CLS Assignment Page

The human mind as a machine

2006-04-20T21:09:00.000-07:00

The most clearly stated metaphor for the human mind in this collection of quotations is that the human brain is a machine. This machine as argued by Rosenthal is a washing machine that has broken. The machine cannot get enough water so the washer is broken. Burns next argues that the human mind is like a radio. He says that the cause of depression is because the knobs of the radio aren’t tuned just right. Once you get rid of the static you are capable of being happy again.

Freud tells us that we can determine the root of hysteria by trying to “uncover what is buried” in our minds. He argues that once we trace the problem back to its roots, we can fix the problem in our minds. This follows the idea that the mind is a machine, this time one that is capable of being fixed by tracing the problem back to its roots.

Tichi argues in Shifting Gears that the true purpose of the mind is to be molded into “a certain form of energy…” focused on one primary goal. I feel that Tichi is trying to tell us that the machine of the brain has to be trained into a certain way of thinking so that everyone finds their place in society.

Based on all of these arguments, the mind is not a definite thing. It can be changed as required, broken and fixed. These authors are trying to relay the idea that the human mind is not perfect, but can be perfected if so desired.

2006-04-18T23:07:00.000-07:00

In the days of old, people had to follow the ideals of the community. People had to believe in the same religion, follow the same traditions, and act in the same manner in order to please both community and church. Following this idea, if a person were to break away from the norm they were considered to be sick. Thinking about this idea of “strange actions = illness” gives us the idea that the person that is sick can be healed, and that the strange actions are only temporary and have been brought about by an outside force.

Along with this idea, we can also consider the idea that “strange actions = possession”. The concept of an individual being possessed by something implies that the person cannot be saved. That the person is no longer acting on his own terms and are instead acting on behalf of someone else. The difference between illness and possession is that the “sick” person is still sane and is only temporarily acting out of character. The idea of possession tells us that the person is being acted upon by an outside force and is unsalvageable.

Following this idea I think we do treat these people differently on some levels. We hold a person who is “sick” accountable for their actions, whereas a person who is “possessed” cannot be considered normal and we expect them to act out of character.

2006-04-14T01:52:00.000-07:00

“I’m in a world of hurt.”
“You really cut me down tonight”
“You got to the heart of me”
“My gut said I was wrong, but my heart said that I was right.”

These are all metaphors we use in everyday life that we never consider to be regular and used in human interactions. These quotes specifically speak to the pain of an individual; however, these lines could be applied to any application of a conversation. Unfortunately, these lines seem to apply to the negative side of our conversations; meaning that when we speak using these particular sayings, we are only speaking with a pessimistic tone. If we follow this idea, everything we think about has a negative connotation.

As we think about talking in every conversation with a negative connotation, we soon realize that we speak with a negative tone towards regular topics in everyday life, whether it is the line at Starbucks or the wait in traffic on the way to class.

“I waited forever!”
“She just wouldn’t stop talking!”
“And she just stood there like I didn’t exist…”

Everything we see and do in typical life we retell with a negative tone, which gives the people we encounter in life a negative feeling towards situations. My point is that we pass negativity from person to person without realizing the detrimental effects of it.

2006-04-09T21:24:00.000-07:00

When we think of the metaphor that anger = dynamite, we are using the idea that anger can be stored for any amount of time until something triggers it. We also use the idea that it is potentially hazardous if released haphazardly. We all agree that dynamite is a dangerous material that should be handled with care, the same goes for anger of an individual.

In his poem, I think Blake is trying to compare anger to a plant. Blake is saying that his anger can be controlled if he desires it so, however, if his anger is directed at a foe then it can be watered and nurtured into something much larger. Blake says in his poem that he can turn off or “trim” his anger if need be. In this way, Blake isn’t saying that anger is explosive like we often suggest, he is saying that anger can be grown intentionally into a dangerous plant.

The similar idea between our common conception of anger and Blakes suggestion is that anger is dangerous and deadly in both metaphors. Both suggest that anger is fragile and requires great care to control it.

“My anger grows inside of me”
“The despise for him/her took root deep inside of me.”
“My anger sprouts new limbs frequently.”

Technology 4-5-06

2006-04-05T06:07:00.000-07:00

Technology can be defined as any “application of knowledge… to accomplish a task” (Merriam-Webster online). So when questioning our idea of progress based on the use of technology, we would normally think of things like computers, cell phones, and possibly even travel tools like the car or the airplane. But if any application of knowledge is considered a technology, is something as simple as tying your shoes not technology? We do simple things and use items regularly that are considered a technology. I feel people overlook the obvious in our current comprehension of technology. We overlook items like the ballpoint pen, the chair, and even our clothing as examples of technology that we do not regularly consider. New gadgets are not the only form of technology, however they are the most commonly thought of. Innovations like these that are in fact considered a technology help determine who we are as a society. Technology does include writing as well as other means of thinking.

I think that we use this expanded definition in out everyday lives and never think twice about it. We should be more appreciative when we use our gadgets, our book bags, and even the alphabet because all of these things are technologies that we take for granted on a regular basis.

2006-04-02T23:38:00.000-07:00

1) This advertisement for enterasys has a direct aim at the typical college teenager. The saying at the top “Who’s abusing your network” is demeaning to all teenagers. This advertisement assumes that all youth are irresponsible and play on the fears of “adults” that have the job of securing their networks. This ad is saying that if you use their product you will be protected from these “hackers”.

2) This is the cover of the “Miamian” put out by Miami University. I found that these illustratings of President Garland are an advertisement in themselves. This page is trying to convince us that President Garland is a “jack of all traits” that he is a great part of this university. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with this ad, however, this does illustrate a form of advertising to make us feel that we have the best man on the job.

3) “To the future. And step on it.” This advertisement by HP and General Motors simply says that if they together are revolutionizing the future and that you should buy their product because they are the wave of the future.

4) This ad by Cisco says that with them, their hardware, and their software, you can be a one man company. You can be independent and achieve great things. They are saying that with them, you alone can manage your network. The man illustrated is shown as clever and independent. This is conveying to consumers that with them, this is also achievable for you.

5) The stressed man at the top of this advertisement obviously portrays that if you are still using old equipment and haven’t recently upgraded through CDW that you will be stressed out, and your job will be much harder. This is a good ad because it plays on the fears of all men in this position about upgrading their equipment. No one wants to be caught stressed out like this man, so why not upgrade?

All of the advertisements that I found play on the fears of the business minded people that consider network downtime to be a loss of money. All of the ads are businesses minded in the form that they make you think that your biggest fears will be achieved if you do not use their product.
Along with this, all of these ads do affect peoples sense of self. The ads try to imply that without their products you are unprepared for the possible detriments to your network. The ads convey that you are a better person if you use their product.
The idea that these products are required in the business world I do find both reasonable and accurate. However, I think the advertisers take this play on fear a step too far. There are many options for software and I think that the ads should explain why theirs is better… not that you have a need for it. The need is already apparent when you set up a network.

The monsters stigma

2006-03-07T23:58:00.000-08:00

Goffman says that the definition of stigma comes to mean the differences between one individual and the accepted “norm” of society. He says that the stigma can range from personality differences, family inequalities (such as class or religion), or even physical variations. The monster in Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein is an example of what we would consider to be stigma. The monster feels normal at first and feels like he should be accepted by society because he was no different than they were. He felt that he didn’t understand their culture at first, but he learned their ways in order to be accepted by them. It wasn’t until the people were scared away by his looks that he realize he had a stigma. So, in this case his stigma is learned only after interactions with people. However, in other situations it could be learned of in other methods. I don’t think the readings the monster read would have given him the ability to learn of his visual differences. There are descriptive parts of books that give insight to the looks of normal people, but his image of “normal” would be different than societal acceptance.
I think that the monster would have felt a sense of accomplishment when reading for the first few times. He would feel like he had learned a new skill, and would be proud of his new ability. We as a society consider reading and viewing movies a norm. We expect that every individual should be able to do these things, and if they are unable then they become labeled with a stigma. I would imagine that these people who cannot read or watch movies, for whatever reason it may be, would feel left out and would expect other forms of entertainment or education.
Pip first achieves consciousness of himself in the first chapter of the excerpt when he talks about standing beside his family’s graves and he begins to cry. We can tell that this is where consciousness sets in because he says that he sees the world with a ”…vivid and broad impression of the identity of things”. He sees the world around him and realizes who his family was, and where they are now. It is here in the story that Pip hits reality. I don’t think that Pip is in anyway like the monster of Frankenstein. The monster realizes his differences through the interaction with other people and has only visual defects. As we talked about in class, the monster was normal on the inside, just not physically. I don’t see Pip mention physical deformity in the story. I suppose Pip is like the monster in the sense that they are both “alone” in the world and that neither one have much of a family alive. Pip realizes whiles standing at the graves of his family that he doesn’t have much left in the world, and the monster realizes in his own story that he is alone, and is shunned by the rest of the world.

The Wizard Of Oz and the "good viewer"

2006-02-14T21:43:00.000-08:00

The narrative of The Wizard Of Oz is a coming of age story for Dorothy in helping her realize the importance and value of her own home. She starts out unhappy because Toto is going to be taken from her so she decides to run away. Once she’s away form home she has to deal with different obstacles including meeting different types of people, some that want to help her and some that do not. She wants to see “The Wizard” who will tell her how to get back home. The Wizard simply tells her that she can go home whenever she desires, and that the power is in her hands. I think the underlying message is to appreciate what home you do have because you could be worse off.
If Dorothy were to go on Oprah I think that she would be portrayed as an innocent victim in the matter and was mistreated. I could see Dorothy telling the story of the people she met and some of the problems she had to overcome and how she achieved her goal despite the hindrances. The stories of people’s lives do take the shape of the Wizard of Oz. We see Tin Man, Lion, and Scarecrow who actually end up representing real people. I think that the stories of their lives coincide with the movie. Scarecrow wishes he were smarter, Tin Man wishes he used his art more often, and Dorothy wants to be content with her home life. We see these stories in the movies and the give us a much deeper look at each character. The Wizard Of Oz does give some examples of what our lives should be like, that we should look into ourselves for the answers instead of asking someone else for help. In this way I think that we see a “mold” for how to live our lives.
When I read the line in the question: “think about going to the land of Oz, "somewhere over the rainbow," as a metaphor for going to the movies or turning on the television. Is going to the Land of Oz like going to the movies or watching TV, and do we come back "home" again to Kansas, to our ordinary lives?” I couldn’t help think of the question of violence in movies and TV. If someone becomes involved in television or a movie and really starts to enjoy the different modes of entertainment, can the instances be taken too far? Does a kid that plays a violent video game know that the violence stops once the games go off? I think that we do go to the Land of Oz to enjoy these Medias, and become involved in the shows and really start to side with different characters. After the show or movies end though, one has to go back “home” or in other words, come back to reality, and understand the differences between the more “colored” Land of Oz and the simple home.
The movie The Wizard Of Oz is saying that we should enjoy movies and TV in the same respect we do as a book. Read the words, understand what is happening, and enjoy the entertainment value, but keep in mind once the book is closed your back in real life and can no longer fly or have super powers. A good viewer understands that once your back in black in white, there may be many similarities between what you just watched and the real world, such as the people or circumstances, but you appreciate what you have in black in white and enjoy the colorful Land of Oz for solely what it was designed for: entertainment.

Frankenstein complex--2.2

2006-02-07T20:25:00.000-08:00

After reading Caves Of Steel I agree with Asimov when he says in the book that humans are scared of the robots and do feel inferior. Baley says that robots can work quicker, cheaper, and don’t have to eat. These things instill fear in us as a race because of the amount of efficiency robots bring in comparison. Many things that humans do require such as insurance robots do not. We can explain the fear caused by relating that everyone in society wants to have their own place and fit into some part of the world they are in. So when questioning what we can tolerate in a robot, I feel that we (as of now) can only deal with the minimal of robot systems. A computer that talks back to us at this point is shocking (for example a cars navigational system). We are still amazed with video game systems, computers, and we now see emerging as one of the first “robots”, those little vacuums that roam the floor and sweep on their own. To us, the idea of a machine that works on its own terms and requires little to no maintenance is still astounding. We are not ready for a machine that resembles anything that looks human, anything that can perform better than us or anything that can do the tasks of humans without food on a large scale. We will never be willing to accept a dominance of these creatures either.
Even if these robots kept their original form and didn’t take on the look of being human I think that people would still feel threatened by them. They will still be afraid of loosing their jobs to something that can work more efficiently and has no feelings. I wonder how insulting it would feel to be replaced by something that has no feelings. I think that even if a robot was dressed as human (unless there was something specific to give off the indication), we could approach a robot and not notice the features. If a robot were to look like Daneel, I’m sure many people would be fooled.
According to the scientific minded, we see the primates that most closely resemble us as a possible link to our past. However, we also study the mannerisms of the primates and realize that they are also intelligent and somehow act like us. Maybe it’s from seeing in person how we act, but I think that they have humanistic traits and are judged based upon this fact. The primates we know show emotions, show care, smile and even mock people that they see. As for anthropomorphizing, I think that we do compare primates to humans and say that they are acting like us. We do this naturally to still feel more powerful than them and to show that they are below us. We say that they act like humans or move like humans, maybe even think like humans, because we want to reinforce the idea that they cannot be above us.

"To err is human" -- Assignment 2.1

2006-02-02T17:40:00.000-08:00

My personal opinion of the implementation of robots in our human society is that the media has given robots a bad reputation. We have had in the last ten years a huge increase in computer and technological reliance which I feel is a step in the right direction, but mechanical beings that perform tasks have been given a negative tone.

In the first part of The Caves Of Steel which shows a thought of the future from 1954, Baley talks in disgust of his mechanical companions. We see the first example of this as the opening lines of the book when Baley is innocently informed of the commissioners’ request to see him by R. Sammy who has replaced one of Baleys close human friends. Baleys anger can be seen when he questions “…why those same duties couldn’t be done by a man” (P1). Humans feel threatened by robots because of their efficiency in both today’s society and by the society of the future. “Robots did the work better and required less” (P 22). Thus, we can explain why the development and implementation of the robot is feared and frowned upon by many.

I think this helps describe what it means to be human. By definition of our reaction to robots, to be human means to express emotions and thoughts using feeling. By our creation of robots, to be human means to be mechanical in physical composition. We see examples of this in our everyday speech when we change our facial features to express our emotions and thoughts. We smile when we’re happy, frown when we’re sad, and cry when we’re upset. These are human traits that cannot be seen in robots. Baley thinks of these things when he thinks of the humanistic traits of Daneel Olivaw. Baley asks “Can you eat, Daneel?” in wondering how humanlike the robot is (P 137). Baley also later asks Daneel “I’m just wondering… Can you smile?” (P 139). Baley also notices that when Daneel swallows his food, his Adams apple doesn’t move and that he chews “Too precise” (P 142).

This idea of humanistic traits leads me into the question about Tank and his use of human communication. He is programmed to respond to questions about the location of things inside the building as well as make personal responses about his boss when the conversation dies. He also has mood swings based on events in his life or if you bang on his keyboard he responds as if you insulted him. Tank does have human responses programmed into him, but he is still far from human. There is a difference between telling a fictional story of your life, and telling someone of events you have actually experienced first person.

I personally do use “emoticons” in my everyday writing to express the feeling I am having at the time of writing the message or email because it is a part of human interaction. We cannot live without the expression of emotions in our communication in any form which is why we add emotions naturally to our voice when we read.

I feel that I could work with Daneel. Once you got used to his responses and his reactions to different situations you would become accustomed. It’s the same as meeting a human for the first time. Once you get used to how they act in different situations your much more comfortable with them. Like a computer, once you become comfortable with the interface you begin to rely on the machine for your everyday life.

Assignment #2

2006-01-27T00:18:00.000-08:00

Throughout Frankenstein one cannot help but feel sad for the monster because he is at all times being yelled at, chased, mocked, and is constantly feared throughout the book. This continues more when he is hiding from the public during the day and watches the Delaceys in private. He does this though not for entertainment like one would a movie, but to educate himself so that he is accepted by them. He says on page 94 when retelling his story that learning to speak their language “…might enable me to make them overlook the deformity of my figure...” He also notices the task of gathering wood for the fire done by the youth of the house, and begins to collect wood to assist the family. I feel he also does this is the hopes of their acceptance on the day of their meeting. He theorizes that by learning their language and placing the wood in front of their door they will not shun him on looks alone and will perhaps see him as a kind and educated individual. These actions make one realize what a good being he really is and that he wants nothing more than to be seen as normal and not feared.

Thus, we see early on that not knowing how to reproduce these technologies gives him a great disadvantage and makes him feel secluded. By not knowing how to communicate in any form of the word makes him feel alone and hurt because he has no one to accept him. The hope instilled in him that the family will accept him is what drives his education.

As for his violence, I feel that he is a very “carefree” individual while he is learning from and observing the family. His is not angry and goes out a night and explores as well as gathers wood. He would not do this if he were angry about something. However, after his education and communication skills fail him in being accepted by the family and they leave because “My wife and my sister will never recover from their horror” as Felix tells his landlord (P 118). The monster becomes immediately enraged and lights the house on fire that night. It is because of this that I feel technologies do affect his emotions and make him a more violent individual.

Response to Frankenstein Ch1-6 -- Mary Shelley

2006-01-19T23:21:00.000-08:00

Walton describes his desires in his first letter to Margaret and what he intends to accomplish by finding the Northwest Passage. Walton wants to accomplish “some great purpose” (p3). When writing to her he poses the question of whether or not he deserves the glory of this accomplishment, and continues in saying that he would rather have the glory than the wealth of the discovery. He talks in his letter of the mystery of his journey and how he is filled with more inspiration and has a greater devotion to his current task as he comes closer to the land of eternal light.

When Frankenstein asks Walton “Unhappy man! Do you share my mandness?” I think that Frankentein is questioning not only Waltons motives for his search for the Northwest Passage but more so why he also has the desire to explore unchartered territory. You can see the obvious similarites between Walton and Frankenstein and easily predict just from reading the letters to Margaret that both will be driven mad by their desire to achieve undiscovered greatness.

One similarity in their situations is that both men become so envolved in their work that they loose all touch with the outside world and loose all forms of a social life. They focus soley on their work and nothing else to the point of constant seclusion. We can even go as far as saying that both men become obsessive with their situations to the point of driving themselves mad with lonliness and loose all touch with reality. Their motives are both that they want to achieve greatness by doing something never done before. They want the glory of doing an previously considered imposible task.

I do not feel like people like Bill Gates are in any way like this. They may be devoted or dedicated to their work whether their job is to create programs or to run Microsoft. However “obsessive” they may become they do not loose their sanity to their tasks unlike Frankenstein did when he was locked away while creating the monster.

Response to Nethaniel Hawthornes "The Birthmark"

2006-01-12T19:30:00.000-08:00

Basically in this story we start out with a scientist who marries the most beautiful of all of the women and is happy for awhile, only to later develop a hatred for a birthmark on her face in the shape of a hand. Most of the other men thought it was the key to her beauty, her husband Aylmer however sees it to be the key to all of their worries and problems. He asks her about it one day and makes her look at the birthmark in a new light. She hadn't thought twice about it until then. Long story short he asks her to have it removed. He says he will do it in his lab. He succeeds... only to kill her. Waste of time, energy, and her life.

His shallowness killed her. Because he couldn't look past the "blemish", she was willing to try and have it removed on his behalf to save "both of their sanity." However, it had no effect on her life until he decided it was a problem.

I don't feel that scientists should be limited to what they can do as long as the people they work" on are willing to take the risk. In this case she was willing so I suppose her death is her own fault
because she gave him permission. I think that there should always be someone pushing the envelope of science and seeing what else we can accomplish.

I did notice in this reading that Aylmer was given the described role of God. It said that the scientists in his books had achieved "...a power above nature...", and a "...sway over the spiritual world." I do feel that by giving any scientist the power to experiment and expand life he is becoming more powerful than nature itself and in a way "God-like". Doctors and even lower positions in the medical field also often take this role. One should not say whether these actions are wrong or right. The decision is up to the patient on whether they want to die naturally or live artifically.

I think that Hawthorne is trying to say that scientists should be limited because of the negative effect that their practices can have. In his writings, it was said that Aylmers "...most splendid successes were almost invariably failures." This statement alone should throw up a flag. His best works were experiments that went wrong and came out with something completely unexpected? Hawthorne is trying to remind us that things don't always turn out as expected in science, and that we as patients should make wise decisions on what is really beneficial to us. Do you really need to have that birthmark removed in order to improve the quality of your life?