it returns to Lyotard’s philosophical realm; a realm dominated by the lack of answers and technical conclusions. Thus the reason surfaces as to why Lyotard presents this idea in such a complex and deeply confusing manner. Philosophical questions, by his definition, are those that do not draw conclusions, but instead provoke thought which may lead to further questions. The nature of thought really can’t be summed up simply as an entity which is dependent on a physical state to draw experience from. The nature of sentient thought reaches far beyond this simple understanding and paradoxically requires far more understanding than any technical conclusion can provide. In the complexity of his philosophical understanding of thought, does Lyotard actually conclude anything? Or does he simply lead us to the reality that human thought can never truly be explained in a technical form suitable for replication into the immortal realm of artificial intelligence?
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
The Monster and Gender - option 2
“To that which without gendered difference would only be a neutral experience of the space-time of perceptions and thoughts, an experience in which this feeling of incompleteness would be lacking as unhappiness, but only an experience producing a simple and pure cognitive aesthetic, to this neutrality gendered difference adds the suffering of abandonment because it brings to neutrality what no field of vision of thought can include, mainly a demand” (Lyotard 21).
“You must create a female for me, with whom I can live in the interchange of those sympathies necessary for my being” (Shelley 147).
In “Can Thought go on without a Body?” Lyotard evaluates different traits that machines will need to have in order to continue thought after the demise of humans, one of which is awareness of gender differences. He argues that without recognition of the gender it lacks, a machine will not be able to have true thought. In Frankenstein, Frankenstein’s life is destroyed due to the revenge that his monster seeks on him when he refuses to accept his wish. Frankenstein consistently regrets the moment that he gave him life, but was this really where he went wrong? If read in the context of Lyotard, his true mistake was not giving him life, but rather, giving him gender.
When Frankenstein’s monster enters the world, he is met with nothing but hatred from humans, especially his creator. He is truly distraught by this, which we see especially well as he watches the DeLacey family. He is literally outside and looking in, wanting only to be included and accepted into their family and life - he tells Frankenstein, “to see their sweet looks directed towards me with affection was the utmost limit of my ambition” (Shelley 134). He is not granted this wish, and so he continues on to find his maker and demand a female companion. The common thread here is that the monster is looking for something that is missing – someone to share the world with. He wants to be accepted by someone, or something. He says that he needs someone with whom he can “exchange the sympathies necessary for my being”, tying the suffering in his life to his existence in general.
Lyotard, too, writes of the bond between suffering and existence – “Thinking and suffering overlap” (18). He argues that if everything was perfectly fine and nothing was lacking then there would be no reason for thinking. Gender, then, gives us this feeling of lacking something - we lack the other gender, and this brings about desire. The monster desires to be accepted. He desires a female companion. According to Lyotard, the monster owes this feeling to gender difference. Lyotard makes the differentiation between how something without gender would interpret a lack of something and how something with gender would – an “experience producing a simple and pure cognitive aesthetic” versus a “suffering of abandonment” (Lyotard 21). Were the monster to not have gender, then, he would not feel this abandonment by Frankenstein and humans as he does. As these feelings are what lead him to his request for a mate and ultimately the revenge that he seeks on Frankenstein, the reason for them is really the cause of Frankenstein’s demise.
Frankenstein is not bothered by the monster’s mere existence – he originally dreams of a world in which a new species practically worships him as its god. Were the monster able to be a mere “machine” that Frankenstein could control he would have no problem with it – he is only brought to his tragic end by the monster’s retribution, which is caused by his thought and suffering. When reading Frankenstein, it’s easy to wonder why such a superior being would care about having a companion. Lyotard’s analysis of gender shows us how this can be. The monster does not see the world as an “experience producing a simple and pure cognitive aesthetic”. He has gender, and therefore faces “suffering without abandonment” (Lyotard 21). Frankenstein didn’t make a mistake when he created the monster – he made a mistake by allowing him to feel this lack.
“You must create a female for me, with whom I can live in the interchange of those sympathies necessary for my being” (Shelley 147).
In “Can Thought go on without a Body?” Lyotard evaluates different traits that machines will need to have in order to continue thought after the demise of humans, one of which is awareness of gender differences. He argues that without recognition of the gender it lacks, a machine will not be able to have true thought. In Frankenstein, Frankenstein’s life is destroyed due to the revenge that his monster seeks on him when he refuses to accept his wish. Frankenstein consistently regrets the moment that he gave him life, but was this really where he went wrong? If read in the context of Lyotard, his true mistake was not giving him life, but rather, giving him gender.
When Frankenstein’s monster enters the world, he is met with nothing but hatred from humans, especially his creator. He is truly distraught by this, which we see especially well as he watches the DeLacey family. He is literally outside and looking in, wanting only to be included and accepted into their family and life - he tells Frankenstein, “to see their sweet looks directed towards me with affection was the utmost limit of my ambition” (Shelley 134). He is not granted this wish, and so he continues on to find his maker and demand a female companion. The common thread here is that the monster is looking for something that is missing – someone to share the world with. He wants to be accepted by someone, or something. He says that he needs someone with whom he can “exchange the sympathies necessary for my being”, tying the suffering in his life to his existence in general.
Lyotard, too, writes of the bond between suffering and existence – “Thinking and suffering overlap” (18). He argues that if everything was perfectly fine and nothing was lacking then there would be no reason for thinking. Gender, then, gives us this feeling of lacking something - we lack the other gender, and this brings about desire. The monster desires to be accepted. He desires a female companion. According to Lyotard, the monster owes this feeling to gender difference. Lyotard makes the differentiation between how something without gender would interpret a lack of something and how something with gender would – an “experience producing a simple and pure cognitive aesthetic” versus a “suffering of abandonment” (Lyotard 21). Were the monster to not have gender, then, he would not feel this abandonment by Frankenstein and humans as he does. As these feelings are what lead him to his request for a mate and ultimately the revenge that he seeks on Frankenstein, the reason for them is really the cause of Frankenstein’s demise.
Frankenstein is not bothered by the monster’s mere existence – he originally dreams of a world in which a new species practically worships him as its god. Were the monster able to be a mere “machine” that Frankenstein could control he would have no problem with it – he is only brought to his tragic end by the monster’s retribution, which is caused by his thought and suffering. When reading Frankenstein, it’s easy to wonder why such a superior being would care about having a companion. Lyotard’s analysis of gender shows us how this can be. The monster does not see the world as an “experience producing a simple and pure cognitive aesthetic”. He has gender, and therefore faces “suffering without abandonment” (Lyotard 21). Frankenstein didn’t make a mistake when he created the monster – he made a mistake by allowing him to feel this lack.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Assignment for Next Thursday (Group #1)
There are 3 - yes, 3 options here. Please clearly indicate which one you're doing.
#1) Find a difficult passage in Lyotard's essay and explain it. By difficult, I mean that it should be one of the more difficult passages in the essay, such that you really don't understand it at all at first. By explain, I mean you should analyze it it in detail to explain the sentence (or phrase, or paragraph) both by itself and in context. You may need to look some things up, maybe in an unabridged dictionary or a dictionary of philosophy. Finally, once you understand it you should explain (or justify) why it's so hard. Why does he need to make a sentence (or paragraph, or phrase) so difficult? What is the value of difficulty here? Don't answer simplistically -- for instance, by claiming that "difficulty makes us think harder."
#2) Use some aspect of Lyotard's essay, as represented by one or more quotes, (re)interpret some aspect of Frankenstein, as represented by one or more quotes. You should argue both that we can and should read Frankenstein differently because we have read Lyotard.
#3) Lyotard's essay/story, which I excerpted from his great (and frustrating) book The Inhuman is interested in what some thinkers (e.g, Katherine Hayles in her book How We Became Posthuman) have called "the Posthuman" - the idea that our current technological endeavors will lead to a sentient existence, which, while continuous with ours, can no longer properly be called "human." Making use of Lyotard, if only to define some aspect of the inhuman/posthuman, discuss ways in which Shelley anticipates or prefigures "the Posthuman." You should at least briefly discuss/define what the terms "human" and "posthuman" mean to you.
#1) Find a difficult passage in Lyotard's essay and explain it. By difficult, I mean that it should be one of the more difficult passages in the essay, such that you really don't understand it at all at first. By explain, I mean you should analyze it it in detail to explain the sentence (or phrase, or paragraph) both by itself and in context. You may need to look some things up, maybe in an unabridged dictionary or a dictionary of philosophy. Finally, once you understand it you should explain (or justify) why it's so hard. Why does he need to make a sentence (or paragraph, or phrase) so difficult? What is the value of difficulty here? Don't answer simplistically -- for instance, by claiming that "difficulty makes us think harder."
#2) Use some aspect of Lyotard's essay, as represented by one or more quotes, (re)interpret some aspect of Frankenstein, as represented by one or more quotes. You should argue both that we can and should read Frankenstein differently because we have read Lyotard.
#3) Lyotard's essay/story, which I excerpted from his great (and frustrating) book The Inhuman is interested in what some thinkers (e.g, Katherine Hayles in her book How We Became Posthuman) have called "the Posthuman" - the idea that our current technological endeavors will lead to a sentient existence, which, while continuous with ours, can no longer properly be called "human." Making use of Lyotard, if only to define some aspect of the inhuman/posthuman, discuss ways in which Shelley anticipates or prefigures "the Posthuman." You should at least briefly discuss/define what the terms "human" and "posthuman" mean to you.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Man and Machine
Modern production is the essence of cyborgality. Taylorism and more specifically Fordism (developed by Henry Ford) is a management ideology that enables a complex device to be created by breaking it down into very small parts and dividing the labor amongst a large number of people. A great example of Fordism is an assembly line. Mechanistic by nature, these two methods of management ideology both rely on a systematic approach towards labor maximizing the productivity while morphing the individual worker into a machine. Both Taylorism and Fordism are widely criticizised for their removal of inviduality and also creation of poor work environments mainly due to management and workers rarely are striving for the same thing, with management striving for productivity and workers for humane working conditions and workers rights.
Modern war as we know is even more mechanistic than when Haraway wrote her manifesto. Everyday new technologies are created removing more and more humans from the line of fire to be replaced by machines.
In the final two sentences Haraway describes the thesis of the first part of her essay. Arguing that there is little difference between what the human brain can imagine and the reality that follows. Coupling our reality with the imagination, quite similar to the coupling of man with machine in a cyborg.
The closing sentence refers to Michael Foucault ideas on biopolitics. Biopolitics is centered around the idea that governments have many methods to control the people living within their boundaries and the abilities of humans to control one another is only but a glimpse of the cyborg control onto other cyborg beings because of their human-machine duality. Leading me to question what Haraway means by this. My thought is that the machine nature of a cyborg would cause the cyborg politics to be very cold and naturally selective, and the human area of the cyborg that would stem from the everlasting search for new ways to gain power, politically, socially, and economically. A true marrige of man and machine.
76.35% Evil
Victor Frankenstein is ultimately 76.35% evil. In order to judge a man’s character, you must first fully understand his story. In Frankenstein’s case, it is a miserable blight of bad decisions, dead relatives, and, in the end, a futile search for the ‘evil’ that by his own discord had plagued him for years. Fortunately for us, it’s impossible to fully understand a man’s story without having been that man, and even having been that man it is a task left to decades of reflection and behavioral modification. The outcome of which is inevitably acceptance of death or sudden death, in which case it seems inane to discuss the trivial characteristics associated with good or evil. Additionally, categorizing an object into either the category good or evil means that the percent occurrence of the two must add up to 100%. Can any human, with such complexities, be deemed either 100% evil or 100% good? However, I digress: Nothing, not I or any other living (or supernatural) being, has the right to decide whether or not a man is good or evil. And so, I turn to http://www.dictionary.com, which provides the human definition of ‘good’ (adjective) in 41 easy-to-choose-from uses. I will also include the five definitions provided for ‘evil’ (adjective). In this way, dictionary.com will decide the character of Victor Frankenstein.
Methodology
For simplicity’s sake, I will simply list these 46 definitions, adding a plus sign (+) to those that do apply to our dear Victor, and a minus sign (-) to those that do not apply. Five definitions seemed irrelevant, two only semi-applicable, and one especially relevant which are designated with question marks (?), ½’s, and pluses (++) respectively. I will provide no reasoning, yours and mine would surely differ and you are free to disagree. If you do disagree, I encourage you to add up your pluses and minuses and compare our ideas of right and wrong. (Remember to add minuses from the ‘good’ list with pluses from the ‘bad’ list to get an accurate good to evil proportion.)
My proportion will be determined by taken the average of the percentage of good and evil in each of the aforementioned categories.
Good= 52.7%
TBA 1. morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man.
+ 2. satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree: a good teacher; good health.
+ 3. of high quality; excellent.
+ 4. right; proper; fit: It is good that you are here. His credentials are good.
- 5. well-behaved: a good child.
- 6. kind, beneficent, or friendly: to do a good deed.
+ 7. honorable or worthy; in good standing: a good name.
+ 8. educated and refined: She has a good background.
+ 9. financially sound or safe: His credit is good.
+ 10. genuine; not counterfeit: a good quarter.
- 11. sound or valid: good judgment; good reasons.
- 12. reliable; dependable; responsible: good advice.
- 13. healthful; beneficial: Fresh fruit is good for you.
- 14. in excellent condition; healthy: good teeth.
- 15. not spoiled or tainted; edible; palatable: The meat was still good after three months in the freezer.
- 16. favorable; propitious: good news.
½ + 17. cheerful; optimistic; amiable: in good spirits.
- 18. free of distress or pain; comfortable: to feel good after surgery.
- 19. agreeable; pleasant: Have a good time.
? 20. attractive; handsome: She has a good figure.
? 21. (of the complexion) smooth; free from blemish.
- 22. close or intimate; warm: She's a good friend of mine.
+ 23. sufficient or ample: a good supply.
+ 24. advantageous; satisfactory for the purpose: a good day for fishing.
+ 25. competent or skillful; clever: a good manager; good at arithmetic.
+ 26. skillfully or expertly done: a really good job; a good play.
+ 27. conforming to rules of grammar, usage, etc.; correct: good English.
½+ 28. socially proper: good manners.
+ 29. remaining available to one: Don't throw good money after bad.
+ 30. comparatively new or of relatively fine quality: Don't play in the mud in your good clothes.
? 31. best or most dressy: He wore his good suit to the office today.
++ 32. full: a good day's journey away.
- 33. fairly large or great: a good amount.
- 34. free from precipitation or cloudiness: good weather.
- 35. Medicine/Medical. (of a patient's condition) having stable and normal vital signs, being conscious and comfortable, and having excellent appetite, mobility, etc.
+ 36. fertile; rich: good soil.
- 37. loyal: a good Democrat.
- 38. (of a return or service in tennis, squash, handball, etc.) landing within the limits of a court or section of a court.
? 39. Horse Racing. (of the surface of a track) drying after a rain so as to be still slightly sticky: This horse runs best on a good track.
? 40. (of meat, esp. beef) noting or pertaining to the specific grade below “choice,” containing more lean muscle and less edible fat than “prime” or “choice.”
+ 41. favorably regarded (used as an epithet for a ship, town, etc.): the good ship Syrena
Evil= 100%
TBA 1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
+ 2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
+ 3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
+ 4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
+ 5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
As you can easily calculate, (100% evil + 52.7% good) / 2 ultimately makes Victor Frankenstein 76.35% evil and 23.65% good. Far be it for me to rely on mathematics or the Internet to determine a man’s character, but by all human means, subjectivity would certainly affect the outcome.
Methodology
For simplicity’s sake, I will simply list these 46 definitions, adding a plus sign (+) to those that do apply to our dear Victor, and a minus sign (-) to those that do not apply. Five definitions seemed irrelevant, two only semi-applicable, and one especially relevant which are designated with question marks (?), ½’s, and pluses (++) respectively. I will provide no reasoning, yours and mine would surely differ and you are free to disagree. If you do disagree, I encourage you to add up your pluses and minuses and compare our ideas of right and wrong. (Remember to add minuses from the ‘good’ list with pluses from the ‘bad’ list to get an accurate good to evil proportion.)
My proportion will be determined by taken the average of the percentage of good and evil in each of the aforementioned categories.
Good= 52.7%
TBA 1. morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man.
+ 2. satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree: a good teacher; good health.
+ 3. of high quality; excellent.
+ 4. right; proper; fit: It is good that you are here. His credentials are good.
- 5. well-behaved: a good child.
- 6. kind, beneficent, or friendly: to do a good deed.
+ 7. honorable or worthy; in good standing: a good name.
+ 8. educated and refined: She has a good background.
+ 9. financially sound or safe: His credit is good.
+ 10. genuine; not counterfeit: a good quarter.
- 11. sound or valid: good judgment; good reasons.
- 12. reliable; dependable; responsible: good advice.
- 13. healthful; beneficial: Fresh fruit is good for you.
- 14. in excellent condition; healthy: good teeth.
- 15. not spoiled or tainted; edible; palatable: The meat was still good after three months in the freezer.
- 16. favorable; propitious: good news.
½ + 17. cheerful; optimistic; amiable: in good spirits.
- 18. free of distress or pain; comfortable: to feel good after surgery.
- 19. agreeable; pleasant: Have a good time.
? 20. attractive; handsome: She has a good figure.
? 21. (of the complexion) smooth; free from blemish.
- 22. close or intimate; warm: She's a good friend of mine.
+ 23. sufficient or ample: a good supply.
+ 24. advantageous; satisfactory for the purpose: a good day for fishing.
+ 25. competent or skillful; clever: a good manager; good at arithmetic.
+ 26. skillfully or expertly done: a really good job; a good play.
+ 27. conforming to rules of grammar, usage, etc.; correct: good English.
½+ 28. socially proper: good manners.
+ 29. remaining available to one: Don't throw good money after bad.
+ 30. comparatively new or of relatively fine quality: Don't play in the mud in your good clothes.
? 31. best or most dressy: He wore his good suit to the office today.
++ 32. full: a good day's journey away.
- 33. fairly large or great: a good amount.
- 34. free from precipitation or cloudiness: good weather.
- 35. Medicine/Medical. (of a patient's condition) having stable and normal vital signs, being conscious and comfortable, and having excellent appetite, mobility, etc.
+ 36. fertile; rich: good soil.
- 37. loyal: a good Democrat.
- 38. (of a return or service in tennis, squash, handball, etc.) landing within the limits of a court or section of a court.
? 39. Horse Racing. (of the surface of a track) drying after a rain so as to be still slightly sticky: This horse runs best on a good track.
? 40. (of meat, esp. beef) noting or pertaining to the specific grade below “choice,” containing more lean muscle and less edible fat than “prime” or “choice.”
+ 41. favorably regarded (used as an epithet for a ship, town, etc.): the good ship Syrena
Evil= 100%
TBA 1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
+ 2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
+ 3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
+ 4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
+ 5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
Conclusion
As you can easily calculate, (100% evil + 52.7% good) / 2 ultimately makes Victor Frankenstein 76.35% evil and 23.65% good. Far be it for me to rely on mathematics or the Internet to determine a man’s character, but by all human means, subjectivity would certainly affect the outcome.
Brendan Shay - Blog 1 (Option 1) Protecting the Future
As the never-ending pursuit to advance society continues, collectively we must also come to an awareness of the necessity to respect boundaries and the need for caution. Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein compliments the ideas of Bill Joy in his persuasive article “Why the future doesn’t need us”. Frankenstein, considered one of the first science fiction novel ever written, presents the reader with a reality which on the exterior seems farfetched however, upon closer consideration may actually represent a truth about the world we live in today. Mary Shelly does an excellent job of constructing a timeless novel warning against the “over reaching” of modern man during the industrial revolution. The underlying message, presented as Victor’s creation in the novel, must be taken strongly into consideration as the main theme Shelly hoped to construct; the scary realization that misguided technology may not only lead to unwarranted creations but disastrous consequences.
Advances in technology are taking place often and going unnoticed by the general public or brushed aside simply as a fleeting impression to most people. These may not be as fictitious as creating human life, as Victor Frankenstein did but that is not the point. That is the argument Mary Shelly presents the readers with in her time period while Bill Joy presents his persuasive argument to us today in a somewhat similar time period in terms of advancement, showing us dangerous that are very real and very serious.
Despite Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein being considered a science fiction novel, it cannot be overlooked as farfetched ideas or taken simply for what it is. The fact is without proper consideration regarding new technology who knows what may result in the future. This idea is complimented in Bill Joy’s persuasive essay, “Why the future doesn’t need us”. Joy spends huge portions of his essay describing potential downfalls to the human race by the potential out-of-control production of robots or other artificial intelligence. If this may be in the near future or not we cannot be sure but the argument Joy adamantly persuades holds strong no matter the time period. Without proper regulation or concern for long term consequences things have a natural way of getting out of hand. “The new Pandora’s boxes of genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics are almost open, yet we seem hardly to have noticed. Ideas can’t be put back into a box”. This haunting quote from Joy describes the concern that should be noted by more and more people. With proper upfront thinking before simply impulsively acting would prevent any unwarranted shock from new ideas or inventions. Technology is not bad and this is not what Joy intended to argue. However, this “technical arrogance” can overcome people and a blind eye plagues far too many people when the realization of what they can do with their mind overshadows rational judgment.
Is Frankenstein a symbolic foreshadowing of the future if we are not careful? We cannot be sure of this unless action is taken to safeguard ourselves from disaster. Protective barriers or proper safety measures are essential in the further study of genetics, robotics or nuclear weapons. Joy writes, “Another idea is to erect a series of shields to defend against each of the dangerous technologies”, this may seem general but the effort must start somewhere and can’t be shrugged off as something for the future. A very interesting part of Joy’s essay described a childhood memory when he told of his grandmothers opposition to the overuse of antibiotics not because she was an “enemy of progress” but because of the fears of the uncertainly of such things. Now this isn’t an argument against antibiotics or any advancement for that matter but rather a question of when is enough? Can we not work to simplify things we already have instead of complicating our lives with things we do not have. Why focus on such complex things without even fully understanding simpler things or even us as a species. We will always instinctively have the urge to know according to Aristotle and this makes sense. We should always be curious and strive for new things to better society. However, what seems the more important virtue in our time is humility, having the awareness of our order of life and the importance of respecting that knowledge by protecting ourselves from good intentions gone awry.
The hardest part to this problem is coming to an agreement as a people of both what we want and what we need for the future and only then reaching an idea of how to best go along doing this in a safe and logical way. Coming to an understanding of this would put much more certainty towards what lies ahead in the future and much less danger to the unknown.
Cyborgs- Biological Determinism -Nathaniel Bacon
"Biological-determinist ideology is only one position opened up in scientific culture for arguing the meanings of human animality. There is much room for radical political people to contest the meanings of the breached boundary. The cyborg appears in myth precisely where the boundary between human and animal is transgressed. Far from signaling a walling off of people from other living beings, cyborgs signal disturbingly and pleasurably tight coupling. Bestiality has a new status in this cycle of marriage exchange."
This paragraph is but one of the many deep and complex paragraphs found within Donna Haraway's A Cyborg Manifesto. It provides reason for why Haraway can, or tries, to make her political-fictional analysis concerning cyborgs by explaining one of the three breakdowns, this one concerning the breakdown between human and animal.
In the very first sentence Haraway uses biological-determinist ideology to equate humans and animals. Biological determinism, defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, says that DNA predetermines how any given organism turns out. In other words, the genes of a human determine how a person will react and develop, the surrounding environment having no influence on said person. This indeed reduces a human to that of an animal, preprogrammed, instinctive, and a lack of uniqueness if humans indeed cannot be influenced by surroundings.
She then goes on to show the relationship between cyborgs and humans/animals. She first states that cyborgs appear wherever the distinction between humans and animals has be "transgressed", or breached. The symbolic representation of cyborgs is not the complete separation or isolation of human and animal, rather it is the union of the two, the two being made one. It is the "disturbingly and pleasurably tight coupling".
The distinction between human and animal is broken even more in Haraway's comment on bestiality. Bestiality is sex between human and animal. In many cultures this act is looked down upon and even scorned. But, in the argument being made, it gains a new status, a higher status, a status accepted by all. If indeed the distinction between human and animal is completely lost, then the intimate relations between human and animal, animal and animal, and human and human are all essentially the same, and so they could all be considered bestiality.
However, one could also argue that Haraway contradicts herself. In this paragraph and her preceding paragraph she is making the argument for the equating of humans and animals. If she is to be taken seriously and believed, then such an argument, such an idea, is meant to be accepted as normal by the reader. However, she says that the "cyborgs signal disturbingly….tight coupling". Her use of the word 'disturbingly' gives the connotation that there is something wrong or unsettling with the idea of there being no distinction between humans and animals.
Like most of her entire essay, this paragraph is not easily grasped, even after having read it several times. This might seem unnecessary, making everything so hard to understand, but she is reaching towards a lofty goal. Trying to convincingly make the argument that we are all cyborgs is no small task, and the defense of which can only be just as hard and complex to understand.
This paragraph is but one of the many deep and complex paragraphs found within Donna Haraway's A Cyborg Manifesto. It provides reason for why Haraway can, or tries, to make her political-fictional analysis concerning cyborgs by explaining one of the three breakdowns, this one concerning the breakdown between human and animal.
In the very first sentence Haraway uses biological-determinist ideology to equate humans and animals. Biological determinism, defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, says that DNA predetermines how any given organism turns out. In other words, the genes of a human determine how a person will react and develop, the surrounding environment having no influence on said person. This indeed reduces a human to that of an animal, preprogrammed, instinctive, and a lack of uniqueness if humans indeed cannot be influenced by surroundings.
She then goes on to show the relationship between cyborgs and humans/animals. She first states that cyborgs appear wherever the distinction between humans and animals has be "transgressed", or breached. The symbolic representation of cyborgs is not the complete separation or isolation of human and animal, rather it is the union of the two, the two being made one. It is the "disturbingly and pleasurably tight coupling".
The distinction between human and animal is broken even more in Haraway's comment on bestiality. Bestiality is sex between human and animal. In many cultures this act is looked down upon and even scorned. But, in the argument being made, it gains a new status, a higher status, a status accepted by all. If indeed the distinction between human and animal is completely lost, then the intimate relations between human and animal, animal and animal, and human and human are all essentially the same, and so they could all be considered bestiality.
However, one could also argue that Haraway contradicts herself. In this paragraph and her preceding paragraph she is making the argument for the equating of humans and animals. If she is to be taken seriously and believed, then such an argument, such an idea, is meant to be accepted as normal by the reader. However, she says that the "cyborgs signal disturbingly….tight coupling". Her use of the word 'disturbingly' gives the connotation that there is something wrong or unsettling with the idea of there being no distinction between humans and animals.
Like most of her entire essay, this paragraph is not easily grasped, even after having read it several times. This might seem unnecessary, making everything so hard to understand, but she is reaching towards a lofty goal. Trying to convincingly make the argument that we are all cyborgs is no small task, and the defense of which can only be just as hard and complex to understand.
Frankenstien Not a Nice Guy- Josh Bowman
It is difficult to define evil. As a society, it is easier to find examples of evil people than it is to define the force itself. Ted Bundy, the Zodiac Killer, John Wayne Gacy and many more, are all considered in our society to be evil and to be sociopaths. In today’s culture, word sociopath is almost synonymous with evil, someone who acts without regard for others and cannot foresee the consequences of his actions. So is the case with Victor Frankenstein. He was not only wicked, but was a full-blown sociopath. Victor fits a majority of the seven diagnostic criteria outlined by the DSM-IV-TR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), although only 3 are necessary for a diagnosis for the following purposes: “failure to conform to social norms,” “reckless disregard for safety of self or others,” and “lack of remorse, indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.”(Tami Port). From the time Victor Frankenstein began studying the books of Agrippa, he became not only evil but also a sociopath.
Frankenstein admitted that he never had many friends, a fact that yields to his nonconformity. He was obsessed with books of the occult, which despite his father telling him that they were “sad trash,” he still delved into (Shelley 40). “The raising of ghosts or devils was a promise liberally accorded…[to] the fulfillment of which I most eagerly sought.” Frankenstein said that he often tried to raise the dead as a child (Shelley 42). Now that young Victor believed every word of these books as law and studied them as such, did he think of what might happen to himself or anyone around him if a demon did spawn? Of course not. He had no concern for the adverse effects of his actions. While recounting his tale Victor finds himself totally blameless for his fate. According to him, his father should have explained to him why the book was bad, his guardian angel should have done a better job, and he was even narcissistic enough to think that the combined forces of destiny conspired against him (Shelley 41-43). Never did he blame himself for his insatiable need for knowledge and glory.
When Victor matured and the veil of childhood was lifted, his sociopathy could no longer be considered childish actions. At Ingolstadt he still related to the professors that he had studied the schools of the occult, “I replied carelessly; and, partly in contempt, the alchemists which I had studied.” Even in conversation he found himself unable to conform to the norm (Shelley 47). Once again Frankenstein found himself friendless. Sure he had associates, but no friends to speak of, and he took no time to take care of his own health, so dedicated was he to his sick ambitions. He occupied his time with grave robbing and experimentation on rotting flesh, “a churchyard was to me merely the receptacle of bodies…I was led to examine the cause and progress of this decay” (Shelley 53). This is hardly normal behavior breaking again and again the taboos of typical society. Echoing the days of his youth he nefariously attempted to raise the dead. Not through an incantation, but by the work of his own hands and “modern” technology, Frankenstein was completely blind to any repercussions. All he saw was a challenge and glory for himself nothing beyond that (Shelley 54). When Victor actually succeeded in raising his monster he, instead of facing up to his creation, ran. When the monster left he was so unable to think that what he did was wrong, his body could not handle it and he fell ill.
Frankenstein rationalized all the travesties that befell him as acts of the monster, even when he returned to Geneva and William was killed. “I had turned loose into the world a depraved wretch whose delight was in carnage and misery” (Shelley 78). Frankenstein proceeded to spend the night out in the rain without concern for his own well being. He recognized that he created the monster, but blamed the creature itself above all other things. His rage for the monster was unequaled; it was responsible for what happened to William, it was responsible for what happened to poor Justine, and yet again, in his own mind, Frankenstein was blameless but for his creations acts. Not once did he apologize for his actions; he only suffered because of them.
Victor was the abomination, not his creation. He was raised in polite society and still turned into the sociopathic villain of the story—his creation never new anything else. Frankenstein could not live with the social norms in his society, could not think of the safety of himself or others in his fervor, and could not put the blame where it belonged—on himself. Victor Frankenstein truly was a sociopath, and therefore, he was truly evil.
Port, Tami. "What Is Antisocial Personality Disorder?" Symptoms, Diagnosis & Prognosis of APD, ASPD, and Psychopathy. 17 Aug. 2007. 20 Jan. 2009
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein : Or, the Modern Prometheus. Ed. Maurice Hindle. New York: Penguin Books, Limited, 2003.
Bob
When concerning one’s self with the future and the various possible outcomes of technology you open doors to questions that can not possibly be answered; such is the nature of the idea of future. This world would be a totally different place if people could peer into the future. What do you think Shelly would think about the present? What would she think of the modern weapons of war: tanks, war ships, jet planes, the atom bomb, are these the monsters she envisioned? Surely some people have greater insight than others but the future will always hold unforeseen outcomes, though the question begs to be raised; how much impact do people like Shelly and Joy who raise conjectures towards the unknown have on the passage of time. In other words would people have developed Shelley’s “monsters” is she hadn’t have opened the door to that path in the minds of the population? People, the complacent masses, are highly influential. Shelley simply planted the seed, an idea of industrial dangers, which grew ultimately into World War. On the other hand, these people are no more than intellects and authors, but, being famous, they have significant power to shape the ideas of popular culture. Although, personally, I like to gain my insight into a subject by experts in that field, and neither Shelley nor Joy have any real experience in the various subjects and disciplines they discuss. Paranoia is a product of fear which is a product of ignorance. Given Joy’s significant insight into the future world of computer programming and his contribution to date, I find it difficult to take his paranoia seriously. I hardly think Joy is ignorant in his field, but his overtly dystopian outlook towards the future points more to personal despair and depression and less to logical and coherent predictions. He, if any, should be aware of the massive and daunting infrastructure overhauls that would be necessary for any “intelligent” computer systems to be integrated into society and the shear amount of time that would be involved would act as a failsafe, unless we are, in fact, mere units of production in a system working towards a singular end; being efficient productivity. I personally refuse to believe that in all of the complex bureaucracy of our government, not to mention all of the other systems of society including religious and educational institutions as well as those of foreign states, not a single person is working toward the advancement of humanity and is apposed to the system whose legitimacy and value is determined by profit margins. The amount of time and subsequent tests in the network would act to evolve the integration as we learn more about the high technology around us we, by our nature, will influence that evolution. Additionally with knowledge comes change, and the knowledge garnered from supercomputer research would pressure the evolution of humanity as well as the evolution of technology. As with the natural world, mother nature, we act as evolutionary pressures on each other, introducing an “artificial” pressure would not act any differently. Humanity has influenced the development of the internet just as the internet has shaped many of our childhoods. I’d like to think the countless hours of data farming, rather harvesting, has made someone’s life a little better, whether it be the album or program anyone of you may have downloaded from me, because I know everyone here enjoys harvesting data like I do. Conversely I’d like to thank you for you may have been the seeder I was looking forJ. Anyhow, I hope that illustrated my point, that however intelligent computers get in the future, they have a very real grounded basis in humanity, likewise in the future, we will have a very real base virtual reality. Humanity acts as an intermediary between mother nature and “mother” (if you will), artificial intelligence. Computers can be integrated into us and introduced into nature and vice versa because we are integrated into both systems. Although we are also in the position to destroy both systems, but however righteous and legitimate Joy’s and Shelly’s concerns about the future may be, the things that they oppose and the systems which frighten them are only being reinforced, and gain power from the paranoia of its constituents. If, in fact, the societal systems in motion during Shelly’s and our time are working against the advancement of humanity as a whole, and the implementations of the technology of the times are progressing towards a frightening destructive end, feeding into the problem by popularizing paranoia the population will reach a state of complacency. Introducing personal fears to others creates a state of panic where-in those very systems that Joy and Shelly oppose with their fear would be rightfully initiated in hopes to settle the population.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Scott Lavoritano Group 2 option 4
“The ubiquity and invisibility of cyborgs is precisely why these sunshine-belt machines are so deadly. They are as hard to see politically as materially. They are about consciousness - or its simulation.5 They are floating signifiers moving in pickup trucks across Europe, blocked more effectively by the witch-weavings of the displaced and so unnatural Greenham women, who read the cyborg webs of power so very well, than by the militant labor of older masculinist politics, whose natural constituency needs defense jobs.”
In the first sentence Haraway says that the cyborgs are everywhere but nobody knows it, ubiquitous and invisible. This is clearly an attribute that could make something dangerous. She says they are hard to see politically and materially, to me this means both the response and effect they have on society as well as their physical presence. I think it is important to discuss what Haraway means by ‘cyborg.’ To me she is talking about machines that are gaining a grip on society, almost to the point where they have a mind of their own.
How can somebody ‘need’ something when it did not exist 5 or 10 years ago? How is it possible that people depend so much on these objects that were created so recently? Haraway claims that these cyborgs are about consciousness or the stimulation of it. By this she means that they relate to the human mind and have the ability to influence it.
In the next phrase she makes a spiritual feministic claim. She says that these cyborgs or more effectively blocked, or as I see it, comprehended by weavings from a woman in Greenham than by the physical efforts of a man in the military. This is to say that the cyborgs cannot be stopped with military power or force, but by understanding and self control of an individual. When she speaks of the witch-weavings she clearly does not mean literally blocked but more blocked by a state of mind. While the soldier, incapable of this state of mine, is at the mercy of the cyborg. Whether it be a camera, website or even some new piece of military equipment.
I think an important part of this paragraph is when she says that they are hard to see politically and materially. While the things I mentioned can clearly be seen in material, that is not the cyborg, the cyborg lives in the use or the desire to use the object. The more difficult part to understand is why they cannot be seen politically, or why their effect on society would not influence leaders and their decisions. I think this is because they choose to be ignorant to the trends that begin to appear in the public and the cyborgs that begin to take over their people.
This paragraph is important to the essay because it really displays what the author means by cyborg and why she feels them a threat. As a reader, once I analyzed the paragraph, it helped me understand the paper as a whole.
In the first sentence Haraway says that the cyborgs are everywhere but nobody knows it, ubiquitous and invisible. This is clearly an attribute that could make something dangerous. She says they are hard to see politically and materially, to me this means both the response and effect they have on society as well as their physical presence. I think it is important to discuss what Haraway means by ‘cyborg.’ To me she is talking about machines that are gaining a grip on society, almost to the point where they have a mind of their own.
How can somebody ‘need’ something when it did not exist 5 or 10 years ago? How is it possible that people depend so much on these objects that were created so recently? Haraway claims that these cyborgs are about consciousness or the stimulation of it. By this she means that they relate to the human mind and have the ability to influence it.
In the next phrase she makes a spiritual feministic claim. She says that these cyborgs or more effectively blocked, or as I see it, comprehended by weavings from a woman in Greenham than by the physical efforts of a man in the military. This is to say that the cyborgs cannot be stopped with military power or force, but by understanding and self control of an individual. When she speaks of the witch-weavings she clearly does not mean literally blocked but more blocked by a state of mind. While the soldier, incapable of this state of mine, is at the mercy of the cyborg. Whether it be a camera, website or even some new piece of military equipment.
I think an important part of this paragraph is when she says that they are hard to see politically and materially. While the things I mentioned can clearly be seen in material, that is not the cyborg, the cyborg lives in the use or the desire to use the object. The more difficult part to understand is why they cannot be seen politically, or why their effect on society would not influence leaders and their decisions. I think this is because they choose to be ignorant to the trends that begin to appear in the public and the cyborgs that begin to take over their people.
This paragraph is important to the essay because it really displays what the author means by cyborg and why she feels them a threat. As a reader, once I analyzed the paragraph, it helped me understand the paper as a whole.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Modified Group Assignments
Dan Green, Brendan Shay
John Whithead*, Nathaniel Bacon
Heather Friedberg, Scott Lavoritano
Krystal Heath, *Marika
Megan Schwemer, Tricia George
Chris Weiss, Bob
Amanda Kern, Josh Bowman
Kate*, Jason W.*
New assignments are indicated with an asterisk. If you're in group 1, but you just added the class, you also should do your paper for this week - but you should note when posting it that you're in group one, and you should only use the prompts for the first group. If you're in group 2, but newly assigned, just smoothly enter into group 2.
Email me, or add a comment here, if you have any questions.
John Whithead*, Nathaniel Bacon
Heather Friedberg, Scott Lavoritano
Krystal Heath, *Marika
Megan Schwemer, Tricia George
Chris Weiss, Bob
Amanda Kern, Josh Bowman
Kate*, Jason W.*
New assignments are indicated with an asterisk. If you're in group 1, but you just added the class, you also should do your paper for this week - but you should note when posting it that you're in group one, and you should only use the prompts for the first group. If you're in group 2, but newly assigned, just smoothly enter into group 2.
Email me, or add a comment here, if you have any questions.
Assignments for Thursday (
Option #1: The same as Option #1 last week.
Option #2: The same as Option #2 last week.
Option #3: Is Victor Frankenstein ultimately good or ultimately evil? If you decide that he's evil, explain when he crosses the line - when creating the monster? When abandoning the monster? When making a deal with the monster? If he's good, why do things end up so badly? The question may seem general, but you should make your paper very specific by focusing on - and quoting - precise moments in the text, and by being clear with your definitions (e.g. - what do good and evil mean for you, anyway?).
Option #4: Find a difficult passage in Haraway's essay and explain it. By difficult, I mean that it should be one of the more difficult passages in the essay, such that you really don't understand it at all at first. By explain, I mean you should analyze it it in detail to explain the sentence (or phrase, or paragraph) both by itself and in context. You may need to look some things up, maybe in an unabridged dictionary or a dictionary of philosophy; you may need to figure out who some philosopher or literary critic is as a starting point. Finally, once you understand it you should explain (or justify) why it's so hard. Why does she need to make a sentence (or paragraph, or phrase) so difficult?
Note: Since you've had the benefit of reading papers from last week, as well as commenting on them, expectations will certainly be higher this week, especially for options 1 & 2.
Option #2: The same as Option #2 last week.
Option #3: Is Victor Frankenstein ultimately good or ultimately evil? If you decide that he's evil, explain when he crosses the line - when creating the monster? When abandoning the monster? When making a deal with the monster? If he's good, why do things end up so badly? The question may seem general, but you should make your paper very specific by focusing on - and quoting - precise moments in the text, and by being clear with your definitions (e.g. - what do good and evil mean for you, anyway?).
Option #4: Find a difficult passage in Haraway's essay and explain it. By difficult, I mean that it should be one of the more difficult passages in the essay, such that you really don't understand it at all at first. By explain, I mean you should analyze it it in detail to explain the sentence (or phrase, or paragraph) both by itself and in context. You may need to look some things up, maybe in an unabridged dictionary or a dictionary of philosophy; you may need to figure out who some philosopher or literary critic is as a starting point. Finally, once you understand it you should explain (or justify) why it's so hard. Why does she need to make a sentence (or paragraph, or phrase) so difficult?
Note: Since you've had the benefit of reading papers from last week, as well as commenting on them, expectations will certainly be higher this week, especially for options 1 & 2.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Blog #1
Amanda Kern
Narrative and Technology
In the works of both Shelley's Frankenstein and Bill Joy's essay "Why the future doesn't need us", the possible threats presented by technology take very similar forms. The fear of robotic, genetically engineered or cloned individuals existing among us is clearly expressed in both works, displaying the ongoing uneasy feelings held for technological advancements. Viewing new sciences and technologies as a threat to society is clearly not a new idea expressed in Bill Joy's essay, as Shelley's Frankenstein conveys the same fears centuries prior.
The scientific advancements taken place in Frankenstein are remarkable for that time, and allude to the horrific, deadly effects that innovation and technology is thought to eventually have on society. Whether Shelley was more concerned with the literal presence of nonhuman beings in society, or used the monster to represent the advancements of that time, it is clearly predicted that this creation would be the eventual downfall of humans.
Bill Joy's essay thoroughly investigates the most advanced technological aspects of the present: genetic engineering, nanoscale technologies, and robotics, among many. Similar to Shelley's fears, Joy predicts that these particular advancements will be the cause of disastrous events in the future. Always a popluar fictional plot, the thought of robots eventually taking over is a horrifying and somewhat common fear experienced by many. While technology remains quite far from allowing such occurances, scientific discoveries throughout the world have instead proven very to be very beneficial to society thus far.
In Shelley's time, novel scientific advancements had just begun to take place, and the unfamiliarity of such events sparked a widespread concern that remins present today. Though the looming threat of technology will certainly remain, one must be sure to consider the many positive aspects that have come from such innovations. To date, technological and scientific advancements have accomplished spectacular feats, many of which have the ability of helping people worldwide. Our world would be a very different place in the absence of such advancements, and to the wrongful predictions of Shelley and Joy, the continuous coexistence of humanity and technology has yet to be our downfall.
Narrative and Technology
In the works of both Shelley's Frankenstein and Bill Joy's essay "Why the future doesn't need us", the possible threats presented by technology take very similar forms. The fear of robotic, genetically engineered or cloned individuals existing among us is clearly expressed in both works, displaying the ongoing uneasy feelings held for technological advancements. Viewing new sciences and technologies as a threat to society is clearly not a new idea expressed in Bill Joy's essay, as Shelley's Frankenstein conveys the same fears centuries prior.
The scientific advancements taken place in Frankenstein are remarkable for that time, and allude to the horrific, deadly effects that innovation and technology is thought to eventually have on society. Whether Shelley was more concerned with the literal presence of nonhuman beings in society, or used the monster to represent the advancements of that time, it is clearly predicted that this creation would be the eventual downfall of humans.
Bill Joy's essay thoroughly investigates the most advanced technological aspects of the present: genetic engineering, nanoscale technologies, and robotics, among many. Similar to Shelley's fears, Joy predicts that these particular advancements will be the cause of disastrous events in the future. Always a popluar fictional plot, the thought of robots eventually taking over is a horrifying and somewhat common fear experienced by many. While technology remains quite far from allowing such occurances, scientific discoveries throughout the world have instead proven very to be very beneficial to society thus far.
In Shelley's time, novel scientific advancements had just begun to take place, and the unfamiliarity of such events sparked a widespread concern that remins present today. Though the looming threat of technology will certainly remain, one must be sure to consider the many positive aspects that have come from such innovations. To date, technological and scientific advancements have accomplished spectacular feats, many of which have the ability of helping people worldwide. Our world would be a very different place in the absence of such advancements, and to the wrongful predictions of Shelley and Joy, the continuous coexistence of humanity and technology has yet to be our downfall.
Fiction, Non-Fiction, or Somewhere in Between
What is science fiction? Today my first thought of sci-fi usually involves some combination of fast flying vehicles in outer space, crazy non human or super human characters, a couple of light sabers with a touch of fantasy or romance. It’s not real. At least not in the world I live. Both Shelley and Joy’s works have led me to believe something. That the science fiction section in libraries and bookstores should be located in close proximity to the science and technology area. This not only brings to light the possibilities of the science field against what has already been accomplished but also allows for the ease of transition. Technology is ever changing step by step, and at a rapid pace in our world. We, as normal citizens, enjoying the fruits of scientist’s labor, hardly notice these changes. We may simply become excited at the news of an upgrade to our latest gadget or momentarily intrigued by a breakthrough discovery in one of the sciences. Such events are normal. It is when science attempts to skip too many steps to get to the next stage of evolution that it becomes fiction. Even as reading the enlightenment of Victor in Shelley’s novel as he decides to take the natural sciences to twist death itself, I thought, ‘It’s the 18th century, people don’t even know what dying is yet and you’re already trying to reverse its results.’ I know the statement sounds silly but it proves a point. That fiction involves science outside or ahead of its time.
That being said, what makes Joy’s essay non-fiction and Shelley’s novel fiction? Joy does in fact spend a great portion of his essay discussing possible futures of the human race either being closely intertwined with that of robotic beings or becoming extinct at the hands of its own creation. Yet this is not fact. It is speculation. Joy makes convincing arguments, tossing theories around but supporting them with not only the existence of current sciences but suggesting a timeline. It is a rather broad timeline ranging from millions of years in the future to just over a decade in the future but it is a timeline. This is where speculation turns into believability. Believability combined with just enough truth places Joy’s arguments as an essay in the non-fiction genre. Why not Frankenstein?
Shelley is in effect, making a similar argument to Joy. An argument accompanied by a vivid account of a young fictional scientist. She was simply lacking in the believability aspect, taking science far beyond that of an 18th century context. The argument is the key though. Shelley explores the consequence of scientific expansion as her character Victor toils over a lifeless body expecting to reverse the effects of death. He does this without any thought to its consequences, at least none of the negative ones. This is evident when his mindset changes and he realizes a little too late that what had become his life, his child was now simply a wretched monster in his eyes. One could “cough” that mistake up to youthful ignorance, but what he did next was completely irresponsible in terms of scientific exploration. He left his experiment to roam free. It was an uncontrolled experiment that would cost him dearly. When he had the chance to stop this mistake he didn’t take it and it inevitably destroyed him, mentally and emotionally. Joy expresses this same concern. That we could be blindly throwing ourselves into science and technology exploration that could very well be our demise.
With this information acknowledged, how can we not accept Shelley’s novel as more than just literature? Strip Shelley’s novel of sub plots and characters and we have Joy’s arguments and concerns 200 years early. Add the first self replicating robot to Joy’s essay and we have the 21st century Frankenstein. It is as if they are interchangeable yet we have the natural tendency to consider one work more seriously over the other. If by changing this mindset can we learn to appreciate information, warnings, and insights from all venues of literature?
That being said, what makes Joy’s essay non-fiction and Shelley’s novel fiction? Joy does in fact spend a great portion of his essay discussing possible futures of the human race either being closely intertwined with that of robotic beings or becoming extinct at the hands of its own creation. Yet this is not fact. It is speculation. Joy makes convincing arguments, tossing theories around but supporting them with not only the existence of current sciences but suggesting a timeline. It is a rather broad timeline ranging from millions of years in the future to just over a decade in the future but it is a timeline. This is where speculation turns into believability. Believability combined with just enough truth places Joy’s arguments as an essay in the non-fiction genre. Why not Frankenstein?
Shelley is in effect, making a similar argument to Joy. An argument accompanied by a vivid account of a young fictional scientist. She was simply lacking in the believability aspect, taking science far beyond that of an 18th century context. The argument is the key though. Shelley explores the consequence of scientific expansion as her character Victor toils over a lifeless body expecting to reverse the effects of death. He does this without any thought to its consequences, at least none of the negative ones. This is evident when his mindset changes and he realizes a little too late that what had become his life, his child was now simply a wretched monster in his eyes. One could “cough” that mistake up to youthful ignorance, but what he did next was completely irresponsible in terms of scientific exploration. He left his experiment to roam free. It was an uncontrolled experiment that would cost him dearly. When he had the chance to stop this mistake he didn’t take it and it inevitably destroyed him, mentally and emotionally. Joy expresses this same concern. That we could be blindly throwing ourselves into science and technology exploration that could very well be our demise.
With this information acknowledged, how can we not accept Shelley’s novel as more than just literature? Strip Shelley’s novel of sub plots and characters and we have Joy’s arguments and concerns 200 years early. Add the first self replicating robot to Joy’s essay and we have the 21st century Frankenstein. It is as if they are interchangeable yet we have the natural tendency to consider one work more seriously over the other. If by changing this mindset can we learn to appreciate information, warnings, and insights from all venues of literature?
Dan Green | Blog 1
“Aristotle opened his Metaphysics with the simple statement: ‘All men by nature desire to know.’” The desire to know has led the world headfast into the 21st century at a rate that could be destructive to humanity. Many terrible things are anticipated in Shelley’s Frankenstein that have come to pass without acknowledgment or worry from the scientific and technological leaders of the today. The most dangerous thing, however, is the excessive hubris that is filling the minds of the brilliant.
The first problem that hubris and the desire of unlimited knowledge create is a world of uncertainty. Shelley presents this position in the simple fact that Victor unknowingly doomed William with his obsession. As he states, his downfall began early in his life when he was exposed to a vast amount of knowledge without judgment. If he was taught this information, rather than educated himself there would be bounds, but nonetheless the knowledge paired with a youth’s imagination condemned his poor brother in the future. Also, another aspect of his personality, which is prevalent in today’s technology market, is the thought that this knowledge can do anything and failure is not an option, a form of hubris. Victor ultimately forfeited the chance to make his own decisions, because his actions will be based upon how his creation acts. Bill Joy agrees and notes this point by stating “what we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines' decisions.” The technologically advanced needs to not ignore the lesson learnt by Victor and realize that all actions, even knowledge based experiments, may have repercussions that are out of their hands. If the message is looked over and taken with a grain of salt, the near future might look like a sci-fi movie where humans are the slaves of the creations.
Pride is an essential part to many people’s characters in all walks of life. Pride alone is something that defines a person, but when pride is excessive disaster can strike and a person can be consumed. The thought of failure or being outdone is what dictates the marketplace of the 21st century and in the technology world can lead to colossal misfortunes. A scientist or inventor can easily be ostracized and consumed by the thought of the completion of a project. When this happens, they fall into the dark side and lose what is important which is the advancement of humanity and will often make mistakes that lead to suffering. Victor turned into a madman and created a monster, a monster that the very thought of such an existence is unimaginable to most. If the current industries follow in this path they will compete to the level which will be beyond human reach and bestow power to the machines. However to stop this transformation, companies must do what is best for humanity and less for themselves.
A third lesson that can be learned from Frankenstein is that all things will eventually die off (inferior robots) or adapt (superior robots). This is revealed through the actions of his Daemon. At first, the creature walked awkwardly and could only grunt, but when we later catch up to the beast it has the ability to murder and frame an innocent person. Bill Joy states several examples of past text that all agree with this point. The one that I related to the most (because of the movie) was I, Robot where the very machines that we built to protect us evolve to enslave humans. Joy’s theory of how this happens is because “with each of these technologies, a sequence of small, individually sensible advances leads to an accumulation of great power and, concomitantly, great danger.” He warns us that eventually the evolution of machines will advance to the point of consciousness and the inevitable uprising of machines through nanotechnologies.
The above are all events anticipated by Shelley’s Frankenstein which could have easily been eluded. Joy offers the alternative “to limit development of the technologies that are too dangerous, by limiting our pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge.” If this simple action would have been done by Ingolstadt, than all the foreseeable problems would have been avoided. Without supervision, Victor recklessly creates his monster because of inspiration from a bolt of lightning with no thought of repercussions. If the current path of the technology industry follows in his steps and doesn’t note his abominable outcome, then someone will eventually create a modern day “Frankenstein” that will be the downfall of humanity. In conclusion, “We are being propelled into this new century with no plan, no control, no brakes” but it is not too late to change.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Blog Assignment 1: "Unreasonable Fears of Tomorrow's Technologies"
From the eyes of an optimistic scientist fixed on discovery and the promise of a wonders beyond comprehension, the future holds the possibilities of beautiful and fantastic technologies with the power to shape our lives for the betterment of humanity. In Bill Joy’s Essay, “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” Joy argues that scientific discovery, contrary to this previous statement, holds the possibility for terrible consequences that may ultimately lead to the destruction of our planet or species. Marry Shelley’s acclaimed novel, Frankenstein, offers insight to the latter argument by hinting that technologies obtained without discipline may lead to destructive outcomes through the narrative of Victor’s education and experiments. While still a wonderful work of literature, Shelley’s novel exaggerates the fear of her time and no longer accurately portrays the possibilities of scientific discovery of the present and future.
Joy presents a number of fears of a more modern era in which nuclear proliferation, genetic engineering, nanofabrication and robotics dominate the field of terror. Of these grossly exaggerated fears, western society has yet to see the negative backlashes of these technologies in the manner that Joy presents them. Possibly the oldest of Joy’s modern set of technological fears, nuclear arms have yet to annihilate the world as we know it after over 50 years of the “looming threat.” More recently still, transposons from genetically engineer corn still haven’t turned the American public into hideous mutated masses of functionless flesh and bone. The truth about these subjects remains true to this day that just because there is a negative potential to some technology, this may not be the probable outcome. Nuclear technology, while possessing the power for great destruction, also has the potential to provide the energy worldwide to eliminate global use of non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels and lower harmful carbon emissions that are causing global climate change.
Having grown up during a period of industrial revolution, Shelley experienced a vast amount of technological change in her lifetime, which understandably raised many fears of undesirable outcomes from the new and yet-to-be-proven technologies of her time. To this degree, Shelley expresses her fears in the form of unproven and undisciplined discovery in the biological sciences that leads to the creation of a grotesque creature with the potential for terrible actions such as murder. Victor’s stubborn approach to the sciences is founded in “old” and “disproven” theories of natural philosophy, which leads to an unethical discovery without proper restraint. This idea of unethical and dangerous research no longer holds as much merit in today’s society with the many restraints and barriers to what research is done; most notable of these is the power of money to restrict what is considered valuable technology to research and develop. For these reasons, it is unrealistic to believe that technology will stray toward anything but commercially prosperous or beneficial discoveries.
While the fears of new and unproven technologies will remain as long as our society presses forward in the name of science, the negative effects of such technologies predicted by Shelly and Joy have yet to be seen. Technology is going to advance and evolve in the coming centuries whether we take an active role in it or sit back in fear. While a sentient robot takeover may be in the realm of possibility for some, I prefer to look at proven technologies such as my docile, genetically-engineered glowing fish and hold these as a testament to the true nature of these “dangerous” technologies.
Blog #1 - Prometheus Today
In Greek mythology, Prometheus was the molder of human beings, who in addition gave them fire, disobeying Zeus who did not want humans to have that much power (Gill). Prometheus’ story represents a very large idea – do humans deserve knowledge of everything in the world, or are there in fact things that we should never find out, and should be, using Greek mythology, “left to the gods”?
In the actual case of Prometheus, it would be pretty difficult to argue that the bestowal of that power was bad, seeing that our entire human existence would be pretty near impossible without fire. But what about now, when the ideas that humans are exploring in scientific and technological realms are so large and could have such great impact? The thing that makes fire different is that for as long as humans remember, we understand fire. We know how to create it, how to control it, and how to extinguish it, and we are well aware of the consequences of doing all these things. With new knowledge in the scientific or technological realm, however, this is not always the case, and a problem occurs when our unlimited understanding of the consequences of a new discovery is not taken into careful consideration. Both Shelley and Joy show that this can quickly be masked by human instinct and the blind, passionate search for knowledge, and then bad things can happen.
As Frankenstein studies at Ingolstadt, he discovers how to create life. Once he is given this power, he completely enters a state that he cannot escape from, losing himself in this pursuit. He never once stops and questions the consequences of bringing life into the inanimate creature on which he is working. Before he succeeds he does not truly understand what he is doing, and in consequence, after the creature comes to life, he is not capable of dealing with it, as shown by the nervous breakdown he has almost immediately afterward. Tragedy obviously arises afterward. Had Frankenstein understood the consequences ahead of time, he never would have done anything with the knowledge he discovered; In fact, he refuses to even tell anybody else later, by chance a similar disaster happen again. In this action he is making the decision not to use the power he has. While the subtitle of the novel is “The Modern Prometheus”, Frankenstein is, in this moment, quite the opposite, refusing to give power to others.
Bill Joy uses the example of the atomic bomb, which also demonstrates this idea of regret after failing to understand the consequences of an action. The physicists involved on the project were so wrapped up in their original purpose that they did not fully understand the implications of the technology they were producing. After watching the effects of actually dropping the bomb, they were astonished and many came to regret the work they had done. While Joy may take some of his worries to an extreme, he is right in saying that we must “do more thinking up front if we are not to be similarly surprised and shocked by the consequences of our inventions.”
In society today, we are very much about the “here and now”. We have an extreme tendency to move ahead without analyzing the consequences of our actions, and if we cannot be sure what they will be, we go ahead with them anyway. We don’t take the time to realize our mistakes until later. Just in the last couple decades have scientists and doctors questioned the links that exist between smoking or sun exposure and cancer. Just in the last five years or so are we realizing that all our carbon monoxide production may not be such a good thing. We have no way of really knowing what impressive technologies we will have in the next ten, twenty, or fifty years. Some of these will no doubt bring great things such as medical cures and solutions to poverty. But along with this comes the reality that they could also bring negative effects in the short-term or long-term future. We were lucky with the atomic bomb, in that it only destroyed two cities. With the technologies that Joy discusses, the consequences could be a whole lot bigger than that.
So while Prometheus may seem like a good model, as in his story he gave important knowledge and power to humankind, we cannot always go by his philosophy. Knowing is not intrinsically wrong, but the power that knowledge brings us is may be a bad thing, if we don’t evaluate case-by-case the implications of each new discovery and technology, and make sure we have full understanding of it and the consequences of putting it into action. We shouldn’t have to stop research or technological development, and we definitely shouldn’t stop searching for knowledge. We should, however, be ready to make a difficult choice if need be and resolve ourselves to the fact that for our own good we may have to remain in darkness and leave the fire with Zeus.
Outside Sources:
Gill, N.S. "Prometheus in Greek Mythology." About.com. 12 January 2009
<http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/grecoromanmyth1/a/prometheus.htm>.
In the actual case of Prometheus, it would be pretty difficult to argue that the bestowal of that power was bad, seeing that our entire human existence would be pretty near impossible without fire. But what about now, when the ideas that humans are exploring in scientific and technological realms are so large and could have such great impact? The thing that makes fire different is that for as long as humans remember, we understand fire. We know how to create it, how to control it, and how to extinguish it, and we are well aware of the consequences of doing all these things. With new knowledge in the scientific or technological realm, however, this is not always the case, and a problem occurs when our unlimited understanding of the consequences of a new discovery is not taken into careful consideration. Both Shelley and Joy show that this can quickly be masked by human instinct and the blind, passionate search for knowledge, and then bad things can happen.
As Frankenstein studies at Ingolstadt, he discovers how to create life. Once he is given this power, he completely enters a state that he cannot escape from, losing himself in this pursuit. He never once stops and questions the consequences of bringing life into the inanimate creature on which he is working. Before he succeeds he does not truly understand what he is doing, and in consequence, after the creature comes to life, he is not capable of dealing with it, as shown by the nervous breakdown he has almost immediately afterward. Tragedy obviously arises afterward. Had Frankenstein understood the consequences ahead of time, he never would have done anything with the knowledge he discovered; In fact, he refuses to even tell anybody else later, by chance a similar disaster happen again. In this action he is making the decision not to use the power he has. While the subtitle of the novel is “The Modern Prometheus”, Frankenstein is, in this moment, quite the opposite, refusing to give power to others.
Bill Joy uses the example of the atomic bomb, which also demonstrates this idea of regret after failing to understand the consequences of an action. The physicists involved on the project were so wrapped up in their original purpose that they did not fully understand the implications of the technology they were producing. After watching the effects of actually dropping the bomb, they were astonished and many came to regret the work they had done. While Joy may take some of his worries to an extreme, he is right in saying that we must “do more thinking up front if we are not to be similarly surprised and shocked by the consequences of our inventions.”
In society today, we are very much about the “here and now”. We have an extreme tendency to move ahead without analyzing the consequences of our actions, and if we cannot be sure what they will be, we go ahead with them anyway. We don’t take the time to realize our mistakes until later. Just in the last couple decades have scientists and doctors questioned the links that exist between smoking or sun exposure and cancer. Just in the last five years or so are we realizing that all our carbon monoxide production may not be such a good thing. We have no way of really knowing what impressive technologies we will have in the next ten, twenty, or fifty years. Some of these will no doubt bring great things such as medical cures and solutions to poverty. But along with this comes the reality that they could also bring negative effects in the short-term or long-term future. We were lucky with the atomic bomb, in that it only destroyed two cities. With the technologies that Joy discusses, the consequences could be a whole lot bigger than that.
So while Prometheus may seem like a good model, as in his story he gave important knowledge and power to humankind, we cannot always go by his philosophy. Knowing is not intrinsically wrong, but the power that knowledge brings us is may be a bad thing, if we don’t evaluate case-by-case the implications of each new discovery and technology, and make sure we have full understanding of it and the consequences of putting it into action. We shouldn’t have to stop research or technological development, and we definitely shouldn’t stop searching for knowledge. We should, however, be ready to make a difficult choice if need be and resolve ourselves to the fact that for our own good we may have to remain in darkness and leave the fire with Zeus.
Outside Sources:
Gill, N.S. "Prometheus in Greek Mythology." About.com. 12 January 2009
<http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/grecoromanmyth1/a/prometheus.htm>.
Megan Schwemer
Narrative and Technology
Blog 1
People have harbored a fear of new knowledge throughout the ages. However, most of the fears and dreams people harbor about possible new technologies belong more in the realm of science fiction than science. This is not a new phenomenon by any means. When Frankenstein was written, the idea of reanimating a corpse or creating some sort of flesh golem with electricity was probably considered plausible. More recently, the 50s and 60s promised us flying cars. The disasters caused by the three main things – genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics – that Joy discusses in his essay are equally unlikely for a variety of reasons.
First, genetics. Genetic engineering of plants and animals gets a very bad rap. Opposition to it is mostly based on the as yet unproven idea that genetically engineered food is somehow unhealthy. If anything, genetically-modified food should be embraced more heartily, not shunned. Furthermore, genetic engineering is much safer than other alternatives – such as crossbreeding with toxic plants or bombarding plants with radiation to see what useful mutations they might develop. Also, the idea of scientists creating completely new organisms is probably impossible. Current knowledge of genetics is by no means sophisticated enough to allow us to create an entirely new species’ DNA from scratch. Great care is also taken in genetic engineering. Many things which are possible, such as engineering plants to produce pharmaceutical drugs, have not been undertaken as of yet due to the risks involved. With all these things being the case, I do not think that genetic modification will lead to the end of the world.
Second, nanotechnology. Joy’s ‘gray goo’ scenario depends on a variety of factors. Number one, these ‘nanites’ (if I may borrow the term from science fiction tv shows) would have to reproduce uncontrollably. If they were found not to replicate, then there would be little reason to fear the planet being overrun by them. Number two, even if they did replicate they would have to escape into the environment. Considering the amount of precautions that would probably be taken in developing something like this, such a possibility is also not a foregone conclusion. Number three, these nanites would have to overtake biological organisms. A lump of nanites would not necessarily threaten all life on the planet. These nanites would have to somehow develop into more complex structures and compete with biological organisms for resources, and win. This requires some degree of evolution and adaptation, which, unless they were programmed to do so seems unlikely. This scenario then, belongs more to sci-fi shows like Stargate than to reality.
Finally, robotics. This is the most unlikely of Joy’s doomsday predictions. A man versus machine apocalypse is unlikely for a whole variety of reasons. First, intelligent robots would have to be developed, and used widely. A robot, by definition cannot have free will or real intelligence because it is programmed by fallible humans, and thus cannot surpass its own programming, or them. Furthermore, processing power does not equal intelligence. Even if a quantum computer were developed, and super-fast processors put into such robots, the ability to process data quickly would not make them intelligent. As for mass-development, this is unlikely as well; such advanced robots would probably be prohibitively expensive for all but the super-rich. The idea of humans replacing themselves with robots is also unlikely. Downloading one’s consciousness into a robot, is probably impossible, considering the complexity of the human brain. Even if it were possible, would it be a way to be immortal, or would the robot simply be a copy, someone who acts like you though you are still dead? Furthermore, who would want to inhabit a body that has no pulse, no need to breathe or eat or sleep, no ability to taste or touch or smell? And if people today are unwilling to prolong their lives with respirators and feeding tubes, why do we think they would want to with robots? It just is not feasible. The interaction of man and machine will probably go as far as robotic prosthetics, and end there.
In conclusion, the possibility of mankind destroying itself with its own technology is remote at worst. While we are fairly skilled at finding new methods of destruction, if our demise is to be at our own hand, it is likely to be something more conventional, like biological or nuclear weapons, than the fantastical scenarios that Joy describes in his essay.
Narrative and Technology
Blog 1
People have harbored a fear of new knowledge throughout the ages. However, most of the fears and dreams people harbor about possible new technologies belong more in the realm of science fiction than science. This is not a new phenomenon by any means. When Frankenstein was written, the idea of reanimating a corpse or creating some sort of flesh golem with electricity was probably considered plausible. More recently, the 50s and 60s promised us flying cars. The disasters caused by the three main things – genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics – that Joy discusses in his essay are equally unlikely for a variety of reasons.
First, genetics. Genetic engineering of plants and animals gets a very bad rap. Opposition to it is mostly based on the as yet unproven idea that genetically engineered food is somehow unhealthy. If anything, genetically-modified food should be embraced more heartily, not shunned. Furthermore, genetic engineering is much safer than other alternatives – such as crossbreeding with toxic plants or bombarding plants with radiation to see what useful mutations they might develop. Also, the idea of scientists creating completely new organisms is probably impossible. Current knowledge of genetics is by no means sophisticated enough to allow us to create an entirely new species’ DNA from scratch. Great care is also taken in genetic engineering. Many things which are possible, such as engineering plants to produce pharmaceutical drugs, have not been undertaken as of yet due to the risks involved. With all these things being the case, I do not think that genetic modification will lead to the end of the world.
Second, nanotechnology. Joy’s ‘gray goo’ scenario depends on a variety of factors. Number one, these ‘nanites’ (if I may borrow the term from science fiction tv shows) would have to reproduce uncontrollably. If they were found not to replicate, then there would be little reason to fear the planet being overrun by them. Number two, even if they did replicate they would have to escape into the environment. Considering the amount of precautions that would probably be taken in developing something like this, such a possibility is also not a foregone conclusion. Number three, these nanites would have to overtake biological organisms. A lump of nanites would not necessarily threaten all life on the planet. These nanites would have to somehow develop into more complex structures and compete with biological organisms for resources, and win. This requires some degree of evolution and adaptation, which, unless they were programmed to do so seems unlikely. This scenario then, belongs more to sci-fi shows like Stargate than to reality.
Finally, robotics. This is the most unlikely of Joy’s doomsday predictions. A man versus machine apocalypse is unlikely for a whole variety of reasons. First, intelligent robots would have to be developed, and used widely. A robot, by definition cannot have free will or real intelligence because it is programmed by fallible humans, and thus cannot surpass its own programming, or them. Furthermore, processing power does not equal intelligence. Even if a quantum computer were developed, and super-fast processors put into such robots, the ability to process data quickly would not make them intelligent. As for mass-development, this is unlikely as well; such advanced robots would probably be prohibitively expensive for all but the super-rich. The idea of humans replacing themselves with robots is also unlikely. Downloading one’s consciousness into a robot, is probably impossible, considering the complexity of the human brain. Even if it were possible, would it be a way to be immortal, or would the robot simply be a copy, someone who acts like you though you are still dead? Furthermore, who would want to inhabit a body that has no pulse, no need to breathe or eat or sleep, no ability to taste or touch or smell? And if people today are unwilling to prolong their lives with respirators and feeding tubes, why do we think they would want to with robots? It just is not feasible. The interaction of man and machine will probably go as far as robotic prosthetics, and end there.
In conclusion, the possibility of mankind destroying itself with its own technology is remote at worst. While we are fairly skilled at finding new methods of destruction, if our demise is to be at our own hand, it is likely to be something more conventional, like biological or nuclear weapons, than the fantastical scenarios that Joy describes in his essay.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Assignment #1 (for Group 1)
You should have your initial draft posted by noon on Thursday.
Option #1: Write an essay on how Frankenstein helps us understand Bill Joy's essay. Frankenstein is, in part, concerned with the threats posed by new sciences and technologies, and is usually understood as being the first (or at least, first important) document in that genre, while Joy's essay is a very contemporary document in that genre.
The exact argument is up to you, but here are a couple examples.
Option #3: Do some basic research on the figure "Prometheus" and what he represents (note that the subtitle of Frankenstein is "A Modern Prometheus"). Using both Joy and Shelley, argue that we should/should not take Prometheus as a desirable model for the future, especially in scientific/technological matters.
Note: If you use any outside sources, you must attempt to cite them correctly. Here's a quick guide to citation: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/557/01/
At this early point, I will not be penalizing you for incorrect formatting when you're citing sources - I simply expect you to cite them when you use them, whether you get the details right or not.
Option #1: Write an essay on how Frankenstein helps us understand Bill Joy's essay. Frankenstein is, in part, concerned with the threats posed by new sciences and technologies, and is usually understood as being the first (or at least, first important) document in that genre, while Joy's essay is a very contemporary document in that genre.
The exact argument is up to you, but here are a couple examples.
- The fact that the terrible things anticipated in Frankenstein haven't actually happened should make us evaluate Joy's essay with a grain of salt - in short, he's wrong, or at least he exaggerates.
- The terrible things anticipated in Frankenstein have, in fact, come to pass (at least in some sense - you might use nuclear arms or genetic engineering as an example) - which should cause us to take Joy's argument very seriously.
Option #3: Do some basic research on the figure "Prometheus" and what he represents (note that the subtitle of Frankenstein is "A Modern Prometheus"). Using both Joy and Shelley, argue that we should/should not take Prometheus as a desirable model for the future, especially in scientific/technological matters.
Note: If you use any outside sources, you must attempt to cite them correctly. Here's a quick guide to citation: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/557/01/
At this early point, I will not be penalizing you for incorrect formatting when you're citing sources - I simply expect you to cite them when you use them, whether you get the details right or not.
Welcome & Group Assignments
You have now successfully located the blog! Welcome.
Here are the group assignments. I have you arranged into pairs; if you're on the left side of the pair (before the comma), you're in group 1: that means that you're writing a paper for next Tuesday. If you're on the right side (after the comma), you're in group 2: that means that you are commenting on some else's paper next weak.
For those of you in group one: I'll have the prompt posted some time tomorrow.
For those of you in group two: we'll spend some time in class next week talking about your duties.
For everyone: just to clarify, readings are listed on the syllabus when they are due - so you're reading 16-90 of Frankenstein, as well as Bill Joy's essay, which you'll find here (the address is also on the syllabus) for next week. Bring a printed copy of Joy's essay, as well as your copy of Frankenstein, to class (again, as instructed on the syllabus).
Now, here are the group assignments/pairings:
Dan Green, Brendan Shay
Maher Elharake, Nathaniel Bacon
Heather Friedberg, Scott Lavoritano
Krystal Heath, Nik Ahmad Munawwar Nik Din
Megan Schwemer, Tricia George
Chris Weiss, Bob
Amanda Kern, Josh Bowman
For now we have an odd number of people; I will make adjustments as people add & drop.
Note that I have the assignments arranged in pairs to indicate who will be commenting on whose blog entries for the first couple weeks.
If anyone has any questions, post them here!
Edit (Wednesday evening): Slight change in the pairings.
Here are the group assignments. I have you arranged into pairs; if you're on the left side of the pair (before the comma), you're in group 1: that means that you're writing a paper for next Tuesday. If you're on the right side (after the comma), you're in group 2: that means that you are commenting on some else's paper next weak.
For those of you in group one: I'll have the prompt posted some time tomorrow.
For those of you in group two: we'll spend some time in class next week talking about your duties.
For everyone: just to clarify, readings are listed on the syllabus when they are due - so you're reading 16-90 of Frankenstein, as well as Bill Joy's essay, which you'll find here (the address is also on the syllabus) for next week. Bring a printed copy of Joy's essay, as well as your copy of Frankenstein, to class (again, as instructed on the syllabus).
Now, here are the group assignments/pairings:
Dan Green, Brendan Shay
Maher Elharake, Nathaniel Bacon
Heather Friedberg, Scott Lavoritano
Krystal Heath, Nik Ahmad Munawwar Nik Din
Megan Schwemer, Tricia George
Chris Weiss, Bob
Amanda Kern, Josh Bowman
For now we have an odd number of people; I will make adjustments as people add & drop.
Note that I have the assignments arranged in pairs to indicate who will be commenting on whose blog entries for the first couple weeks.
If anyone has any questions, post them here!
Edit (Wednesday evening): Slight change in the pairings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)