Diana Bang's ETEC 531 e-portfolio

The connectionist model of design contends that the brain operates from the bottom up rather than the top down approach and has been utilized in recent artificial intelligence research. A simplified version of this model is that thought is considered to develop though associative and low-level series of connections. For example, brain neurons are stimulated by the impressions given to them by the body’s sense organs. These impressions and responses then develop patterns in the brain’s neural pathways. When some networks are strengthened we achieve learning and at another level patterns form into conscious thoughts. Also, though time these patterns will continue to change. In relation to AI research, they’ve developed neural nets (i.e. web of neurons) which try to copy the parallel processing capabilities of the human brain. Minsky and Papert (1988) refer to these copies as the fundamental parts of “percepetrons” (as cited in Murphie & Potts, 2003). Thus, if this is indeed the way the human brain functions then the implications for AI research is that consciousness will develop with the proper connection between low-level components and the appropriate environment to learn. Ultimately, then the focus of AI should not be about trying to create a replica of the human brain as creating consciousness in machines is a matter making the “right” connections. What are the implications of achieving machine consciousness? Is it vision of a doomsday Terminator-like scenario or akin to WALL-E?

I’d like to think that anything is within the realm of possibility considering all the technological advancements that we’ve gone through and will continue to surely unfold. According to a CNN news article, brain downloads will be possible by the year 2050: http://articles.cnn.com/2005-05-23/tech/brain.download_1_computer-human-brain-downloads?_s=PM:TECH. Interestingly though, one of the key concepts that they’re trying to contend with is how to develop consciousness in computers. One of the aspects that needs to considered though is the fact that human memory is not accurate (i.e. people tend to forget things) whereas computer memories are more precise (i.e. the only real issue you may run into is where you last saved a document but it will still exist in the computer’s hard drive or on a usb key). I wonder then, how personal memories could be uploaded to computers. Computers have several ports in which you can save and upload files- however if you consider the human body, we do not have accessible ports for connecting to a computer via a usb key for example. The human brain could be examined via stimulating electrodes surrounding the head, but how exactly would we be able to capture memories like data files? Generally, computer files are encoded, and so would the contents of our memory be also encoded and if so, would it be as easy as a file transfer?

Thus, at this point in time I’m a bit uncertain whether it is truly realistic to upload our memories to computers as of yet since some have argued that doing so would mean losing the body and its situation in the world which is important to consciousness. Also, we still do not fully understand how the human brain operates and how we can mimic this in computers. This is critical to the idea of developing the connections between the human mind and a computer. If we can understand how the human brain functions and translate that into a computer- then perhaps we would be another step closer to achieving this possibility. Another issue that needs to be addressed is using different “technologies” (i.e. the human brain and computers) to simply make a connection and pass information between them. For example, N. Katherine Hayles (1999) contends that using a “white box” (like computers in which we can view and understand all the inner components) is not the equivalent of a “black box” (i.e. the human brain) in which we still do not understand the mechanics of it. Hayles (1999) asserts that AI researchers claim that the way machines imitate human behaviour offers a model for the human brain. There’s faulty logic in this however as we cannot consider these different aspects (a computer vs. a human brain) to function the same way.

Additionally, thoughts and memories are not something that can be merely produced or reproduced in an artificial setting (i.e. laboratory) outside of the natural world. Thus, it is difficult to consider that uploading memories to a computer will be a reality as of yet if we still do not fully understand how the human mind works. For example, Steven Rose contends that computers simply retrieve digital information whereas the mind works with meanings in a creative and imprecise manner. Currently, we are able to capture and record our memories through the aid of electronic devices (i.e. digital photos, journaling/blogging, and through the use of videos). Yet, it hasn’t come to the point where we can simply connect to a computer and it automatically downloads the contents of our brain. Plus, if it did- where would this information go? Who would be in control of it and who would have access to it? There’s a lot of questions regarding privacy and confidentiality concerns that may be raised because of this. Also, if this were possible I wonder how the computer would interpret the information contained in our memories. Would it be accurate? And how would we know the level of accuracy it achieved since our memories can already be faulty at times. After all, to err is human.

One of the key concepts considers the possibility of creating consciousness in machines. Related to this is the question of whether the brain contains consciousness or thoughts. For example, Alan Turing (1950) suggested that if a computer could trick a person into thinking they were communicating with another person (via an interface) then it could be deemed as intelligent. Yet, John Searle (1980) argued that this was not a sufficient test and rejected the idea that computers would ever become completely intelligent. Also, another aspect to consider is information theory in that the carrier of the information does not matter nearly as much as the patterns of information that are carried. According to Murphie & Potts (2003) this is a critical idea since it suggests that two different material objects (i.e. a brain and computer) can carry the same patterns and processes in their materially different ways. However, in order to design machine intelligence we must understand how the brain functions. For example, there is much debate about whether the brain operates as in a hierarchical manner where information is processed in a system (i.e. this translates to a top-down approach in artificial intelligence). Several issues arise with this theory since it assumes that human thought is a “coherent, ordered, complex and more or less unchanging program” (Murphie & Potts, 2003, p.153). In order to effectively mimic the brain, one must develop a complex system before it can do any thinking and as such attempts to build “thought factories” have been unsuccessful as of yet (Murphie & Potts, 2003).

The term cyberculture originated in 1963 by Alice Mary Hilton. She defined it as “that way of life made possible when an entire process of production is carried out by systems of machines monitored and controlled by one computer.” It is used to “denote not merely the new method of production but the vast influence of cybernetic principles and techniques on all phases of human life” (as cited by Petrina, n.d.). Hilton helped make a distinction between cyberspace and cyberculture without making it a dichotomy. The implications of cyberculture is that it “intensifies conditions through which the world is already divided.” Hilton remarked that cyberculture develops “new, revolutionary conditions for redividing abundance, labor, privilege and wealth” (as cited by Pertrina, n.d.). Thus, the implications are that civil liberties, human rights and redistribution of wealth are a part of cyberculture. It’s important that we know about the origins of cyberculture as Hilton provided a basis to compare and re-consider our current definitions of cyberculture. Additionally, it was interesting to note that Hilton’s overly optimistic notion of new technologies influencing the elimination of poverty and repetitive labor changed with the Vietnam war and social unrest. Instead, she ended up becoming wary of technology and abandoned the naive enthusiasm of her earlier work.

Reference
Petrina, S. (n.d.). On the origins of cyberculture. Retrieved from https://www.vista.ubc.ca/webct/urw/lc5116011.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct

When I read this question, Cyberdyne systems and the creation of Skynet from the Terminator movies initially came to mind as they utilized supercomputers to replace humans in the control of military operations. Here’s a link to more information about the film at: http://terminator.wikia.com/wiki/Cyberdyne_Systems.

However, one of the influential figures in coining the term cybernetics was Norbert Wiener (1948), a mathematician, engineer and social philosopher. It was derived from the Greek word kybernetes meaning “steersman.” Historically, the word cybernetics first appeared in Antiquity with Plato and the 19th century with Ampère who viewed it as “the science of effective government” (Heylighen & Joslyn, 2001). Yet, Wiener revived this concept and re-defined cybernetics as “the science of control and communication in the animal and the machine.” According to Ashby (1956) cybernetics is a theory of machines examining the ways of behaviours. Thus, instead of asking “what is this thing?” it asks “what does it do?” Additionally, Heylighen & Joslyn (2001) states that the distinguishing feature of cybernetics is its “emphasis on control and communication not only in engineered, artificial systems, but also in evolved, natural systems such as organisms and societies, which set their own goals, rather than being controlled by their creators.” Furthermore, Sadie Plant (1997) suggests that cybernetic systems possess feedback loops and “sense organs” (as cited in Murphie & Potts, 2003, p. 118).

References

Ashby, W. R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall Ltd. Retrieved from http://www-robotics.cs.umass.edu/~grupen/603/handouts/AshbyCybernetics.pdf

Heylighen, F., & Joslyn, C. (2001). Cybernetics and second-order cybernetics. In R. A. Meyers (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Physical Science & Technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 1-24). New York: Academic Press. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.27.9058&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Mindell, D.A. (2000). Cybernetics: Knowledge domains in engineering systems. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/esd.83/www/notebook/Cybernetics.PDF

Murphie, A., & Potts, J. (2003). Culture and techology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

The George Washington University. (n.d). Definitions of cybernetics. Retrieved from http://www.gwu.edu/~asc/cyber_definition.html

Vallée, R. (2001). Nobert Wiener (1894-1964). Retrieved from http://www.isss.org/lumwiener.htm

Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics: Communication and control in animal and machine. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Haraway’s key arguments in the “Manifesto for Cyborgs” includes:

1) the cyborg cannot be avoided as it blurs the boundaries and is our ontology (way of being). The cyborg is still “illegitimate offspring of militarism and patriarchal capitalism and socialism” but they are viewed by Haraway as subversive as they undermind power disciplines (i.e. nature vs. culture). Thus, the cyborg can be used to imagine a world free of gender demands and categories.

2) the cyborg represents the breakdown of human-machine and human animal boundaries as it appears in cultural myths about the natural world and technology. Haraway states that “culture cannot escape biology as it seems to in some arguments (there is no simple cultural determination)” (Murphie & Potts, p.116).

3) the cyborg also represents the breakdown of the boundary between the physical world of visible objects and non-physical, or invisible “processual worlds.” “Invisible worlds” are defined by Haraway as consisting of information, electricity, or invisible computer chips.

4) there is the potential for subversion in a life “where people are not afraid of their joint kinship with animals and machines” (Murphie & Potts, p.117).

5) Haraway opposes the hierarchical dominations of “white capitalist patriarchy” (the rule of wealthy Caucasian men) and instead proposes a new cyborg conception of politics called “Informatics of Domination.” This new cyborg conception consists of optimal communications, with small groups as subsystems and perfection is optimization. Stress management replaces hygience and the family wage is replaced with integrated circuits of comparable worth. Genetic engineering and reproduction becomes replication as it replaces sex. Artificial intelligence or robotics replaces labour.

6) machines can become “friendly selves” and nothing in this networked world is natural. The world instead is defined as “a problem of coding” wherein communication and biotechnologies are critical to “recraft our friendly selves.” (Murphie & Potts, p.118).

I thought it was interesting that Haraway points out that we will realize as these boundaries become so blurred that nothing has ever truly been pure as it is connected to everything else. She is concerned with the future in terms of the human body, machines, feminism, socialism, cultural function of metaphors and discourses and oppressed women workers. According to Haraway, the cyborg is born out of social reality and is also a “creature of fiction.” Thus, a cyborg is both a series of real connections between bodies and machines (i.e. a pacemaker implanted in the human body) but also it offers us metaphors or new ways of negotiating cultural aspects.

References
Haraway, D. (1991). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (pp. 149-181). New York; Routledge.

Murphie, A., & Potts, J. (2003). Culture and techology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Some of the major sci-fi themes proposed by writers include:

– Utopias and dystopias where “idyllic” or self-destructive worlds abound (i.e. Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward, H.G. Wells’ A Modern Utopia, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, George Orwell’s 1984)

– Alternative, future societies (i.e. Robert Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land)

– Gender issues (i.e. Theodore Sturgeon’s Venus Plus X)

– Aliens and other “intelligent” lifeforms (i.e. Voltaire’s Micromegas, Frederic Brown’s Martians Go Home)

– Outer space travel (i.e. Jules Verne’s From the Earth to the Moon)

– Time travel (i.e. H.G. Wells’ The Time Machine)

– Parallel universes and different versions of history (i.e. Murray Leinster’s Sidewise in Time)

– Technological advancements (i.e. the concept of invisibility as illustrated in H.G. Wells’ The Invisible man, Philip K. Dick’s A Scanner Darkley)

– Androids, Robots, Cyborgs (i.e. Robert Silverberg’s The Androids are Coming, Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot, Ed Naha’s Robocop)

– Cyberpunk (i.e. William Gibson’s Neuromancer)

– ESP and Psychic abilities (i.e. Robert Heinlein’s Time for the Stars)

Also, I think that the pre-cursors of the sci-fi genre included Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818), Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886), and Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels (1726). Coupled with the works of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, the sci-fi genre continued to develop. Additional notable sci-fi writers include Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, Robert Heinlein, (among many others).

I think the status of sci-fi as a literary genre has evolved as it began merely as a work of pure fictitious fantasy incorporating elements of science and has slowly morphed to become almost prophetic in its nature as it has the uncanny ability to foretell some of the realities of the future.  Additionally, stories that were set in an imaginary time and/or place enabled the exploration of different worlds, futuristic societies, life forms, and cultures. However, it seems that these sci-fi stories are not as far-fetched as they initially seemed and have already begun to hit closer to home. Whether the topics deal with cloning, genetic engineering, or the advancement of computers/robots- it has gotten to the point where these topics are not limited to a work of fiction. I recall when Dolly the sheep (the first cloned mammal) made the news headlines with much controversy. Interestingly, the animal had to be put down due to a progressive lung disease and had a shorter than expected life expectancy, raising more questions about cloning: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3393-dolly-the-sheep-dies-young.html. Thus, the issues that were normally kept in the confines of sci-fi literature are being dealt with in reality and so a lot of the discussions generated from sci-fi works have truly crossed the boundary into the real-world.

Furthermore, often in sci-fi literature foreign characters were traditionally depicted in a negative light because not much was known about them (i.e. aliens out to destroy mankind and the world, robots, etc). However, they increasingly appear not to be typecast as the evil villains. Instead, with a twist of irony it seems that more often than not humans are now at the forefront of destruction- as they’re depicted of being both the creators of innovation and masterminds of self-destruction. As sci-fi stories have unfolded it appears they come with morals or hidden messages. For example, the notion that as human civilizations continues to develop and there are greater technological advancements we will have to assume more responsibility for our actions and decisions as evolution may come with an ultimate price. Overall, it seems that science fiction for better or for worse has definitely started blurring the lines between what’s reality and fiction. No longer does it just provide a forum for discussion or stir our imaginations, and instead it’s edging ever closer to a realized version of fiction.

According to Murphie and Potts (2003) science fiction has assumed an increasingly influential cultural position due to its ethical questioning of the social consequences of new technologies. The legacy handed down by precursors of modern science fiction includes the moral questioning and warnings of the work of scientists “playing God” or “meddling with nature.” This is evident as our society has evolved to conducting stem-cell research, genetic engineering, cloning, etc. Essentially, science fiction has played out in real-life and has provided the forum to discuss concerns raised as technological advancements flourish. It has also shaped and re-defined our societal attitudes towards science and technology. For example, several sci-fi shows and movies (X-Files, Aliens, Terminator, etc) have led us to question authority (i.e. government) rather accepting them wholeheartedly. However, the science fiction genre has also been (and continues to be) a source of inspiration and imagination of what may be in store for the future (i.e. Back to the Future, Total Recall, The Matrix, Minority Report, etc). As Murphie and Potts (2003) point out SF literature may be more likely to have a positive outlook on technology as it’s likely to be more “thoughtful, speculative, and engaged with ideas concerning technology” in contrast to cinema.

As this week’s readings and interactivities boldly remind us, educational institutions at their very core are business industries and the growth of e-learning has led to the rise of their e-commerce (Diotalevi, 2003; Noble, 1998; Petrina, 2005; Winner, 1998). Langdon Winner’s (1998) satirical take on the “Automatic Professor Machine” cites some of the forces shaping education include: commodification, globalization, privatization and digital transformation. Although, Winner’s “Automatic Professor Machine” sounds far-fetched, some of his points appear to be valid. For example, in terms of students’ needs for education to be flexible, user-friendly, and accessible on demand. However, his simplistic and artificial definition of education to be “the transfer of knowledge from point a to point b through the most efficient, low cost link possible” leads me to wonder whether the increasing trend towards automation through e-learning initiatives by educational institutions will ultimately be dictated by their bottom dollar (revenue) or a higher cause (i.e. goals to improve learning and to provide fair, equitable, universal access to all)? Is Noble (1998) correct in his stance that this is an epic, ongoing battle between students and professors on one side and university administrations and companies with “educational products” to sell on the other?

Additionally, is the continued rise of virtual universities just a matter of time- isn’t it already happening now? However, will it ever get to the point where virtually no f2f contact is necessary? Take for instance this quote by Cunningham, Tapsall, Ryan et al. (1998): “Picture a future in which students never meet a lecturer face to face in a class room, never physically visit the on-campus library; in fact, never set foot on the campus or into an institutional lecture-room or learning center. Such is the future proposed by the virtual university scenario” (as cited in Dutton & Loader, 2002).

As well, the increasing commercialization of e-learning leads us to question who has the authority to their ownership? As Petrina (2005) illustrates with his example of UBC’s MET program development, the university assumed that faculty members would surrender their academic freedom, and intellectual property rights as the university would ultimately be the sole owner and retain the copyright to all MET program materials. It’s no wonder that automation has affected not only course materials but also the number of adjunct teaching staff vs. faculty that teach the courses. Is this the way of the future as we know it? Are Cunningham, Tapsall, Ryan et al. (1998) merely predicting what’s in store for the evolution and automation of education?

References

Diotalevi, R. N. (2003). An education in copyright law: A primer for cyberspace. Library Philosophy and Practice, 6(1), 1-21.

Dutton, W. H., & Loader, B. D. (Eds.). (2002). Digital academe: The new media and institutions of higher education and learning. London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved from http://gen.lib.rus.ec/get?nametype=orig&md5=1c6042526c2d99752d58066aca8a0731

Noble, D. F. (1998). Digital diploma mills: The automation of higher education. First Monday, 3(1-5). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/569/490

Petrina, S. (2005). How (and why) digital diploma mills (don’t) work: Academic freedom, intellectual property rights, automation and UBC’s Master of Educational Technology program. Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor, 7(1), 38-59.

Winner, L. (1998). The automatic professor machine. Retrieved from http://guinevere.icme.rpi.edu/wvx/lcw/apm.wvx