Assignment #9

Thinking about technology and science had been very challenging for me. I didn’t have enough knowledge and interests in science. In deed, I didn’t like science fiction movie or novel in general. I prefer reading books about play and poet, or listening to music. Take this into account, I can say that I’m humanities person.

However, after I took this class, I grew my interest in science. I discovered that science and humanities are intertwined as both field have profound influence on each other.

I wrote about Oppenheimer for my research paper. His story is one of great examples to show the connection between science and humanities. He was a great humanities person, and he wanted to contribute to the world’s peace. He expressed his ambition through science and technology. I found that technology is the tool to achieve people’s greed and desire. The inventions tell what humans have pursued. It is power to control the world, nations and lives. So the idea of science, creating what humans desire is quite humanistic. People want to be their own God, a creator of the world. After I discovered this perspective, I came to enjoy learning about technology and science.

The assigned readings are very interesting. I’m glad that I was given an opportunity to learn them. I especially like Einstein’s Dream by Alan Lightman, and Frankeinstein by Mary Shelly. I was surprised to learn that science fictions were just as beautiful as other great books. Although the subject is science, language in both books is poetic and romantic. And the language conveys deep feelings and emotions. These two books really changed my perception about science. Through taking this course, I could build the bridge between humanities and science.   

Assignment #8

New technology awes us and impresses us. In this capitalism world, we can't stop creating and inventing things. Progress is always encouraged regardless of its goal. Today realm of science is expanding greatly, and it crossing the line of ethics. Our organs and body parts are now replaceable and we can kill hundreds and thousands of people in a second if we wish to. The power of science is now go beyond what humans can handle. I believe that scientists should limit the area to invent new technology. The invention of an atomic bomb by Robert Oppenheimer and Frankenstein by Mary Shelly can be good examples to show that people are not ready for the rapidly advanced technology. 

Although his motivation came from realizing a peaceful world, he invented an atomic bomb that is often referred as an weapon of genocide. Now, America had massive power to threat the world that humans had never had before. Were people ready for absorbing this invention? The history shows they were not. Technology was greatly advanced, but human morality didn't improve. American enjoyed their influence on the world, and other nations wished to have this influence. Soon, arms race began. 60 years since then, we humans don't seem to change. We even have a greater number and power of nuclear weapons despite the world's effort to reduce them. In addition, we have to worry if some nations secretly make nuclear weapons or if these weapons are used by terrorist to strike us. We allowed technology to advance to the point where we can't control. 

Not only killing, but science has advanced to extend life as well. In the science fiction novel Frankenstein,  a scientist, Victor, combined different parts of dead human body and created a zombi. His invention ignored ethics. The book implies that science might achieve to enter the realm of the God, death and live, in the future. In the story, people can't accept the monster, and the unnamed creation get deeply hurt by their reactions. He then determined to revenge Victor for the creation of miserable life. Throughout the story, Victor has to be scared when the monster appears, and who would be killed. Just like an atomic bomb, the creation becomes out of control, and it causes great tragedy. 

Scientists have to have responsibility for their inventions. They must have solutions and backups to control their inventions. Obviously, when it comes to the issue of killing and changing the law of life, solutions and backup plans are very debatable and controversial. So scientists shouldn't get into these inventions at first place. In Japan, it's been almost 3 months since excursion of nuclear plants occurred. Yet, scientists are still trying to restore control. When these nuclear power plants were built, it was said that nuclear plants were safely structured, and explosion would never occur. They further insured that even if it occurred, there would be sufficient backups, so nuclear plants would never harm the people's lives. There is no such a thing like "never." Unexpected events would happen, and they can't be excuse for losing control of technology. It is scientists' responsibility to assume worst scenarios, and explain to people. The worst scenarios should be manageable. If they are not, then scientist shouldn't go for inventing new technology.         

Assignment #7

Robert Oppenheimer is one of the most significant figures to contribute to form the modern world. His invention of an atomic bomb empowered America to be the most influential country in the world, and it determined basic power relationships among the countries as the World War II ended. It's not too much to say that today' s protected and privileged American life is created by his invention. However, the country paid back to loyalty of the patriotic scientist by devastating him. Oppenheimer's great fall is seen as tragedy. 

The story of the birth of an atomic bomb allowed me to connect both science and humanities because Oppenheimer’s struggle and anguish behind the success of the atomic bomb were so humane. Although greatly gifted and talented, Oppenheimer didn't live in a happy life. His lacking social ability made his childhood lonely. After he grew up, he was involved in Communists Party, and he had affair with women who are the members of Communist. I feel that his desire for deep connection with people and community might also be his drive to engage in intensive political movement. Moreover, his fall as a scientist after the invention of an atomic bomb is a great tragedy. Oppenheimer dedicated all his knowledge to invent an atomic bomb for the United States. However, the government paid off his devotion by breaking him. They decided to withdraw him from Atomic Energy Commission and denied his security clearance. He was torn apart by the betrayals and rejection of his patriotic spirit.

Oppenheimer’s invention opened the atomic era. I think the creation of an atomic bomb was the most threatening science. It cut the path to the development of massive destructive weapons. Today, H-bombs achieve 25,000 times the yield of the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The idea of creation of destructive weapons is very depressing and threatening. There is nothing creative and productive about this creation other than economical and political benefits as it is only destroying our limited habitat, the earth. Science would become much more appreciative if we could channel this knowledge and finance for development space technology that might expand our habitat.

Assignment #6

I'm writing about the history of Oppenheimer, a scientist who invented atomic bomb. In my research paper, I want to write about his personal aspect of life. He was a great humanities person who, fortunately or unfortunately,  happened to be talented as a physicist. I'm trying to prove that he was a victim of his own invention, and real tragic hero of America.  


To suport my argument, I'm going to use two sources.


"J. Robert Oppenheimer, 1904-1967 " by E.,R

file:///Volumes/NO%20NAME/PDF%20lib200.pdf

I found this source from EBSCOhost and thought it's helpful for my research paper. Describing Oppenheimer's character is vital to prove that his history was tragic, and this article provides his social awkwardness as well as his charismatic leadership. The information provided in this article is very valuable as it is written by the scientist who worked with Oppenheimer in Manhattan Project. According to the article, in the beginning, everyone thought he wasn't a qualified leader of such an important project as he had no experience of leading a large group of people. Also, he possessed some arrogance and snobbishness. There were mixed feelings among the scientists upon Oppenheimer's appointment as a leader. However, his charismatic leadership was soon acknowledged. E.,R proves Oppenheimer's amazing leadership by saying that without Oppenheimer, the project wouldn't have succeeded in such a short period. I chose this article because this source can add the clear idea my scientist. Despite his talent and leadership skills, Oppenheimer was a person just like us, having flaw and drawbacks. This sense allows reader to emphasize Oppenheimer as they read his tragic fall. 　


"Brotherhood of the Bomb " by Parshall Gerald


file:///Volumes/NO%20NAME/Lib%20200%20%22Brotherhood%20of%20the%20Bomb%22.webarchive　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　
I also found this article from EBSCOhost. It discusses Oppenheimer's support for the use of an atomic bomb; he envisioned the world's peace in the use of an atomic bomb. The author's argument is helpful for my research paper. I want to make a point that Oppenheimer's motive to use an nuclear weapon was not to destroy the world, but to stop the war and realize a peaceful world. According to the article, he believed that by using an atomic bomb, America would threat the world, and consequently, all nations would unite to control nuclear energy. We shouldn't highlight only the fact that he supported the use of an atomic bomb. He was a scientist who believed in peace. His hope in the invention of an atomic bomb produces great irony late in his life. His hope was betrayed, and he became a contributor to arms race. The information in this article helps to convey his depression when he discovered he became "destroyer of world."

Assignment #5

For the midterm, I'm planning to write about prompt #3, Robots  and  Artificial  Intelligence, using the imaginative source Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?  I think whether or not robots can achieve genuine consciousness is interesting topic to think about. We ourselves are not certain about the definition of this subjective feeling. I could say that I have genuine emotion because I could be angry, happy or sad. Yet it is difficult to explain why I function to feel these emotions. All I can say is because I feel so.

In the short article, Dream-Logic, The Internet And Artificial Thought, David Gelernter provides many good insights about consciousness and thought. He notes that thinking and reasoning are not the same abilities. While reasoning specifies thinking logically and rationally, an ability to think covers all our brain activities, and especially, what Glernter calls "free-association" is one of the unique qualities of humans (239 Gelernter). An ability of "free-association" is what makes humans creative. He claims that what we overly use reality is a creation of our thoughts and exists only in our mind. Our emotions, thoughts, mind and reality are all "blended together," and this integration of association of ideas is called consciousness (260 Gelernter). But for computers, reality is one thing, and it's not created by its own thoughts. Unlike humans, all thoughts-association functions separately.  

In the graphic novel, Rachael, an android with highly advanced AI, acts and speaks like a genuine intellectual being, a human. She is presented as expressive throughout the story. She smirks when she learns that Rick only has a sheep and wishes to have an owl. She upsets when she is declared that she is an android. Besides that, she displays various face expressions.

I want to argue that she is not a real genuine being since she fails the emotion test. I'm going to support my argument according to the definition of consciousness provided by Gelernter. Rachael's reality and her thinking activity are separated. This can be seen when she calls the owl it as thought the animal is an object. Her remarks about the owl in other scenes show that she understands the importance of the owl,  the fact that owls are extinct. Yet, her thinking doesn't recognize the owl as life. This small contradiction can be the proof of her superficial consciousness.

Another proof would be the scene when she overly reacts the apparent cruelty to livings, while she doesn't notice when the cruelty is presented in indirect way in the emotion test. This proves that she reacts according to what she is programmed, but not her thoughts or mind. She can detects cruelties when they are directly addressed, but she can't extend her thought to find indirect cruelty like "BEARSKIN RUG" and "BOILED DOG" (316-317 Dick).  Gelernter says that what one's perception about things should be a creation of one's thoughts and should agree with one's mind and emotions. However, Rachael's incoherent reactions toward cruelties show that her responses are not based on what she feels.

These two points can be proofs to support that she is not a genuine thinking being.

Assignment#4

Honestly, the term science itself had already been overwhelming to me. It is often spoken in different language, many technical words and unfamiliar names of materials, so I had easily gone for against science without sparing any thought. Yet, after watching a few clips about technology in class, I became to feel that robots would be good friends for humans. 

The first clip shown was "Stop Dave, I'm Afraid." It is excerpt from the film "2001: A Space Odyssey" in 1968. As the title of the clip suggests, an artificial intelligence of a space ship named HAL is capable of expressing its fear when the space pilot, Dave, is trying to disconnect memory core of the computer after HAL's murder of his colleagues.  Throughout the clip, HAL speaks as though it has genuine emotion just like humans. It uses the words like, "I think" and "I feel. " It even feels  "great enthusiasm and confidence." Finally, HAL confesses his fear to become impaired; "Stop Dave, I'm afraid." With the sounds of HAL's breath and its constant monotone voice, the clip well presents the horror of when computers become self-aware. The idea that nonliving entities have mind to care about its own existences is unexplainably frightening. We feel it's ethically wrong and even contradict to the evolution theory. Robots are not living; therefore, they won't die.If they cared about their existences, they would become part of the hierarchy of lives. As a result, they would become our enemies and threaten our lives. Even at unconscious level, we automatically construct this equation. The anticipation of the future of AI shown in this clip frightens the audiences, or at least me. 

Another clip, "Touch Bionics i-LIMB Hand: Ray Edwards," presents an optimistic view of the future of robots. Ray Edwards, a quadruple amputee from a cancer, is wearing bionics limbs. He shows and explains how this technology enables him to restore his normal life to a great degree that he had never imagine. In the clip, he holds and opens his hand and says how this means to him. His sparkling and hopeful eyes speak a lot. Arms and legs are so essential for us to live and enjoy life, so we could almost never imagine not to have them. Although people are still able to live without these parts of the body, the qualities of their lives would tremendously decrease without them.  If technology can become replacements for their loss, it will be far beyond amazing.. In the article "Bionic hand wins top tech prize," Edwards recalls when he first wore the bionic hand: "When the arm was put on, I had tears rolling down my face." His simple remark explains enough to cheer the advancement technology. The clip makes us think that technology is appreciative. It now can become part of the human body. According to him, "Psychologically, it has been the greatest thing." Technology can become our good friend to save not only physical, but mental lives. 

After seeing two opposite visions of the future of technology, I developed my appreciation for technology. When I watched robot's speech in 1939 and Japanese robot's running like humans, I didn't see importance of these achievements. Yet when I watch the man was smiling with his bionic hand in other clip, I realized that the attempts to make robots close to humans would be beneficial. Robots can become part of our lacking or missing parts, and this huge benefit outweighs any negativities of robots. 

I think that people today widely accept robots. This is because, as Ray Edwards shows, we have seen great benefits of technology, and also, it is almost impossible to deny robots in this technological world. ATM machines and automated voice response system make life mush smoother. Sometimes they are even more accurate and efficient than real humans, and these experiences enhance our confidence in technology. It is not scientists' effort to make robots look less threaten, but it is our incremental experience to interact with technology that makes us feel comfortable with robots.      

Now, which one is a robot?