I just read an interesting quote in the book, “The Posthuman,” by Rosi Braidotti (2013).  On page 58, Donna Haraway is quoted as saying,”…the machines are so alive, whereas the humans are so inert!” (Haraway 1985). Based upon our discussions to date in this course, I wonder yet again about the purpose and intent of AI, and how that evolutionary emergence will replace basic human endeavors like simple work, complex calculations, etc., etc.  Visions of “The Jetsons” come to mind where the entire household is run by robots; or “The Forbidden Planet” where a machine eventually learns to bring into reality the base desires and fears of organic beings.  What came to mind first was Klaatu’s remarks (“When The Earth Stood Still”) to the inhabitants of Earth as to why he and his fellow “aliens” created robots to begin with:  so they (humanoids) might pursue more profitable pursuits.  In doing so, they left the basic operations of law enforcement and police services to robots.  Klaatu also left open what exactly he meant by “more profitable” pursuits.  (An interesting side note here is that later in the film, Klaatu makes mention of a supreme being that has the ultimate say in matters of life and death, thereby limiting the influence of humanist dogma in deciding the fate of the universe.  Of course, this may have been more of a bone thrown to the censors of the day rather than a covert political/spiritual statement by the makers of the film.)

Nevertheless moving along . . .throughout film and written media, robots/cyborgs have been viewed as human or humanoid creations that serve the humanoid purpose or have eventually run amok and tried to destroy their own creators.  I suppose my query here is by injecting AI into our society, or community, are we trying to enhance our community, transform it, or create a new community with what we view as a new, and revitalized purpose?  Further, does the answer to any of those queries reaffirm we ares till struggling with what “community” is supposed to be?  Or, what we think it ought to be?

If community includes in its description the subjective and emotional interaction of beings that live within that community, how would an artificial form fit into it?  We have discussed the lack of emotions inherent within robots and cyborgs, unless those emotions are pre-programmed into it.  In that case then, is the robot or cyborg really feeling those  emotions or simply reacting to what the data chip has scripted for it?  And if, or when, robots/cyborgs develop true sentience, like Sonny in “I, Robot,” then how will those new lifeforms be integrated into the existing human community?

I am not convinced the deeper, moral questions have been adequately addressed simply because it is clear to me that technology has far outpaced humans.  We can create these wonderful machines that look and act and even talk and feel, like humans.  But, what happens when we thy break out the pre-scripted environments they have been placed in and start making independent decisions; especially decisions that may run contrary to human interests and intent?

How then will “community” be defined?  And perhaps more poignant who, or what, will define it?

Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Haraway, Donna. 1985. “A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s”, Socialist Review 15:2 (1985)

https://www.pinterest.com/philip_downey/edc17-philips-trial-visual-micro-ethnography/

In an interesting article I read just today, I was reminded of the old saying, “You can’t see the forest for the trees.”  But it is in the reverse that I mention I mention it here, “You can’t see the trees for the forest.”  The following quote is from the article I read:

“When we treat data as a “given” (which is, in fact, the etymology of the word), we see it in the abstract, as an urban fixture like traffic or crowds. We need to shift our gaze and look at data in context, at the lifecycle of urban information, distributed within a varied ecology of urban sites and subjects who interact with it in multiple ways. We need to see data’s human, institutional, and technological creators, its curators, its preservers, its owners and brokers, its “users,” its hackers and critics” (Mattern 2017).

To me, in relation to what we have been looking at this block in terms of community, I think people have a tendency to overlook the essentials of the individual in favor of the overall community.  what do we learn from Twitter, Facebook and other social media outlets?  We keep up with daily news.  We are reminded of birthdays for people who are not only our friends (which is important) but the birthdays of friends of my friends, and their friends, and so on ad nauseum.  We are reminded of dates and events that we may never have been associated with other than we “know” someone in our feed who may have been.  This is the community in which we find ourselves today.  A community of data and information that likely has little or no meaning to us personally.  We use “data” to connect via platforms of all kinds.  In this course alone some of the “connections we have made with classmates and instructors have been Twitter, Facebook, WordPress, Google Hangouts, and a myriad of others.  And, we try to tie them all together using IFTTT to one degree of success or another.

I wonder sometimes as just how deep our connection with others really is.  I know I have had some meaningful exchanges with others in the class over one channel or another.  And honestly, for most I have had little or no contact depending on if I happen to comment on their blog posts or not.  I have been too consumed negotiating the forest that I have failed to stop and consider the trees.  Interstingly, the participants in the MOOC in which I am enrolled seem to want to stop and not touch and feel each tree, but every bush as well, smell every flower, watch the birds and listen to the wind whistle as it moves among it all.

The question that presents itself is who is more a part of a community, me or them?  It is a hard question and of course the answer is determoned by what kind of community is sought by each individual or group.  So, I suppose the answer ultimately is academic, or at least rhetorical.  But I digress, I think.  The quotation above, and the article overall, speaks of looking deeper and considering the individual, of seeing how this community is built and who built it and why.  I find myself falling into this trap on many occasions: looking so hard at the forest but not seeing the individual and unique trees that make the forest what it is supposed to be.

Mattern, Shannon.  “A City Is Not A Computer.”  Places, February 2017.

http://linoit.com/users/Philip57/canvases/Philip%27s%20Visual%20Ethnography

I have been experimenting with a couple of platforms to present my Ethnography: Pinterest and Lino.  I have chosen to do the ethnography in a visual, or virtual, manner, as an alternative to the more traditional written style.  My goal basically is to hit on some of the themes of the MOOC in which I am enrolled, Innovative Poetry of Cascadia, and then use pictures to exhibit those themes.  Captions are to be used to explain or further expound on what each picture is supposed to represent.  I hit this idea off James this morning and he seemed fairly enthusiastic about the idea.  I am not sure however, how much enthusiasm he will retain when he sees my final product(s).  And I say “products” because I am my just put a link in my Lifestream to both of them and just see what happens.

One thing I will say now is that the MOOC has been quite interesting. I have mentioned this before but it bears repeating I think.  The readings I have had to do and the comments submitted by other participants show a real interest in the culture and environment of the Cascadia region.  I find this attitude very satisfying.  Having lived in Oregon for several years, although I am not a native of the area, the thoughts and feelings expressed are very familiar.  People in the Cascadia region develop a very strong attachment to the region and are keen to express that attachment in a variety of ways. I realize other people groups do this as well, for example those from the Southern United States, or from regions in Europe and Asia.  I also saw this to a degree when I lived in East Africa for several months.  Cascadia is no different:  the inhabitants see the land and animals and the entire ecosystem as a way of life.  Everything is connected and there seems to be a communication between fauna and flora that is almost spiritual in nature, delving deep into one’s soul and creating a permanent link between man and other beings, and even non-living things.  I mentioned this in an earlier post that the attitude is almost like The Force in Star Wars:  every creature, every non-living thing, is connected in some way, and in a way that cannot be broken.

Well, as I am waxing somewhat poetic or even romantic, I find I am trying to put myself in the place of someone still roaming the rain forest of Olympic Nation Park in Washington, or scaling the sides of Mt. Hood, or fishing the rivers and waterfalls of Oregon and Washington.  There is very little of a digital nature involved here, which goes against the idea of EDC.  However, the theme for this Block is, in part, the theme of Community.  In the writings and musings of the participants of this MOOC, I find they have created a “community” not built from WordPress or Twitter, but from an internal connection to the tangential spirituality of the Earth, and the creatures and features that inhabit the space around us.  Indeed, the folks in this MOOC create and experience the presence of community in their common fondness of Cascadia.

#mscedc

The following is a copy of my conversation with James regarding the format of the Ethnography.  I had an idea that due to the abstract nature of my MOOC, I would try and present it in a way that was more reflective of the feelings and viewpoints of the participants.  (As a note to avoid the appearance of revealing any confidentiality, I have copied our conversation here per James’ encouragement.)

From Me:

James, I may have missed something but in what form does the ethnography take? I have posted a trial visual ethnography more to display what I am doing on my Lifestream rather than meet the assignment requirement; but I am wondering if this is the type of format we can use?

If so, then my plan is to add text to each photo as a descriptor of how the picture relates to what the purpose of the MOOC is designed for. This course is so abstract I am not sure a more formal write-up would really fit.

From James:

This is really great. A request: paste these ideas and questions into a blog post as it will look really good in your lifestream and I think the whole group will benefit from our conversation: if you’re ok with that? But yes, agree entirely about presenting ethnography in ‘alternative’ form: I fully encourage that. Excellent stuff, Philip.

#mscedc

I have been going though the lessons in the MOOC I chose, “Innovative Poetry of Cascadia”.  It has been very interesting and really has turned out to be what I was hoping for.  I am not necessarily a poetry aficionado, but the personal comments on the boards by many of the participants in class have been revealing. Primarily what I have seen are postings expressing a deep connection to the geographical region.  This connection is more than simple geography or occupying space; some of these people have seemed to immerse themselves into the mystery of Cascadia, developing an identity almost that transcends just physical locale. It is as if they have opened themselves up in a spiritual fashion to what they see and feel is the Spirit of the mountains, the rivers, and the ocean.  It reminds me very much of the stories I heard as a child of my own Native American heritage, and even the feeling of myself and others who engaged in the surfing sub-culture on the Southern California beaches.

Very interesting.

Note:  The photograph on the left is a view of part of the Cascadia Region of Western Canada and Northwestern US.  The photograph on the right is a simple house built of natural materials for birds or small animals.  It represents the desire of the inhabitants of this region to care for all forms of life in as unobtrusive a manner as possible.

#mscedc

This posting seems to put in somewhat more eloquent terms than I have been able to, what I have been expressing about AI these past 3 weeks.

This week has been slow going.  I am trying . . .trying . . .to get through the readings.  On top of it all we are re-writing an assessment for my History class and that is taking way too much of my time, although necessary.  And I am trying to make an attempt at meaningful comments on some of my classmates blogs and posts.

But I still feel as if my feet are mired in some kind of sludge that won’t let me move forward in any perceptible way.  Here is hoping this weekend brings a bit more energy and gumption to my efforts.

I have poked a couple of teasers at Linzi this morning about “HAL” and “Alien”.  And something just occurred to me regarding the concepts of space and presence.  i posted a comment on Twitter that one of the teaser lines for the movie “Alien” was “In space, no one can hear you scream.”  And it hit me:  Space is a void that we can occupy.  In the context of that movie line, it is true, in space no one can hear anything.  However, when space is filled with something, e.g. oxygen, the presence of a being can be detected.  Space is no longer simply occupied but is occupied with a discernible presence.  I just thought I would throw that idea into my Lifestream and let it swim around for a while.

I have been looking through the expansive MOOC list and to be honest, there are many that pique my interest.  I am sure there is a vast array of information and resources I could use in my own classes.  The problem I am having is that I have completed two MOOCs in the past and neither really did much for me.  I realize this is not the focus of the exercise for EDC, but I would still like to be involved in something that is interesting over the long haul.

In any case, I am still searching; but I am chiding myself because I think I am making this harder than it should be.  Come on, Philip, pick one already!

Here is the Tumblr link to my Artifact for Block 1.  In it I have tried to represent most, if not all, of the different themes we discussed for the past 3 weeks.  I have included a short caption for each image that may be accessed by simply clicking on the image.

I hope you enjoy.

https://philipsedcblog.tumblr.com/

Our discussion of The Cyborg Manifesto this morning got me thinking of Frankenstein’s Monster.  I had made the comment in the group that Frankenstein created his monster within the social and cultural paradigms of the day.  The Monster sought self-realization and self-fulfillment by operating, albeit in a crazy and psychopathic manner, within those parameters. Actually, if you read the book, and then watch Frankenstein and The Bride of Frankenstein, The Monster does not act so far out of bounds of reality that many in our world do today.  He, like many others, has no sense of self-control, no patience, is totally amoral and apathetic to the feelings of others. His sole focus is eliminating his own loneliness and meeting his own desires.  This central theme in his life is the result of a previous life of crime and brutality, which has irreparably defined him.  I think what may be unnerving to us is our realization of how close we may be to feeling each of those emotions within ourselves at one point or another.  But fortunately, unlike The Monster, we don’t manifest them all at once.

Cyborgs on the other hand, as described in The Cyborg Manifesto, have no social or cultural paradigms to operate within.  They are seeking, through whatever convention is most efficient, their own sense of realization or fulfillment.  This may come via prior programming or subsequent programming based upon learning experiences.  The development of “Data”, in the Star Trek: The Next Generation series, and “Sonny” from I, Robot, may be a good examples of this.

For us, looking at cyborgs from our own human perspectives, see these created “beings” as cold, heartless, and at times cruel.  But is that really accurate?  To label cyborgs like that may assume we believe them capable of being the opposite, an assumption which may not in fact be true.  And if we mix cyborg technology with our own natural system, we get something akin to Robocop, which spends a good amount of time fighting the memories of the past with new urges and desires more attuned to cybernetic tendencies.  The end result, at least according to Hollywood is a reconciling of man of machine into a functional unit capable of feelings yet able to put them aside, at least temporarily, in favor of the sterile performance of programmed tasks.

In any case, I was left this morning with a good supply of philosophy to think about over the weekend.

#mscedc

I suppose this is an odd picture to include in my blog this week, but when I stopped to take in the beauty of it, it struck me as symbolic of our topic. The seahorse is an ancient and beautifully engineered natural creature. It is inquisitive, mobile, it grows, and it has a sense of survival. It also possesses an internal “clock” that regulates every activity it must engage in to survive. The watch represents the technology we use to govern almost every aspect of our lives. From eating to procreating to daily activities, we rely on technology to keep us on a proper bearing.

This week we are discussing the creation of new “life” in the form of robots, androids and other types of technology. Into these “lifeforms” we will put programming that allows inquisition and learning. Robots and androids will be mobile and have a sense of of survival (antivirus, etc.). The only human activity a robot cannot duplicate at this time is procreation, although there are some models that seem to be able to engage in simulated sexual activity.

Also, see in the watch face part of the reflection of the seahorse, but not entirely.  Is this symbolic of what happens when we create AI that can duplicate us?  Robots and other types of androids can resemble humans, but the image of ourselves we see in them is not quite complete.  Philosophers can go nuts with this.

A question that comes to mind here, for me, is when do the natural processes that have allowed man to survive for thousands of years end, and new technologies begin? Or, in what way does technology have more governance of our lives than our innate abilities?

#mscedc

Using holograms, or HumaGrams, in the classroom is becoming one of the latest techniques to get information to students using technology that is engaging and enjoyable.  The attached article describes how a Russian company has created holographic programs that allow students to interact with curriculum.  Specifically, one program brings into view the molecular action of molecules in such a way students may manipulate them and learn how they work. The video from YouTube looks at several late technology methods of classroom instruction, especially holograms.

http://www.cio.com/article/3150963/education/making-holograms-in-the-classroom-a-reality.html