I'm here at the Gazebo leaning on a railing. I've just finished walking around the lake and just leaning here looking at the water is nice. I guess it's more like a pond than a lake but that's alright. Nobody is around me or near me. All that I see around is a lot pollen floating on the water, along with flower petals, the occasional twig or branch, and a few water fowl. I heard a fish jump a little while ago but was too slow to actually catch a glimpse of it.
I've always enjoyed just sitting outside, not really doing much of anything. Most of the time that has been done on my porch but it's especially nice when it happens to be on the water. The only thing that could possibly make this better would be for there to be some ladies tanning, but the location that I have chosen does not lend itself to that activity. Neither does the lack of sun. Actually, a fishing pole would be nice now too but I, unfortunately, do not have that either.
Still there's something special about watching the ducks dive down under the water, the partially domesticated squirrels search for nuts, and the obstinate geese attack small children. Still, it's not just that but also smelling the pollen and the flowers that are so abundant, feeling the warm breeze on your face as look across the water over at beautiful brick buildings, and hearing nothing but nature at work.
All of these things are happening at once, so many senses are engaged simultaneously. It's invigorating. That's the difference between this reality and the virtual. The Internet engages at most two senses, hearing and sight. Reality can incorporate all five of them. If I only had a sweet tea I could be experiencing all five right now.
As for the FYS class for which this is being written I have enjoyed the majority of the class. The only thing that I have disliked talking about is virtual worlds. I, personally, do not have that much stake in virtual worlds nor do they interest me to a great extent. Talking about the impact of technology on people and the world is very interesting to me, not only because I enjoy what new technologies offer but I also find it intriguing how they change us as people. When I think of technology I think of it being a tool to be used. We use the tool to change other things that may, or may not, affect us. The tool itself does not change us, the product does. However, technology, such as the Internet, seems to be breaking the mold changing the way that we operate and act not necessarily by what it produces but just because of what it is. A hammer could not do that. All in all we discussed many things in the class, some were more interesting to me than others but overall I enjoyed the class.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Sacrifice for Happiness
In Exodus to the Virtual World Edward Castronova illustrates the difference between a want and a like.
"A 'want' is a craving, a feeling that, if only you could expose yourself to this particular sensation, you would feel pleasure. A 'like' is just plain happiness, a feeling being experienced that has the pleasure gloss on it."
Later Castronova explains the delicate balance that must be achieved by game designers in order to make a game desirable to play. He says that people need to have goals that they will try to achieve. These goals should be fun to proceed through and finally accomplish. Happiness is found in doing the task needed to accomplish the goal as well as in the completion of that goal. If the goal is too easy, or to difficult, to accomplish then the person will not like it and lose interest in doing it.
To illustrate this Castronova uses many examples, one being that of a player progressing through a game and their wish to, "advance more quickly through the game, but if that wish is granted, the player will not like the result." Another example is that of a man trying to buy a car with winning that he earns from playing the stock market. The more money he earns the happier he gets. However, if the car is given to him (note the word given) from an entity, Castronova uses the government, then he will not be as happy or as satisfied because his goal would have been accomplished but not by his own actions or through him earning it.
I have never really thought about this in detail but now that I have read a little bit of it it makes complete sense. There was one game that I played for hours and hours, progressing very slowly but enjoying the game the entire time. Once I learned that cheats were available for it I quickly used them to attain the highest levels and most powerful gear, but after I had done that I only played for a little while longer. Even though I never actually beat the game the fun was taken out of it because I had already accomplished almost everything without having to do anything for it. All of the goals were met, yet I got little enjoyment out of it so I began to dislike playing, and so the game ended for me.
It's interesting to see how you can accomplish something that you want to do but that does not necessarily mean that you will like the outcome, or the feeling that comes with it. Maybe what makes things worthwhile, and in a sense fun and enjoyable, is the sacrifice that it takes to accomplish it. In a way, it's almost like by giving up a little part of yourself for something, that thing becomes a little part of you and therefore you enjoy it more.
"A 'want' is a craving, a feeling that, if only you could expose yourself to this particular sensation, you would feel pleasure. A 'like' is just plain happiness, a feeling being experienced that has the pleasure gloss on it."
Later Castronova explains the delicate balance that must be achieved by game designers in order to make a game desirable to play. He says that people need to have goals that they will try to achieve. These goals should be fun to proceed through and finally accomplish. Happiness is found in doing the task needed to accomplish the goal as well as in the completion of that goal. If the goal is too easy, or to difficult, to accomplish then the person will not like it and lose interest in doing it.
To illustrate this Castronova uses many examples, one being that of a player progressing through a game and their wish to, "advance more quickly through the game, but if that wish is granted, the player will not like the result." Another example is that of a man trying to buy a car with winning that he earns from playing the stock market. The more money he earns the happier he gets. However, if the car is given to him (note the word given) from an entity, Castronova uses the government, then he will not be as happy or as satisfied because his goal would have been accomplished but not by his own actions or through him earning it.
I have never really thought about this in detail but now that I have read a little bit of it it makes complete sense. There was one game that I played for hours and hours, progressing very slowly but enjoying the game the entire time. Once I learned that cheats were available for it I quickly used them to attain the highest levels and most powerful gear, but after I had done that I only played for a little while longer. Even though I never actually beat the game the fun was taken out of it because I had already accomplished almost everything without having to do anything for it. All of the goals were met, yet I got little enjoyment out of it so I began to dislike playing, and so the game ended for me.
It's interesting to see how you can accomplish something that you want to do but that does not necessarily mean that you will like the outcome, or the feeling that comes with it. Maybe what makes things worthwhile, and in a sense fun and enjoyable, is the sacrifice that it takes to accomplish it. In a way, it's almost like by giving up a little part of yourself for something, that thing becomes a little part of you and therefore you enjoy it more.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Project 3 Final Draft: Memory vs. The Internet
Over the past two decades the Internet has grown exponentially, and so has its usage. Today the Internet is used for almost everything; games, news, information, socializing, and even business. The question really isn’t what can you do with the Internet, but what can’t you do with it? Now with Internet browsing speeds increasing to where huge quantities of information can be accessed within seconds and with the wide availability of the Internet, it is hard not to be in, seemingly, constant contact with it. No doubt, having constant access to infinite amounts of information at, literally, the touch of a button is extremely beneficial, especially in a world where time is an extremely precious commodity, but is the Internet really so benevolent? Could it be that with the emergence of the Internet, with its inherent ability to store and allow access to information, what we once used to rely on for information recall, our memory, is slowly becoming less needed and, therefore, losing its ability to store information?
One of the primary functions of the Internet is storing and sharing large amounts of information which is very similar to our memory. Almost any kind of information can be stored on the Internet and then accessed by multiple millions, if not billions, of people. One needs only to type in a query to Google and see the staggering size of the number of related links to that search to realize this. Josh Catone's blog, "The Staggering Size of the Internet", states that there were approximately 255 million websites on the Internet as of Dec. 2010 and 21.4 million new websites in 2010 (Catone). Not only is there an unimaginable amount of information out there but the sheer number of people accessing and creating that much information is impressive as well, an estimated 2 billion internet users. This means that, since the U.S. census estimates the world population at around 6.9 billion people, roughly 29% of the world uses the Internet ("U.S. and World Population Clock").
Our ability to remember information has always been of extreme importance. For example, what is the point of, many, tests but to assess a person’s ability to learn, recall, and evaluate information? However, for something that is an inherent ability unto all of us, few people actually understand what memory is. Kenneth Higbee claims that memory is, “merely an abstraction that refers to a process rather than a structure… [or] as a tangible thing” (Higbee, 2). This is rather important to understand because it suggests that memory is more like a habit than an actually part of the body. People do not have habits of an object but rather of processes. As the old saying goes “old habits are hard to break,” and if the process of remembering information is a habit it is certainly one of the oldest that we have.
 |
| Artistic Depiction of Memory |
Well, if memory is a process then how does it work? This topic is still not completely understood by science but there is a general theory of how it takes place. First the brain encodes information through electrical signals and chemicals. Richard Mohs explains that, “[n]erve cells connect with other cells at a point called a synapse…Each brain cell can form thousands of links like this, giving the brain about 100 trillion synapses” (Mohs, 2). With repetition and practice these connections are strengthened and the brain reorganizes itself to take into account new experiences, reinforcing the knowledge and memory. However, if a person does not reinforce the memory the brain will reorganize itself and the old connections will slowly fade away. Retrieving the information is the next step that takes place in the process. This “simply” happens when the same connections are made as when an experience was encoded. Mohs claims that when something cannot be remembered it is attributed to one, or a combination, or three things; registry, retention, and retrieval of the experience. If the information wasn’t registered correctly, the connections were lost due to extended periods of time without being used, or there was a, “mismatch between retrieval cues and the encoding of the information,” the memory may be hard, or impossible, to retrieve (Mohs, 4).
If, however, everything takes place as it should in the process of memory an invaluable and all-important action has been accomplished. Almost everything that we do is based on past experience and learned information therefore being able to perform the action of memory well is extremely important. For instance, a test is generally used to measure how well someone has learned a particular subject and since learning is nothing more than the brain making synapses in the memory process a test is truly measuring someone’s memory function, along with their reasoning skills. To an extent, everything that we do requires memory, from remembering people to tying shoes and even walking and talking. Can then the brain remember too much information and clog the inner workings of the mind to the point where it cannot function properly? It seems that this is not the case because, apart from the storage of memory being “virtually unlimited,” the very process of remembering more information, as implied by Higbee, “may actually help memory” (Higbee, 13). This is significant because it shows that as memory is used it builds upon itself, possibly because the brain finds quicker and simpler routes of storing information.
Not only can 29% of the world’s population use the Internet, but the modes that they can use to access all of that information makes it extremely easy and fast to do so. For example, many phones on the market today, such as the very popular iPhone and Droid, give almost complete access to the Internet from anywhere that they can get a signal. By taking a look at the map of the United States on CellFanatic.com it can clearly be seen that the majority of the United States has access to the Internet, via phones. Also, the speed at which the Internet can be accessed and information can be gathered is also impressive, with AT&T’s network giving a range of download speeds ranging from “700kbps to 1.7Mbps” (Marshall). This means that at a premium a phone capable of accessing the Internet on AT&T’s service could download approximately 6.9 seconds of music, or “a text file with 1,048,576 characters” every second (WikiAnswers).
At this stage it would seem as if the Internet and the human memory have a lot of things in common. For one, both allow for the storage and access of huge amounts of information at incredible speeds. While the memory is still, at this point, easier to access and use, due to its close physical relationship to the human mind, the Internet is not at all awkward to access and can be used with simply the touch of a button. In some ways the Internet and the memory are even similar in their structure. Take, for instance, memory, which is a process of neurons interacting and connecting via electrical signals at points called synapses. This is very similar to the Internet, servers that store information that are connected, via wires, to other servers which all communicate through electrical signals.
This does not mean that there are not differences however. For example, the Internet is a compilation of the knowledge of billions of people, while the human memory relies on the knowledge and experiences of only one. This, most importantly, means that the Internet has a vastly superior amount of information stored within it. Also, Ralph Merkel asserts that the brain can, at most, perform 10^16 operations per second while the most advanced computer processor to date can perform “159,000 [million instructions per second]” or roughly 10^12 operations per second (Merkel/Wikipedia). This means that human memory is faster in overall processing speed compared to the Internet, and this does not even take into consideration the proximity of the memory to the actual human mind. By this it is meant that while because the mind and the memory are, by most standards, the same thing they can work in unison at the same speed. However, because the Internet can, at this point, only be accessed by physical means, a human typing for instance, the process of using the Internet is slowed down because a human cannot move as fast as it can think.
 |
| The Internet - a series of tubes |
Despite these present inadequacies, it is a fact that the Internet will continue to grow bigger, faster, and more accessible so can, or will, this have an effect on the human need for memory? When Socrates proclaimed that, “this invention…will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn it, by causing them to neglect their memory,” he may have been discussing the ability to write but this also would seem to relate to the Internet just as well (Wright, 104). For instance, why would someone remember their best friend’s birthday if the Internet website sensation Facebook reminds them? In theory it would not stop there. Since the Internet holds such an enormous amount of information all that someone needs to do to access it is type in a search query and go from there, and the need to remember information is suddenly gone. The only thing that keeps this from happening is the separation that is between the Internet and the human mind. Because the two cannot interact directly with one another memory will be needed to some extent. However, this does not mean that the Internet has not affected the human memory as of yet. As Caygill points out, “the Internet seem[s] to promise a new art of memory in which knowledge as technological invention replaces knowledge as recollection” (Caygill, 2). This suggests that memory is no longer as necessary for the brain to carry out because technology, computers and the Internet, is carry out that function. If memory were to become almost solely a process completed by technology, rather than biology, this would possibly leave the human brain liberated to focus on other functions like critical thinking and understanding information, as opposed to memorizing. This can be demonstrated with an example of a person driving and talking on phone, with the driver being an analogy for the brain. While doing the tasks simultaneously both the ability to drive and communicate suffer. Yet if just one function is carried out, with full attention going to that specific task, then it can be performed much better.
 |
| Biology vs. Technology |
However, it is possible that the Internet could actually aid memory, and not replace it. By allowing for the repeated and continual experience of reading, or seeing, something the memory process could be improved. This would be possible by allowing the brain to make more connections between different parts of the brain, reinforcing the experience and increasing the retention. For example, by searching the Pythagorean Theorem in Google a myriad of site links come up displaying information in the forms of video, pictures, and script. By accessing all of these together it is more likely that the brain will make a connection visually and audibly, thereby increasing the likelihood of learning the concept.
As seen by the average SAT scores posted on InfoPlease.com the data is mixed. While the Verbal Score Totals seem to have fallen slightly since 1972 the Mathematical Score Totals have actually risen slightly. Based on Sven Birkerts theory that “complexity and distinctiveness of verbal and written communication, which are deeply bound to traditions of print literacy, will gradually be replaced by a more telegraphic sort of ‘plainspeak’” due to the Internet would seem to correspond with this data (Birkerts). Perhaps with the Internet’s availability and the popularity of sites like SparkNotes Birkert’s vision of curricula becoming “streamlined and simplified” as well as the more difficult books being cut down in order to more simply transfer the information is, or has, come true. By streamlining information in this way the brain no longer needs to think critically about what is being processed, an affect that Birkerts was extremely concerned about. For instance, the reader no longer has to read for content and understanding because the more simple reading is focused solely on delivering those two aspects, on a silver platter. There is no effort involved. This seems to be in conflict with Caygill’s theory that the reader will be freer to think critically about a reading because their brain will be more able to perform that function without the necessity to also store information in the form of memory.
With the invention and advance of the Internet information has been able to more freely be transferred among individuals. An extremely high capacity to store information, ease of access, and astounding speed have all made this technology an integral part of the present but despite fears of this causing a recession in the development and usage of the human memory it is hard to make a concrete conclusion either for the Internet or against it. On one hand, it is possible that the Internet can actually benefit memory. This is possibly because there are so many different types of information by storing the information, is reinforced faster and with more strength. This means that the information can be retained for a longer period of time. On the other hand, the Internet may be more detrimental to the human memory. The reasoning behind this claim lies in the fact that the human memory and the Internet both serve very closely related functions of storing and retrieving information. Usually when two things so closely overlap each other’s functions the dominant one takes over and the other is forgotten. However, little evidence has been found to support this idea. Although scores on the reading section of the SAT seem to have fallen over the last three decades the math scores have actually increased. While the first bit of data would seem to indicate proof that memory, along with possibly language, has degraded slightly over the generations the last part cannot be simply looked over. So, at this point it remains to be seen whether the Internet is harmful, or beneficial, for the memory but one should always keep in mind just how closely related the two are. Often when two things are as closely related as the Internet and memory, in terms of function, it is almost impossible to have them not affect each other.
Works Cited
"Answers.com - How big is 1mb." WikiAnswers - The Q&A wiki. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_big_is_1mb>.
"Average SAT Scores, 1972–2007 — Infoplease.com." Infoplease: Encyclopedia, Almanac, Atlas, Biographies, Dictionary, Thesaurus. Free online reference, research & homework help. — Infoplease.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883611.html>.
Birkerts, Sven. "Boston Review." Boston Review — Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://bostonreview.net/BR16.5/birkerts.html>.
Catone, Josh. "The Staggering Size of the Internet." Mashable. Mashable Inc., 25 Jan. 2011. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <mashable.com/2011/01/25/internet-size-infographic/>.
Caygill, Howard. "Meno and the Internet: between memory and the archive ." History of the Human Sciences . N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://hhs.sagepub.com/content/12/2/1.full.pdf+html>.
Higbee, Kenneth L. "Your Memory: How It Works and How to ... - Google Books." Google Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/3ckdjo7>.
"Instructions per second - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_per_second>.
Marshall, Nick. "At&t HSPA 3g network complete, mission accomplished!." Cellfanatic – Cell phone, mobile phone, wireless network news. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://www.cellfanatic.com/2008/06/04/att-hspa-3g-network-complete-mission-accomplished/>.
Merkel, Ralph. "Brain limits." Ralph Merkle's Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://www.merkle.com/brainLimits.html>.
Mohs, Richard C. "Discovery Health "Memory Retrieval"." Discovery Health "Health Guides". Publications International, Ltd., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/nervous-system/human-memory3.htm>.
Wright, J.. "The Phaedrus, Lysis, and Protagoras ... - Google Books." Google Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/3fwzllk>.
"U.S. & World Population Clock." Census Bureau Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html>.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Project 4: Gone Too Long
The first of the corporations was founded in the mid 1900’s. It started by using resources found in Earth like silicon and rare metals to make products. It grew powerful, along with others, until the resources grew scarce and the companies fought amongst themselves. Eventually, it consolidated itself, cornering the market in its chosen field and ingraining itself in economy.
At the end of the 21st century there were only five companies in the entire world. They produced everything that was needed for life and the less necessary necessities. They were so vital for the health of the world civilization that any thought by governments to “bust” them were thrown out. They were too important.
They created the first, and only, Artificial Intelligences, computers designed to know all and adapt with time to do anything allowing the corporations to stay ahead of the market. All other technology was in some way connected with one of the corporations, and an AI.
Around 2130 Earth became inhospitable for humans. The corporations had used every last resource and left behind only toxic waste. Once the AI’s failed due to inefficient power, civilization crumbled. The human population declined as food, water, and shelter ran out. Only the strongest survived, but not for long.
This is the scene that we faced. Trash littered the streets, buildings were burned and some torn down. Both human and machine carcasses gave the landscape an eerie desolate feeling. The AI remains were found, burned and in disrepair, with a sign on each reading “Depend not on another, but lean instead on yourself.”
“I knew we were gone too long this time. You leave them alone for 300 years and this is what you get,” said the captain at this sight. We had a policy never to leave one of the trial colonies alone for more than 100 years, lest they destroy themselves. We avoided this once before when the nations threatened nuclear war. It’s not completely their fault; they were too young and ignorant. We should have taken better care of them.
We hope that sector Novus13 has fared better than this.
Official Report #16408:
Colony: Earth
Date: 14/62/31016
Population: 0
Planet: Stable, inhospitable
Outlook: 500 years for recovery
Comments: Extremely capable species, innovation levels extremely high, intelligence levels moderate/high, as a species destructive towards environment, aggressive nature. Future note for recolonization: Good species, although young. Highly recommended to recultivate with minor modifications in creation and maintenance.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Technology Dependent
Some people think that we are becoming too dependent upon technology. Perhaps because of the simple fact of how often we use technology. Just walking down the street it is hard not to see someone using a cell phone, perhaps you are that person yourself. Others believe that technology is the best thing that could happen to us and embrace all new changes and gadgets that come out. I couldn't help think about this as I read the passage in Feed, by M.T. Anderson, about the computers that we use today;
"They carried them around outside of them, in their hands, like if you carried your lungs in a briefcase and opened it up to breathe."
Computers, in future portrayed by this book, have become almost like a physical part of these people. They are connected with mind, almost as if the Internet of today and our brain could communicate directly. This comes with huge benefits, like "knowing" almost limitless amounts of information, storing memories and experiences that can be shared with others directly, and even communicating in a telepathic manner. However there are drawbacks as well as continuous commercials and ads are being played through the "feed" and directly into the mind, with seemingly no way to bypass or stop them. At times it even influences the spending of the person or their thoughts.
This technology even becomes so ingrained in everyday life that it is physically, and mentally, difficult to be without it. The "dead air" that is present in the mind of the un-connected brain is troubling and even bothersome.
One of my main problems with the idea of a technology like this is that it does not actually make a person any physically better. Even though a person could access any and all available information with a "feed" it would not make them smart. It's kind of like if Steven Hawking told my 5 year old sister what to say in order to explain a complex theory of physics. She would be able to repeat the words but that doesn't mean she can understand what she is being told.
So becoming as dependent on this kind of a technology, like the people in the world of Feed are, does not appeal to me. It doesn't help you think any better, in fact it seems like the beginning of a story like the The Machine Stops. People become dependent on a technology that just spoon-feeds them what they need and are not able to live when it breaks down or malfunctions.
"They carried them around outside of them, in their hands, like if you carried your lungs in a briefcase and opened it up to breathe."
Computers, in future portrayed by this book, have become almost like a physical part of these people. They are connected with mind, almost as if the Internet of today and our brain could communicate directly. This comes with huge benefits, like "knowing" almost limitless amounts of information, storing memories and experiences that can be shared with others directly, and even communicating in a telepathic manner. However there are drawbacks as well as continuous commercials and ads are being played through the "feed" and directly into the mind, with seemingly no way to bypass or stop them. At times it even influences the spending of the person or their thoughts.
This technology even becomes so ingrained in everyday life that it is physically, and mentally, difficult to be without it. The "dead air" that is present in the mind of the un-connected brain is troubling and even bothersome.
One of my main problems with the idea of a technology like this is that it does not actually make a person any physically better. Even though a person could access any and all available information with a "feed" it would not make them smart. It's kind of like if Steven Hawking told my 5 year old sister what to say in order to explain a complex theory of physics. She would be able to repeat the words but that doesn't mean she can understand what she is being told.
So becoming as dependent on this kind of a technology, like the people in the world of Feed are, does not appeal to me. It doesn't help you think any better, in fact it seems like the beginning of a story like the The Machine Stops. People become dependent on a technology that just spoon-feeds them what they need and are not able to live when it breaks down or malfunctions.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Project 3 rough draft: Memory vs. The Internet
Over the past decade or so the Internet has grown exponentially, and so has its usage. Today the Internet is used for almost everything; games, news, information, socializing, and even business. The question really isn’t what can you do with the Internet, but what can’t you do with it? Now with Internet browsing speeds increasing to where huge quantities of information can be accessed within seconds and the wide availability of the Internet it is hard not to be in, seemingly, constant contact with it. No doubt, having constant access to infinite amounts of information at, literally, the touch of a button is extremely beneficial, especially in a world where time is an extremely precious commodity, but is it really so benevolent? Could it be that with the emergence of the Internet what we once used to rely on for information recall, our memory, is slowly becoming less needed and, therefore, losing its ability to store information?
Our ability to remember information has always been of extreme importance. For example, what is the point of tests but to assess a person’s ability to learn and recall information? However, for something that is an inherent ability unto all of us, few people actually understand what memory is. According to Higbee memory is, “merely an abstraction that refers to a process rather than a structure… [or] as a tangible thing” (Higbee,2). This is rather important to understand because it suggests that memory is more like a habit than an actually part of the body. People do not have habits of an object but rather of processes. As the old saying goes “old habits are hard to break,” and if the process of remembering information is a habit it is certainly one of the oldest that we have.
Well, if memory is a process then how does it work? This topic is still not completely understood by science but there is a general theory of how it takes place. First the brain encodes information through electrical signals and chemicals. According to Mohs, “[n]erve cells connect with other cells at a point called a synapse…Each brain cell can form thousands of links like this, giving the brain about 100 trillion synapses” (Mohs, 2). With repetition and practice these connections are strengthened and the brain reorganizes itself to take into account new experiences, reinforcing the knowledge and memory. However, if a person does not reinforce the memory the brain will reorganize itself and the old connections will slowly fade away. Retrieving the information is the next step that takes place in the process. This “simply” happens when the same connections are made as when an experience was encoded. According to Mohs, when something cannot be remembered it is attributed to one, or a combination, or three things; registry, retention, and retrieval of the experience. If the information wasn’t registered correctly, the connections were lost due to extended periods of time without being used, or there was a, “mismatch between retrieval cues and the encoding of the information,” the memory may be hard, or impossible, to retrieve (Mohs, 4).
If, however, everything takes place as it should in the process of memory an invaluable and all-important action has been accomplished. Almost everything that we do is based on past experience and learned information therefore being able to perform the action of memory well is extremely important. For instance, a test is generally used to measure how well someone has learned a particular subject and since learning is nothing more than the brain making synapses in the memory process a test is truly measuring someone’s memory function. To an extent, everything that we do requires memory, from remembering people to tying shoes and even walking and talking. Can then the brain remember to much information and clog the inner workings of the mind to the point where it cannot function properly? It seems that this is not the case because, apart from the storage of memory being “virtually unlimited,” the very process of remembering more information, according to Higbee, “may actually help memory” (Higbee, 13). This is significant because it shows that as memory is used it builds upon itself, possibly because the brain finds quicker and simpler routes of storing information.
One of the primary functions of the Internet is storing and sharing large amounts of information which is very similar to our memory. Almost any kind of information can be stored on the Internet and then accessed by multiple millions, if not billions, of people. One needs only to type in a query to Google and see the staggering size of the number of related links to that search to realize this. According to a blog on Mashable.com, there were approximately 255 million websites on the Internet as of Dec. 2010 and 21.4 million new websites in 2010. Not only is there an unimaginable amount of information out there but the sheer number of people accessing and creating that much information is impressive as well, an estimated 2 billion internet users. This means that, since the U.S. census estimates the world population at around 6.9 billion people, roughly 29% of the world uses the Internet.
Not only can 29% of the world’s population use the Internet, but the modes that they can use to access all of that information makes it extremely easy and fast to do so. For example, many phones on the market today, such as the very popular iPhone and Droid, give almost complete access to the Internet from anywhere that they can get a signal. Not only this but taking a look at the map of the United States on CellFanatic.com it can clearly be seen that the majority of the United States has access to the Internet, on their phones. Also, the speed at which the Internet can be accessed and information gathered is also impressive, with AT&T’s network giving a range of download speeds ranging from “700kbps to 1.7Mbps” (Marshall). That means that at a premium a phone capable of accessing the Internet on AT&T’s service could download approximately 6.9 seconds of music, or “a text file with 1,048,576 characters” every second (WikiAnswers).
At this stage it would seem as if the Internet and the human memory have a lot of things in common. For one, both allow for the storage and access of huge amounts of information at incredible speeds. While the memory is still, at this point, easier to access and use, due to its close physical relationship to the human mind, the Internet is not at all awkward to access and can be with simply the touch of a button. In some ways the Internet and the memory are even similar in their structure. Take, for instance, the memory which is a process of neurons interacting and connecting via electrical signals at points called synapses. This is very similar to the Internet which is merely a bunch of servers that store information connected via wires to other servers which all communicate through electrical signals.
This does not mean that there are not differences however. For example, the Internet is a compilation of the knowledge of billions of people, while the human memory relies on the knowledge and experiences of only one. This, most importantly, means that the Internet has a vastly superior amount of information stored within it. Also, According to Merkel, the brain can, at most, perform 10^16 operations per second while the most advanced computer processor to date can perform “159,000 [million instructions per second]” or roughly 10^12 operations per second (Merkel/Wikipedia). This means that human memory is faster in overall processing speed compared to the best computers, and therefore the Internet, yet this does not even take into consideration the proximity of the memory to the actual human mind.
Despite these present inadequacies, it is a fact that the Internet will continue to grow bigger, faster, and more accessible so can, or will, this have an effect on the human need for memory? When Socrates stated that, “this invention…will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn it, by causing them to neglect their memory,” he may have been discussing the ability to write but this also would seem to relate to the Internet just as well (Wright and Bekker, 104). For instance, why would someone remember their best friend’s birthday if the Internet website sensation Facebook reminds them? In theory it would not stop there. Since the Internet holds such an enormous amount of information all that someone needs to do to access it is type in a search query and go from there, the need for remember information is suddenly gone. The only thing that keeps this from happening is the separation that is between the Internet and the human mind. Because the two cannot interact directly with one another memory will be needed to some extent. However, this does not mean that the Internet has not affected the human memory as of yet. As Caygill points out, “the Internet seem[s] to promise a new art of memory in which knowledge as technological invention replaces knowledge as recollection” (Caygill, 2).
However, it is possible that the Internet could actually aid memory. By allowing for the repeated and continual experience of reading, or seeing, something the memory process could be improved. This would be possible by allowing the brain to make more connections between different parts of the brain, reinforcing the experience and increasing the retention. For example, by searching the Pythagorean Theorem in Google a myriad of site links come up displaying information in the forms of video, pictures, and script. By accessing all of these together it is more likely that the brain will make a connection visually and audibly, thereby increasing the likelihood of learning the concept.
As seen by the average SAT scores posted on InfoPlease.com the data is mixed. While the Verbal Score Totals seem to have fallen slightly since 1972 the Mathematical Score Totals have actually risen slightly. Based on Birkerts theory that “complexity and distinctiveness of verbal and written communication, which are deeply bound to traditions of print literacy, will gradually be replaced by a more telegraphic sort of ‘plainspeak’” due to the Internet would seem to correspond with the data (Birkerts). Perhaps with the Internet’s availability, and popularity, of sites like SparkNotes Birkert’s vision of curricula becoming “streamlined and simplified” as well as the more difficult books being cut down in order to more simply transfer the information is, or has, come true.
With the invention and advance of the Internet information has been able to more freely be transferred among individuals. An extremely high capacity to store information, ease of access, and astounding speed have all made this technology an integral part of the present but despite fears of this causing a recession in the development and usage of the human memory it is hard to make a concrete conclusion either for the Internet or against it. On one hand, it is possible that the Internet can actually benefit memory. This is possibly because there are so many different types of information are available, all about the same topic, that making connections between neurons in the brain, and thereby storing the information, is reinforced faster and with more strength. This means that the information can be retained for a longer period of time. On the other hand, the Internet may be more detrimental to the human memory. Reasoning behind this claim lies in the fact that the human memory and the Internet both serve very closely related functions, storing and retrieving information. Usually when two things so closely overlap each other’s functions the dominant one takes over and the other is forgotten. O However, little evidence has been found to support this idea. Although scores on the reading section of the SAT seem to have fallen over the last three decades the math scores have actually increased. While the first bit of data would seem to indicate proof that memory, along with possibly language, has degraded slightly over the generations the last part cannot be simply looked over. So, at this point it remains to be seen whether the Internet is malevolent, or benevolent, towards the memory but one should always keep in mind just how closely related the two are. Often when two things are as closely related as the Internet and memory, in terms of function, it is almost impossible to have them not affect each other.
Works Cited
"Answers.com - How big is 1mb." WikiAnswers - The Q&A wiki. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_big_is_1mb>.
"Average SAT Scores, 1972–2007 — Infoplease.com." Infoplease: Encyclopedia, Almanac, Atlas, Biographies, Dictionary, Thesaurus. Free online reference, research & homework help. — Infoplease.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883611.html>.
Birkerts, Sven. "Boston Review." Boston Review — Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://bostonreview.net/BR16.5/birkerts.html>.
Catone, Josh. "The Staggering Size of the Internet." Mashable. Mashable Inc., 25 Jan. 2011. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <mashable.com/2011/01/25/internet-size-infographic/>.
Caygill, Howard. "Meno and the Internet: between memory and the archive." History of the Human Sciences 12.2 (1999): 1-11. Print.
Higbee, Kenneth L. Your memory: how it works and how to improve it. Englewood cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977. Print.
"Instructions per second - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_per_second>.
Marshall, Nick. "At&t HSPA 3g network complete, mission accomplished!." Cellfanatic – Cell phone, mobile phone, wireless network news. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://www.cellfanatic.com/2008/06/04/att-hspa-3g-network-complete-mission-accomplished/>.
Merkel, Ralph. "Brain limits." Ralph Merkle's Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://www.merkle.com/brainLimits.html>.
Mohs, Richard C. "Discovery Health "Memory Retrieval"." Discovery Health "Health Guides". Publications International, Ltd., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/nervous-system/human-memory3.htm>.
"U.S. & World Population Clock." Census Bureau Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html>.
Wright, Josiah, and Immanuel Bekker. The Phaedrus, Lysis, and Protagoras of Plato . London: MacMillan and Co., Limited, 1888. Print.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
For the Love of...
While watching the movie The Social Network I noticed something about Mark Zukerberg, or at least the character Mark Zuckerberg. No, it was not his social awkwardness or even the way that he conducted himself (I'll refrain from elaborating on my thoughts on his behavior/personality), but rather his love for building, in his case, programs.
Throughout the movie Zuckerberg was constantly working on something new, the first of which is a program that allows the user to rate people's appearance. This destroys Zuckerberg socially as people would rather not have their pictures posted all over the internet for people to rate and compare them (go figure). However, when a group of students offer him the opportunity to "redeem" himself, Zuckerberg takes offense. He did not want to redeem himself because he accomplished what he set out to do, make a program that was popular and to get his name known as a programmer.
Next, with his creation of Facebook Zuckerberg was advised by his friend to start allowing advertisements to run on his program so that the business could begin to make money. He turned this idea down because Facebook had a "cool" factor that drew people to it and Zuckerberg felt like advertisements at this stage of the business would kill the idea of Facebook. Also, he said that Facebook was still to young to really know what it could be fully capable of so it would need more time to develop, outside of the harsh world of business. What we can take away from this is that, essentially, the money did not interest him it was his program that interested him and how it would develop.
Lastly, while in court Zuckerberg explains that the money that he has made doesn't really matter to him. Even though at this point he had multiple millions of dollars the money was still not his prime objective. So, the court cases in which he was involved he did not fight in order to keep his money, but rather to validate the programs that he built and remain the owner of them. With this we can assume that the programs that he has created have not been about the money but rather his love for building things that others, and he, enjoy (to a certain extent).
Throughout the movie Zuckerberg was constantly working on something new, the first of which is a program that allows the user to rate people's appearance. This destroys Zuckerberg socially as people would rather not have their pictures posted all over the internet for people to rate and compare them (go figure). However, when a group of students offer him the opportunity to "redeem" himself, Zuckerberg takes offense. He did not want to redeem himself because he accomplished what he set out to do, make a program that was popular and to get his name known as a programmer.
Next, with his creation of Facebook Zuckerberg was advised by his friend to start allowing advertisements to run on his program so that the business could begin to make money. He turned this idea down because Facebook had a "cool" factor that drew people to it and Zuckerberg felt like advertisements at this stage of the business would kill the idea of Facebook. Also, he said that Facebook was still to young to really know what it could be fully capable of so it would need more time to develop, outside of the harsh world of business. What we can take away from this is that, essentially, the money did not interest him it was his program that interested him and how it would develop.
Lastly, while in court Zuckerberg explains that the money that he has made doesn't really matter to him. Even though at this point he had multiple millions of dollars the money was still not his prime objective. So, the court cases in which he was involved he did not fight in order to keep his money, but rather to validate the programs that he built and remain the owner of them. With this we can assume that the programs that he has created have not been about the money but rather his love for building things that others, and he, enjoy (to a certain extent).
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
The Human Essence
Moore's Law states that technology will develop and progress, evolve in a way, exponentially. Humans on the other hand, and all animals for that matter, take many thousands of years to evolve. As a result, the Turing Test has been put in place to determine when a computer has reached the point of being "human". This test requires a judge to communicate with a computer and a human via an electronic interface and then decide which of the two is human. So how do we defend the essence of humanity from a computer? Brian Christian asks this question, and answers it.
"The apparent implication is that—because technological evolution seems to occur so much faster than biological evolution (measured in years rather than millennia)—once the Homo sapiens species is overtaken, it won’t be able to catch up. Simply put: the Turing Test, once passed, is passed forever. I don’t buy it."
Christian states that, "the human race got to where it is by being the most adaptive, flexible, innovative, and quick-learning species on the planet." Because of this, we will not let our computers become better at being...human...than we are.
What does this mean? Well, Christian proposes that what being a human is is not all about computing and logical thinking which has been focused on for generations. Instead we need to seek more balance in what we define being human as. While computers may be excelling at things that have been considered uniquely human, like complex calculations, they are failing at the basics of the human experience, "spatial orientation, object recognition, natural language, [and] adaptive goal-setting."
In order to stay ahead of the computers in the field of "being human" Christian suggests that we look at what really makes us human and work on improving on that. For example, we could improve on making personal connections with others and refrain from making connections that take no thought or effort in order to accomplish. This usually requires a thorough conversation with a lot of talking from both people. You cannot get to know someone if you are the only one talking. Christian proved this in the Turing Test of 2009 when he found that the computer Cleverbot's conversation only had 33 changes in speaker while Christian's conversation had 492.
So the next time you are talking with a friend, a family member, or anyone really, don't just communicate, connect. We are humans. That's what we do.
"The apparent implication is that—because technological evolution seems to occur so much faster than biological evolution (measured in years rather than millennia)—once the Homo sapiens species is overtaken, it won’t be able to catch up. Simply put: the Turing Test, once passed, is passed forever. I don’t buy it."
Christian states that, "the human race got to where it is by being the most adaptive, flexible, innovative, and quick-learning species on the planet." Because of this, we will not let our computers become better at being...human...than we are.
What does this mean? Well, Christian proposes that what being a human is is not all about computing and logical thinking which has been focused on for generations. Instead we need to seek more balance in what we define being human as. While computers may be excelling at things that have been considered uniquely human, like complex calculations, they are failing at the basics of the human experience, "spatial orientation, object recognition, natural language, [and] adaptive goal-setting."
In order to stay ahead of the computers in the field of "being human" Christian suggests that we look at what really makes us human and work on improving on that. For example, we could improve on making personal connections with others and refrain from making connections that take no thought or effort in order to accomplish. This usually requires a thorough conversation with a lot of talking from both people. You cannot get to know someone if you are the only one talking. Christian proved this in the Turing Test of 2009 when he found that the computer Cleverbot's conversation only had 33 changes in speaker while Christian's conversation had 492.
So the next time you are talking with a friend, a family member, or anyone really, don't just communicate, connect. We are humans. That's what we do.
Project 3 Proposal: If Technology Use Increases Then Memory Will Decrease
I am not a really tech savvy person but at the same time I do not refrain from using new technologies. I have taken a computer programming class, and did well in it, but it is not my passion or something that I foresee myself using much to any extent. I only keep up with the development technology, with any depth, when I am in the market to buy something, like a new computer. With all of that said, my opinion has been greatly influenced by that of my family who believe that because of technology, along with other things, today's culture and my generation is missing something that past generations have had. So, growing up with these stories of grandiose ages gone by I feel like technology has changed us to a great extent and not completely for the betterment of us as people.
During this class I have found it interesting to see the development and progression of some of the technologies that we use today and what people are predicting for the future. Today we are witnessing technology, specifically the computer, advance at a remarkable pace and it has undoubtedly forever changed how we as humans actively go about our lives. There are even theories about how technology has altered how we act, think, and communicate. One question that occurred to me is can our generation retain the information that we obtain, either through reading or some other medium, as well as past generations who didn't have technology like the Internet that make information so readily available? Hopefully, by researching how the human memory system works and how we use technologies, like computers and the Internet, as well as finding some more knowledgeable opinions on the subject, I will be able to conclude, or at least theorize, if, and how, these technologies affect our memory.
Annotated Bibliography
Catone, Josh. "The Staggering Size of the Internet." Mashable. Mashable Inc., 25 Jan. 2011. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <mashable.com/2011/01/25/internet-size-infographic/>.
This website page displays information such as the number of emails sent per day, the number of websites on the internet, the number of Internet users, social media usage, and online media usage. This data should be helpful in describing what the Internet has to offer to those who can access it as well as the sheer number of people that are accessing it. Also, it can show the breakdown of the types of information that is being accessed via the Internet.
Caygill, Howard. "Meno and the Internet: between memory and the archive." History of the Human Sciences 12.2 (1999): 1-11. Print.
Caygill analyzes the Internet and details its impact on the theories of memory established by Plato. Plato's Meno strove to reduce memory to a basic technique of recalling information. Written around the time when the Internet was really beginning to become extensively used this should give some insight into if the Internet is causing memory to become obsolete.
Franklin, B. & Plum, T. "Library usage patterns in the electronic information environment" Information Research 9.4 (2004): 187. Print
This paper examines the usage of libraries and print mediums as a result of the "networked electronic services". Because so much information is available online, and so easily accessed, it should mean that less people will actually, physically, travel to the library in order to do research. By understanding how the use of the Internet for research purposes has developed it should allow me to determine the prevalence of this style of study.
Higbee, Kenneth L.. Your memory: how it works and how to improve it. Englewood cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977. Print.
Higbee discusses how the human memory system works and ways in which to improve its functioning. He even discusses the use of mnemonics. By understanding how the memory works and ways in which it can be influenced, both positively and negatively, it should give me better insight into how the Internet and other technologies affect it.
McGaugh, James L., Paul E. Gold, and William T. Greenough. Memory consolidation: essays in honor of James L. McGaugh. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2001. Print.
Memory Consolidation goes into great detail about the inner-workings of human memory. Topics included in it cover the functioning of brainstem structures, new models of memory formation, and "morphological approaches to memory". This source should accompany that of Higbee yet add even more scientific research and documentation, thereby adding to the credibility of the conclusion.
Wright, Josiah, and Immanuel Bekker. The Phaedrus, Lysis, and Protagoras of Plato . London: MacMillan and Co., Limited, 1888. Print.
What is compelling about this source is the story of Phaedrus and his meeting with Socrates. They discuss things, one of which is the Egyption god Thamus who made the point that writing hinders memory. Socrates agrees with that in that writing cannot answer a question which is essential to knowledge, it can only remind you of something you once knew. I genuinely am interested mainly in one particular quote that I have found in this document that deals specifically with the main point detailed earlier.
During this class I have found it interesting to see the development and progression of some of the technologies that we use today and what people are predicting for the future. Today we are witnessing technology, specifically the computer, advance at a remarkable pace and it has undoubtedly forever changed how we as humans actively go about our lives. There are even theories about how technology has altered how we act, think, and communicate. One question that occurred to me is can our generation retain the information that we obtain, either through reading or some other medium, as well as past generations who didn't have technology like the Internet that make information so readily available? Hopefully, by researching how the human memory system works and how we use technologies, like computers and the Internet, as well as finding some more knowledgeable opinions on the subject, I will be able to conclude, or at least theorize, if, and how, these technologies affect our memory.
Annotated Bibliography
Catone, Josh. "The Staggering Size of the Internet." Mashable. Mashable Inc., 25 Jan. 2011. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <mashable.com/2011/01/25/internet-size-infographic/>.
This website page displays information such as the number of emails sent per day, the number of websites on the internet, the number of Internet users, social media usage, and online media usage. This data should be helpful in describing what the Internet has to offer to those who can access it as well as the sheer number of people that are accessing it. Also, it can show the breakdown of the types of information that is being accessed via the Internet.
Caygill, Howard. "Meno and the Internet: between memory and the archive." History of the Human Sciences 12.2 (1999): 1-11. Print.
Caygill analyzes the Internet and details its impact on the theories of memory established by Plato. Plato's Meno strove to reduce memory to a basic technique of recalling information. Written around the time when the Internet was really beginning to become extensively used this should give some insight into if the Internet is causing memory to become obsolete.
Franklin, B. & Plum, T. "Library usage patterns in the electronic information environment" Information Research 9.4 (2004): 187. Print
This paper examines the usage of libraries and print mediums as a result of the "networked electronic services". Because so much information is available online, and so easily accessed, it should mean that less people will actually, physically, travel to the library in order to do research. By understanding how the use of the Internet for research purposes has developed it should allow me to determine the prevalence of this style of study.
Higbee, Kenneth L.. Your memory: how it works and how to improve it. Englewood cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977. Print.
Higbee discusses how the human memory system works and ways in which to improve its functioning. He even discusses the use of mnemonics. By understanding how the memory works and ways in which it can be influenced, both positively and negatively, it should give me better insight into how the Internet and other technologies affect it.
McGaugh, James L., Paul E. Gold, and William T. Greenough. Memory consolidation: essays in honor of James L. McGaugh. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2001. Print.
Memory Consolidation goes into great detail about the inner-workings of human memory. Topics included in it cover the functioning of brainstem structures, new models of memory formation, and "morphological approaches to memory". This source should accompany that of Higbee yet add even more scientific research and documentation, thereby adding to the credibility of the conclusion.
Wright, Josiah, and Immanuel Bekker. The Phaedrus, Lysis, and Protagoras of Plato . London: MacMillan and Co., Limited, 1888. Print.
What is compelling about this source is the story of Phaedrus and his meeting with Socrates. They discuss things, one of which is the Egyption god Thamus who made the point that writing hinders memory. Socrates agrees with that in that writing cannot answer a question which is essential to knowledge, it can only remind you of something you once knew. I genuinely am interested mainly in one particular quote that I have found in this document that deals specifically with the main point detailed earlier.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Can the Youth of Today Build and Create?
In class on Wednesday the statement was made that sort of went like this (I paraphrase):
"I daresay that none of you are able to build or fix anything."
Maybe I misunderstood the point that was trying to be made by this claim but if I did not I was a little shocked by this generalization. I considered speaking out against it but I held my tongue and I must say that it has been eating at me ever since. I cannot speak for many others that are in this class with me but I for one can build and fix things. Excuse me here while I toot my own horn and compile a short list of things that I can build and/or fix.
Furniture - I'm no master craftsman but I have built furniture alongside two of the best, my grandfather and my father.
Bikes - restored two Mattel Stallion bicycles from the 1980's
Generator - multiple times I have worked with my dad trying to get a generator to start
Garden Beds (general landscaping) - operated a Bobcat (skidsteer) for multiple summers cleaning up our property.
Legos - I loved building with these when I was a kid! My love for them was rekindled when my 5 year old sister rediscovered my stash and we spent the evening building Lego City.
Models (plastic or wood) - multiple model airplanes hang in my room and two of my model boats "grace" the fireplace mantle.
Tree House - got a pretty nice one out in the backfield, roof, windows, the whole nine yards.
House - obviously too large to be completed alone and I do not have full knowledge of all of the codes and requirements necessary to be given a certificate of occupancy, but I have helped build the house that I live in. From digging the foundation, placing concrete, nailing stud joists, and snaking wires through walls, I have been there for, and helped with, each step of the process.
Car Repair - small stuff like taking dings out of the body, installing air intakes, changing fluids, etc.
I stop here because I figure that I have sufficiently embarrassed myself. This is just a small list of some of the things that I personally can do with my own two hands, and I know that some of them seem a tad inconsequential but I have listed them and that is that. In this field of experience I generally think that I have a decent amount of knowledge. The majority of it has come from my family but many of my friends also share my love for activities like those previously mentioned and that has helped to further my love for them. A few of them have experiences very similar to mine, some are a little different. For example, a friend of mine in my residence hall is, as you read, creating a video game the likes of which much larger and well known companies should take notice. A few friends from high school, given the blueprints and materials, could build a house. Two guys could, and have, built they're own cars from the ground up, one even made the body of the vehicle himself. A few others have rebuilt engines.
Maybe some of my generation is embracing the service side of industry as America seems to steadily move away from production, not that that is bad and is greatly needed in these times. However, to say that none of us can hold up the production side and build, create, and fix what we own is incorrect.
"I daresay that none of you are able to build or fix anything."
Maybe I misunderstood the point that was trying to be made by this claim but if I did not I was a little shocked by this generalization. I considered speaking out against it but I held my tongue and I must say that it has been eating at me ever since. I cannot speak for many others that are in this class with me but I for one can build and fix things. Excuse me here while I toot my own horn and compile a short list of things that I can build and/or fix.
Furniture - I'm no master craftsman but I have built furniture alongside two of the best, my grandfather and my father.
Bikes - restored two Mattel Stallion bicycles from the 1980's
Generator - multiple times I have worked with my dad trying to get a generator to start
Garden Beds (general landscaping) - operated a Bobcat (skidsteer) for multiple summers cleaning up our property.
Legos - I loved building with these when I was a kid! My love for them was rekindled when my 5 year old sister rediscovered my stash and we spent the evening building Lego City.
Models (plastic or wood) - multiple model airplanes hang in my room and two of my model boats "grace" the fireplace mantle.
Tree House - got a pretty nice one out in the backfield, roof, windows, the whole nine yards.
House - obviously too large to be completed alone and I do not have full knowledge of all of the codes and requirements necessary to be given a certificate of occupancy, but I have helped build the house that I live in. From digging the foundation, placing concrete, nailing stud joists, and snaking wires through walls, I have been there for, and helped with, each step of the process.
Car Repair - small stuff like taking dings out of the body, installing air intakes, changing fluids, etc.
I stop here because I figure that I have sufficiently embarrassed myself. This is just a small list of some of the things that I personally can do with my own two hands, and I know that some of them seem a tad inconsequential but I have listed them and that is that. In this field of experience I generally think that I have a decent amount of knowledge. The majority of it has come from my family but many of my friends also share my love for activities like those previously mentioned and that has helped to further my love for them. A few of them have experiences very similar to mine, some are a little different. For example, a friend of mine in my residence hall is, as you read, creating a video game the likes of which much larger and well known companies should take notice. A few friends from high school, given the blueprints and materials, could build a house. Two guys could, and have, built they're own cars from the ground up, one even made the body of the vehicle himself. A few others have rebuilt engines.
Maybe some of my generation is embracing the service side of industry as America seems to steadily move away from production, not that that is bad and is greatly needed in these times. However, to say that none of us can hold up the production side and build, create, and fix what we own is incorrect.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Internet Dependent
A few weeks back I conducted a study to determine the amount of time that I use my cell phone, for communication, in a day. What I found was that I do not use my phone a whole lot. Under 15 minutes in a day in fact. However, the internet is completely different and I, as well as my friends, probably use it for a couple of hours a day at least. Sven Birkerts would probably have a few things to say about this.
One of the strongest attractions of the Internet is the fact that you can access so much information and do so much with it relatively easily and fast. One second you could be researching information and the next your talking with a friend. If you get bored of doing something on the Internet all you need to do is open up another tab and find something else to do all within seconds and without having to go anywhere else physically. Once you begin to use the Internet and access its bounty it is easy to be immersed in it for hours.
This is one of Birkerts criticisms of the Internet and partially why he does not like to use computers of the Internet:
"I'm sure I'd be intrigued, amused, sucked in, and that I would start to think it was a good thing."
It's true. We think that it is good how the Internet gives access to so much but we rarely think of the ramifications of using the Internet. For one, the time that is spent using it is enormous. A lot of people use Facebook and are constantly updating it and connecting with friends via it. Some may even spend a few hours on this website alone in a day. Then there is also all of the work that is completed on the Internet and that too can take hours. Time itself even seems to go by faster when using the Internet almost in an effort to make you stay longer. Birkerts alluded to this somewhat by saying that, "as the circuit supplants the printed page, and as more and more of our communications involve us in network processes–which are in every way constitutive of the immediate present, the now–our perception of history will inevitably alter. Changes in information storage and access are bound to impinge upon our historical memory." Maybe the perception of the altering of time (history) while on the Internet has little to do with the old addage that "time flies when your having fun" but more to do with the way we are spending our time in a medium that does not recognize it, or at least does so poorly.
Another characteristic of Internet usage that would really bother Birkerts is that we rely on the Internet for so much and are completely satisfied to be dependent on it. Most people never think twice that they just purchased something on the Internet and never actually saw a transfer of money or goods. People also aren't generally bothered by the fact that they are talking to people without actually being present with them. While we can still do these things in person and face-to-face it may not be long before we completely ditch that method of interaction for that of virtual interaction on the Internet, becoming completely dependent on it for the functioning of our daily lives much like the plot in "The Machine Stops" by E.M. Forster. Who's to say the transition isn't already happening?
One of the strongest attractions of the Internet is the fact that you can access so much information and do so much with it relatively easily and fast. One second you could be researching information and the next your talking with a friend. If you get bored of doing something on the Internet all you need to do is open up another tab and find something else to do all within seconds and without having to go anywhere else physically. Once you begin to use the Internet and access its bounty it is easy to be immersed in it for hours.
This is one of Birkerts criticisms of the Internet and partially why he does not like to use computers of the Internet:
"I'm sure I'd be intrigued, amused, sucked in, and that I would start to think it was a good thing."
It's true. We think that it is good how the Internet gives access to so much but we rarely think of the ramifications of using the Internet. For one, the time that is spent using it is enormous. A lot of people use Facebook and are constantly updating it and connecting with friends via it. Some may even spend a few hours on this website alone in a day. Then there is also all of the work that is completed on the Internet and that too can take hours. Time itself even seems to go by faster when using the Internet almost in an effort to make you stay longer. Birkerts alluded to this somewhat by saying that, "as the circuit supplants the printed page, and as more and more of our communications involve us in network processes–which are in every way constitutive of the immediate present, the now–our perception of history will inevitably alter. Changes in information storage and access are bound to impinge upon our historical memory." Maybe the perception of the altering of time (history) while on the Internet has little to do with the old addage that "time flies when your having fun" but more to do with the way we are spending our time in a medium that does not recognize it, or at least does so poorly.
Another characteristic of Internet usage that would really bother Birkerts is that we rely on the Internet for so much and are completely satisfied to be dependent on it. Most people never think twice that they just purchased something on the Internet and never actually saw a transfer of money or goods. People also aren't generally bothered by the fact that they are talking to people without actually being present with them. While we can still do these things in person and face-to-face it may not be long before we completely ditch that method of interaction for that of virtual interaction on the Internet, becoming completely dependent on it for the functioning of our daily lives much like the plot in "The Machine Stops" by E.M. Forster. Who's to say the transition isn't already happening?
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Project 2 revison: Fact vs. Fiction - And the Winner is...
A huge factor in business today is technology and some of the largest companies are those that develop and sell technologies. Therefore, it stands to reason that those who can predict the future of technology will have the opportunity to be extremely successful and wealthy. Some people, on the other hand, would rather warn the public about the future of technology in order to prevent their visions of the future from coming true. Gibson and Wu, authors of Neuromancer and The Master Switch respectively, are two of these people. Both of them have presented ideas, however different they may be, as to what the future may hold for technology and its uses yet, while aspects of both claims seem reasonable, Wu's vision seems to be the more credible of the two because of his use of evidence and his relatively close proximity to the future of technology.
Wu feared a future ruled by the corporations where the individual was solely seen as a consumer, and never a developer, of technology. Gibson, however, viewed a world where the individual could be mightier than the companies. So why is Wu's vision more credible? Despite the arguments for both, Wu has the benefit of increased time to experience the development of technologies and that of supporting evidence. Take for instance, the publishing dates of the books. The Master Switch was published in 2010 while Neuromancer was published in 1984. While in many cases this would not make a difference to an academic audience, because the topic is technology it makes a large difference because Wu has been able to experience and see the development of the Internet. This makes Wu better able to predict the future of technology, at least more so than Gibson, and his evidence from the past makes him all the more credible.
Despite Gibson's lack of evidence Wu still had one similar idea, that the presence of powerful corporations in the world of technology would continue to be prevalent. Gibson demonstrates this vision with his usage of the Tessier-Ashpool megacorporation that has been in operation for "more than two hundred years," (Gibson 184). This company has control over many things, from the space city of Freeside to the Artificial Intelligences of Wintermute and Neuromancer. In fact, with the Artificial Intelligences, the company can basically do anything that it wants, as the programs themselves demonstrate that they can do almost anything they want. In one instance, Wintermute "altered the broadcast" of an event that Case, one of the main characters, was watching (Gibson 186). Another time, Wintermute showed so much control as to have actually "killed Armitage," a real, flesh and bones, person (Gibson 201). Wu also acknowledges the presence of large corporations and uses evidence from past companies to back up his claim. Wu demonstrates that companies, like AT&T, never seem to truly die. Wu says that, "AT&T, broken up in the 1980's, by the first years of the twenty-first century managed to re-create itself, reestablishing the essential lineaments of the Bell system" (Wu 205). So if this "eternal return to consolidated order," part of the "Cycle" as Wu calls it, then it only seems natural that these giant companies would continue to be present in the future of technology (Wu 252).
While both authors agree on the presence of megacorporations they disagree on the formation of them. Wu believes that developing technologies will create, and destroy, these companies, unlike Gibson who suggests that the companies will be the ones creating technologies. Fundamentally, this is the basis of Wu's argument for the "Cycle" and his whole book in general. New technologies are developed that make older technologies irrelevant or less useful at the very least. The companies that dealt in the older technology are then disintegrated and the new companies selling the newer technology grow and prosper, at least until the next "disruptive" technology is developed (Wu 19). Wu claims that there is a typical progression for technologies, they move from "somebody's hobby to somebody's industry" (Wu 6). "So many revolutionary innovations start small, with outsiders, amateurs, and idealists in attics or garages" (Wu 18). Gibson, however, believed that it was the companies that would create the newer technologies, not vice-versa. This can be seen in Neuromancer when Armitage, through Tessier-Ashpool and Wintermute, gives a new technology to a doctor who later patents it. The doctor applied "for seven basic patents," which reportedly reversed "the usual order of things" (Gibson 161). In Gibson's future companies, not people, ruled the technologies. So when the roles were flipped and the companies lost, much like what Wu describes happening, this was out of the ordinary and quite odd.
Both of these ideas seem to be plausible, but evidence suggests that Wu is correct in his prediction. For one, it is demonstrated that most "disruptive" inventions have come from the individual, not a company. Apple computers, for instance, started in the garage of Steve Wozniak. Even the great Bell Company, predecessor to AT&T, started out with only one employee, Thomas Watson. That was it. Even if Wu’s worst fear were to come true, that corporations would close the Internet or even force the individual inventor out of the equation, his Cycle would infer that a new technology would arise that would dethrone those companies, restoring the balance of power.
Another difference between the two theories is that however powerful the corporations become Wu, unlike Gibson, believes that governments will still be active in the world. In fact, in order for Wu's future to exist, in the manner that he wishes, governments are necessary. Because of the inevitability of the Cycle, Wu calls for the use of a "Seperations Principle" which entails the use of the government to keep "those who develop information, those who own the network infrastructure on which [information] travels, and those who control the tools or the venues of access," separate from each other. Gibson's future, on the other hand, is ruled by the corporations, not the governments, of the world. As is the case with the Tessier-Ashpool corporation, the companies own property like Freeside, which they monitor and control, free of governments.
A large deviance between Wu's and Gibson's visions has to do with the use of technologies. Gibson, for instance, believes that while technology will shape the way everyone lives those who will be able to access and use a technology, like cyberspace, will be limited. For example, Case is a cyberspace "cowboy" who can access cyberspace and do on it what he pleases, but not everyone is a cowboy and, therefore, not everyone can access cyberspace (Gibson 5). Yet even though not everyone has access to it, cyberspace affects everyone. Companies that make products that people buy depend on cyberspace to store their information so that they can stay in business. Without cyberspace, ordinary people would not get the same products and services.
Unlike Gibson Wu predicts, however much he dislikes it, that everyone will be able to use a technology, like the Internet, but what information that technology can access will be limited. Wu has already stated that information technology companies proceed through a pattern of going "from open to closed system[s]" (Wu 6). That would mean that the Internet, an information technology, while still in its open phase will become closed by large companies. Information will not be as easily accessed as the owning companies will only allow access to sites that benefit them, much as the old AT&T only allowed the use of telephones made by them or RCA only allowed the use of AM radio despite FM's superiority. Still, although the information available may be limited, in order for the companies to make any money people will need the availability to use the Internet. In short, the more people that use the service the more money that the companies can make.
When comparing the claims of Wu and Gibson for their validity one must take into consideration a few large factors. First, that Gibson documented his claim twenty years before Wu. Had Gibson had the knowledge that Wu had to write his book their ideas may have been more similar. Another large factor is that Gibson’s book, Neuromancer, is a work of fiction while Wu’s is a work of fact. Despite this, both works can be analytically compared to determine which authors supposed future is more probable. First, Gibson believed that, while the future would generally be dominated by large corporations, it would be possible for the lone individual to become more powerful than the corporations. These large companies, in the world of Neuromancer, would be so powerful that governments would not exist and the corporations would instead be in charge of former government powers. Individuals would not be able to compete against these companies because they controlled the flow and development of technology. Lastly, the technology, while extremely powerful and thorough, would only be available to an exclusive group of clientele. Wu, on the other hand, would only agree with one of these points, that large corporations would play a significant role in the future of technology and, unlike Gibson, would provide evidence to support his correctness. First, he disagreed with Gibson on the point that governments would not exist because of their prior importance in controlling companies with too much power. Also, he would make a point that Gibson did not make, that the ability for individuals to overpower large corporations will come from individuals who will make “disruptive” technologies that render the larger corporation useless, otherwise known as the “Cycle”. Despite these differences however, Wu is still afraid that companies might end up having too much power over things like the Internet and controlling the individuals, much like the world that Gibson created, leaving the inventor powerless and the Cycle broken in a way that Wu abhors. Lastly, Wu suggests that if megacorporations are to exist that technology would look much different than that of Neuromancer. Instead of technology being extremely powerful yet limited in customer base, everyone would be able to purchase the technology but the technology itself would be limited and weak. Not only does this make business sense, by allowing everyone to purchase a technology more money can be made than only a few to buy it, but Wu states that this has happened before in the history of telephony and AT&T as well as RCA and the radio. Although some good points are brought up by Gibson, Wu’s use of evidence and his benefit of years more current knowledge of the subject area make his argument far more compelling to believe.
Works Cited:
Gibson, William. Neuromancer . New York: Ace Books, 1984. Print.
Wu, Tim. The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010. Print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)