SmartBlog

Once again here is my last final paper for my blog that my fellow classmates and view it and see my opinion on the same topic.
Technology seems at times to be the most important aspect of our lives. Those who have the best technology have the brightest future. After all, its "brains over brawn." As a race we have become rather dependent on our technology. The dependence that has been formed can be described in many ways. Ray Kurzweil calls this dependence the evolution of man and machine or “singularity.” I agree that we have that mergence or dependence and that it will continue to grow in the future. In this paper I will show why I agree with this opinion. However I feel from his statement that he looks upon this evolution as only having positive effects and anyone that resists it is merely being naive. Despite being labeled as naive, I see some negative aspects that would make me hesitate to embrace this evolution.
My first thought on our evolution with machine was one of skepticism as my understanding of evolution was distorted. I thought of it as any organism whether intelligent or simple, going through an unknown process of adaptation to a situation or environment. Usually that change is for the better and into a more complex organism. I looked at it as God, Mother Nature, or whomever; adjusting an organism so that it would be more equipped to handle the environment it was placed in. Where my skepticism arose in calling this change as stated by Kurzweil between humans and machines an evolution, is due to the fact that we are playing God with ourselves. We are taking the adjustment of our beings into our own hands as we merge with machine, and not necessarily out of the need for change.
The dictionary defines evolution by a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. Some of this is relative. I wear contact lenses, which most people wouldn’t refer to as a machine, but it is an unnatural instrument that is attached to my body to increase and improve performance. I still have other shortcomings that go unaided. You could call these shortcomings weaknesses. I recognize these weaknesses as I compare myself with those around me. I am only slow if I see someone faster than me. For example I didn’t know that I needed contact lenses until I was 14. I was driving with my dad on the highway and he asked me to keep an eye out for a certain exit sign. As he saw the correct sign from a considerable distance he asked me if I was paying attention and if I was going to tell him about the sign. I wasn’t able to see the sign for another 5 seconds. It was then I realized that not everyone saw things the same way that I saw it, and obviously I needed glasses. If I wanted to advance quickly to the level of those around me, I would need to merge with technology. The merger of the contact lens with my eye didn’t follow the exact definition of gradual evolution, but the development of visual technology was a gradual process from a simple to more complex form. When it finally reached the point where it exceeded the ability of those who are disabled, it was implanted or used on people. This technology then came abruptly to me rather than that usual slow gradual evolution found in nature. This is what Kurzweil saw this as an unprecedented advancement. Another example of technology that is already merging with humans might be a pacemaker, which is a small device that controls the heartbeat. Another example might be a hearing aid which is a small electronic apparatus that amplifies sound and is worn in the ear. Other examples might be a respirator, prosthetic limb, or artificial voice box.
Most of these products are for those that have disabilities or below average usage of their bodies. However, it is easy to assume that if one can fix what is broken to the comparative average level of other people, why can’t they exceed that level? Why can’t we have super vision, super hearing, or super lungs? There are many parts of the human body that could benefit greatly from an implant of superior technology. An example might be strength. But this is where my opinion differs from Kurzweil. The beauty of humans is that they are limitless; it is impossible to know how much one can do. The brain especially is limitless, yet machines have their limits. It is the limit of how they are programmed. Now that limit might exceed the capabilities of humans today, but those implants would simply place everyone at the same strength, intelligence, vision, hearing, etc. If you turn every person into super human, then they aren’t super human anymore. And why wouldn’t every person become the same? Who would stand by with horrible vision as everyone else became superman? Who would go out and choose the lower level eye vision when they could get the greatest? It’s not the same as people buying the cheap DVD player versus the best. When faced with such advancements to super humans, no one would want the cheaper version.
I mentioned before that this evolution can be looked at as a sort of dependence. After wearing my contacts for the past 8 years my eyes have become progressively worse and my prescription progressively stronger. Through his hard work as a certified public accountant, my dad has gotten better at making money, but worse at managing a garden as he did when he was a boy. Many of us have become so dependent on technology, that we have placed ourselves into a whole new realm. This realm is more comfortable, easy, and productive. But what if it all fell apart, what if there was a massive world war, what if all technology failed? Could we survive? You ask some kids today where milk comes from and they honestly think it’s the grocery store. It really scares me to think what it would be like for me if I was stranded somewhere without my contacts. I couldn’t function and I couldn’t survive. Note that the definition of evolution again is that usually something changes to a more complex or better form. So it is possible for something to evolve into something more complex, but not better. I guess a more appropriate word for this might be mutation.
In conclusion I believe that Kurzweil is right about our accelerated change from simple man to one who is combined with his technology. I agree that this was a change like nothing before with many isolated advantages. From the points I mentioned above, this is not a move to singularity, but one of conformity. I do contemplate stopping the progression but not for a “misplaced fond remembrance of what human beings used to be,” but for the uniqueness that comes to us from chance and simply leaving the implanted technology for those who are suffering and disabled.

In the beginning of the class we were asked what we hoped to get out of this class, what we wanted to gain. I think that my answer was something the effect of learning about the many technologies out that so that I could improve my life. I also intended to learn of what was out there so that I could more accurately judge what is important and unimportant. Importance meaning how dramatically our society is changing due to these technologies. Before this class I wasn't sure how to side or voice an opinion about the ethics of our changing society since I didn't know all the facts. I had no understanding of the whole piracy over the internet debate. After having taken this class, read the articles, and discussed it with my classmates, I think I have that base knowledge to voice an informative opinion.

Because of my natural stubbornness I hesitate to accept some of the supposed studies done to prove video games as extremely beneficial. I do concede that video games improve some motor skills, hand eye coordination, and reflexes, but it is a question of pros and cons. It's not like you can't learn those skills even better doing something that doesn't keep you on your butt for 15 hours a day. Though you gain those skills through video games, you lose much more. Don't get me wrong I like video games. It is a form of entertainment that can be relaxing and enjoying, but like most things there needs to be moderation. I like drinking water, but too much continuously and I will drown. I like to go running, but doing it till I collapse isn't' healthy. I like to watch movies, but if I do it all day long every day, then nothing gets done. So these idiots are actually trying to justify playing video games as being better than doing anything else. That playing it 8 hours a day is beneficial. That is so stupid. So it comes down to a list of priorities and importance. Reading a book is important to your mental growth, but if you do that and not eat, you will die. I can take this example further, but it a nut shell to have a productive life and a one of worth you have to manage your time and activities by their importance and benefit, and sad to say that video games is way way down the list.

After during the web page project for mobile phones, I have changed my opinion of it. I imagine that was the purpose of the project and even the class for that matter. The purpose was to educate to the point that one could make better decisions about the many aspects of cyberculture. Since it is such a powerful it is important to be informed of what is happening in the world around us. It is important to have that information as we may be the ones that "draw that line" that we talk about so often in class. So anyway I regards to cell phones that I saw as somewhat of a potential nuisance in the wrong hands has become more and more of a positive tool. Of course in my project I listed the pros and cons of the mobile technology on the rise, but after doing more research I was surprise to see more pros then cons. This may change as it evolves beyond what I could see, so obviously there are unforeseen problems that can arise. As mentioned in class it is ironic how people make sarcastic comments about the cutting edge of technology, then later find themselves unable to live without those technologies they mocked and said they would never get. I foresee that happening with mobile technology in my life.

I think it is pretty clear that we are behindin cell phone technology, but that isn't neccessarily a bad thing, maybe it is just my arogant american attitude that wants to say its ok, but honestly I realize what options are out there in Asia and Europe, i realize the advanced technology in mobile technologies, but i don't see too much need for them. And that is just a personal thing. Someone who had more time to watch tv on their cell, or text a billion friends in a minute would find those features as usefull, so would i if i was like that. But i simple don't have time for those things even if i had them. A cell phone with a T.V. connection would be great for someone on the go wished they had more time to watch their favorite shows, but i don't even have T.V. home, so why would i get a phone that had those capabilities.

It seems every time that video games are discribed as a waste of time and a lazy man's past time, the video game players always respond with statements like it is improving my hand eye coordination or improving my critical thinking skills. Now I will contest that you are maybe improving your hand eye coordination or whatnot but a certain amount but it isn't much compared to getting off your butt and doing some other physical activities. Are you seriously telling me that someone who plays an incredible amount of video games has an off the charts hand eye coordination? Yeah he has amazing in the video game world, but what worth does that have to him and to the rest of the world? I don't imagine these skills carry over to a useful action in the real world and therefore are not beneficial. But I do see video games as a source of entertainment, and it is good to relax once and a while take a brake and have some entertainment, so just like most things in the world you need moderation. If you watch T.V. , movie, play video game, or any of those activities too long then I would consider you being lazy.

You can almost think of these topics as the topic of networks in itself. Everything seems to come back to the same topics, and it isn't that it is boring or that the topics aren't very diverse, but it is just cause everything is so interconnected. That is the point of the whole web. This information merge of everything will inevitable make a continous circle. What brought this thought on was how each discussion brings up the same topics in class. The interesting thing will be to see he different web pages that come from these topics as peoples interpretations of this information may differ greatly.

I didn't say as much today in class,because I was still formulating my opinion. After reading the articles I didn't feel like I understood the material enough so I waited till the class discussion so that I could get some aspects cleared up. The only problem is that by the time I got things explained to me, got some time to think about it, the class period was just about up. I was going to make a point and I think on the whole it was against what a lot of other people were saying, so I didn't say it. Not cause I am afraid to voice my opinion when it goes against the majority. Its not it at all, I just didn't want to bring up a topic and not get to really prove my point when there wasn't enough time left to do it. What I was going to say is that most of us in there were being really selfish. Making claims how there shouldn't be regulations on downloading files of music, ideas, or whatever, and that the companies need to adjust. We all like the idea of free stuff and we like to say that that is how it should be. But I imagine if ever person in that room had lets say spent five years inventing a product at home and then someone stole it, copied it, and gave it to everyone else we would be pretty upset. We would feel cheated, we would demand justice. It is the same thing. You have to put yourself in their shoes. You have created something and often times that takes a lot of effort. The way this society is structured allows a person to make a living from their creation. That way is being threatened now. And it isn't some advancement that we need to adjust too, its coming from pure selfishness.

Here is my paper incase others wanted to see.
There are many aspects to the Internet, cyberspace, and related fields. Many things have been said and given in their behalf. With all this complexity it is hard to get every fact straight and every statement concrete. For this simple reason I both agree and disagree with the statements made by David Weinberger. In this paper I will talk about why the Internet hasn¡¯t been hyped up enough, why it is only a tool, and define why some of Weinberger¡¯s statements are right on.

¡°We are rewriting ourselves on the Web.¡± Most often when people write about something they know or are involved in, they sometimes make the mistake that everyone else is just as involved as they are. The Web is an amazing thing that is used by a lot of people, but not used by even more people. There are even those like me who use the Web but at a minimal level. My minimal usage is not because of a lack of knowledge but by the personal decision that some things are left better the way they are. For example the value of your kid getting out and mowing the yard once a week instead of a computer that does it all by timed machines for you. The amount of your life that is rewritten by the Web is not based on this overbearing machine that holds you helpless, but rather by your choice to include it.

Those that open up to the power of the Web are being rewritten for some unique reasons. Weinberger says there are ¡°voices¡± coming out that we never might have expected. The Internet can act as a great amplifier. These unexpected voices can come when people realize that they really have a voice and that someone is there to listen. Now I think the main reason we are hearing unexpected voices is due to the sheer size and diversity of the Internet audience. A negative and positive example both define the miracle of this amplifier. If I was a racist man growing up in Harlem, I wouldn¡¯t really speak my mind or develop those ideas to action. With the Internet effect people can speak out to their ideal audience on any topic, even if no one is listening. These voices grow more intense, wild, and shocking, as they are allowed to grow. They simply grow through time as you entertain the idea and also when someone agrees. Just like when your friend maked fun of someone you don¡¯t like, it gave you the green light to tease and even develop a stronger dislike toward him.

It¡¯s true that we are finding stronger or more diverse identities through the Internet. I believe this statement is true for two reasons. First is much the same way a person may act differently with a group of people he feels more confident with. I tend to laugh more when I am with my friends or people I know. I tend to respond more to chick flicks when I am with my girlfriend. I tend to be more polite in front of my parents. I tend to be more perceptive around a group of strangers. The amplifier of the Internet puts all these groups and more at your disposal. I also think that the Internet allows you to mix these groups and bring out other completely different characteristics. Like anything else with time and practice, you get better or explore deeper and deeper. The second reason is the identity issue. With the secret identity that the Internet gives people, they can be something they aren¡¯t, or want to be without fear of their true self being judged. I once went to a Washington State function when I was in high school. There I wore a name tag for someone else from my school that had a reputation for being a trouble maker. He was also at the large convention but somewhere else on campus. With the knowledge that regardless of my behavior I wouldn¡¯t be punished, I acted differently. Naturally you would think that I would behave badly and do things I wouldn¡¯t do, but on top of that I found myself exhibiting character traits that I had never before shown. Whether I was tapping into subconscious character traits or simply copying what I had seen others do is unknown. What I do know is that that once in a life time opportunity can be recreated through the secrecy of the Internet. That can be a great release for people.

Weinberger makes the claim that through the Internet we are getting to know more people than we have before. I disagree with this statement. I think it is an really a change in geography, rather than a progression of how many people you know. How well can you know someone over the Internet? Though some may answer that they know a particular person very well over the Internet, I ask at what price and what have they gained? Today we have kids that play complex video games with their close friends in Japan for hours on end, but can¡¯t even communicate with their parents. We have people in chat rooms for hours with people from several parts of the world, yet they never speak a word to the person that sits in the cubical next to them day after day. I do not disagree that this allows us to pick from a wider range of friends and associates, but a person does only have a certain capability to interact with others while still maintaining other responsibilities in life. I would have more friends if I had time to have more friends. Therefore the Internet changes the geography of the people we know but not the amount of people we know. I see this change in our relationships as a negative thing. As stated before, we pay the price for this wider range of associates. Excluding some small exceptions, a person generally can do far more for the person next to him then a person on the other side of the world. We are learning new skills in new horizons, but at the cost of losing more important skills. We can approach any person in a chat room without being nervous, but clam up when we try to talk to that attractive person at the bar. We can now discuss movies with speed typing to 5 people simultaneously through instant message, but can¡¯t find the words to talk to your teacher about your struggles with quadratic funcitons. We can monitor the stock exchange of several different countries, but don¡¯t even notice our kids smoking pot. Internet and technology however do great things for the human race, and I wouldn¡¯t want to be without them. One may pose the question then, ¡°Where do you draw the line¡±? The line is a personal thing. So what if the grocery store has more food then I like or could even use. I will go on picking what I want and leave what I don¡¯t want. I don¡¯t even mind the sales-pitch or food sample in the aisle, but I would draw the line if someone tried to force me into something. I should be able to determine how much the web rewrites me.

The Internet is an incredibly evolving tool and for that reason I don¡¯t think it has been hyped enough, but it isn¡¯t a way of life which must encompass us all. People could and can pick how much it will influence their lives. Some lives are being rewritten by those individuals through the Web, but not by it.

I think that today's class discussion was the most interesting. I think that everyone would agree that it was more on the science fiction side then any other discussion. I got a little frustrated again during the discussion as I often do as things move towards the concept of morals. Not that the concept makes me uncomfortable its just a useless discussion as all of our morals are different yet we try and define them with logic onto the same playing field. Actually we try to come to agree on logical answers for the posed questions that are moral question. This little mistake results in a continues circle. And often it brings up point that make no sense. Today the question was given about the evolution of the machine and the man. First of all its hard to discuss if you don't even believe in Evolution. I don't belief in evolution. I do think that things have changed and you could even use the word mutated but not evolved. It is true that are intellect is getting better as we stand on the shoulders of those that came before us. But I don't think that our brains are smarter then they were a thousand years. The capability of a person to learn and comprehend a thousand years ago is the same as it is today, its just that they stood on shorter shoulders back then. If you could grab a person from thousands of years ago as an infant and brought him to the present and raised him like any other child, I don't think that he will be any slower then the average people today. So without the concept of evolution of course you are left to a different explanation for life and its governing force. For me that is God. Which is discussion of faith and cannot be reached by logic. But trust me faith is far better than logic. The logic of men change all the time, but the faith I hold to has gone unchanged since the beginning of man. When I say man I don't mean the Neanderthal that evolved from apes, but from Adam and Eve whom God placed on this earth with a plan. That plan cannot be frustrated by the knowledge of man. Yes man studies and experiments and invents things, but everyone of those advances is done under the guidance of God. Some men do bad things with technology, but allowing the good with the bad and free agency is part of the whole plan. In terms of evolution of man and machine, the idea of downloading you mind and living forever is not part of the plan and we will never reach that stage. Simply stated.