ENG/IMS/CLS F103 A Spring 2006

2006-04-30T19:30:00.000-07:00

Revisions to certain assignments:

What I’ve Learned
January 12:
After the class discussion, I found I had touched on a lot of major points throughout the reading, but left out the most important factor. Aylmer wanted a perfect life. He had the prestige, the fame, and the money. What was not perfect was his wife. To explain this, he said:
‘Ah, upon another face perhaps it might,…‘but never on yours. No, dearest Georgiana, you came so nearly perfect to me from the hand of Nature that this slightest possible defect, which we hesitate to term a defect or a beauty, shocks me, as being the visible mark of earthly imperfection.’

Because his wife was not perfect, Aylmer’s life could not be perfect.

January 19:
I stand by my statement Walton is trying to find out about mankind and its ability to adapt and survive. He gives his reason as trying to discover a passage way to get through the North Pole, but what he is really doing is testing his men to the brink of their determination and their ability. I believe Walton and Frankenstein had similar but ultimately different motives for touring the world. Victor was obsessed with the creation of life, as he made the monster which tore his life apart. He was learning it was much harder to be a creator than he thought.

January 26:
Language has not been a primary tool for communication for as long as I thought. However, from the creation or evolution of human kind, some kind of communication has been in existence. It must be taught to newborns (I am including the monster in this definition of newborns). This is evident, like I wrote in my blog, when the monster says “I cannot describe the delight I felt when I learned the ideas appropriated to each of these sounds and was able to pronounce them.” Language is an evolving idea, but in order for it to keep evolving, it must be taught to each new creature. Frankenstein is not living up to his end of the burden.

February 2:
Making robots that would be able to replace humans is a lofty goal I don’t think we’ll ever be able to achieve. Human beings would never allow it to happen. Frankly, I don’t believe robots can be made to fully imitate human beings. There are too many mechanical and electrical advances we would have to make in a short amount of time to make human-like robots fully operational in our lifetime. Also, without the addition of emotions such as compassion, justice, and many others, robots lack the mental capacity of humans to understand and assess different situations.

February 14:
Following the yellow brick road, in my opinion, is a metaphor for the path of courage. As Dorothy walks through it, she faces many challenges and has to overcome them. She must find the wizard, help her friends, and still get home in one piece. When she encounters the wizard, she must have the courage to uncover him for what he really is—a shy, lonely man who

April 9:
Dynamite is the perfect example to use to show the correlation of anger and its consequences. However, dynamite, like people, doesn’t just explode. At some point, you must have lit the fuse for the other person to be mad at you. The explosion comes after the fuse has expired. This can go along with the “anger=tree” metaphor in the sense that it allows your anger to grow and expand before you explode. The explosion will happen and it is magnificent, but I respectfully disagree with Professor Mandell as I believe the question forgets entirely the role of the fuse. My interpretation is more literal than the question asks us to be, but I think it is merited as just another way of looking at the metaphor.

2006-04-23T18:54:00.000-07:00

The switch from sense impression to sense data occurred around the time scientists ended most of their work with television, and started to experiment with the reception of other data. The third definition from the Oxford English Dictionary was taken from the 1946 Ann. Computation Lab from Harvard University. “The quantities, characters, or symbols on which operations are performed by computers and other automatic equipment, and which may be stored or transmitted in the form of electrical signals, records, on magnetic tape or punched cards, etc.,” it reads.

Believing the effect of memory on the mind was a “sense impression” relied on a series of thought that was missing at the time. Before the computer, television (technically, for my point, photography) and radio were the two most used mediums for thought. In a photograph, what people saw was an impression of an event they would like to keep. Imagine all the people who still claim to have a photographic memory. All they can remember is what they saw on that day. The data was unable to change with how you remember the event. A new theory applying to sense data is the possibility to alter your memory, or twist your memories into something else.

Using the metaphor the associates the brain with a computer is definitely a lot more descriptive of a brain. When making an impression, there are not many chemicals changing and processes running in order for you to make the impression. The computer/brain metaphor allows for those to be considered and examined. Many people refer to the motherboard of a computer as the “brain” of the computer as it can perform many complex tasks. Going with this metaphor, however, brings one big problem: how are events entered into the mind? My belief is that we have not totally moved away from the impression process. We are still stuck in a transition stage where memory is implanted into our brains which we are then free to mold and modify as we see fit.

The printing press helped us see the way in which memories are entered into our mind, as I just said. Until the invention of the computer, people also thought impressions were the way most memories stayed on the mind as well. This model also helped us understand the foundation of our brains. Had it not been for the invention of the printing press, we could not have made the distinction of how our mind processes information.

I think J.M. Balkin, who wrote Cultural Software, has the right impression. “Some philosophers of mind have gone so far as to argue that the human mind is virtually indistinguishable from a computer….,” he says. The brain as a computer metaphor has built on the impression metaphor in order to advance our knowledge of the brain. Describing synapses like circuits on the motherboard is an obvious way of explaining information processing in the brain. I might claim the motherboard was modeled after the brain. You can see the multiple similarities, especially in the input-output processing through each. They are very similar and could be mistaken.

2006-04-20T20:47:00.000-07:00

Metaphors:

Brain chemistry exchanges is like a washing machine.
Blue moods to an improperly tuned radio
Mental tuning=radio
Intellect in terms of building monuments
Brain can be fixed by correcting “traumatic scenes.”
Thoughts and knowledge as a machine
Hysteria leads to repression

One of the major consequences we face when we compare the brain or intellect to an inanimate object is the risk of understating the brains importance to the body. The mind is an incredibly complex and bizarre organ requiring intense study. Many of the objects in “Current Ideas about How the Mind Works” need great skill to be operated but none of them can function to the capacity of a human brain. I feel that comparing its processes to a washing machine is an easy way to explain it to a child, but when people are older, you must go more in-depth with your explanation.

I also think the ideas by Freud don’t connect with most of the population. If all people had brains like Freud believes in “The Aetiology of Hysteria,” we would be an arrogant society. He talks about erecting buildings, saying “when [the inscriptions] have been translated, yield undreamed-of information about the events of the remote past, to commemorate which the monuments were built.” The small clip of the article immediately made me think of an intelligent entrepreneur who uses the rubble in order to build a town as a monument to himself and his abilities.

Overall though, I believe these metaphors can do more good than harm. They provide us with an easy way to explain multiple ideas about the brain, such as its processes, how we think, and psychoanalysis. We need metaphors like the ones given in the reading in order to help us think in simpler ways about problems.

2006-04-18T20:43:00.000-07:00

The main difference I see with believe unusual behavior as a disease and unusual behavior as a product of possession is the fact that prayer can “cure” unusual behavior as possession. In “A True and Most Dreadfull Discourse of a Woman Possessed by the Devill” the point that early medical cures relied on prayer rather than the work of a doctor. “… Yet the Devil who always both builds his Chapel so near as he may to God’s Church, began to withdraw from Prayer…” it is written, denoting the work of the possessor overcoming the woman’s prayer. Had she acted like she did today I am much surer a doctor would have had her committed to a psych ward.

I believe we do treat Eve different than we would Margaret Cooper, or any other person who is diagnosed with multiple personality disorder. Back when this Discourse was written we did not have the medical knowledge we have now, so there was no way for them to realize what Eve was suffering from at the time. Rabies, which characteristically makes people foam at the mouth and experience delusions, but would have been impossible for the townspeople to treat, but it doesn’t explain how the other seven people in the house saw the same bear Eve did. Eve is treated from a religious standpoint, which would include multiple prayers, no counseling, and many physical attempts to force the spirit from her body; whereas Cooper would find a world of counseling, support, and psychotherapeutic drugs to help her in her fight.

Cooper and Eve are not held accountable in different ways because that would imply there was a way to stop it without treatment. It would be a problem they could turn on and off at will. While I do not believe in the theory of possession by evil demons, considering the beliefs of those times I would have to argue there was little a person who was possessed or psychologically ill could be held accountable for doing. Often, people with multiple personalities are not aware they have changed personalities and part of them “blacks out.” To hold them accountable while in this state would be worthless, as they would remember none of it when they came back to their regular personality.

Not having seen The Three Faces of Eve, I feel it would be inappropriate and also ill-advised for me to comment on what Ian Hacking would say about it. At first glance, it would appear Hacking would accept a model such as the one given in “A True and Most Dreadfull Discourse,” but upon further investigation one finds that while he mentions the soul, he neither credits nor discredits the theory of possession. In my mind, Hacking would advocate an early childhood shock as the cause rather than true psychological illness. “A disturbed type of behavior has been joined to events in early childhood that may surface in memory,” he wrote, explaining how childhood events can cause unexpected behavior in a person’s adult years. The theory of possession does not fit that definition, as a demon can possess you at any point in your lifetime.

2006-04-13T16:54:00.000-07:00

“My friend, the swift mule, fleet wild ass of the mountain, panther of the wilderness, after we joined together and went up into the mountain, fought the Bull of Heaven and killed it, and overwhelmed Humbaba, who lived in the Cedar Forest, now what is this sleep that has seized you?” - (Trans. Kovacs, 1989)—From the Epic of Gilgamesh

A metaphor like the one above will make an average person feel lower than average. The author compares his friend to 3 animals: the mule, known for its reliability and resourcefulness; the “wild ass of the mountain,” which is kind of like a mule, but more surefooted in the mountains; and finally the “panther of the wilderness,” endlessly stalking about for predators. The author portrays his friend as a combination of these animals, picturing him as a well equipped person.

"The ultimate hypocrite is not Comedy Central -- that's their decision not to show the image of Mohammed or not -- it's Parker and Stone," he said. "Like little whores, they'll sit there and grab the bucks. They'll sit there and they'll whine and they'll take their shot at Jesus. That's their stock in trade."

The speaker is equating Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of “South Park,” to a life of greed and misery. When most people think of whores, they think of loose women, but here they are actually speaking about people who would take pot shots at anyone for the right amount of money. This probably wouldn’t affect public policy, but it would make a lot of executives and public officials be under more public scrutiny.

“The War on Drugs”

A favorite of many administrations, the drug fight has increased multiple times (i.e. it was not always the “war on drugs”). This has set a matter of public policy, saying that we are treating drugs like a human enemy. While it allows us to use a large amount of firepower, people are distrustful of anything with “war” in the name. We’ve even named “drug lords” and our leader in the drug fight is a “drug czar.”

“He is a monster.”

Being compared to a monster has definite negative connotations. It is hard to imagine what people think of when the word monster is used, but like we discussed earlier with Frankenstein, a monster is something that people stare at. This, like the first two, really has no public policy effect, but these three do affect how people are seen. People who are compared with one of the above metaphors or a variation are usually not seen in a good light. It hurts their reputations and in the case of politicians, their chances of reelection.

2006-04-09T20:12:00.000-07:00

While one of the most often thought of metaphors for “anger=dynamite” it noted on the question, in my mind it is a very clichéd statement. It is highly relevant, but I believe a much better metaphor would be to explain the “anger=dynamite” metaphor in terms of fuses. People often say “anger has a short fuse.” The same quote can be used for dynamite. Once you light the fuse, it is only a short time before the reaction happens. When you light your anger “fuse,” you can only let the anger simmer in your mind for so long. After a certain amount of time, expect to blow up on someone. Perhaps my belief and the belief posed within the question are in dialogue with each other though—when your lit fuse has expired, dynamite explodes. When somebody has angered you, your fuse has been lit. It is only a matter of time before you “explode with rage” onto that person.

A large aspect I think the anger=dynamite metaphor hides is the ability to explode on the spot. Like I noted above, when you use dynamite in a metaphor people think of fuses and timing. A stick of dynamite will not explode immediately when lit. However, it does greatly showcase the probability of anger to simmer and become greater after the fuse has been lit. Another hidden aspect of this is the possibility the person who is angry will not explode; rather, they will absorb the anger and deal with the situation rationally.

The metaphor Blake gives us is “anger=tree.” He explains when he chose not to tell his foe about his wrath, rather to hide it “with soft deceitful wiles,” his wrath started to grow inside of him. The anger grew inside him like a tree and eventually poisoned him until it possessed him, living in him. I think Blake’s metaphor completely leaves out the reaction of the person who really should be angry—the foe. Blake does a good job laying out a process, though. For example, the subject’s wrath grew “till it bore an apple bright,” meaning until fruitition of a plan. Also like the anger=dynamite metaphor Blake has described an on-going process. Anger is not something rising up in you that you address. An angry person has to let the anger rest within him- or herself before he or she addresses it. Some sentences which would put Blake’s metaphor into ordinary language would be: “The anger grew in me,” “I finally got to the point I had to do something,” “I’ve been planning revenge on him or her for making me mad,” or “I have to let him know how angry I am—not by words, but by actions.”

2006-04-06T19:25:00.000-07:00

A. Well, not exactly. The ordinary sentence "She'll rise to the top" relies on the metaphor STATUS = UP (number 7). Check p. 16 of Metaphors We Live By.

B. Yes, in the conceptual structure underlying ordinary sentence "All upcoming events are listed in the paper," Future events are UP (number 6).

C. Yes, in the ordinary sentence "She is morally upright, and an upstanding citizen," Virtue is UP (number 9).

D. Yes. Here being UP is being awake and conscious. Number 2 is correct.

While of course it is good to be on top of things, being on top really means being in control; the sentence "I am on top of the situation" shows that, in our thinking, HAVING CONTROL is UP (number 4). Check p. 15 of Metaphors We Live By.

F. Hmmm. The category of experience expressed by the sentence is emotion. Do you see emotions on the list of possible metaphors? Take a look again:

HAPPY IS UP; SAD IS DOWN
CONSCIOUS IS UP; UNCONSCIOUS IS DOWN
HEALTH AND LIFE ARE UP; SICKNESS AND DEATH ARE DOWN
HAVING CONTROL OR FORCE ARE UP; BEING SUBJECT TO CONTROL OR FORCE IS DOWN
MORE IS UP; LESS IS DOWN
FUTURE EVENTS ARE UP (and AHEAD)
STATUS IS UP; LOW STATUS IS DOWN
GOOD IS UP; BAD IS DOWN
VIRTUE IS UP; DEPRAVITY IS DOWN
RATIONAL IS UP; EMOTIONAL IS DOWN

Happiness and sadness are emotions (number 1). Remember that emotions are something that are not physical, that cannot be grabbed and felt with our hands. Placing happiness UP and sadness DOWN is a way of making them comprehensible to us. Is this metaphor connected to Judy Collins's song do you think?

G. The key words in the sentence "He couldn't rise above his emotions" are "rise above": in a healthy (rational) person, the sentence implies, emotions are lower than thought processes, so the underlying conceptual structure here is number 10. Check p. 17 of Metaphors We Live By.

H. Yes, good work: to say a number is going "up" seems literal, but it is in fact metaphorical: there is no physical reason that we could not switch meanings in our language for "countdown" and "counting up."

I. Well, when you say that things are looking up, usually what you mean is that things were bad and now they are better -- now they are good. So number 8 is the correct answer. Check p. 16 of Metaphors We Live By.

J. Well, not exactly. This song is not so much about the way things are in the world as it is about the way things are perceived depending upon a person's emotions. In the first stanza, UP and DOWN refer to states of feeling in the singer, don't they?

2006-04-04T21:48:00.000-07:00

Rewriting the definition of technology to include writing would not be too much of a special effort, I believe. In fact, most people already consider the movement oral communication to written communication a technological advancement, as evidenced by Goody saying, “Oral communication obviously continues to play a fundamental role after the advent of writing, just as writing continues to be fundamental with the advent of the electronic media.” If you did not include it already, you don’t have to stretch the definition far. Writing is a practical application of Language Arts/English, which fulfills one of the definitions. What really must change, I strongly believe, is people’s conception rather than the definition. People have an idea of technology being cutting-edge, the best and newest tool. Writing is a form of technology that has been adapted and changed over the years from letter to email making it seem like a lost art. It doesn’t seem like the most cutting-edge, but we must realize at one time writing was the best they had. The label of “technology” can be put on most anything. I do agree the definition should be expanded to include writing because it fits what people think of technology. We need to look back and consider the movements which have come before. They could all be called technology by the people who lived in that era. We can’t see it because we are past that point.

Human contact is becoming a lost form of art. Everyday, I have a list of people I must talk to, many with incredibly busy schedules. I must sit down and weigh the pros and cons of emailing them, which is easier, or talking to them face-to-face, which takes more time but reaps other rewards. I would choose to rely on a new definition because it makes me able to call email the replacement for face-to-face interaction (which I probably shouldn’t but that’s another story). The quick development of many technologies has forced us to revisit this issue many times in the last 5 years; and as the field of technology continues to grow, we will be responsible for adding our own different definitions to the mix just as we are now.

2006-04-02T20:06:00.000-07:00

This picture gives an identity of what it means to be an American. You can see the American flag in the background and the smoking gun in the foreground, clearly a reference to the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. A person can also tell she’s American because of the blonde hair and green eyes, which does not occur in many other cultures (the nearest I can think of is German). Taking something from her “cold dead fingers” is also a uniquely American expression.

This advertisement speaks about gender differences and identity in the ‘60s. The man is the passenger, being served by women. It gives the impression that women are useful for “inferior” jobs and just as at home, they are there to serve the men. The slogan “PSA enjoys the pleasure of this man’s company” is clearly directed towards the man, but it seems to be saying that the woman are also glad they are serving a man rather than a woman.

In this Volkswagen ad, the common thought is not people need to be more environmentally sound like many car ads are trying to say now, but rather that as the prices of oil are rising, you can secure a good price by buying a Volkswagen with a diesel engine. Americans are notoriously famous for being very tight-fisted with their money, but will spend money if they believe it will save them down the road. This is the image Volkswagen is trying to portray—spend a lot on this car now, but the savings will come when you buy liters of petrol.

While there is not much I really need to say about this advertisement, I believe it plays on the persuasion that people, especially women, must be ready to meet friends and family. By that, I mean L’Oreal is saying you can’t look like the girl in the advertisement and feel good about yourself. The girl has a very dejected look (though I’m sure it’s more coached than what she’s feeling), but it really plays on the pressure women on Miami’s campus feel like they have to look like

This is the advertisement I really feel most unhappy about. The slogan “Helping Ugly People Have Sex Since 1862” makes me feel very sad because it gives the impression that beer is more a date-rape drug than a drink at a social gathering. However, I feel there is a lot of truth in the statement as it does have a lot of influence in how people react on Friday and Saturday nights. They are playing on the fact that people’s inhibitions will be reduced enough to allow sex to occur. The man in the suit scares me as well, as it seems he is advocating beer and sex. He is a pretty good looking guy, dressed very nice and white—something that has many implications on the consumers of beer.

2006-02-26T21:51:00.000-08:00

When I first signed up to take this class, I knew it was going to be a class about how technology had changed our lives. I was just wrong about the type of technology we would be talking about. In my mind, we would be discussing the expansive internet, the inner-workings of the computer, and the ever secretive instant messages. However, the first day of class my hopes were dashed when I found out that we would not be discussing technology in the form of computers. It was even better; we were discussing language as a development of technology. Language is a vital development in technology because it has helped us develop our communication and given us a means to voice our emotions. There is always the question, though, of what changes you have to go through in order to communication through different mediums.

In my essay, there weren’t too many places where I would change what I would have written to my friend versus what I had written to my mother. I say that just because I believe that’s the way I am with everybody. I understand, however, that events may have to be changed in order to preserve the message and also to make certain items clearer in different mediums of communications. For instance, it is very hard to accurately describe facial twitches in a book because a person cannot actually see them. Instead, it is easier for a facial twitch to be portrayed in a movie, where the audience can see the image and it is easier for them to interpret the meaning. At the same level, though, I would argue that you are able to include more information into your story. Movie directors have “learned” that the public will only sit still for a movie or play for 2 hours or just a little bit more time; whereas, a book can stretch on from 10 pages to 1000 pages.

I would describe myself as a construct character because while I have included mostly true details of me, there is always a part of me that wants to embellish to make myself look better to other people. As an example, I really wanted to portray the image that I didn’t want to be at Stadium in my letters. I never really went into much detail about how much I danced that night and what type of dancing I did. I decided to do this because it didn’t fit the way I wanted to portray myself. Including how much I had danced would have weakened my point. Also, I probably overestimated the feelings that I had. I really spoke out against how much I didn’t want to be there, but now when I look at it, I find myself wondering if there really was a part of me that really wanted to go. Perhaps I wanted to be more accepted by my peers, by those of my age rather than older students. Also, there is one story that I decided to leave out because I value the friendship more than writing about what I did for her. It was the really the whole reason that I went to Stadium, but I felt that to retell the story would be a grievous mistake on my part. It would have been me propping myself up when I really didn’t do too much.

There are many different views on whom or what writes a character, but in my view there are two things that matter: the first is that you write the character, and the second is that you must keep in mind the other answers listed in the question in the prompt. It is important that you write the character because that is the only way that you impart the meaning that you want people to get out of the story. Also, like the theme for this essay, for each medium you will have to change the writing of yourself many times in order to get the correct “you” across to your audience. I say that you must also consider the other answers because you must change your writing style in order to portray yourself the way you want. Like the facial twitch example used earlier, you must include all aspects of thought into your writing because you are not only writing for you. While many authors have said that they began writing because it was a release for them, you must take into account the audience and the medium especially. It may be a release for them, but they must also write it to sell books. James Frey, the author of A Million Little Pieces, admitted that he lied about many of the details in his book in order to make it more appealing to consumers.

Writing is an extremely difficult trade because one must take into account all the changes that must be made in order to create your story through a different medium. Images that cannot be “seen” very well through a book may come through clearly on the movie screen, and vice versa. A writer must also consider the mood and expectations of the audience. Imaging me as a construct character is something that I had never thought of before, but I really think it describes a lot of characters. We are always looking for a way to keep ourselves above others, a way to portray ourselves in a positive light. One must always keep in mind their audience because the audience is what will make or break your work.

2006-02-23T13:17:00.000-08:00

1. My narrative doesn't really change from the way I describe it to my mother and then to my friend. However, I can see where the thought is here. Many people would describe the event in different detail to their friend then they would their parent. Perhaps they left out an important detail in their parent's version, and then embellished the fact in their friend's version. Like I said before, I don't see a big change in my account from mother to friend, but I would say the thing that most changed was that I took a little bit of a harsher tone on my friends when sending the letter to my friend than I did with my mother.

2. A published account differs from a letter because you are expected to behave differently in each. A letter is something that is shared between a group of friends, where as a published account has the possibility of becoming public. In a letter, you feel free to let things out that you wouldn't say in a published account because you know that the chance of the letter coming into the public domain is considerably less. Also, a published account must be written to a more formal audience than a letter, because of the massive amounts of people that would read it.

3. I don't think that the "you" described in each of my letters is different. As I said in question 1, my tone and the basic elements of my letter did not change when I wrote the second one. I am still the same man in each of them. What did change, however, was my description of the other people. I was worse on them when talking to my friend Chris than I was when talking with my mom.

2006-02-14T21:35:00.000-08:00

It has been a while since I have seen “The Wizard of Oz,” but with the examples given in the assignment, I think that I can determine the structure of the yellow brick road analogy, or at least build something close enough to resemble it. It seems that the “yellow brick road” resembles a path or journey that one takes in order to achieve a higher goal that they have in mind. Many of these start with a plight, or the problem that one would like to be able to solve or change. Usually, this is written as the introduction to the book. The next section will most likely be a planning stage. The main character in a “Wizard of Oz” sort of movie always takes the time to plan their moves. The character is seen as an intellectual who takes planning to the extreme. After the planning stage, the next move is to confront the villain or the problem. Known as the conflict, this part of the story is where the most action and dialogue should happen. Exchanges between the protagonist and antagonist are crucial to the elements of the story. In the case of “The Wizard of Ox,” Dorothy is recruited to help the Tin Man, Scarecrow, and Lion. Finally, the last part of the story is the resolution. Ending the story is important because without an end, your audience cannot completely appreciate your work. It might be interesting to leave them hanging and draw their own conclusions, but many people only look at concrete conclusions and may not be expecting something out of the blue. “The Wizard of Oz” can be looked at as a spiritual journey, and the “yellow brick road” is a simile for the path that you take in your mind; only the “yellow brick road” is that path set out in 3-D. I believe that it would be easy to take biographies for people like you see on Oprah, because that is really what her show is about. They talk about the problem, set up possible solutions, then show the conflict and talk about resolutions that were made. For the most part, biographies of people are talking about the problems and challenges that they face as a leader or celebrity and how they overcame them. So yes, I think it would be incredibly easy to fit many biographies in the mold of “The Wizard of Oz.”

The second question this assignment poses is very interesting. There have been times that I have found myself totally engrossed in a television program or movie, to the point where I start believing everything in it and reacting to it. Then, on the complete opposite spectrum, there have been movies out there that I watched for 10 minutes, thought were completely empty, and changed the channel. I think that “going to the land of Oz” could be a metaphor for going to that special place where you zone out during a movie, television episodes, or while reading a book. In “The Wizard of Oz” Dorothy is knocked unconscious and has a dream, so she never really had a choice of whether to become engrossed in her dream or not, but in our lives, we have the choice: do we want the movie to be able to take us away from our life? Television is many people’s escape from reality. As much as I like this escape, I really think that “The Wizard of Oz” is trying to tell us that by trying to ignore the problems that we face in real life, we actually create more problems than we solve. All the people involved in the production were trying to open our eyes and help us realize that fact. As much as I enjoy being led astray by the television, I realize that it is not helpful to anything in my life. I am not going to be watching an episode of “Full House” and suddenly realize that “oh my, this is what I need to do for love.” Television and movies mostly provide improper solutions to real world problems. Often, the solution will be reached through “magical” means, as in some way that really would never happen in the real world. While it is nice to let your self be sucked in by a great movie, you have to realize that it is not reality—so don’t use it to solve your problems.

2006-02-08T14:30:00.000-08:00

When Christians speak of the theory of creation, they oftentimes include that god created each human being is made the same way, but includes different looks and qualities. When humans create robots however, they are not able to reach that same level of individuality. In Isaac Asimov’s book The Caves of Steel, the Earthmen believe that all robots are the same: hard, metallic bodies with a limited thinking capacity. Officer Baley never takes into account that his partner, R. Daneel Olivaw could look like a human. On their first meeting, Baley remarks, “It’s just, you see, that you don’t look like a robot (25).” Though Olivaw may look like an Earthman, he is not able to perform the most necessary of human functions, such as chewing and smiling. “Yes, I can perform the mechanical operations of chewing and swallowing. My capacity is, of course, quite limited, and I would have to remove the ingested material from what you might call my stomach sooner or later” (138) he informs Baley; a page later, on 139, Olivaw, responding to Baley’s question about whether he can smile, attempts it but can only move its mouth. The rest of the face does not follow suit.

While many of the people in New York City are still in the dark that there is a humanistic looking robot among them, the common theme is that they would not react well. Asimov writes frequently in The Caves of Steel about a group called “the Medievalists,” which highly oppose the induction of robots. City-dwellers, too, resent the robots: “Even with the cooperation of the Terrestrial government and most of the various City governments, resistance has been continuous and progress has been very slow (60).” Mary Shelley and Isaac Asimov provide opposite viewpoints, one thing is similar. Both authors have proved that humans are always looking to be the next big creator, the makers of the next human race. Invariably, they always fail, in Shelley’s case because the monster was not nurtured by Frankenstein and in Asimov’s case because they tried to replicate humans to a “T.” While it is theoretically best to make a robot like humans, practically it is not possible.

Tank, a robot-receptionist at Carnegie Mellon University, provides the answer for what we need for human communication. “Turn the robot into a soap opera,” said his creator, Reid Simmons. “The longest running shows on television, they’re all soap operas. I mean, they just keep going on for years and years and years,” he continued. Simmons is saying, in effect, that in order to communicate, people need to be able to make statements that are able to be responded to, or that ask for the other person’s opinion or thoughts. For example, if one were to ask what Tank thinks of Simmons, Tank would reply “Dr. Reid is my boss…I don’t know him very well yet. Don’t you think he has shifty eyes? And, what’s up with that hair?” This gives the user a chance to respond and agree or disagree with Tank, therefore making the user feel like his or her opinion mattered. While I think that Tank does respond as a human would, some of the times he responds it is incidental and you cannot read too much into it.

Occasionally, I do send emoticons (emotive pictures) when I use instant messengers. However, I send them for a single reason—sometimes, without that smiley face a person wouldn’t know whether I was being sincere or sarcastic. It is nearly impossible to communicate with intention or emotions, as that would be a very bland life and not encourage communication between people. Finally, I believe that I would be able to work alongside Olivaw, as I am very open minded about new technologies and am always happy when I have the chance to further my knowledge of them.

2006-02-02T18:47:00.000-08:00

Humans and Robots

2006-01-26T22:45:00.000-08:00

Since its inception, language has been the primary tool for communication. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is full of humans using language to talk to one another, particularly Walton writing letters to his sister, Margaret. The writings are so deep and wordy that many different meanings can come out of one sentence, and none of the meanings can be known as the definitive answer. The person who needs language the most in Frankenstein, however, never gets a chance to learn from his creator. This failure of Frankenstein forces the monster to feel like a passive viewer of his own life.

“I was a poor, helpless, miserable wretch; I knew, and could distinguish, nothing; but feeling pain invade me on all sides, I sat down and wept,” (84) the monster said, describing his feelings to Frankenstein soon after he was created. This feeling extends on to when he found a family living in a rural cottage; “By degrees I made a discovery of still greater moment. I found that these people possessed a method of communicating their experience and feelings to one another by articulate sounds,” (92) he tells Frankenstein. The monster understands that by learning the sounds, he would be able to understand the cottagers’ interaction. After months of watching the cottagers, he “discovered the names that were given to some of the most familiar objects of discourse; I learned and applied the words, ‘fire,’ ‘milk,’ ‘bread,’ and ‘wood.’” (93)

At first, the monster is overjoyed by the fact that he was able to learn the human’s language. “I cannot describe the delight I felt when I learned the ideas appropriated to each of these sounds and was able to pronounce them,” (93) he told Frankenstein. Like some philosophers of his time have said, however, too much knowledge is power. By amassing the knowledge through watching the cottagers, the monster has gained enough literary skills to read the papers he found in Frankenstein’s dress. “You doubtless recollect these papers. Here they are. Everything is related in them which bears reference to my accursed origin….” (110) It is in that sentence, that Shelley reveals the changing motivations of the monster. Shelley wrote one great sentence, that I think shows the whole turnaround of the book. That sentence is while he is talking to Frankenstein about visiting De Lacy, and the monster says, “I saw [Felix] on the point of repeating his blow, when, overcome by pain and anguish, I quitted the cottage, and in the general tumult escaped unperceived to my hovel.” (115) Some may say the more you learn the more dangerous you are, and I definitely agree in this case.

As soon as the monster was able to read Frankenstein’s letters and hear tales about murder and other woes that people suffer, he turned his back on humanity and decided to murder the ones Frankenstein loved. I believe the letters and stories that the monster hears makes him more violent because he realizes that his creator will not give him the one thing he wishes—another monster just like himself. On page 147, he makes a threat that defines the book, telling Frankenstein that “it is well. I go; but remember, I shall be with you on your wedding-night.” This quote comes after the deaths of Justine and William, but before the death of Clerval. Just that thought alone is one to make your blood curdle and fear for your life.

2006-01-19T19:56:00.000-08:00

While common theory says that the reason Walton is sailing near the North Pole trying to find riches and fame, I think that that opinion is overshadowed by a bigger thought. Only a few times, if at all, does Walton mention becoming rich through his voyage. Rather, he names he desire to “discover the wondrous power which attracts the needle and may regulate a thousand celestial observations that require only this voyage to render their seeming eccentricities consistent forever” and “a point on which the soul may fix its intellectual eye. I believe that Walton is going on this trip for two different reasons: one, he is eager to quench his thirst for knowledge about humans and where we came from; and two, he wants to find out his purpose as a man. In his letters to Margaret, Walton often mentions celestial bodies or his “heart [glowing] with an enthusiasm which elevates me to heaven….”

Whereas Walton wanted to learn about himself and share his knowledge with others, Victor Frankenstien became obsessed with the creation of life. “Whence, I often asked myself, did the principle of life proceed?” Frankenstien asked. Victor is asking who chooses when a life is born, a new life is made. “After days and nights of incredible labor and fatigue, I succeeded in discovering the cause of generation and life; nay, more, I became myself capable of bestowing animation upon lifeless matter,” he added later. Finally, he acknowledges that all he has done in his workshop was to create life by saying “after so much time spent in painful labor, to arrive at once at the summit of my desires was the most gratifying consummation of my toils.”

In writing the above quotes for Walton and Frankenstien I believe that Shelley was trying to tell us that people in her time were looking to celestial bodies for answers to their questions about creation and why there were upon this Earth, and also that they thought the heavens would provide the answers through its celestial bodies. I would also argue that if not most people that Shelley knew at the time were questioning this, Shelley herself was and it allowed her to voice her opinion without insulting the scientists of her day.

I think that of the three motives I’ve stated the only one that could apply to today’s technology magnets such as Bill Gates is the one provided in the assignment prompt, “Walton is trying to find the Northwest Passage—it would revolutionize world trade, and make him very famous and rich.” Gates’ motivation seems at least in part to be becoming rich and famous, but there are also other motives that he would be able to describe for you. Gates is not influenced by the other two motivations because the questions asked in Shelley’s era were either answered before his time, or are now understood to be unanswerable.

2006-01-12T17:10:00.000-08:00

In recent years, doctors have had much success saving patients that with diseases that were thought to be incurable and untreatable a short time earlier. The majority of this improvement is seen because doctors have been able research and experiment with different drugs and procedures. In “The Birthmark” by Nathaniel Hawthorne and Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, however, the two authors make a fabulous case for limiting the research of physicians worldwide. Often times now doctors have set their sites on some of the world’s toughest disease’s that would bring the discoverer instant respect if they found a cure or treatment—a respect that would also bring millions more dollars the doctor could use for research. I feel that while we must give doctors incredible leeway as they are expected to save lives whenever possible, we must also expect them to act within moral responsibility and with ethics and integrity. Physicians are still doing the best they can in order to save patients, but too often more and more doctors are leaving their practice for a job in a laboratory mixing chemicals. Unfortunately, in many of those laboratories the concern is money, not life.

Most often the subject of limiting the research of doctors is brought up when talking about pregnancy. There are multiple tests that one can now perform—they can actually tell you what sex your baby will be very early in your pregnancy—and they can also perform surgeries to save the fetus—from conditions such as spina bifida—if it is in danger. Those are only two examples of what doctors can do. On February 8, 1998, the Washington Post published an article by reporter Rick Weiss titled “Babies in Limbo: Laws Outpaced by Fertility Advances” showcasing a doctor who had agreed to implant an egg from a dead woman (who had her eggs frozen) into a living woman. Not only was there controversy with the precedent this would set, but also there was controversy about who would raise the child. Can you imagine it?—the doctor wants has a chance to experiment, and goes ahead with bringing a life into the world without even arranging for its care! Sadly, the surrogate mother miscarried. Like noted above, though, this is not the only example:

Today’s ethical crisis in reproductive medicine is the product of converging social, economic, and scientific factors. Many women in the workforce have delayed childbearing to the point where technological intervention now offers their only hope of being biological mothers; a lack of financial support from the federal government pushed the $2 billion-a-year fertility industry onto an aggressively entrepreneurial track; and recent advances in egg freezing, embryo manipulation, and other techniques have shattered many of the biological barriers to parenthood.—Rick Weiss (the full text of this article can be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/science/ethical/fertility1.htm)

I believe that both Hawthorne and Shelley are warning us to beware of the advances doctors are claiming to make. Yes, they are improving medicine and people are living longer, but at what price is this improvement coming? I have not read Frankenstein, but I understand that a quick summary of the story is that the townspeople of the story are angered after they found out that a doctor has created a mechanical creature that instead of helping around the house has a tendency to destroy things. In Hawthorne’s “The Birthmark,” Aylmar becomes so crazed about his wife’s birthmark that it only makes her ugly in his mind. After marrying Georgiana, all he can see when he looks at her is a minute outline of a hand that he believes is an “earthly imperfection.” So incensed at this birthmark is Aylmar that he convinces his wife that she needs to get rid of it. Georgiana begins to see the birthmark as an imperfection while she is waiting for Aylmar to make a potion to cure her. In his infinite wisdom, Aylmar works for days, trying each new batch that he has made and wondering if it can help his wife. Finally, he comes up with the concoction he thinks will save his wife. Aylmar clearly believes he cannot fail, as he has put this formula through many tests. “The concoction of the draught has been perfect, said he, in answer to Georgiana’s look. ‘Unless all my science have deceived me, it cannot fail” said Aylmar. Even with all his certainty, Aylmar was not able to make the right potion to save his wife—instead of making her beautiful and removing the blemish, he has killed her.

Shelley and Hawthorne’s text serve the purpose of communicating to their readers to never allow one person to go too far. Their imagination may have run a little wild in the events they allow to happen, but the message is clear: do not allow anybody but god to play god. When others attempt to play god and try to change something that, they run the risk of failing horribly. Doing so, it seems by the words of these two authors, would upset the balance of the universe. A human trying to do a god’s work, to Shelley and Hawthorne, is detrimental to the lives of all humans. It is better to allow a god, with much more intelligence and power to create humans and rectify mistakes as he sees fit, rather then having humans do it for him.

Placing limits on the research of doctors is an important issue that people should not pass judgment on too quickly. Like many other subjects, there are many examples and facts, and not looking at all the material available to a person would be a terrible mistake.

2006-01-12T15:59:00.000-08:00

Test post