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?

Assignment #3

Writing something about science? I was little worried about the research paper assignment because I had never written a 10 pages of essay. Also, I wasn't sure if my knowledge in science was enough to provide a creative argument or finding. But after given five topics to choose, my anxious was eased. The topics are all interesting!


I'm especially interested in "historical research on a scientists" and "science and technology: promise and peril."

Richard Feynman is my favorite scientist. I was inspired by his autobiography Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman! I was deeply intrigued by his character, full of enthusiasm, loving and compassion, that changed my stereotyped image of a scientist. He is a real humanity person who also happen to be scientist. While he is well known for a Nobel Prizer for quantum electrodynamics, I'm more interested in his great contribution to the improvement of atomic bomb. As I was born in Hiroshima, an atomic bomb is such a devastating technology. In fact, even today, it has still caused tensions between countries and destroyed nature and lives. Before reading his autobiography, I thought that the scientist who helped this evil invention must have no love and respect for life. So I was shocked when I learned that Feynman was a great humanistic person who loved people and life so much, and that his true curiosity for life just turned out to be an advanced atomic bomb. I would love to research how did he feel about his discovery later and stories behind it. 


The another topic,"science and technology: promise and peril," is something I really want to know. The topic is strongly related to our everyday life although we don't have much chance to see it unless we try. It is difficult not to take technology for granted. Since I was born, TV, washing machine and car were already there. Also, every time when a new device, such as I phone, was introduced, we were excited about a new cool technology for a second, and then next second, we were impatient of getting a newer and cooler one. Before making a line to buy a new I phone 4, how many people thought about the cost for it to come to our hands? As I benefit technology, my life stands on great sacrifices and exploitations. I think it's my responsibility or even obligation to know how my life affects other lives. Yet, we can't fully deny science and technology. We need to commute, travel and be connected people faraway. Science and technology are deeply embedded in our lives. I would love to learn how they have developed our lives. Today, so many parts of life are digitalized and mechanized, and it is almost overwhelming to keep up with all these changes. I'm especially very slow to absorb contemporary technologies, so I would love to research how much they offer, and obtain a motive to utilize them.


I found that above two topics are very interesting and beneficial to learn. At this moment, I'm thinking to go for the second topic that is about positive side and negative side of science and technology. For the Facebook and Twitter generation, we need to know both side of science and technology. This would give us an integrated perspective about science and technology to achieve a right attitude, not fully awed and not entirely believing, toward them. 

　　　　　　　　　　　  How much should the TV be thin?