Posted on

Lifestream, Tweets

In Book Thirteen of the comic version of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? there’s a three-frame spread of Deckard waking up in the morning. In the first, there’s just an alarm clock beeping – 5am – and a hand reaching over to quieten it. Next “THE CLOCK TELLS YOU IT’S TIME TO WAKE UP” and in the final frame, “ONE MACHINE GIVING INSTRUCTIONS TO ANOTHER”. From this, some might infer that Deckard is a replicant, a machine receiving instructions from the clock. However, as I reached to quieten my own alarm this morning, when I used the biometric scanner to clock in at work and when I responded to repeated meeting reminder alerts from Outlook it felt much more like a statement about the robotization of humans! Though of course, my human performance, my efficiency, is enhanced by these technological tools.

Posted on

Lifestream, Tweets

In identifying key criticisms of extropianism and transhumanism, Miller (2011, p. 215) indicates that ‘bioconservatives’ (those opposed to significant alteration of the body through technology)’ take issue with the potential for technological augmentation to create inequalities and conflict between those who are augmented and those who are not. Additionally,  bioconservatives see technological augmentation as a source of the debasement of human character and dignity (Bostrom,  cited in Miller, 2011).

For me the first concern is legitimate, but one which we are unlikely to heed. Bourdieu (1984), for instance, has suggested that the body has always been a site through which social distinction is sought, not only through the cultivation of appearance through dress and grooming, but also through the role of class in determining what foods are appropriate to eat and how bodies are used in labour – both of which impact on physical form. 

The second concern, that of the debasement of human character and dignity similarly ignores that what we do with, and how we control, our bodies has presumably always been influenced by culture. ‘Natural’ bodies would not blow their noses delicately, suppress belching or attempt to contain flatulence – in the many of today’s societies it is the civilised body which avoids debasement, not the natural body, and just as the social requirements and expectations for bodily control changed to affect that body, they are likely to continue to evolve under the influence of technology (see Wiliams & Bendelow, 1998, Ch 4.  The body in ‘high’ modernity and consumer culture from Williams & Bendelow, The Lived Body Sociological Themes, Embodied Issues, pp. 67-93).

Miller, V.  “9. The Body and Information Technology” from  Miller, Vincent, Understanding Digital Culture, pp.207-223. London: Sage 

Posted on

Lifestream, Tweets

Of course, I didn’t want to give anything away to Eli.. but what I was really curious about was whether she would come away thinking of Deckard as a replicant or not, and how that would colour her interpretation of the film/the themes within it. One can’t unsee what one has seen (nor see what one has not;): my first Blade Runner was the theatrical version (none of the others were ‘out’), where it remains ambiguous whether Deckard is a replicant or human. What I like about the notion of Deckard being human is that it allows a deeper interrogation of what it means to be human: through his work/killing, Deckard is increasingly dehumanised, while the replicants’ love for each other, attachment to life and overt emotional displays make them seem ever more human. In this context, with Deckard as human, his love at the end of the film for Rachel, a replicant, appears rehumanising – yet, what can that mean if there is no difference between replicant and human?

In what ways do you/does “modern life”/neoliberal post-industrial society force you to act like a ‘robot’?

Posted on

Lifestream, Tweets

The story is not quite the same – but beyond that I’m thinking about the medium, reading vs viewing. There’s more time for reflection, but because I’ve (happily) seen Blade Runner so many times it’s also not authentic reading: the faces of characters are from memory rather than imagination. Or is it my augmented imagination? 😉

Posted on

Lifestream, Tweets

Note: I suggested Robot & Frank for our viewing despite it not truly fitting with typical notions of cyberculture as its focus on memory adds to the usual exploration of memory-identity relationships explored within cyberpunk. In Robot & Frank, Frank has dementia, so is losing the memories which could be said to bind him to his identity. At the same time, he has to make a decision to wipe the robot’s memory – about which the robot is very pragmatic: he is not a person, so it should be done. However, in the film he has clearly become more to and done more for Frank emotionally than it’s popularly accepted that robots can. Unlike extropianism, in which man can escape his mortality through technological augmentation, in Robot & Frank the robot helps the human regain his sense of himself before ultimately accepting the loss of memory and what that will mean for that same self.

Posted on

Lifestream, Tweets

Note: Ghost in the Shell is a manga which was created by Shirow Masamune, and adapted into a movie in 1995. The movie is directed by Mamoru Oshii. The story is set sometime in the 21st century, in a time where the line between man and machine is blurred: robots are implanted with human tissue, and humans augmented by mechanical implants/cyborg bodies. The counter-culture element comes through the presence of ghost hackers, who break into the human/computer interface to reprogramme human minds (‘ghosts’) so that they become puppets (of the master hacker, the Puppet Master) that can be manipulated into doing the Puppet Master’s crimes.

The film explores the relationship between identity and memory, and what differentiates humans from machines. Notions of extropianism and dualism are developed by the character Motoko, who questions whether cyberbrains have the potential to generate their own ‘ghosts’, and whether her mind actually belongs to her body or her brain has just been stuffed in a body. 

There’s also more on the need for diversity: the Puppetmaster laments that he is only able to make copies of things, but life is dependent on diversity. Similarly, another character, Togusa, suggests that the group is weakened by being too similar because it leads them to have the same reactions and therefore become too predictable to enemies. Seems to be a recurring theme.. 

Posted on

Lifestream, Tweets

Note: thanks to Jenny Mackness for joining the conversation, sharing more great resources and probing deeper – so much to unpack in block 3 of the course. Distracted by post-humanism this week.. but the conversation is still ‘whirring’ in the background.

In particular I’ve been thinking about changing values, and how changed (technology driven) communication practices may contribute to those changes in values, for example, through different peer affirmation practices and changes in the scale of friendship groups. The starting point for this thinking is a study by Uhls & Greenfield (2011), “The Rise of Fame: An Historical Content Analysis” which confirms changes in reported youth values that coincide with technological innovation – for example, the arrival of youtube.