Day: January 28, 2017

Comments from mthies

Lifestream

Such a cool idea, Myles! I really enjoyed hearing your perspective, just after reading Sterne’s (2006) deconstruction of cyberculture scholarship too. I frequently fall into the trap of wanting my work to be visually appealing without thinking about doing something with aurally stimulating.
I have often thought that as an educator I have to be creative, Sterne’s perspective has made me realise that there is an expectation for tomorrow’s teachers to be creative as well as to be inventors and artist too.
Thinking about the future, I wonder if sound could offer a real alternative to how information is disseminated among the academic community and whether publishers could be by-passed more easily. Sterne (2006) criticises cyberculture’s scholarship towards ‘visualist bias’, I can’t help but wonder if the reason for this is because text is much easier to handle than a recording. I can highlight words, write notes, cross out and reference on paper and on my computer. I don’t know a way to do the same with sound – but then again there might be an app for that. 🙂

from Comments for Myles’s EDC blog http://ift.tt/2kfLEh4
via IFTTT

Comment on Reading Sian Bayne through biblical eyes by msleeman

Lifestream

Philip, thank you for the visit and the reflection on my piece.

You mention transhumanism and the Tower of Babel. From my reading to date, I’m sensing Babel-like elements, but perhaps more regarding posthumanism.

For instance, when reading, I noted down Babel when I came across Haraway (2007: 44): “No objects, spaces or bodies are sacred in themselves; any component can be interfaced with any other if the proper standard, the proper code, can be constructed for processing signals in common language.”

And, similarly, p.45 (there are some italics in the original, not captured here): “Furthermore, communications sciences and modern biologies are constructed by a common move – the translation of the world into a problem of coding, a search for a common language in which all resistance to instrumental control disappears and all heterogeneity can be submitted to disassembly, reassembly, investment and exchange.”

Next week, I’m hoping to write a biblical response to Haraway’s essay, and this will be one part of a larger whole. I hope you’ll comment on it, in due course.

from Comments for Matthew’s EDC blog http://ift.tt/2jCKevX
via IFTTT

Comment on Ethics in the age of androids and cyborgs by lmclagan

Lifestream

Renée, I enjoyed this post and the content delivered in visually creative way. I believe the discussion of ethics are important in a world where implications may occur. Çakir (2016) states that the makers of technology are creating a world while ignoring the legalities of the products they make. Should they consider law, morals and ethics? After all the intellectual and social entity involves people…..

Linzi #mscedc

Çakir, E. A, (2016). Cyber-humans – our future with machines. Journal of Behaviour & Information Technology,Volume 35, 2016 – Issue 6

http://ift.tt/2jCl94c

http://ift.tt/2jIYKA6

from Comments for Renée’s EDC blog http://ift.tt/2jCpaWF
via IFTTT

When Do We Cease Being Human?

Lifestream

Just a short note on being human.  I was looking through some “Star Trek: The Next Generation” clips and found one that focused some on the android Data, and his ability to mimic the musical styles of thousands of composers and musicians.  The question arose as to what part of the music was actually created by him in terms of feelings and emotions.  Of course, as he had none, he could not answer the question or really even consider it.

It struck me as pertinent to what we have been discussing this week: In all of our efforts to create new and exciting technology to use in just about every area of our lives, where in that process are we in danger of ceasing to be human?  Or, where is the human quality in the technology we create?  And lastly, once given up, is humanity retrievable?

Comment on Reading Sian Bayne through biblical eyes by Philip

Lifestream

The facet of trans-humanism that addresses the removal of human limitations is certainly theological. Having been to seminary and spent my entire life as part of a church system, I am interested in how we encourage others to transcend human weakness and rely on God, or whatever pronoun suits you, to lift us into the realm of super-humans, capable of doing anything our hearts desire.

I personally believe that much of the teaching involving this transcendence of humans to a surreal world of bliss is a violation of the actual scriptural context, but I understand the psychology of our need to have an avenue of escape from the finite to the infinite. I also am a believer in the power of God in someone’s life that can be manifested in unexplained ways. And I fully understand the humanistic focus that such spiritual pathways do not exist outside of ourselves and our own human achievement.

In terms of technology, do you think we (humans) are using this technology much as the ancients did with the Tower of Babel? They strove to achieve immortality by reaching beyond themselves, using their own resources and cunning. And might we one day find ourselves in the same state as they, bereft of self-control and self-determination, at the mercy of the consequences of what we have created?

from Comments for Matthew’s EDC blog http://ift.tt/2kyPbVe
via IFTTT

Comment on Reading Sian Bayne through biblical eyes by hmurphy

Lifestream

Matthew, this is a fascinating post. Your background is leading you to have such an interesting perspective on the reading. I hadn’t picked up on the ‘finitude’ notion in Bayne’s argument, and it does suggest a different lens from how I’d been interpreting it, so thanks for writing this.

PS Former student of theology here 🙂

from Comments for Matthew’s EDC blog http://ift.tt/2kDTMEK
via IFTTT