Visions of the Self

The Great Robot Race documentary in was really interesting to watch.  This was the first race ever where the machine made all the decisions.  Behind each robot, there is a team of people who design and program this machine.  The machines that they had to create were a robot car that was able to drive itself.  One of the team members said he works 16 hour days 7 days a week for several months which to me shows true dedication to his work and what he wants to achieve. I had never realized how much time, effort, and patience goes into building a machine

At the very first Grand Challenge race years ago, many of the robots had problems such as driving off course.  Of all of the 15 robots that competed, none of them made it through the race due to mechanical failure, half within the first mile.

In 2005, there was another Grand Challenge race with 43 teams competing and was a 2 mile obstacle course with tunnels, gates, parked cars, and hay bales.  What I found amazing about this race was when the first machine named Ghost Rider had started, it had hit a small wall and had fell down but had magically gotten back up and continued with the race.  I thought that it was so cool that a robot was able to recognize that it had fallen down and realized that it needed to get back up and the fact that it was able to carry on with the race.  The next robot Terramax hesitated and attempted 8 times to go through the first entrance when it was finally able to go through.  The fact that this machine was able to realize it would not fit at first was really cool. From the Grand Challenge, 20 of the teams are to qualify for the main event, which is a desert race.

When talking about the technology that these robots use was astonishing.  I never really realized what kind of technology goes into a robot.  It was mentioned that they are really good at crunching numbers, which is how it determines what it does. They have very simple reasoning such as driving on flat spots which is good because it does not risk the robot failing.

The race is sponsored by DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency).  Their focus is to stimulate technology that can be used by the military to do tasks such as to deliver supplies to front lines.  I think that we could eventually get to the point where we can better develop these autonomously driven robots so that they can complete the tasks of being able to deliver supplies to the military.

For the final race, 102 miles into the race, 7 cars remain, 2 neck and neck at the front.  Stanley became the first vehicle in history to drive 132 miles by itself.  I thought that it was pretty awesome that these teams of people gave up all their time to develop these robots that can drive hours and miles by itself.  I think in the future, we will see more of these robots.

After watching the documentary about the Great Robot Race, I have gained a new appreciation for intelligent machines and the incredibly innovative builders, designers, and programmers that made these self-driving vehicles possible.  Some of the creators of these self-driving robots became infatuated with their work trying to make their cars drive autonomously.  One man said he worked 16 hour days, 7 days a week for months on end.  He even admitted to having dreams about his work.   So even while he is dreaming he is thinking about his work.  I wish I could do that with school!

These engineers and designers made it seem like their robots were their children because of how much work and care they put into them.  During a qualifying course before the big robot race, some of the creators were even talking to and cheering on their robots cursing and praising them as they maneuvered around.  They gave these robots human qualities and names due to their intelligence and autonomous ability.

Fifteen robots failed to complete the race course a year earlier at the first robot race before the documentary was filmed.  Several of the cars were unable to adapt to the course and make decisions about obstacles in their way.  They also could not decide how fast to drive on the course so many robots failed and crashed.  It was because the robots could not see.  It was like the cars were driving through fog said one developer.   They needed to give the robots the ability to adapt to the road and obstacles in their way.  Many of the robots used a similar guidance system using a rotating laser on their roof, but the laser could only read a little way ahead for the robot to make a decision.  The laser range finders were basically the robots’ brains making a road map out of millions of numbers of data from the robots environment.

One of the top robots, Highlander, was a modified Humvee capable of handling the desert terrain where the race was held.  It had a large rotating laser on its roof.  The team behind Highlander consisted of 100 people lead by a man named Red Whiticker.  Stanley was a robot designed by Stanford University’s racing team.  Stanley was a modified Volkswagen Passat with an adaptive vision system.  Unlike the laser range finder systems Highlander and other robots used, Stanley’s adaptive vision system gave the robot better speed control, agility, and endurance throughout the race.  Before the race, Highlander’s team programmed the race course into the robot telling it how fast to go every second of the race.  However, Stanley was able to adjust its speed and course with lesser difficulty than Highlander due to its vision system.

During the race Highlanders systems seem to run out of juice and its laser range system became unable to rotate as it should.  Highlander was programmed to maintain a high speed throughout the race, but Stanley actually catches up to Highlander and makes the decision to dodge and pass Highlander.  After 132 miles, Stanley crosses the finish line without hitting a single obstacle on the course.   Stanley drove itself into the record books and was the first car ever to finish the race.  Highlander actually finished the race second along with the few other robots as well.  During the celebration, one of Stanley’s team members puts a medal on the robot as if it was a person.  Stanford’s team gave Stanley the ability to think and reason.  Hopefully in the future my car will drive ME home after a long day at work.  It sounds like something out of the movie I, Robot, but this very well could be the future of automobiles.

The “Everything is a Remix” video set was interesting and informative about the history of remixing, and how much it is used today. The first video defines a remix is to combine or edit existing materials to produce something new. It further goes on to explain that the first application of the word was to music. However, the term has grown and can be applied to other things as well. The first argument is that remixing is bad, since unavoidably information is stolen from previous source. As an example, the videos compares songs to ones that have taken exact tunes, beats or words from previous songs. For example, Vanilla Ice’s “Ice Ice Baby” has the same tune as “Under Pressure” by Queen. In fact Queen tried to sue Vanilla Ice for using the same tune, but lost because his song had one more beat in it. You can also find this type of repetitiveness among films. As humans we use ideas that we have seen or heard about from a different source. While a creation maybe unique, it still had inspiration from other sources. In my opinion remixing is an issue that cannot be avoided. The determining factor is whether the final product is entirely different and new. Though fragments of original work may be included, if the final product is unique then the remixing is acceptable.

In the great robot race documentary showed just how intelligent machines are. The teams were asked to design and build a robot car to drive autonomously. The robots had varying deigns to accomplish the same goal.

These machines were not all successful in finishing the race. The first time the great robot race was held no robot finished. This sent many teams back to the drawing boards for next time. The second time the race was held teams had to qualify to enter the second race. Here is where many dreams can to an end.  The ones that successfully made it through the qualifier earned their shot in the great race.

Out of all the robots that made it out of the qualifier no two were exactly the same. These robots had varying hardware and software. Some teams focused more on one than the other. The two top qualifiers had two different styles. One was extremely focused on the hardware. The other extremely focused on the software. As the great race approaches which style will win?

Before the race the teams are given the route of the race. One team inputs the route and programs every second of the race before it even starts. This robot is the one has extreme focus on hardware. Their robot can handle any terrain and drive over it verse having to go around it. This robot has its speed programed from the start to the finish not being able to adjust itself during the race.

The other front runner has immense focus on software. They used a standard car to handle the terrain. They put more time into the robot’s software to adjust on the fly during the race. This robot has the ability to change speeds and adjust to the terrain as it goes.

Only five robots were able to finish the race. As the race neared the end one robot made a surprise. Team Stanley that had more focus on software made a move to win the race. All on its own it saw the robot in front and passed it with no external help. Team Stanley went on to win the great robot race.

This robot race shows how advanced our technology is. Our robots today have the ability to make intelligent decisions. The robot Stanley showed that it is a capable decision maker. No one could have planned when he was going to pass the other robot. All these robots had to adjust on the fly as the race got difficult. These robots do have intelligence. Machines can make decisions based on their intelligence and programming. These robots although programmed make their own decisions and adjustments. As our technology increases we will see a rise in autonomous robots. These robots can be used in varying situations. As our technology advances robot intelligence also increases.

In Frankfurt’s paper, he discussed what it means to be a Wanton. A Wanton is something that may not have noticeable opinions on what needs to be done, or where they should be going, but have a personal identity. Frankfurt argues that a human cannot be a Wanton, but I think that it is very difficult to determine whether or not a human is a Wanton. Though a person may not have second desires, everyone has first desires. An example that was discussed in class was that if your friends began asking you if you wanted to go to the movies or go bowling and your response on what to do is, “I do not care if we go to the movies or go bowling.” Frankfurt would argue that since the response is that you do not care which activity you all do, you have given up your freedom of what happens to you. Some people may give that response because they are content with being with friends and the activity does not make any difference. This is not the same as completely relinquishing your free will. To me if you were to give up your free will, a person will not make any decisions that would affect their lives. Which is similar to being a little child and not having a say on about what goes on.  When discussing wantons, the word validation, which means that it matters and is significant to the person.  We all have our own different preferences on how we prioritize things in our lives. According to Frankfurt, your second desires are the things that make us a person.  It allows us to form a personal identity.

Clive Wearing is someone who suffers from only being able to retain a 30 second memory. He only recognizes is his wife, and does not have any recognition of any other family or friends. He cannot even remember what he is doing after 30 seconds have passed. The only thing he can remember is how to play the piano. Clive explains his condition as never seeing a person, seeing a doctor before, or never having a thought before. Thus, giving his the belief that the majority of his brain is inactive. I believe it must be extremely problematic for Clive not to know who he is or anyone else around him. His life resets, and he awakened from unconsciousness after 30 seconds of confusion, and repeats the cycle throughout the day. To me Clive’s wife is the must crucial aspect of his life. With is inability to have a memory his wife must keep a constant eye on him. She must have a large amount of patience. In my opinion Clive is incapable of forming a personal identity. His identity only consists physically and the ability to play the piano. He does not have any control over his life. Therefore, it is as if he is living the “ignorance is bliss”, but without any control to change it. In the YouTube videos it seems like he is content, friendly, and somewhat in a daze. It is mind bottling how can he feel this way because he cannot even think about how he feels because if he does he forgets it seconds after he forms his beliefs or thoughts. His condition seems like a headache and a horrible way to live a life.

On February 14 of 2011, IBM had come to the point in development with their computer Watson.  Watson, the computer following Deep Blue, the world champion chess player beating computer, is a super computer capable of analyzing a naturally spoken question and developing an answer in natural language back.  Watson was put on the game show Jeopardy to compete against the best players in the world.    Before watching the documentary for this class I had accredited Watson as intelligent to some degree as I am in no position to grasp the complexity of creating and programming a machine fit for such tasks.

          The Smartest Machine on Earth is the hour long video documentary about Watson and opens up with a bunch of shotty clips from Jeopardy, briefly explaining the nerves and intelligence it takes to win on the show.  Following that clip they explain what it takes to get a unaccompanied computer to win, from interpreting a list of categories and selecting a topic to comprehending the answer provided and developing a corresponding question.

While we learned about Watson in class it was just astonishing to actually see the hour long video about what went into it the computer and some of the problems along the way.  The video goes into detail about the difficulties of getting the computer to comprehend the English language and the clever and novel ways Jeopardy poses questions.  I had originally credited Watson with intelligence for exactly this reason, as I figure any machine can be programmed to comprehend a question, or answer in this case, and match it with its coordinating question/answer.  What, in my mind makes Watson so unique and extremely impressive is its ability to pick up on puns, clever ways to ask questions, and downright tricky ways Jeopardy phrases its answers.

I am currently enrolled in Dr. Wagman’s psychology of perception (PSY 361) and we discuss the miracle of human hearing, the complexity of our ability to distinguish some of the most similar noises,

For me, another awfully incredible feat for a machine is comprehending the variety of phonemes in English vernacular.  In this class we discuss the complexities that probably took some time for Watson’s parents to work around. When we listen to someone speak a language we cannot understand it often sounds like one big blur of letters mashed together, well this is an example of the segmentation problem.

The segmentation problem arisis when there are no clear cut distinctions in a spoken utterance. Another major problem I would bet the programmers ran into is called the coarticulation problem. When people mean to say “did you eat,” it often sounds like “jeet.”  The coarticulation problem occurs when we speak at a reasonable rate and we use “shortcuts.”

So we are once again back to the question; can a computer be intelligent?  Well I am in no position to answer this questions, but considering what Watson is capable of and the absurd amount of sheer knowledge in his system, if any computer were to be labeled intelligent, let it be IBM’s Watson.

In her article “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the late Twentieth Century”, Donna Haraway makes a number of intriguing arguments and conclusions. The introduction of her work elaborates upon the definition of cyborg from her perspective; a cyborg is a hybrid of a machine and organism that exists in both the realms of social reality and fiction. It is because of this dual existence that the concept of the cyborg is difficult to embrace.

Miss Haraway continues on the explain that the boundary between humans and animals has become unclear, or “thoroughly breached.” There is no longer a sense of uniqueness or basis for distinction when comparing humans and animals., She goes on to note that there are individuals, including many feminists, who embrace the relation and connection to other living organisms. Overall, her argument suggests that the distinction of individuals has become ambiguous and that humans are indeed cyborgs. Haraway goes on to identify three “leaky distinctions” that support the cyborg mythology, but there was on that was most interesting to me.

The second “leaky distinction” that was noted was the idea that the separation between humans and machines has become progressively more ambiguous over time. In the past, machines were not able to move on their own, design their own workings, or demonstrate any level of autonomy. Machines were only performing tasks that mimicked or mocked those of the human beings who designed them. Now, labeling machines with these disabilities is much more difficult to do. Humans are no longer as sure about the potential and limitations of machines. Furthermore, these very machines have made other distinctions (including those between mind and body, and natural and artificial) much more difficult and seemingly impossible. As Haraway notes, “Our machines are disturbingly lively, and we ourselves frighteningly inert.”

I agree with Haraway’s ideas about machines becoming more difficult to distinguish from humans. My overall viewpoint on the issue is that machines are indeed catching up to human capabilities, if they have not done so already. Machines have the ability to learn from their mistakes, make statistical and rational decisions, and to operate outside of their programmed functions. The increasing ambiguity of the line between humans and machines is decreasing because that line is actually fading away. Machines are becoming more and more like humans and can perform the same functions that we can. Therefore, Haraway’s argument is extremely valid. The evidence is clear; machines are approaching equality with humans and have already surpassed many of our capabilities. It’s time to stop trying to distinguish between the two populations and start seeing us as one; adopting this perspective will result in a world where machines and humans co-exist to bring the quality and productivity of life to a new level.

In the article by Dreyfus, he compares Kierkegaard’s ideas about the Public and the Press with the internet today. The article also raises objections by considering the Internet  and how it promotes two different spheres of existence, the aesthetic and the ethical spheres. The aesthetic sphere talks about avoiding commitments and the lives of people in the category of interesting and the boring and the boring people wanting to be interesting. The ethical sphere talks about people who could use the Internet to keep a commitment but would not be able to commit juts through the Internet. Yet, the most important part that Kierkegaard makes is that the Internet does not promote learning, but actually the opposite. Kierkegaard believes the Public of the Internet is worthless. He does not like when people use their opinion in the Public because this gives reason for the Press to talk about things and say anything, whether it is true or not. Opinions are like noses, everyone has one, and not everyone needs to stick their nose in business where it belongs. The Internet mostly allows people to say whatever they want, and may not be held accountable for it. We talked in class about Wikipedia being a reliable source or not, and this is a good example of Kierkegaard’s point. Anyone can change Wikipedia, just like we did in class, and not be accountable for that changed information.  This is referred to as anonymity, and I believe unfortunately makes the Internet not the way it was intended to be. After reading Dreyfus’ article about Kierkegaard, I would agree with Kierkegaard that the Press makes people appear to be things that they are not. I do not agree that the Press should be able to stay anonymous while the Public has to be known who they are what they have said/done. I feel like this is similar to the most recent topic we talked about in class, the disinhibition effect, where people will act however they want, and pretend to be whoever they want, over the Internet because there are no consequences. I do not feel that people should do this because it can be dangerous and harmful to others who believe it. The Press is very similar to this, by the way they can say whatever they want and can harm people in doing so. I personally believe that when the Press talks about death of someone, before things are even sorted out and solved, that this is terrible. Recently, two college girls died around my home town, and the reason I knew this was through the local online newspaper. Not everything was figured out, did not even know for certain the cause of death, but were talking about what happened. If this was my child I would be so devastated that one, they passed away, and two, that the Press thought they had the right to talk about the story without the facts. For these reasons, and many more similar to it, are why I agree with Kierkegaard that the Internet should not be used inappropriately by the Press and the Public does not deserve the treatment it does either.

Lately in class, we have been discussing the internet and how it works. Ultimately, we are trying to find where we and machines belong in the net. We have briefly discussed Hubert Dreyfus and his view. After reading his article, I agree with many of his points.

Dreyfus, as we learned in class, views the internet as putting distance between people. He said that “whatever hugs do for people, I’m quite sure telehugs won’t do it.” I have to agree with this statement. Hugs are personal and we talked in class that the whole point of hugs are to have someone physically there to hold you. We looked at the Hug-E-Gram infomercial and this is the closest you can get to sending a hug, without actually being there. The distance on the internet can never match that intimate feeling between two people. You need to be in person in order to get the full effect of a hug. This made me think of other things that the internet cannot provide in the same way. One is if you are in an argument with someone. Saying an apology via e-mail, text, facebook, or by any other technology is simply not the same as in person. In person, you get more emotions and can tell a person’s intentions.

In this article, Dreyfus talks about how Kieregaard is blaming the Press for the way the effects on the Public. He blames the Public for “a world in which everyone has an opinion on and comments on all public matters without needing any first-hand experience and without having or wanting any responsibility.” He opens the article talking about two nihilistic spheres. One is the aesthetic, which is a person who completely avoids commitments and wants to see as many interesting sites as humanly possible. The other nihilistic sphere is the ethical. This is a person who “uses the internet to make and keep commitments but they are brought to the despair of possibility by the ease of making and unmaking commitments on the internet.” Kierkegaard states that the Public is not interested but says the real villain is the Press. He also discusses how the Press has effects on religion.

Dreyfus argues that the internet is not trustworthy. He states that there is a sense of anonymity over the internet and you cannot trust it. There are no true commitments over the internet. Anyone can pretend and say they are someone else and others believe it. This is a troubling issue that we discussed when we learned about the Online Disinhibition Effect. This term refers to the anonymity of the internet and the effects it has on people. When on the internet, people feel that no one knows them, they cannot see them, and therefore they behave in ways that they usually would not in person. The Chat Roulette video is an example of this that we learned in class. People feel that they can be someone different over the internet because the internet creates distance. I agree with Dreyfus when he says that you cannot trust the internet fully. There are no commitments over the internet.

Normally, when watching any documentary about robots, I begin to get bored or tired of it. However, watching the documentary “The Great Robot Race”, I felt anything but bored. I really enjoyed watching this, and thought it was extremely interesting.

The Great Robot Race is about different scientists who create cars or robots who run based on computer technology that is installed into them. There are no drivers to help these robots get through this tough terrain in the middle of the desert. The object of this race is to get through 100 tunnels, gates , as well as get up and down hill. There are many teams who compete in the first round which is only two miles long. However, only a certain amount make it into the final round which is to compete in the Great Robot Race.

They had tried this a year before, however none of the robots have made it past 7 miles out of the 132. This year the builders and different teams have tried new methods such as long distance lasers, cameras and new speeds. The teams were not given the course until 24 hours before the race. They had to install this course into their robots and decide at which speeds they should go at in certain areas. Out of about 17 robots that had made it into the final round, many had dropped out before finishing. In the end after being tested for many areas such as speed and accuracy, only 5 teams made it through the finish line. Stanley had finished first, followed by the red team only 11 minutes behind.

This was the first time in history a robot had made it through 132 miles without a driver, yet alone 5. Even after having some technical difficulties half way through the reach, the Red team had still crossed through the finish line with both of their robots. They hope to combine the technology of all the scientists and teams, and create a robot for the U.S Army to transport supplies to bases in the future on a battlefield. This would allow for the Army to get their supplies without having the possibility of having any soldiers injured.

I believe that it would be a good way to not have as many soldiers die. However, I do not know if the U.S would be able to fund such a big project. I just am amazed at how far technology has come, and how much things are advancing every single day. I found it so interesting how these people put in so much time and money just to create these robots. It takes so many people and so much knowledge and patience to create them. I really admire their work and how they continue every day to work to improve these machines. It was such an accomplishment to have these robots finish this race, however, they still need work done on them in order to reach perfection.

-JK

After reading Kieregaard’s thoughts on the press I would have to say that I agree with his viewpoints. Keiregaard talks about the press being responsible for the demoralizing of human society and notes the detrimental effects that the press plays into the destruction of religion. He says that “the press makes Christianity impossible” and gives his reasoning based off of the view of the “public sphere”. The public sphere was created by the press that can represent an almost alternate world in which the traditional laws of cause and effect or action and reaction do not follow the same strict set of boundaries. For instance, in the press people can wash their hands of all responsibility simply by remaining anonymous and can therefore voice an uncensored viewpoint with little risk for being reproached simply because nobody knows who you are. Basic human reasoning suggests that a person would tend to be less vocal and less controversial if they had to reveal their identity because now they risk public reproach. However, different types of media can and often do create anonymity. Also, Keiregaard argues that the press promotes idleness and it is easy to see why. Consider a person walking to work on a Sunday morning and he or she spots the morning newspaper. This person could pick the paper up and be easily absorbed in the stories and current events of other cities in the surrounding area even if the news doesn’t specifically pertain to the immediate actions of the person reading it. As a result, this person reading the paper becomes idle because the information he or she is reading will not have any immediate benefits associated with the information-gathering. That very same person might even be late to work as a result of being distracted by the bold print and provocative text of the Sunday newspaper! It is clear to see why Keiregaard denounced the press and I would argue that he would also fully denounce the internet on similar grounds. For instance, the internet network provides a vast array of social media, general information, and so many other distractions that it is easy to become fully absorbed in these processes. I’ve personally witnessed countless individuals pour hours of work into making their facebook pages look flawless. People constantly update and change their status as if it is a religion. This major degree of idleness clearly defines the reason why Keiregaard would say that the internet does not promote learning but promotes the very opposite. Also, moral and civic responsibility becomes virtually unimportant because of the anonymity created by the internet. Nobody can find out who you are when you make a comment on a website or post or upload a video. The closest anyone can get is tracking your IP address and then tracing the computer back to the source and who the computer is registered to. Nowadays it is especially easy to use other computers that make the trace to the actual source impossible. It is this extreme lack of any real identity that enables users of the internet to say and do things that would never be done in the real world. For instance, in class we watched the videos of people watching this one dude hang himself on chat roulette. One guy actually cracked up a little and encouraged him to do it. Other people were simply unaffected and a few actually cared enough to do something about it. I doubt that the dude scoffing at the man trying to kill himself would exhibit the same reaction if he was in the room with the guy that was actually trying to kill himself. Clearly, distance plays a role in the anonymity and therefore the breakdown of morals. No one can see us or trace us so we can say whatever we want to whoever we want and there will be no consequences. This is the underlying theme for a lot of users who go on the internet nowadays. Internet predators strive to lie about their identity and often have ulterior motives for talking to the people they talk to. Keiregaard would have thought that the internet was responsible for the breakdown of morals in our society today.

Klive after his accident is suffering from dementia and can’t remember much. He usually can only remember almost 30 seconds of information before he forgets. He only recognizes his wife and doesn’t know where he most of the time. Every time hes sees his wife he believes he has woke up from a state of uncousciousness. When he starts a sentence he usually doesn’t know what he is saying by the end of it. When his wife has a conversation with him he is usually confused and isn’t sure what she had said earlier. When she tells him about his sister getting married in New Zealand, she keeps repeating it but he forgets it over a span of time. He describes it as not having thoughts or being able to dream. He thinks he has woken up from something but isn’t exactly sure what happened. Klive was a very succesful pianist and conductor before his accident. Klive isn’t able to remember any past events or what he used to do. He thinks his brain had been inactive and he isn’t able to think ahead.  I believe this is a link to the Otto and Inga situation. Much like otto, klive does not know where certain things are but he relies on his surrounding and people around him to figure out when he is. In his mind he doesn’t know certain things or can;t remember them but he is still able to find out things from his wife. He still goes through a cognitive process of finding out who he is and where he’s at. He isn’t able to remember what the sentence he spoke a few minutes ago was so he relies on outside sources to re inform him of the information. He is similar to Otto because otto has to look in his notes to find out where something he is. He doesn’t know it from memory, but he goes through a cognitive process by looking for it.  Overall Klive isn’t able to remember much and struggles to figure out what has happened. Klive still loves to see his wife and can remember how to play the piano very well. This shows how this dementia can affect people and how he isn’t able to remember much past a few sentences.  It also shows how he isn;t able to pull information from his memory but can rely on other people and extensions of his mind for knowledge. This was a very interesting video that talked about something I have never seen and showed what Klive’s situation is like.

I think that Parfit’s essay on personal identity was very enlightening. It is key to note one of the thought experiments that Parfit engages in throughout the course of his essay. In the thought experiment, Parfit describes an operation in which one single human brain is separated into two equal parts, and each resulting object is transplanted into two separate human bodies that do not already have brains in them. This loose description sets the basis for a great deal of discussion. First off, let us consider that only one of the human bodies survived. Is this body with half of the brain in it considered the same person that the brain was before it was transplanted? Second, let us say that they both survived! Does this duplication imply that the human survived the operation? Or is the human now two people? Third, let us assume that the operation was not a success and neither brain was successfully transplanted. Does this mean that the person died? The biggest issue surrounding this thought experiment is the struggle to define our personal identity. What constitutes as our identity? I thought the answer was so simple. When someone asks me about my identity, I would tell them my name and race, even the color of my eyes and hair or where I’m from. Yet, do these things really define me? Am I the things that I mentioned? Upon further thinking, my identity seems to be comprised of something more than what is present in the physical realm. My answer alone gives testimony to fundamental human nature. It seems as though humans are quick to associate their body as one of the criterion for identity. People that hold on to this view of the body being a main derivative of our self would undoubtedly tend to side with the argument that once the brain transfers into two bodies or even one body, that the identity of the original person ceases to exist! However, I would encourage one who thinks in this manner to think about an operation that has been performed successfully in today’s world to cure epilepsy. During the operation, a doctor divides the two hemispheres of your brain into two separate parts. The result has been described by doctors as “a double stream of consciousness” almost as if two brains that can be used independently of each other were created. Do we consider this one person to now be two people? One could reasonably argue that the concept of identity deals with one person. Yet the problem with this argument is that the line between one person has been skewed by the thought experiment at hand. The thought experiment proves that our identities are not derived from physical attributes but are comprised of the emotions, likes and dislikes, desires, and disposition. All of these non-physical attributes in my opinion are what really define our unique and personal identities. I would like to ask Parfit if the two resulting people in the double success of the transplant still exhibited the same attributes and desires along with the same emotional state as they did before when it was considered one brain. Moreover, I would like to know if the two people involved in the transplant exhibited identical non-physical desires and attributes. This would set the stage for further discussion about what identities the two bodies now held. In the end, it is the collection of all of the non-physical attributes we as humans develop and refine over time that serve to define us as unique people with personal identities. I am not a number on a social security card, I am not my name, and I am not Woodridge, Illinois. I am me!

I found Clive Wearing’s story to be very intruiging. Clive Wearing was a man that experienced trauma to his brain and the damage renders him unable to produce new memories. His span of memory is limited to a number of seconds and after that he forgets everything that has happened. In other words, Clive Wearing has no short term memory. In fact, when this man is spoken to even by those closest to him he almost instantaneously forgets the subject at hand. This video we watched in class was really jarring and puzzling because Clive Wearing is also a musician and when he sits at a piano he can still produce beautiful music although he often forgets that he is even playing the piano while he is doing it. A major question then becomes, “How does Clive Wearing function through daily life without short term memory?” This is the point were it becomes important to note the philosophical aspects of Clive Wearing’s unique story. For instance, one of the mechanisms Clive Wearing uses in order to function through daily life is the use of notes and written sentences that document the tasks he has done and remind him of what he needs to do throughout the day. As a result, one could argue that Clive Wearing extended his mind through the use of the technology at hand and was therefore able to have a functioning, although limited memory. One could also argue that Clive Wearing is literally replacing his brain’s memory function with the pen and notebook. However, I disagree that the functioning of the pen and the paper can be compared to that of a human brain. For instance, although memory itself is limited and often inaccurate in detail, the fundamental concept of the memory stored in a brain will still be largely unchanged even with the outstretch of time against the memory at hand. Yet, if Clive Wearing was to misplace his notes or if someone was to alter his notes then you can send Clive Wearing on a journey around the world all because he wrote it down and thinks that this is what he is supposed to do. His notebook and pen are limited by the physical world and all of the potential stimuli that could influence the very core of the “memory” that Clive Wearing records in his notebook. Therefore, I reasonably conclude that since the notebook’s fundamental infrastructure can be altered drastically and with considerable ease that the human brain’s memory systems cannot possibly even be compared to that of a notebook and a pen. These two technologies were invented to help facilitate an already existing biological function within our bodies. It was not made to replace it! Imagine how hard it would be to take a test using only the notes you took in class and no prior knowledge of the class or anything else! The only way to get a good grade on a test is to retain some information and grasp the larger concepts being discussed even though the details themselves will ultimately be lost unless recorded by the supplementary technologies at hand. I do however agree that our technology is an extension of the mind because it enables us to capture the vividness of a complicated subject. As an extension, this technology functions very well and Humans today have clearly merged with all that they create. This ability to live so in tandem with our technology is another philosophical issue altogether. I think it is important to note that the 2^nd choice for Clive Wearing instead of his brain was to resort to the man made technology is a result of this natural desire to be one with what we create. Rather than having another person serve as his caregiver or aid 24 hours a day, he rejects the biological option and goes straight for the technological one solution! Yet, this is a separate issue I will discuss further in my next post!

In class this semester, we talked a lot about artificial intelligence. Watson is an artificial intelligent computer that was programmed to answer questions using similar to human language. Watson was named after IBM’s first president, Thomas J. Watson. As we discussed and watched in class, Watson was tested of his abilities on the show, Jeopardy. Watson beat out two of the top competitors in Jeopardy, Brad Rutter, who had one the most money on the show, and Ken Jennings, who had the longest winning streak on the show in history. Some may think that Watson must be really intelligent due to him being able to find the answer so quickly and beat out some of the greatest competitors that he faced. Yet, what others may not know, is that Watson was programmed with four terabytes of stored information, actually using Wikipedia. Which, for those of you who do not believe Wikipedia is a reliable source, this shows that Watson used this information and won one of the hardest game shows!  Yet, did he actually have a quicker response time due to the information that he knew or was it because he did not have to physically think like most humans do and already had the information stored in his programmed system?

Either way you look at Watson, I believe he is a tremendous design and the people who created him should be given full credit. The information that is stored in Watson is from Wikipedia, therefore it is gathered by millions of users who can update information on Wikipedia anytime they want. This leads me back to the humans are responsible for his creation. Are the ones who designed him responsible for his intelligent to win the game? Not necessarily unless they were to give him the information that would help him to answer the correct questions that some people may not know.  I think it is crazy that even though Watson is programmed with information, he can still learn from his mistakes and correct them. If he is answered a certain type of question and gets it wrong, he knows for future circumstances to know the right answer next.

One of the last things we talked about in class was if people should treat robots, such as Watson, like a human being. In this scenario, with Watson playing a game, it is hard to tell if Watson necessarily has “feelings” because he is not designed to express them. On the other hand, the robot that we saw that was being put into the closet, he did not want to be put into the closet because he felt he would be lonely and wanted to be with everyone else. Here this is an example where a robot clearly defines his feelings and it is hard to tell if we should treat him like a human being over a robot like Watson. So should we treat all robots like human beings, or only the ones that express sadness or happiness?

After reading “Personal Identity” by Derek Parfit, this article sparked my interest and I have been thinking about some of the examples mentioned in his writing. This article begins by Parfit stating the process of answering challenging questions about one’s personal identity. He shares his two beliefs are about the nature of personal identity, and also about the importance of personal identity. I like his quote, “The first is that in these cases the question about identity must have an answer.” I like his certainty and his determination to persuade people that these challenging questions DO have answers, although many of us decide to ignore them because we do not want to put forth the effort on arriving to those conclusions. He also talks about how when we think of personal identity, usually machines and nations do not come to mind. We all have a definition of what personal identity is and we do not count machines and nations as having identity. I found this interesting because in class we have been looking at many examples of how machines seem to think autonomously. Maybe in the future we will consider machines to have identities.

Parfit then begins to discuss his first belief about the nature of personal identity. He states “Whatever happens between now and any future time, either I shall still exist, or I shall not. Any future experience will either be my experience, or it will not.” This is the nature of personal identity because he says later on in this article that survival implies identity. Parfit says that this statement has two effects on people. One is that this “makes people assume the principle of self- interest is more rationally compelling than any moral principle.” I agree with this because the statement is all about survival and this would make people believe that self-interest is the most important thing. The other effect of this statement is “that it makes people depressed by aging and death.” I can see this as well because it is kind of an ultimatum. You either survive or you do not. This is why people would see it as depressing.

Then Parfit moves on to his second belief about the importance of personal identity, He says “Certain important questions do presuppose a question about personal identity. But they can be freed of this presupposition. And when they are, the question about identity has no importance.” I found this to be a little confusing. I understand that some questions about personal identity do have beliefs that accompany it, but I do not quite understand why he thinks that if you remove those beliefs, then the importance is gone. So I think he is saying that if you get rid of the presuppositions, you lose the importance.

I really liked Parfit’s examples of transporting the brain. I remember we discussed this in class and after reading this article I have changed my mind from what I thought in class. I used to think when a brain is transported either one whole brain or a half of a brain that the original person would not exist. But now I do think that the person exists as whoever the brain is transported to. Whether that be one person or two, I believe the original person exists wherever the parts of the brain are located. I found this article very interesting, and could easily have written more about it. I think the examples were perfect for this article and after reading Parfit’s opinion on how he could survive if his brain were transported, I have changed my original thoughts prior to reading this article.

The Personal Identity article by Parfit was interesting, but difficult to grasp at times. Parfit describes a person’s identity as being composed of two parts: nature of identity and the importance of it. Parfit uses the example of dividing the brain into two parts, then putting each part into separate bodies. By doing this Parfit concludes that we would be able to be at two places at once. He then raises several questions on if the person would survive as two separate people with half of a brain or would the two halves survive as one person. His reasoning was confusing to read, and though I agree with him on some aspects, I do not completely agree with his reasoning. If the person does survive it is possible that they will share memories, feelings, and identities. Over time if the two people with the two halves of the original brain were reunited after being separated for a period of time, they would have become different people. Our identity is constantly evolving along with our personality. Parfit explains that this process would be as voluntary as blinking your eyes. He gives the example of taking a math exam and time is running out. Parfit explains that “Each of the two streams of consciousness seems to have been straightforwardly continuous with my one stream of consciousness up to the moment of division. The only changes in each stream are the disappearance of half my visual field and the loss of sensation in, and control over, half my body.” You would work on the math problem with your right hand and you can visually see your left hand doing work but you are not aware of it. While you were reuniting your mind you would remember two calculations, are only capable of being aware of one thought process at a time. If you can claim to remember the series of thoughts then your mind can be described as a river with separate streams. Parfit states that personal identity is the question whether or not a person exists. This mind stream theory makes being two places at once possible.

Clive Wearing’s story really made me consider a lot that we have talked about and learned this semester. Clive Wearing lives a life with only 30 seconds of memory. A lot can be said about trying to figure out the “self” of Clive with only this little amount of memory. Clive cannot consider any factors to answer the questions about the self that we addressed at the very beginning of the semester in class. We defined the self as reasons for holding beliefs, arguments, and evidence. Since Clive cannot rememeber anything past 30 seconds, he is not exactly capable of holding beliefs for anything. He does remember a few things; his wife and how to play the piano. These are things he knew before he lost his memory, so why can he not remember any of the other things such as his children or other favorite aspects of life?

We also talked about how Eristotle refers to knowledge as facts and skills such as the fact of knowing “that” of something and riding a bike as skill. Could Clive’s knowing how to play the piano still have to do with knowledge of skill? He would not have the knowledge of knowing “that” of many things because he soon forgets everything. Intelligence is described as practical judgement such as the ability to decide. Does this mean Clive is not intelligent because he cannot remember long enough to make difficult decisions? He can remember how to play the piano, therefore he does have “some” memory and knowledge of what music is, yet that is one of the only things. It is a hard situation, but I don’t feel as if Clive is not intelligent. I see it as he does not have the memory capacity to really rationalize through decisions, but this is not his fault. Clive unfortunately suffers from a terrible disease and should be considered intelligent still.

We also talked about the mind over the period of different classes this semester. The mind is a complex idea. Is the mind separate from the body? Is the mind better known than the body? I always felt these were tough questions to reach a conclusion to. Although, I do wonder what people would consider Clive’s mind. He obviously is thinking, therefore he is processing things about himself. Yet, because he forgets so quickly and has to start over, do processes ever cross his mind of forgetting who he is or does his mind not work like the rest of humans with a normal memory? Descartes agrees that you can have certainty with your thoughts in your mind. Yet, because Clive’s thoughts only last 30 seconds, does he ever reach certainty?

We also talked about Socrates earlier in class this semester. Socrates believes the examined life is worth living. Socrates was interested in asking a lot of questions about life and felt as if the time you spent gaining knowledge and truth was most important. Socrates also believes that examining your life is what makes life worth living. If I were Clive though, I would want to live the opposite way that Socrates believes, that “Ignorance is bliss.” Even though I would have to say that ignorance is not always bliss, if I had only 30 seconds to be told information, I would not want to spend that 30 seconds being sad and being told that what I used to know is no longer part of my life. Not to mention, the people who knew Clive and still feel a certain love and care for him, should want to make sure his life is as bliss as possible and live by this rule as well.

Watson is an impressive piece of machinery. It really shows how far we have gone with artificial intelligence in the short amount of time that we have had computers. What amazes me the most is how computers can recognize letters and speech. It’s crazy how much information they have to put into a system for it to recognize the letter A. Computers are definitely coming a long way and things like this are amazing as well as scary. Watson can not only process all of the information and answer those questions but it can also learn from its mistakes. If it messes up once it can correct itself in the future.

Watson took years to develop and it ended up beating the best two players in Jeopardy. I don’t think that Watson is scary as much as amazing. It really shows how smart humans are because they can create machines that can think faster than we can. I don’t see why artificial intelligence can be really terrible, it’s just another extension that we can use to further ourselves. I think it’s comparable to using machinery that can life objects that are too heavy for humans to lift. Artificial intelligence should just be another tool that we can use to solve things that we cannot solve. It can also help us solve things faster. As you can see in Watson’s case it can solve things a good amount faster than even people who are the best at something can.

We already use machines for so many things, it’s almost impossible to get away from them. We use computers for everything and feel lost without our cell phones. Watson is just another step in the right direction to help us improve society. Deep blue is another example of this and that even beat or tied the best chess player in the world. Without the use of these machines it would be hard to push our society even farther than it is already.

I think that humans still take the cake because they designed all of these programs.  Ciri is something else that amazes me because you can ask it questions and it will respond. I think that it is awesome that it can just recognize peoples voices and how hard it must be to program things like that. They would have to run hundreds if not thousands of people unique voices through that program so that it will recognize its users voice with relative ease.

On December fifth, 2009 IBM’s team’s four year project, Watson, made history. Watson took part in the game Jeopardy to try to prove intelligence in machines. Before this day, chess was the ultimate proof of machines intelligence but Jeopardy is slightly trickier. For chess, the computer can see ahead and see how the moves play out with all the possible outcomes but that isn’t possible in jeopardy. The questions are tricky and the main problem for Watson. If he couldn’t understand the question how could he adequately answer it? Dave Ferrucci and the rest of IBM’s team had to think of a new system that didn’t consist of writing rules. The new system was called “machine learning” where the machine mocks how humans learn and learn from examples.  To better illustrate this they used the example of a machine recognizing the letter “a”. The machine is shown multiple version of the letter “a”, from each “a” it takes the basic pattern and compares them all. When shown an “a” in the future the idea is to be able to recognize it as an “a”. Watson uses this system so he can learn from his mistakes which is a feature humans share. Watson’s data base is the size of ten refrigerators and contains documents and access to popular databases. Examples include: encyclopedia, Wikipedia, IMBD, NY Times archive, and the bible. Watson was also programmed with old Jeopardy example questions and cheat sheets of answers. He was able to see the type of questions, answers, and evidence to support the answer. Watson was able to catch those patterns in the old questions and apply it to the new ones he was asked. From there he can give the top answers he finds and give percentages on how likely they are correct. Before going on the actual show Jeopardy, Watson had to tryout just like other contestants. The tryouts started off rough. Watson had trouble with Roman numerals, recognizing “40’s” meant the 1940’s, and gender differences. During tryouts Ferrucci was offended by the host constantly making fun of Watson and his mistakes. After programing Watson to get answers sent to him after the questions were answered correctly, things took a new direction. Watson could then sense patters with things he didn’t really understand and could eventually learn to understand them. At this point everyone agreed Watson seemed ready. When the actual show was going on he was thrown up against two of the greatest Jeopardy players, Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter. After the first round it was a tie then all of a sudden Watson takes a great lead. Ken eventually makes a comeback but when it came down to final Jeopardy Watson won.

I have found the documentary about Clive Wearing extremely interesting.  Clive is a man who had gotten a virus, which attacked his brain.  It had caused Clive to have only about 7 seconds to 30 seconds at a time.  He is unable to create new memories, therefore repeats questions he had asked just a minute before, not remembering he had asked them already.  Even when his wife came to visit him, every time she steps into the room, it is as if he was seeing her for the first time and greets her like he hasn’t seen her in years.

Throughout the day, Clive keeps a diary writing down the times which he calls “waking up for the first time.”  I found this part to be the most interesting.  He writes down the exact time in which he believes is the first time he woke up that day, however within a few minutes he forgets and writes it down again with the new time.  When he goes back to read his diary he does not believe it is him writing down the time he woke up, even though it is in his own handwriting.  He believes that his past writings in his diary are when he is unconscious.  I found this to be interesting because you would think that a person would believe in the things that they wrote down.  However, when really thinking about it, it is really hard to put yourself in that position.  I would like to say that I would believe in my own writing, however, when you do not remember it happening, it is hard to believe something just because you see it and not remember experiencing it.

Another point in this video that I had found intriguing, was that fact that he could still play music.  Clive was a conductor and musician for many years before his brain damage.  It is weird how someone with no short term memory can continue to play an instrument remembering exactly where to place his fingers and which note is which.  The thing that I do not understand is that in some music pieces there are repeat signs, which mean to repeat a certain amount of phrases that are indicated.  If he has no short-term memory, by the time he is done playing the phrases and is about to repeat them, how does he remember that he had repeated these phrases already and not keep repeating them?  Does he just remember the song by heart or does he need the notes to remember it.  Because I know, even though I haven’t touched my piano in years, my fingers still remember the piece even though I don’t remember the notes on the top of my head.  It is muscle memory.  So if this is what he experiences then I understand how the repeat works.  However, if he does use his notes, I am quite confused how he knows he repeated the phrase twice and doesn’t keep repeating it since he only has about 7 second memory.

-JK

After analyzing and discussing robots this semester I have come to the conclusion that they are truly amazing.  I never thought we were as advanced as we are in such a topic.  The Great Robot Race is fascinating.  These workers work strenuous hours for months on end to finish this project.  These robot machines are to overcome certain obstacles and race to the finish line.  The only catch is: there is no driver.  The machines must make the decisions in order to finish the race.  Forty three teams compete using their robots and do not have anyone behind the wheel and also don’t have any remote controls.  The robots are on their own facing certain obstacles that may trip them up.  The obstacles include gates, tunnels, and parked cars.  These robots are all different shapes and sizes.  When we discussed whether robots were artificial or not I thought that they shouldn’t be considered intelligent due to the fact that a programmer programs them.  I thought that the programmer deserved all the credit.  I am proved completely wrong when watching this robot race on YouTube.  It is absolutely amazing that these machines can not only perform but make certain decisions completely on their own.  The programmers are simply sitting in the stands watching without remote controls or anything at all in their hands.  It proves to me that robots are intelligent and deserve a lot of the credit.  Of course the programmers are extremely intelligent and deserve a lot of credit for creating these machines but I do believe that the machines are intelligent as well.  I saw a smaller sized robot bump into an obstacle and fall over, after a few seconds of the robot being on the group it gets itself up and continues the race.  That alone is amazing because the programmer and creator of that exact machine are simply watching and not doing anything to help this particular machine.  I don’t think anyone could watch this race or clip and not think that robots are intelligent.  I don’t think many people, like once myself, think robots are as skilled and advanced as they are because we aren’t subject to ones as advance as these.  It also mentions in the clip that these could be used in the military.  I feel like this idea would be a great one because there are so many tanks and other vehicles that get bombed and kill many American soldiers.  This machine could save numerous amounts of lives.  Of course there would be the issue of money and whether our country’s money should go towards these machines to help the military.  If people were to see the big picture of it and witness how amazing these machines were I think that many would agree this change would save a lot of lives and advance our military.  These machines have changed my opinion on whether robots are intelligent or not and I think they could help save lives in the military if in the future we decide to expand them into more than a race.

Clive Wearing is someone who suffers from only has a 30 second memory.  The only person he recognizes is his wife but has no recognition of any other family or friends or even what he is doing at the moment.  If he is having a conversation with his wife and she tells him a bit of information he forgets instantly what they were talking about and the information she has just told him.  He only remembers her and he also can still play the piano.  This is extremely sad to watch not only for Clive but also for his wife.  I think that it is very frustrating for Clive because he cannot complete any tasks on his own nor can he remember anything.  I also wanted to bring up his wife in this post because I think it is crucial to remember how big of a role she plays in all of this.  We can have sympathy for Clive of course because he is the one with the short memory but his wife is helping him day in and day out in living his life.  The amount of patience one must have to live and be married to someone with such a short memory astounds me.  I think of the concept we discussed towards the beginning of year: Ignorance is bliss.  I was torn in the beginning of the year on whether I agreed with this or not.  He is a prime example of someone who lives their life through this theory although he has no control over it.  Personally, I don’t think it is much of a life if you are forgetting everything every 30 seconds.  In the YouTube videos it seems like he is completely content, easy going, and out of it mentally.  I think he is truly content with his present state of mind because he doesn’t know or remember anything different.  He seems happy when talking to his wife but I am sure if he remembered how his mind worked in the past and how it works now he would be extremely unhappy.  He cannot even think about how he feels because if he does he forgets it seconds after he forms his beliefs or thoughts.  I also think it would be hard to think about how he feels because he is probably very confused during the 30 seconds that he has.  In the video it mentioned that when his memory resets he feels like he has just woken up from being unconscious.  If this is the case it probably takes several seconds to look around and figure out where you are and who is around you.  This whole process seems like such a headache and a horrible day-to-day life.  I cannot imagine having such a memory or dealing with anyone that had a memory so short.  It would take, as I mentioned earlier, a great deal of patience and understanding.  You couldn’t even have a conversation with someone because after a short 30 seconds of talking the person would forget everything.  The wife, at one point, explains to him what their kids are up to and he instantly forgets and she has to again tell him.  Of course this process repeats itself over, and over again.  This doesn’t seem like much of a life to me which helps me to decide that maybe I don’t feel that ignorance is bliss and maybe I am actually on the side of the theory: An examined life is worth living.

In class we discussed a lot about modification and Clarke’s belief that modification is good and it doesn’t matter where the extension comes from it just matters how you use it. I don’t think I would agree with Clarke’s belief that modification is good, because I can’t say that for every instance. When it comes to steroids, I believe that they are unfair when it comes to things like sports. Steroids have been proven to have negative effects on the body, which makes them a dangerous substance when not used correctly. I think sports would be unfair if steroids were allowed because that would almost force every player or athlete to take them in order to keep up with their competition. I think taking steroids is different than having extra help training and going on crazy diets because those things are more natural modifications. I’m sure there are unhealthy diets that some athletes may go on to get the best performance, but I feel that that would be more acceptable for that fact that they aren’t putting a foreign substance in their body. Cognitive enhancers, such as coffee, Adderall, and alcohol, were also discussed in class. All though way more common, especially on a college campus, I would argue that they too are somewhat dangerous. Coffee, being the most common and least dangerous, is a type of modification for a short period of time. This type of modification has little effect on anyone else, which is the main reason why I won’t argue strongly against it. If someone drinks a cup of coffee a day, it doesn’t really affect anyone around them, nor pressure anyone to feel the need to start drinking coffee in order to perform better. However, Adderall and alcohol are both dangerous and I feel put a pressure on other people to maybe use these things in order to keep up with the crowd. Everyone clearly can make their own decisions, but if you are in a very competitive program and grades and performance affect the outcome, it is unfair to have some students using drugs like Adderall in order to study or write a paper when their performance might be better than others. This type of response to this kind of drug would pressure other students into thinking they needed to take these performance enhancers in order keep up with the rest of the class. That is why I think these types of modifications have a negative impact on society.
A modification that I believe is good for people are social modifications. Things like cellphones, Facebook, and language are changes in society that are good. Utilizing these types modifications are a way of human life. Over thousands of years people have been embracing modifications and advancements in societies. Just because things are changing and become more revolved around the internet and computer, doesn’t change the fact that modification in societies are a dangerous thing for us. The way we are able to communicate with the world around us now is awesome! Things like Facebook and Skype let us keep in touch with old friends and let us talk face to face with people across the world.

This video was very interesting to me. The things these robots can do are unbelievable. The company NARPA is spending millions of dollars making these machines that could potentially fight in wars and save a ton of lives. All though, the very principle of saving lives is a great idea, I don’t feel that so much money should be put into programs like these considering our economic stance. But I must say, the people working on these robots have to be brilliant because the complexities of these machines are amazing! The people working on these machines are so devoted to them, they sacrifice so much of their time and even relationships. Seeing these people devote so much to making these machines make me think twice about my view on artificial intelligent and how machines can’t think independently from their programmer.
The video begins by introducing teams who are going to be participating in a 132 mile long obstacle course in the Mojave Desert called “The Grand Challenge.” This race has self-driven cars racing with all sorts of challenges like hills and bumps, as well as a 10 hour time limit. The main point these competitors are trying to make is that over this long time period, these robots start to think individually to deal with these obstacles. The two teams the film most focuses on are the Red Team and Stanford Universities’ team. Both these machines were very complex and each team had spent an exceptional amount of time on each. However, the two team’s machines did have significant differences. The red team mainly focused on having the best hardware for their machines, Sandstorm and Highlander. That team used a cutting-edge laser that rotated like a person’s head on their neck so the machine could survey what was ahead of it. Stanford’s team paid close attention to the software used in their machine, Stanley. In the end of the first race, no machine completed the route, however Sandstorm did go the farthest.
After the first race, teams went back and took the experience they had to make chances to their machines. A year later they had the Darpa Grand Challenge, in this race 5 driverless bots were able to complete the race. The robot Stanley, came in first, followed by Sandstorm then Highlander. This race supported the idea that there is artificial intelligence because these machines had to adapt to the course as they went.
Even though the teams had a few hours to program a GPS in their robots once they saw the course, there was no way that the robot knew exactly every hill or bump because the race was so long. This part of the film really surprised me, I don’t like to think of robots as intelligent and able to think on their own but this video definitely made a good point in the opposing view. I don’t doubt that the people creating these machines are intelligent, and they do try to program every possible situation, but considering how long the terrain was, the machines had to act on their own in order to succeed in finishing the race.

Clive Wearing lives his life in 30 second intervals. He does not recognize anyone but his wife, and even then, when he sees her he believes it is the first time in years. His children, sister, nieces and nephews are strangers. His favorite foods, movies, and songs are a mystery to him.

Clive describes his condition as never seeing a person before, never seeing a doctor before, and never having a thought before. He believes his brain to be highly inactive as a result. But 3 seconds after making this realization, he sees his wife and forgets his troubles.

I believe it must be extremely disheartening for Clive to not know who he is, what his family meant/means to him, or what he does with his time on a daily basis. His life resets, and he “wakes up” from unconsciousness after 30 seconds of confusion, again and again and again.

I believe his amnesia has probably caused Clive, for the most part, to lose his identity. His wife is his only tie to the life he had before his accident, and everything else is just gone. It is like he is floating in space with no ties to anything substantial.

In this class, we have explored the various definitions of the “self”. We have learned abut the ancient self, the cartesian self, the cognitive self, the individual self, the moral self, the extended self- the list goes on and on. I cannot help but put myself and Clive’s shoes and observe that for him, none of these “selfs” have meaning. His identity consists of his physical state on the earth, and not much more. I wish we could have discussed what kind of “self” Clive would consider himself to be. Is his marriage the only thing that makes up his identity? Perhaps his ability to continue to play piano helps him to identify as a musician.

I began to think about how tragic his condition is and how frustrating it must be for Clive. But is it really? How much of these frustrating and sad feelings actually linger in his subconscious before he sees his wife and is happy again? It reminds me of our class argument over whether or not “ignorance is bliss”. Clive’s life consists of ignorance at the start of each chunk of 7-30 second memory. And like I said before, that memory does not include much at all. As a result, I do not think “ignorance is bliss” for Clive, because the bliss does not last long enough to really be considered true happiness.

It is hard to consider what really goes on in Clive’s mind. I wonder if he is ever sincerely happy. Although no one could ever know for sure, I wonder if his subconscious holds on to anything, even if his mind is unable to recall it. I also speculate whether or not Clive is aware of his amnesia for more than 7-30 seconds. Perhaps it is just an explanation for the confusion. Or, maybe Clive’s amnesia itself has become his identity. After all, it is what he is famous for.

Statements that refer to our use of the Internet as an addiction or obsession have been plaguing this blog for the past few weeks. I use the word “plaguing” to express my disapproval of the claims and arguments that have been made to support this idea of uncontrollable and self-induced technological and Internet reliance. Our use of the Internet cannot be considered addiction for one fundamental reason; it is a part of our nature as human beings. The following post will address this concept of the instinctual use these technologies, as well as our incorrect perceptions of these technologies as being “addictive”.

In a previous response to classmate’s post, I noted that Clark described the modifications presented by technology as being essential components to human beings. The concept of the “natural-born cyborg” is relevant to this issue due to the fact that it supports the idea that technology and related tools are simply extensions of ourselves. A distinct quality of human beings is the fact that we are social creatures; we thrive upon interaction and communication with other members of the same species. Therefore, using technology that further extends our ability to interconnect and network with others, such as Facebook and other social tools, is completely appropriate.

The definition of addiction is the “the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity”. The term addicted is defined as “physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effect”. Based on these definitions, I can understand why someone would consider the Internet as something that individuals can become addicted to. Yes, human beings do demonstrate excessive use of the Internet and do sometimes demonstrate adverse effects when that use is reduced or temporarily eliminated.

However, we cannot be “addicted” to something that is necessary for our existence, or something that simply improves our ability to achieve our instinctual goals and priorities. The increased use of technology in the past decade is not something that is unnatural. The technologies that have been developed, as well as the technologies that are still being created, make the fundamental instincts of humans much more attainable; we are better able to develop and sustain relationships with other human beings that we encounter online and in person. The essence of the Internet is networking and connections, or “web”; two qualities that are also the essence of human existence. Therefore, we cannot say that using a tool that allows us to fulfill these goals is something that we are addicted to.

The second point I would like to make involves our perceptions of our own Internet use. Framing our use of this tool as an “addiction” provides it with an overall negative connotation. Instead of recognizing our use of technology and other tools as strategic, intelligent, and essential, we frame it as a negative practice. We are almost using the idea of being addicted to the Internet as an excuse for our perceived overuse; we try to comfort ourselves by making an excuse. BUT, we don’t need an excuse! Individuals should see their consistent use of the Internet as a positive thing! We are simply acting on our instincts and achieving our goals as human beings. Adopting this negative view of our technological use by labeling it as an “addiction” is completely inappropriate for two reasons: (1) it is fundamentally impossible, based on the argument above, and (2) we should be embracing our use of technology because it is allowing us to achieve levels of interaction and connection that have never been accomplished before.

As most of us know the way people act in person and the way they can portray themselves over the Internet can be very different. This double-edged sword is known as the Disinhibition Effect. The girl who may appear to be very studious in school, could be living a promiscuous life online. Social networking is a core part of our society today. Whether we use it to connect with friends across the country or meet our college roommate for the first time. Within the last decade social networking has grown from sending people messages to viewing digital photo albums that record every aspect of a person’s life. Social networking has even become a requirement for some education courses. For example, in this class we as students are required to send at least one Tweet about the class. This large amount of time spent online is how a person on Facebook can have 3,000 friends, but only know or speak to 50 of them. The facade of having 3,000 friends is why some people may take it upon themselves to say things they would not normally say in public or to the person they are making the reference to. Though the person you are starting the cyber war with may not be included in your list of 3,000 friends, one of those people may know the person you are referring to and tell them. We have all heard of people fighting or arguing about something that was posted online. Most recently the person who started the cyber war could be accused of cyber bulling. Cyber bullying is the use of the Internet and related technologies to harm other people, in a deliberate, repeated, and hostile manner. Online people have no problem stating their true feelings for another individual, whether it is as a digital journal or a way to get attention. You can go on any social networking site and you can find evidence of cyber wars. On Facebook and Twitter it could be in response to a status or photo. On YouTube the arguing is typically through the comments on a video post. As we said in class we wouldn’t feel comfortable walking up to someone we don’t know and start a fight without a reason, so what makes it acceptable to do online? It seems that most people find it is socially acceptable to go ranting and raving online, but if you were to do it in person everyone would think you were a lunatic. I think this shows that being online makes people feel tougher because they can hide being their computer or phone, but in reality nothing that is posted over the Internet is private.  Just because the person is not directly in front of you does not mean they will never hear or see what is being said about them. Ultimately, the best decision a person could make would be to discuss any issues they have toward someone. Hiding behind a screen is only making our complicated world – more complicated!

The powerful video we watched in class on Wednesday, “A Vision of Students Today”, left a strong impression on not only myself, but the class as a whole. The reason why it was unforgettable is due to the fact that we, as students, can relate to it on many different levels. This video is so incredibly eye-opening as it touches on the many issues our generation of students faces today in terms of education and future careers. These issues include the price of education, class size, the information learned in the classroom, technology, and even questions if the “education” that we’re paying thousands of dollars a semester for will be relevant in our future careers.

Our society is in a period of flux with careers and jobs paralleling the constant change and improvement of technology. A problem arises, however, when our education system fails to change accordingly. The current structure used to teach our generation of students is not proficient as it does not prepare students with the proper tools to succeed in the careers our future demands. Aside from common skills and qualities, the career choices that we, as current students, will pursue will require a different set of applied skills than those demanded now in current careers.

Our system of teaching and learning is not up to par with the strong demands of the workforce. Lecture halls, for example, are completely insufficient and unsatisfactory at teaching students. How are 500 students in one large lecture hall supposed to learn and retain information with only one professor “teaching”? I can recall numerous times in my lecture halls when I haven’t been able to hear what the professor is saying let alone read the information on the board/power point. Our education system is set up for failure. Students have learned to simply pass tests, not actually learn concepts.

One of the main reasons our education system is failing is due to outrageous tuition costs. According to CNN World, “…in 2010 for the first time, the total amount of student loan debt surpassed the total amount of credit card debt”. Tuition costs continue to rise yearly. Debt continues to rise. The amount of money students will pay after graduation (if they even graduate, anyways) leads to the question of whether or not a college degree is even worth the cost.

Tenure causes many problems as well. Tenure provides teachers a guaranteed job for a certain amount of time and the right not to have his/her position terminated without just cause. Tenure can be a positive thing, but it often protects many ineffective teachers.
Fox News shared an article this past week about an autistic boy who was verbally abused by his teacher. The teacher, however, was not fired due to tenure. This is just one tiny illustration of a much bigger complex web our country is facing with the education system.

One thing that has really caught my attention was the “Everything is Remix” videos.  When thinking of remix we usually think of music.  However, I have never thought of how much everything in life is copied from the past.  When thinking of heavy metal music, we would not think that the same beat is used in other artists who are rappers such as Eminem.  I found it extremely interesting how such different music can use the same beats.

The second video about movies being copied and remade is what really got me thinking.  I would have never guessed how one movie could have parts and similar pieces of movies that were made in the past.  I have seen movies such as Star Wars before, but have never given it a thought that so many movies from the past can be used for ideas and parts in the new movie being made.  I always understood that making a movie from a book was a type of remix, however, it never crossed my mind how much we really do copy, create and put together ideas to make a new one. Another example from this portion of the video would be the most recent movie called Avatar. As described in the movie, Avatar is based off of a hero story and a type of remorse for indigenous people dying. When compared to Pocahontas, it is extremely similar in the plot of the movie. This is a simple adaptation of a past movie put into more current period of time and adding more recent special effects and a story line that appeals to an older generation.

The third movie is where I really realized how everything in this world is based off of an older idea.  I never even heard some of the names that were used in this video.  For example, everyone knew that Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, but did he really?  The light bulb was really based off of an older idea that was invented by someone that basically nobody has even heard of.  But why do we give all the credit to Thomas Edison?   Of course the new inventions that are created have some new part or idea to it, but it always has something that was copied from an older idea.

A perfect example of this would be the iPhone or any Apple products.  The iPhone was a new invention based off of an older idea, the cell phone.  Every year they upgrade and make some new changes to the phone, however, technically it is just a remix of the older version of it.  Just like iPads of laptops are a remix of a computer.  Everything in this world is basically a remix of an idea from the past.

I have never really thought of it this way in the past and find it extremely interesting how the word “remix” really plays into everyday life.  I just like many other people, have only thought of it in the form of music and adding new lyrics to old songs.

-JK

The video in class about college and what students are actually learning really stood out to me.  In today’s classes, students have become experts at multitasking looking like they are paying attention and texting/facebooking.  I try to pay attention as much as I can in class, but sometimes when lectures get boring I turn to my phone.  I agree with the point made in class that lectures are the most pointless kind of class when it comes to learning.  I think one of the major problems today is professors providing things such as notes, in class activities, etc. online.  In one of my lectures, only 20 out of 80 students are regularly showing up now that it is the end of the semester.  We are getting extra credit points for showing up.  As I sit in that class, I always think to myself, I could read these slides from my dorm room.  Is being in class the only way for students to learn?

I believe there are some benefits to attending class.  I personally think that sometimes it is easier to recall information for tests when I’m sitting in class.  However, I feel like I actually retain more of the information that I have to find outside of  classes.  Active participation helps learning.  In class, it was brought up that we aren’t learning by going to class in college, but rather by the things we are experiencing.  I completely agree with this idea.  This idea makes us question how we can make the education system better.

I think this is where we can incorporate the whole idea of life being a remix.  Kirby’s video clips that we watched discussed specific examples of how music and movies were remixes.  Ideas from the past are reintroduced sometimes in a slightly manipulated way, but sometimes just as they were in the past.  I think the way we educate can and should be remixed. Perhaps we can remix some of our fundamental theories about teaching and learning in a way that is more beneficial to students.  I think the integration of online classes is starting this movement.  Having an online class allows you to choose the environment in which you study and the time of day you want to do your work.  Students don’t have to get as bored sitting in a long lecture class.  Students now are naturally becoming more and more attached to their cellphones and laptops.  Their full attention is never completely on what the teacher is saying. Last week in one of my other classes, a group gave a presentation on how we can keep students’ interest in classes.  They gave an example of a website that allows students to use their phones to text answers to questions, much like the clickers we use here at ISU in some big lectures.  With technology in classes, the issue of cheating sometimes comes up.  However, professors can still implement a no phone policy on test days and stuff, so I don’t think it is such a huge issue.

Overall, I think before paying the money to go to college you must consider what exactly you want to learn about.  Some things can be taught in a college classroom, but others can be taught through online searches or basic research done without being in school.  I think we must find ways to make classes more interesting if we want college to be a primary source of knowledge.

The “Everything is a Remix” video set was incredibly informational, yet repetitive.  I agree with the idea being portrayed, and it was interesting to see just how prevalent remixing is in media.  I have noticed the typical genre story lines that are re used over and over, especially in horror films.  It reminded me of when someone calls out in a film, “She’s a slut, so she’ll die first!” But it’s true.  There is a formulaic pattern that is the mold for creative genius to work within, because it works.  Most of all this pattern sells, which is where the idea of creative/intellectual property becomes successful.  In a horror movie there is the main character who usually lives, but everyone around him dies some brutal death, but he has to live to tell the story.  And in the sequel, he will usually die, because he was the miraculous one to get away.  The director of the film will then fill in the gaps with “creative genius,” influenced by other best selling films.  All of them will be categorized into groups of gore, exorcisms, haunting, mass murders and other horror film categories.  There is a reason that the same plot excites us every time, even though we as an audience are fully aware of the predictability of what we are about to watch.  Putting limits on creative expression allows the audience to have a “safe” viewing experience.  They allow themselves to feel scared, because they know there’s nothing to be afraid of.  If the audience didn’t have that predictable foundation that the plot provides, the movie viewing experience would be utterly to frightening and intense.  No one wants to actually feel real fear, and so the directors continue to make the same movie over and over again.  Because, the public proves that it will sell over and over again, and not much other variation will. I think this is especially true for horror films, some of the best selling films on the market.  The opposite of the mass marketed horror film would be the avant-garde art film, which draws less of an audience. I think this is because, the audience isn’t conditioned to know what to think about the film, so they see know point in the film and no point in watching it.

From this loosely connected reasoning, my opinion of film being shallow and toxic is formed.  The concept of intellectual property backs up my opinion.  Making a business out of expression is limiting and only another capitalist enterprise waiting to emerge.  As I have learned of the effects of capitalist enterprises, I know that there is always a winner and a looser in the formation of business.  Making art into a business will provide the artists with money, but will rob the viewer of free will, as well as the artists.  But, media has found a formula that works for making money, which is “remixing” old ideas, taking a from and altering it only slightly to trick the viewer into thinking what they are watching is original.

I thought Kirby’s video brought to light an important truth about the manner in which we as a society develop ideas and how those ideas shape our perception of ourselves as humans. First off, I remember always being taught in Elementary schools that Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone and that Thomas Edison invented the light bulb. In reality, these two statements are gross over-simplifications of the truth. In reality, these two inventors did not create the entire invention in question; they just simply gave the already invented idea the extra push it needed for actual commercialization. In fact, Alexander Graham Bell and another gentleman filed for a patent for the telephone on the same exact day!  Some people say that if you went back in time and stopped Bell from creating the telephone that our world might not be what it is today, or if the man that invented the internet never got funding for his vision than the world would not be as advanced today. Yet, there is a strong opposing viewpoint to this. The viewpoint is that even if one man does not, then someone else will eventually figure it out. When someone is working on developing a new invention, chances are that someone else is close to or not far behind a similar if not identical invention or idea. The world seems to be so vast and diverse that some inventions are deemed as “inevitable” creations and results of the gradual progress of technology and thinking over time. So then why do humans give credit to one man for inventions rather than recognizing a collective unit of people? Well this is because we as humans have a fundamental need to give our ideas tangible qualities that enable us to possess them as property. The coined phrase “intellectual property” in the 2008 bill that Congress passed gives testimony to this! We as humans are so fixated on the physical world that we have the desire to refer to our ideas and thoughts as “property”. It then would follow that since we as humans have a strong inclination to possess our ideas that we demand that the physical world support this perception of our ideas. So we tend to tell the invention stories of the past with the accreditation of one human being having come up with the idea. For instance, the company Xerox is said to have made the first working computer. This begun a 50 year process towards the amazing computer systems with web interface that we use today. Apple began to build upon the Xerox model and made the computer more user-friendly. Later on the internet was developed and then refined so that every computer in the world could be linked to it, therefore connecting the world together through the web. Geniuses stood on the shoulders of other geniuses to create and re-create ideas. No one person sat down and built the internet-based computer interface with all the bells and whistles that people have come to depend upon for business and pleasure today. Copying others ideas is how we as human beings learn. It is another desire and need that we have. Nothing new can be introduced unless the fundamental basis of the idea that came before it is understood. Once we experience and understand the copy of the idea, we can then begin the re-creation or “remix” process to build upon the idea by adding our own additions to the pre-existing idea. In fact, one could reasonably conclude that nothing is an original idea anymore because all of the information that we would use to forge a new idea is the combination of formulated ideas existing and being built upon already before I have even had the idea!  This video was very interesting and I thought that it put into perspective a lot about our world today.

In class we discussed our opinions about the problem that has been brought up dealing with the certain swimsuit that Michael Phelps wore when he competed in the Olympics. The speedo LZR swimsuit has started some commotion about if it should be allowed in the Olympics. It doesn’t make sense to ban this one type of swimsuit when many of the other brands have released their own version of this swimsuit. If the problem is with just this one suit, then there should be a problem with all other suits. Each band of suit is going to be different and some are going to aid swimmers speed. I think if you really wanted the Olympics to be 100% fair without any advantages once so ever then you would have to regulate one brand of swimsuit for all swimmers to wear. I am sure that this would never stick in the Olympics, but that is what would need to be done if there were no advantages allowed.

Also, the swimsuits aren’t top secret or only available to certain swimmers… they are available for anyone to get. Any swimmer can use the swimsuit if they really think it is going to make a huge difference in their performance. It is not possible for this to change an average swimmer into an Olympic winner.

With all the new science and technology, it is seems kind of inevitable for things like this to happen and there be controversy about it. The whole reason for making these suits that fit the body perfectly or have certain fabric that makes the water slip right off is to help improve a swimmer’s natural ability. If we aren’t be going to able to use these new findings than what is the purpose of coming up with the idea in the first place.

Another issue that we discussed in class (the same day) was if the use of steroids should be used. I don’t really see the similarity in these two issues. Steroids are known for enhancing your strength to a very unnatural level. I understand that the swimsuit isn’t “natural” either but it only makes a slight difference. Steroids actually affect your physical body and isn’t just something that you take off at the end of the day. Steroids also have a lot of different side effects like high blood pressure, liver malfunction, or even aggression. Wearing a swimsuit doesn’t have any side effects, so I don’t really think you can lump these two things into one category.

We are going to keep coming up with ways to enhance our natural abilities and create things that will change how we do things; we just need to decide when it has gone too far and changes everything that was once natural about us. Using new inventions and creations may change how we do things, but it doesn’t change our physical self. I think both can be dangerous to be dependent on, so that is why I stand by that we need to know when to draw the line.

During class we have been discussing a lot about online disinhibition effect and how people do things and say things they normally wouldn’t when they are behind a computer screen.  All though I’m not proud to say it, I can definitely say this have a big effect on me. I can remember when AIM first came out when I was in middle school and how my girlfriends and I would get in fights over AIM with other girls our age. We would say things that we would never even think of saying to their face. Even talking to boys, I would start “dating” someone because we would talk for hours on AIM and in person at school, we would barely talk.  This is a great example of anonymity and how you lose your inhibitions online and are more likely to be yourself because there isn’t as much pressure or risk.  It can be compared to people drinking alcohol and doing things they usually wouldn’t when they are under the influence.

Nowadays, texting is the popular thing to do. All though I always talk to my boyfriend in person, if we aren’t together it always seems that we are texting. It’s interesting how communication in relationships has changed over just the few years. In relationships half your communication with a friend or boyfriend is over texting. It’s almost a “deal breaker” if a guy is bad at texting these days, on top of getting along in person as well. Long distance relationships have benefitted from this greatly I believe. Now the internet allows you to Skype and Facebook your significant other allowing a lot more communication to flow even when you are thousands of miles away. The downfall of this is the idea of a relationship online is that even though you get to see the person face to face that can’t replace the actual physical companionship of a hug or a kiss.

We watched the example of the pretend person that hung themselves on Chat Roulette to show how people really do act differently behind the screen. Many of the people started laughing and one person even said things like “die” and “you suck.” If any of those people were to really walk into a room and see this they would have been scarred for life! They wouldn’t have even thought about laughing and more so about crying. It took me by surprise a lot of these people’s reactions because I would never think people would start laughing at the site of someone hanging themselves. I have gone on Chat Roulette before and I do get surprised by some of the things that pop up but if that had popped up I don’t know the reaction I would give myself. I think I would want to do something much like a man that was in the video. He tried calling the police but when you think about it, how would the police do anything about this circumstance? It shows that there might need to be some changes in the way the internet is monitored or protocols that law enforcement take in order to have some control over this. Now that the internet is practically overtaking the world, some laws and safety measures need to be instilled in order to keep harmony in the world.

We tend to act differently when we are on the internet than when we are outside in public. We abide by the normal social standards everyday when we go out, we tend to act the same and be considerate towards others. Over the past social networking has grown immensly and our time spent on the internet has become more significant. This has brought about Online disinhibtion effect, which is when people act differently online and say things they wouldn’t normally say in public. People tend to do and say  things that are out of character and aren’t like how they normally act. When we are online we are mostly anonymous and are unknown by other people out there. People have no problems swearing or stating fights with people online because no one knows who you are. Whenever you go on youtube and look up a song there are always people arguing with eachother and picking fights on the comments page. Like we said in class we wouldn’t feel comfortable walking up to someone we don’t know and picking a fight for no reson, so why do we do it online? It seems  that we don’t care how we are percieved on the internet and will do things we normally wouldn’t feel comfortable doing. When we watched the chatroulette video of the man who looked like he committed suicide the reactions were very strange. Many people thought it was a joke and laughed, they didn’t react how I expected them to. They weren’t physically there so they couldn’t experience what was really going on. The internet creates a distance where we aren’t there so it doesn’t seem the same. Since we can’t see the person it creates a lot less formal communication and adds to people’s weird behavior. I think this shows that being online makes people feel bolder and more upfront because there aren’t many drawbacks. There are always reports of cyberbullying and kids getting made fun of by other kids on my space or facebook. Kids don’t have a filter online and are able to say whatever they want via social netowking, this has caused a lot of issues. Kids are tormented worse than they would be at school, this shows how the online disinhibition effect ngeatively impacts people. It’s an odd phenomena that has occurred recently and it can be seen all over the place. There are always people talking about intimate and personal stuff online when it seems uneccessary. I believe that people use the internet as an escape from reality where they can do things they would never be comfortable doing in front of other people. I think it reflects on how much we use the internet and how people can change when they use it.  I never realized that the internet had this big of an affect on people and how it can cause problems. It demonstrates how big of an influence the internet has on us and how it affects our behavior. The internet is a great tool but it also creates a complicated effect on how we act.

Kirby Ferguson’s four-part video series “Everything Is a Remix” goes into great detail explaining just how prevalent remixing is in the arts and sciences.  He notes how filmmakers such as George Lucas, musicians such as Led Zeppelin, and technologists such as Steve Jobs are so highly regarded, but then goes on to list example after example of creations that are famously attributed to them, but were really just copied and pasted from others.  While this is all interesting information, there is one question with which I feel Ferguson should have gone into more depth: If a person were to try as hard as he or she could to create something truly original, would that task be achievable?  In a thesis similar to the one I stated regarding human versus machine intelligence, I am tempted to argue that either every creation is original, or none are.  However, that would be discounting the possible inclusion of things such as intent in the definition.  Acknowledging this third possibility, a fair analysis can be given.

The root of so many philosophical debates is a disagreement or misunderstanding of the definition of one or more words.  In this case, the word “original” seems to be the one requiring a single, agreed-upon definition.  The first definition I will propose to fill this need, coming from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is “not secondary, derivative, or imitative”.  If this is the case, it certainly seems that it is impossible to create something original.  After all, the very inception of every idea is the direct result of previous knowledge and elements from one’s environment (which is also made up of things that were previously created by people, animals, or “natural”* physical processes).  A good example that Ferguson used in “Everything Is a Remix” is that of Henry Ford.  Could he have created the first mass-market car in 1908 if assembly lines, interchangeable parts and the automobile had not been previously invented?  Of course not.  It would not have even been in the realm of his thoughts.  Going back to the dawn of human innovation, we as humans even copied fire, then modified it to fit needs such as heat, cooking, weaponry, and eventually locomotion.  Its invention as a tool could not have occurred without first seeing fire occur as a result of lightning or extreme heat.  No matter what, our ideas will always be secondary, derivative, and imitative.

In contrast to this definition, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary says that “original” can also be defined as “of, relating to, or constituting an origin or beginning”.  In this case, I would argue that every creation is original.  After all, as soon as something is created, that alone constitues an origin or beginning – if for nothing else, at least for that object.  Given time’s infinite future, I would take this a step further to say that all objects will in some way effect something else in the universe, acting as the catalyst to an infinite series of events.  An underground pebble will effect the shifting of its surroundings to a small degree.  When it moves, it begins a small series of movements of other pebbles.  Likewise, even the copied works of Shepard Fairey that Ferguson refers to were themselves origins of other artwork.

With both of these definitions proving unhelpful in distinguishing between the original and the unoriginal, I will propose a third definition myself, for the sake of completeness in my argument.  If we were to consider “original” to mean “created without any intention of copying or modifying another work,” there are at least some things that will be considered “original” and some that will not.  Led Zeppelin’s shameless copying of blues musicians’ work, for example, would indicate that their material is not original.  In contrast, assuming George Harrison was honest in his claims that “My Sweet Lord” was not meant to copy The Chiffons’ “He’s So Fine” in any way, his work would still be considered original.  However, it is often incredibly hard to determine whether or not a creation in question was intentionally copied.

The main issue with all of these arguments is that everything that constitutes a “beginning or origin” is itself “secondary, derivative, or imitative of something else”.  The only possible exception would be the big bang or a functionally similar event that began everything else, assuming such an event took place.  Even though it may help to sort things out on an ethical level to take one’s intentions into account, it seems silly to separate conscious copying from subconscious copying when discussing what is (philosophically) original.  So on a final reflection of “Everything Is a Remix” as a thesis, I think I would have to agree; everything is both the result of previous events and the catalyst to future ones.

* I put the word “natural” in quotation marks because, as discussed in my previous posts, it seems to me that every process, whether it happens without humans, as a result of humans, or inside of humans, is equally natural/artificial.

Throughout the “Everything’s a Remix” series by Kirby Ferguson he discusses the boundaries put on the music industry and Hollywood.  With the mass amounts of materials available to everyone with internet access, anyone can make and develop material to produce an end result.  Many of these end results, whether a song or movie, had their beginnings in other movies, books, TV shows, etc.  One could say that everything produced in today’s world is not truly “original” but adapted from previous influences.  Very similar to the Led Zeppelin example Ferguson discusses in his series, the world of sampling other songs is very much alive in the pop and hip hop industries.  I just gave a presentation in my music class regarding some of the sampling in today’s industry. All an artist needs to do to sample another song is to change some aspect of the section they wish to highlight. These can vary from changes to the tempo, pitch, or emphasis on different notes.  For example, Chris Webby sampled a chorus from the song “I Need a Dollar” originally by Aloe Blacc’s song by the same name.  All he did in his new piece of music was speed up and raise the key of the chorus to incorporate it into his own song.  Is this legal?

Many would say that copying and taking ideas from another source is considered illegal, but in fact much of our popular culture is formed in this way.   For example, Ferguson refers to the fact that we have produced several Transformers movies in the past 5 years that were made from an original TV show that it’s self was based on a line of plastic toys.  In today’s society this is how money is made.  Kirby refers to the fact that as humans we like things that are familiar to us and we can relate to.  We like to be reminded of our pasts and other times when we were happy.  It is a great advantage of human intelligence and our ability to store information in our memory.  We fear the “unknown,” but in fact there is nothing that is unknown.  As humans we use the knowledge of the past to produce ideas in the present and future.

Take “Star Wars” for example.  Ferguson says that the story was originally based on a book by Joseph Campbell.  The overall work of the movie is a great example of sampling, as mentioned above, other works into a truly original piece of art.  Many of the scenes in “Star Wars” directly resemble other movies such as “The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly” and “The Searchers.”  But this is just the impact that those other influences played on the writer, director, and other influential in the movie’s creation.  As human we cannot help but to create things based on our environment and influences we find appealing and interesting.  Much of our remixing is based on this fundamental idea of human society, we work together and share information to better increase our world and affect others in a positive light.  We all work towards a common goal to better humanity and make our lives meaningful for each person and music, and movies are a huge way to spread ideas to many people.

When I first read the title of this series, Everything Is A Remix, I was a little skeptical. How can everything be a remix? When I hear the word remix I automatically think of music. I couldn’t imagine how this could be true of everything. Then I started watching the video, which captivated me from the beginning since the first video was about music. When I think of a remix for music I originally just thought of making a song slower/faster, different beats, mashing songs up, or things of this nature. But then Ferguson expanded my thoughts on a “remix” to taking already created things and editing them to make it your own in a sense. The example of Led Zeppelin really stuck out to me. They literally took parts of other peoples music and claimed it as their own. And although they did it all the time and claimed it as theirs, all other musicians for the most part do this as well. It is a part of our social evolution, as Ferguson also claimed.

Then I went onto the second video, which was based on movies. It was fascinating to see how every movie was based on others using (in some) practically the same scenes with some updates and revisions. As I was watching, I was continually being more convinced that everything really is a remix and that we just keep updating and building upon old ideas, and that this is how we evolve as social human beings. Ferguson answered all my questions and really got me to believe what he was saying in the third video. It was intriguing to see how everything that is in our procession, including the computer I am using at this very moment, is just a “remix” or re-creation of something that already existed. I liked the examples he used and how he brought up the question that if people would have never expanded on things would are world be different? He claims that it would not be because for a lot of things that are invented somebody else was working on it as well. I think that is so crazy but awesome that as humans we all have similar curiosities and characteristics, and that our world would evolve in the same way no matter who exists. Yes maybe it would be slightly different but the same things would exist. When we briefly talked about creation while ago in class, I did not believe that everything created comes from something else. I have always been under the impression that creating something is unique and a brand new “thing”.

But Ferguson convinced me that my prior beliefs were false. I like how he says along the lines that this is who we are, it is what us humans do, and it’s called social evolution. It is true, we expand on what is already there to create new things, and the cycle keeps going. I think it is awesome to see that this is how our society grows. The fourth video did confuse me a little bit because it started talking about legal issues with patents and copyrights, which is something I have been fuzzy on for a while now. I do think it is a bit silly for all these lawsuits because there is no definite line between what is mine and what is yours. As humans I feel that we all learn from each other and grow by expanding one another’s thoughts. All these lawsuits are just people being greedy, my personal opinion. The problem is that our society is so focused on moneymaking and not as concerned with the greater good of the people. We need to continually grow from one another this way, so our society can expand and grow in all sorts of directions for everyone’s greater good.

After watching the remix videos it actually got my mind to wandering beyond the definition of what I thought, which was that remix only had one meaning which was related to music. After I started to broaden my knowledge on the actual word “remix” many interesting concepts came to mind. Interesting enough the video stated that remix is to combine or edit existing materials to produce something new. This is very interesting because when I look at it we as changing individuals experience this in our life daily. What I mean by this is I wouldn’t necessarily say that we change ourselves; we just make ourselves more exuberant and vibrant in order to make ourselves a better individual. Now when you relate “remix” to music most people tend to remix a song because they either add something to the song that they think people will enjoy or they just quite frankly bring the song back out and give it a more “modern” appeal to it.
When I first started watching the videos I started to think remixing in a way is a form of copying. When in all actuality it is I think you have to refer to the laws of remixing to tell whether or not it is illegal or not. After doing some minor research on the laws of remixing I came upon an article by a law professor named Lawrence Lessig. Lessig actually broke down the word remix in an interesting way which fully got me to understand why now in our society it is not illegal to practice “remixing”. Lessig stated that mix is the idea of taking ideas, expressions, putting them together and making something. While remix is the practice of others take that mix to “re express” it. Now with that being said, if we look at this concept everything and everybody practices remix which the video proved as well. As I watched the videos and continued to look up history of remixing, I found that politics, culture, and knowledge all come from forms of remixing. One thing that he also stated in his article that actually surprised me yet caught my attention was that he stated that “remixing” is essentially free and with advancing technology it makes it almost impossible to create a law that would be suitable for it. Overall he wanted to get the point out that he felt that remixing is a “cultural right”.
After reading through my post and watching the videos I have come to the conclusion that I am unsure how remixing and copying is very closely similar to one another. In my mind I see remixing as taking someone else’s ideas and making it better yet making it your own but in a sense many people try the same thing in college and it is called “copying”; which has consequences behind it. For example, if I got a friend’s paper from class and decided that I liked what they had written; and later decided that I would take their same ideas and just remixed their paper a bit; why is this considered copying and not remixing? Overall I feel they are very similar and the concept is very debatable especially with the advancing technology in today’s time as stated above after reading the Standford law professor’s article.

This week we talked about the online disinhibition effect and the anonymity that the Internet provides. I found this to be very interesting, especially the video we watched of the Chatroulette set-up. I looked up more information on this topic to further my understanding of it. The online disinhibition effect refers to the things people would never do in real life, but will do online. This form of anonymity that we are given with the Internet provides us with a hidden identity, or no identity at all in some cases. As we saw in the video, this effect happens all the time. There are six primary factors behind why people act so differently on the Internet than they do in normal face-to-face situations: you don’t know me, you can’t see me, see you later, it’s all in my head, it’s just a game, and we’re equals.

There can be serious consequences to the online disinhibition effect. Cyberbullying has been increasingly popular in this generation with the amount of technology we have readily available to use. Children may still be getting bullied at school, but now even when they go home, they will also get it online or through text. The use of technology for bullying makes it seem impossible to escape. Another detrimental consequence is the possible effect it could have on one’s job or future employment. Even more recently, social networks have been a hotspot of information for employers. There is much discussion on legal issues with employers asking future employees for their username and passwords or to login to the site during an interview or meeting. I have heard many stories of employees being fired for content on their Facebook page. While that picture of you dancing on a bar, signing karaoke is great fun, it’s not something you are planning on showing your future employer during an interview or thinking it will be found during a background check. But that is the sort of thing that is happening nowadays.

Another idea that goes along with the online disinhibition effect, and one we talked about in class, is the idea of “trust” online. We have become very skeptical of what we see, hear, read, etc. online, and rightfully so, I believe. With a plethora of online scams and the age of Photoshop among us, trust online is a hard thing to have. This was seen in the Chatroulette video too. Some of the people made jokes, used profanity, and even said rude comments because they questioned the believability of the situation. This also ties in the online disinhibition effect because if they people saw a dead body in real life, they would not act like how they did online. Our use of technology has created some great innovations, but it also has played a part in this online trust issue and disinhibition effect.

One more thing, our Wikipedia addition is still holding out. From now on, I will identify a club as a donut, because Wikipedia told me. And everything on the Internet is true, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_(weapon)

Recently we’ve been talking a lot about the internet and about how people can change when they are online.  No one is scared to tell someone off or to flirt with a stranger when they are online, where as in person it is a totally different story.  This is called the disinhibition effect which means that we lose our inhibitions when we are online.  The reason for this loss of inhibition is due to the fact that online you are mostly anonymous.  You can be anyone you want to be and say anything you want to say and normally there are no repercussions for it.  People would be lying to you if they said that they didn’t believe we change who we are online.  Facebook is one of the greatest examples.  There’s a reason that everyone looks like they have a ton of friends and that they have the greatest times on Facebook because that’s what they post, that’s what they want you to believe.  On an online dating site, everyone is going to seem like the perfect catch because nobody wants to put down the bad things about themselves.  We are able to tweak so much of who we are online and don’t think twice about it because of this inhibition effect.
One of the huge problems that has arose with the internet is the rise in bullying.  Cyberbullying has recently become one of the most popular ways to antagonize a person.  When we were young, it was always the bigger kids that picked on the little ones.  Bullies were known for stealing your lunch money or threatening to beat you up after school.  Bullies were people who were actually scary and threatening.  Today, majority of bullying is done online.  Anyone can do it to anyone because it’s all words.  A kid will focus on the mental aspects of a person in order to break them down, not the physical ones.  This has become such a huge problem recently.  I, myself, have known a girl who had to transfer schools because other girls were picking on her online.  Things like name calling, and pitting others against you is the way that bullies get to you.  This is all because of the disinhibition effect that comes with the internet.  A little boy would not have tried to call a much bigger boy names in real life because of the physical threat.  But online, all of that goes out the door and the physically threatening kids can be broken down emotionally.
It’s almost scary how the disinhibition effect can work.  The internet is now a very popular way for rapists and pedophiles to meet their prey.  They can pretend to be anyone they want because there is no repercussions for lying online and they stay anonymous.  Today, one of the best ways to catch a pedophile is by pretending to be their prey on the internet and a lot of police departments do this now.  When I was a kid, my parents told me to never talk to strangers and to never go with anyone that I didn’t know.  It’s weird to think that they thing I’m going to need to warn my kids about someday is talking to strangers on the internet.  You can not trust anyone anymore and that is sad side effect of having no inhibitions online.

I found the remixing videos to be extremely interesting and informative about the history of remixing, and how much it is used today. At the beginning of the first video, the definition of a remix is stated, to combine or edit existing materials to produce something new. It further goes on to explain that the first application of the word was to music. However, it has grown increasingly to be a term understood unanimously for anything produced using previous material. This is easily acknowledged as a huge issue in the world which we live in today, especially due to the internet with gives an immense amount of data and information to us assessable nearly instantaneously.

I can see two different arguments in this situation of remixing. First of all, he argument remixing is bad, since inevitably information is stolen from previous source. As an example, the videos compares songs to ones which have taken exact tunes, beats or words from previous songs. In this case, where exactly is the line drawn to limit how much is acceptable for musical artists to use from previous written or recorded songs. Some use minimal amount of remixing, while other use exact elements from previous songs. I think that this is the biggest issue with remixing, the undefinable line to enforce how much is acceptable, and how much is to far. It is ridiculous how much some musicians take from other songs, such as Led Zeppelin. The videos include examples of many of their songs, compared to different artists to prove how much they remixed from other sources. The extent to which they remix does not seem right. I think that there needs to be some sort of change to the elements that are taken from a different source.

As an artist myself I think that remixing is also a very good thing. I believe it was Descartes, who we learned about before who thought that everything we create comes from something we have previously seen or heard, we can not create anything completely new. This proves that remixing is unavoidable. We as humans use mostly ideas in which we have seen or heard about from different sources. While a creation maybe unique, it still had inspiration from other sources. This is similar in my mind to the examples used of Star Wars. While as a whole the movies were unique, that they had never been made before, many elements of the movie came from different inspirations. The videos show how many different elements in the films are taken from other movies, yet Star Wars is still a unique film. I find that this is an acceptable use of remixing, I think that the elements are combined together to create something entirely new.

Remixing is an issue that in my mind will never have a solid line drawn between what is acceptable and what is not. I think that the determining factor is whether the final product is entirely unique. While elements of different work may be included, if the final product is unique in itself then the remixing is acceptable. Remixing today is certainly unavoidable. In the world we live in, so much information is readily accessible, it is impossible to not remix.

After watching the Everything is a Remix videos by Kirby Ferguson it really is true that everything around us is a remix and there’s nothing wrong with that.  Since the beginning of life on earth, everything has literally been a remix.  Remix means to combine or edit existing materials to produce something new.  Our last universal common ancestor or LUCA began to copy its self and a mistake was made which lead the diversity of life on the planet.  Evolution is when something is copied, transformed, and combined to form something new.  Humanity seems to constantly be evolving and this is because of the tools or technology we create to better our lives.  Creation requires influence and we must copy others because we cannot introduce anything new until we are fluent in the language of our own domain.  With the creation of the internet and other human centered technology, it would appear that this technology is evolving us at an extremely faster rate than ever before.

I do not believe that we should use the word “addiction” to describe our relationship with our technology.  Humans have always used technology and the technology we use today is something we have never seen before. I think that’s why so many people are not sure how to take it or deal with it.  People are more comfortable with the familiar and are hesitant toward change.  I would say technology is more of a necessity especially now-a-days.  However, many wonder if it is a good thing or a bad thing to rely so heavily on technology?  Clarke says that technology allows us to extend our minds and our cognitive processes flow between us and technology.  Technological advances allow us to enhance our performance and cognitive abilities and also modify ourselves; some for the better and some for the worse.  Some argue that these modifications are unnatural and go against human nature, but I agree with Clarke that it is human nature to modify ourselves.  In a way it is a form of evolution.  However, I also agree with Dreyfus that some things we have created have gone too far like steroids and hug-e-grams.

I agree with Clarke and I do not believe technology is the problem, but some people are.  People like the ones that laughed at or made fun of the man in the video who hung himself.  I do not believe people are truly like that or at least I hope they are not.  Dreyfus believes technology is part of the problem.  Like Otto, our technology is becoming a part of us it seems and we use it on a daily basis.  I can agree with Dreyfus that Tele Presence may harm us like the example where we are at a party socializing with others, but our minds may not fully be there because we are texting someone else.  I feel that it is important to maintain intercorporeality with others because being there mentally is not the same as being there mentally and physically in the moment.  All in all I just think technology is a part of human nature and its benefits far out-weigh its flaws in most cases.

             A remix is the result of combining and/or editing exiting materials to produce something new.  Recently, for class we were required to watch a short four part series explaining that everything is a remix, highlighting music, film, and technology. Is everything a remix? As one would expect we had a class debate and as usual both sides of the argument were represented.

Kirby Ferguson, the man responsible for the Everything is a Remix, opens part one with his definition of a remix; to combine or edit existing materials to produce something new.  He continues by explaining an early use of the word then uses an example in the music industry. Furthermore, he elucidates that in the present time, even lacking skills, anybody can remix anything. “Remixing is a folk art, anybody can do it, yet these techniques, collecting material, combining it, transforming it, are the same ones used at any level of creation.  You could even say that everything is a remix.”  At this point, not even two minutes into the series Kirby’s side of the argument is fairly obvious.

Lawrence Lessig, a copyright protester, wrote Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy, in which he explains his views against copyright laws.  In this book he explains the culture variations surrounding copyright laws.  There seem to be multiple distinctions of two basic types of culture concerning this argument; read only, and read/write cultures.

From my understanding, a read only culture, with disregard to copyright laws, allows the use of existing material to create remixes. Read only cultures consist of a producing group and a consuming group.  Obviously, the producing group is responsible for the copyrighted material, whereas the consuming group can only absorb and by law is not allowed interact by way of remixing it. One variation is the permissive culture, in which permission from the originator is necessary to use the copyrighted material in anyway.  The read/write cultures, also known as the remix culture, allow the public to do whatever they like to existing work.  In this society, copyright laws are nonexistent and believed to be by author Lawrence Lessig nurturing and beneficial to society by involving many members.

While I am not completely certain how the pharmaceutical world works, I do know that, according to Forbes.com, Eli Lilly, the company responsible for insulin, Cialis, and Prozac, among others, spends on average $1.3 billion to bring a new drug to the market today.  With that much invested into a new drug, I could imagine it to be quite upsetting for another company to “barrow” the recipe and add just about anything to make it a “remix,” and profit off while benefiting from a much lower overhead. This is a case where copyrights are a beautiful thing.

Parodies, or the remix of a work often with the intentions of creating humor, are a sad case where the beauty of a read/write culture is not allowed to shine.  Mocking someone else’s work and profiting from it are often frowned upon by the originator.  With copyrights in effect many of these works cannot be seen without the permission of the creator, which for clear reason is often challenging to obtain. Another instance, whether it be by accident or coincidence, that copyrights are bad, comes into play in the music industry.  With millions of songs already copyrighted the chances of remixing someone’s music without even knowing it is growing every day.  With a read/write culture, no one can be penalized for accidentally creating a song they had no intentions of remixing.

In Ferguson’s view he would agree that either these copyright laws are pointless or not doing their job.  Lessig would argue that, although preventing knockoffs, copyright laws are no good.  I believe that in many instances copyright laws are both bad and good, however they lack an absolutely necessary fundamental change that we can only hope will be created one day.

We have been talking a lot about being addicted to the Internet and how sometimes the Internet provides us with false information.

In class this week we watched a video on what students are actually doing when sitting through a lecture.  Nowadays, universities are offering a lot more classes online and a lot of the homework for most classes has to be done on the computer.  People rely very heavily on technology in order to get things done.  In this video in class it started off with writing on the wall saying, “if walls could talk, what would they say?”  This is so true because majority of a lecture class is not listening to anything the teacher is saying.  People spend more time on the Internet and Facebook than they do on homework.  Before laptops, people had to write their own notes from what the teacher taught.  People today take notes on their computers or have a PowerPoint online and then they do not even show up to class for the lecture.  In this video students held up signs saying what actually is happening with technology.  People are staying up late to watch TV and people spend 2-3 hours a day sitting on the Internet or Facebook.  Technology seems to have taken over our free time and people become lazier because they would rather sit on their computers than go out and do something.  We waste so many hours a day on the Internet when we could be out and enjoying time with friends and family.

We also talked a lot about why teachers will not allow Wikipedia as a credible source for information.  Anybody can go onto a Wikipedia page and change a single word or number and then you end up recording false information.  One expert does not run Wikipedia; it is getting a bunch of information from many different people.  These people may or may not actually know the right information, but they write it anyways.  However, we found that Wikipedia is just as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica because Wikipedia showed an average of 5 errors per article while Encyclopedia Britannica had an average of 4 errors per page.  Students usually refer to Wikipedia after finding information from other places because it always seems to know everything.  I think that teachers think Wikipedia is less reliable than it is because just anyone can change the information.  Wikipedia usually has the right answers and I think that if teachers knew how close the information was to Encyclopedia Britannica, they might reconsider letting us use it as a source.

There is false information everywhere on the Internet and there are also people who give out false identities.  Even though we know that there are people with false identities on the Internet and that there is false information, we still spend majority of our day on it.  Technology has definitely become a new way of life for people, but it also helps us to grow.  People misuse the Internet sometimes, but it is also there to help us and without it we would not be able to do a lot of the things that we can nowadays.  Technology has helped make our lives easier and will continue to do so; people just cannot forget that using it too much is not good either.

The article “Kirkegaard on the Internet” explains why Kirkegaard might have disliked the internet. There are three reasons: how the press and the public undermine responsibility and commitment, the aesthetic sphere: the enjoyment of endless possibilities, and the ethical sphere: making concrete commitments

The main concern of Kierkegaard’s opposition to the internet is the public sphere, which was a serious problem with intellectuals in the 18^th century. Kierkegaard thought that “the public sphere, as implemented in the Press, promoted risk-free anonymity and idle curiosity that undermined responsibility and commitment.” Nihilism, or meaningless values, is the result. The two nihilistic spheres of existence are the aesthetic and ethical sphere. The aesthetic sphere avoids commitments and lives through the categories of either interesting or boring. In this sphere, the net is used to view as many interesting sites as possible. In the ethical sphere, people could use the net to make or unmake commitments but are brought to despair because of the realities of making and unmaking commitments on the net.

First, Dreyfas explains Kirkegaards’ view on how the press and public undermine responsibility and commitment. Kirkegaard believes that the public is to blame by threatening cultural and religious values that could enhance our lives. However, the press is the real villain behind the public. “As stated in the article, “Europe will come to a standstill at the Press and remain at a standstill as a reminder that the human race has invented something which will eventually overpowered it.” Dreyfas explains that he’d rather have a life of no significance with the satisfaction of realizing that the daily press is demoralizing. The internet acts as a shelter from expressing ourselves. You have no opinion or word about things through the internet if you do not act on it. For example, the members of the public through political powers take no concrete stand and remove all significance from human’s acting on a certain topic. Kierkegaard does not agree with the most significant commentators not taking a stand and instead stating a decision with no follow up behavior.

Second, as stated earlier, the aesthetic sphere explore the internet and find things as either interesting or boring and there is no consistency in life. Kierkegaard would argue that the person in the sphere of the aesthetic sphere has a contradiction within oneself because they know of everything possible. The difficulty of distinguishing the important and irrelevant information will eventually lead to boredom.

Third, as stated earlier, the ethical sphere has a stable identity and is committed. Information is used seriously such as making commitments. Commitments require having lifelong plans and goals. The net has made making commitments possible, but the list of commitments can go on for forever. Every commitment we make comes along with consequences.