Johnson, Steven. “How Twitter Will Change The Way We Live.” Time. Time, Inc., 5 Jun. 2009. Web. 7 April 2011.
Read this article
In the article “How Twitter Will Change the Way We Live”, Steven Johnson discusses how Americans have discovered new ways to talk to one another. Twitter, an Internet phenomenon that allows a person to speak about anything in 140 characters, has reached a realm of conversation that not even the Twitter developers thought was possible. Particularly, this article focuses on the idea that Twitter has given people the opportunity to share thoughts, ideas, web links, etc. on any topic that is taking place in the “real-time” current situation. In other words, compared to Google, Twitter is more current and up-to-date and allows a person to actively participate in a discussion, similar to the “Hacking Education” conference, at that very moment in time. As mentioned in the article, a person can have an up to date status on another person’s life without even picking up a phone. Moreover, Twitter is changing the ways that people communicate with one another and allows people to have the opportunity to see the most current update on topics ranging from a political debate to a peer’s breakfast decision.
The cultural significance of this article lies in the fact that Americans are finding more ways to communicate with one another; even beyond the realm of what developers, such as Evan Williams and Biz Stone of Twitter, have imagined. Twitter has not only impacted the daily lives of Americans, but it has also inspired businesses to advertise via Twitter; it has become the most current search engine; and it has also allowed news to spread via Internet in a matter of 30 seconds. Eventually, all conferences may discuss debates via Twitter; schools across the country and world could have discussions about their different cultures via Twitter; and more “movie stars” will have conversations with people who are not famous via Twitter. Moreover, Americans have been impacted by the Internet phenomena known as Twitter and have discovered ways of communication that were not even considered before this day in age. Forget a phone or e-mail-those are considered slow when they are compared to access that Twitter allows.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
Is It Possible To Create A Machine That Thinks?
Wright, Robert. “Can Machines Think?” Time. Time, Inc., 25 Mar. 1996. Web. 24 Feb. 2011.
Read this article
In the article “Can Machines Think?”, Robert Wright establishes his point of view that in order for a machine to truly think like a human, the machine must also have the capacity to respond to experiences through consciousness like humans. Throughout the article, Wright speaks about the different view of consciousness that philosophers have developed through research over the years. Materialist philosophers, like Dennett, believe that consciousness is explained through the theory that consciousness is the function of the brain and possess physical properties, no questions asked. However, mysterian philosophers believe that consciousness may have a nonphysical property that allows humans to have feelings such as love, pain, and grief. Also the two philosophical points of view have raised questions in the mind of Wright. With the development of advanced robots and machines that have the primary goal to functions as humans, Wright believes that it may be done in the future. However, consciousness and its significance is the ultimate characteristic that must be involved in the machine’s “though process” in order to function as a human and possess the thinking abilities that humans possess.
Wright challenges the audience to understand the different views of consciousness and how it works. Also, can machines ever truly possess the characteristics that it takes to think like a human? Or, are humans a “one of a kind” species that have evolved over the years and cannot be replicated? In today’s scientific world, data gained throughout research since the beginning of time has shown mass improvement in machines because of the human mind and capabilities to create new and improved machines. Therefore, the challenge that faces today’s scientists and philosophers rests in the ability to create a machine that can truly think. Wright wants the audience to think critically about this invention by analyzing the characteristics of human beings, especially consciousness. He wants the reader to form an opinion of consciousness and try to understand the many unanswered questions that still exist in this day in age with the development of machines. He wants us to wonder, Is this ability to create a machine that thinks possible?
Read this article
In the article “Can Machines Think?”, Robert Wright establishes his point of view that in order for a machine to truly think like a human, the machine must also have the capacity to respond to experiences through consciousness like humans. Throughout the article, Wright speaks about the different view of consciousness that philosophers have developed through research over the years. Materialist philosophers, like Dennett, believe that consciousness is explained through the theory that consciousness is the function of the brain and possess physical properties, no questions asked. However, mysterian philosophers believe that consciousness may have a nonphysical property that allows humans to have feelings such as love, pain, and grief. Also the two philosophical points of view have raised questions in the mind of Wright. With the development of advanced robots and machines that have the primary goal to functions as humans, Wright believes that it may be done in the future. However, consciousness and its significance is the ultimate characteristic that must be involved in the machine’s “though process” in order to function as a human and possess the thinking abilities that humans possess.
Wright challenges the audience to understand the different views of consciousness and how it works. Also, can machines ever truly possess the characteristics that it takes to think like a human? Or, are humans a “one of a kind” species that have evolved over the years and cannot be replicated? In today’s scientific world, data gained throughout research since the beginning of time has shown mass improvement in machines because of the human mind and capabilities to create new and improved machines. Therefore, the challenge that faces today’s scientists and philosophers rests in the ability to create a machine that can truly think. Wright wants the audience to think critically about this invention by analyzing the characteristics of human beings, especially consciousness. He wants the reader to form an opinion of consciousness and try to understand the many unanswered questions that still exist in this day in age with the development of machines. He wants us to wonder, Is this ability to create a machine that thinks possible?
Friday, January 28, 2011
Recommendation Engines And How They Are Changing Our Culture
Grossman, Lev. “How Computers Know What We Want - Before We Do.” Time. Time, Inc., 27 May 2010. Web. 27 Jan. 2011.
Read this article
In the article, “How Computers Know What We Want - Before We Do”, Lev Grossman fears that recommendation engines may be changing our social world. He believes that recommendation engines are doing this through a concept called collaborative filtering. Collaborative filtering is the principle that the behavior of a large group of people can be used to make an “educated guess” about the behavior of a single individual. The web recently has changed the way we shop, and Grossman believes it is now transforming our social lives too and recommendation engines are coming along for the ride. Grossman states “The risk you run with recommendation engines is that they’ll keep you in a rut” (par. 21). He says they do this because ruts are “comfy” places and so they aim to keep you them. Eventually Grossman believes that this would cause people’s social and cultural world to narrow down into what he called a “cozy, contended, claustrophobic little dot of total personalization” (par. 28). Everyday more and more recommendation engines are gathering up information about us and shaping our reality in a form that hopefully will be to our liking. In sense, Grossman believes it is creating a customized world for each of us that he says is slightly “childproof” and ever so slightly stifling.
Grossman’s point of view is culturally significant because he believes that recommendation engines may be changing the way our culture works. This is important because it makes you think about whether or not Grossman belief is true. For example, Grossman states that dating sites are making predictions about love. These sites put human behavior into data, which in turn they use to look for patterns in order to pair up people. This makes you think that if they are doing it to “match” soul mates then it wont be long until recommendation engines will be controlling all aspects of our cultural world. In the second to last paragraph, Grossman challenges the audience by asking a couple of questions. He asks, “How far will it go?” and “ Will we eventually surf a web that displays only blogs that conform to our political leanings?” These are tough questions to examine because the audience must dig deep in order to understand and answer these questions. Grossman leaves you with the idea that people were not built to play it safe all the time. It is good for us to be disappointed or offended from time to time, because Grossman believe that is what forces us to evolve.
Read this article
In the article, “How Computers Know What We Want - Before We Do”, Lev Grossman fears that recommendation engines may be changing our social world. He believes that recommendation engines are doing this through a concept called collaborative filtering. Collaborative filtering is the principle that the behavior of a large group of people can be used to make an “educated guess” about the behavior of a single individual. The web recently has changed the way we shop, and Grossman believes it is now transforming our social lives too and recommendation engines are coming along for the ride. Grossman states “The risk you run with recommendation engines is that they’ll keep you in a rut” (par. 21). He says they do this because ruts are “comfy” places and so they aim to keep you them. Eventually Grossman believes that this would cause people’s social and cultural world to narrow down into what he called a “cozy, contended, claustrophobic little dot of total personalization” (par. 28). Everyday more and more recommendation engines are gathering up information about us and shaping our reality in a form that hopefully will be to our liking. In sense, Grossman believes it is creating a customized world for each of us that he says is slightly “childproof” and ever so slightly stifling.
Grossman’s point of view is culturally significant because he believes that recommendation engines may be changing the way our culture works. This is important because it makes you think about whether or not Grossman belief is true. For example, Grossman states that dating sites are making predictions about love. These sites put human behavior into data, which in turn they use to look for patterns in order to pair up people. This makes you think that if they are doing it to “match” soul mates then it wont be long until recommendation engines will be controlling all aspects of our cultural world. In the second to last paragraph, Grossman challenges the audience by asking a couple of questions. He asks, “How far will it go?” and “ Will we eventually surf a web that displays only blogs that conform to our political leanings?” These are tough questions to examine because the audience must dig deep in order to understand and answer these questions. Grossman leaves you with the idea that people were not built to play it safe all the time. It is good for us to be disappointed or offended from time to time, because Grossman believe that is what forces us to evolve.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Is Free Software Like Communism
The film Revolution OS is about the creation of the free software movement and the creation of the Linux Operating System. Richard Stallman and Linus Tarvous, which are the founders of the free software movement and Linux Operating Systems, try to explain what there visions were about there creations. In the movie the question was asked about whether or not the free software movement was more along the lines of communism. They say that this is not like communism, because in communism you are forced to share everything with other people. The idea of free software does not force you to share software with other people, but rather gives you the freedom to do so if that person chooses to.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Has The Internet Altered Our Society?
Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group, July/Aug 2008. Web. 17 Jan. 2010.
Read this article
In the article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, Nicholas Carr has a fear that people have lost their depth in understanding the works of literature in our society. He is skeptical about the Internets way of providing articles, readings, journals, literature; etc because he fears it has changed our way of thinking. He compares the methodical use of the Internet to that of the clock by saying that instead of “relying on our senses”, people began to “decide when to eat, sleep, work, and to rise by obeying the clock” (Paragraph 15). Furthermore, he said that people began to change their way of thinking “like clockwork” (Paragraph 16). Carr makes the comparison to the Internet by examining how people’s way of information-processing is changing. Although he claims himself to be a “worrywort” like that of Plato, he fears that future generations will rely heavily on Google and any other form of information search engine in order to receive a very “skimmed” summary of a topic (Paragraph 32). While search engines can be efficient and time managing, Carr is not quite sure if the conceptual understanding of the information will be obtained at the depth that a physical book may offer. Therefore, Carr has a very skeptical point of view. He does not disagree with Google or prohibit its use, but rather wonders if search engines are the best possible supplement for the human brain, or will our society one day refer to the human way of thinking as “Google-work”?
In this particular article, Carr focuses on the ways that the Internet has altered our society from the past to the present. He mentions in the last paragraph that his biggest fear is a scene in the movie 2001 when the “humans go about their business with an almost robotic efficiency”. Carr fears that our culture will lack philosophical depth and the capacity to think critically about life. Carr worries that without filling our minds with rich and meaningful texts, our culture will take away our ability to gain the intellectual abilities to understand a concept in-depth rather than on the surface. He feels as though our culture will be one that knows “a little about a lot” rather than “a lot about a little”. Moreover, the founders of Google, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, are very intellectual in Carr’s point of view. He respects their abilities to use a search engine that can enable people to find just about anything and may one day be linked to our brains. However, Carr agrees with Maryanne Wolf when she says that “deep reading is better for us for more than just the intelligence” but it is also good for the “quiet space that allows the reader to focus”. While Carr respects both the Internet and “deep reading” as means of processing information, he wants to challenge our culture to try and look beyond what a computer understands about the world so that we will not display an “artificial intelligence”. Although he is not against using a computer for a means of research, he does not feel as though our culture should rely on it alone for our means of information and deep thinking.
Read this article
In the article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, Nicholas Carr has a fear that people have lost their depth in understanding the works of literature in our society. He is skeptical about the Internets way of providing articles, readings, journals, literature; etc because he fears it has changed our way of thinking. He compares the methodical use of the Internet to that of the clock by saying that instead of “relying on our senses”, people began to “decide when to eat, sleep, work, and to rise by obeying the clock” (Paragraph 15). Furthermore, he said that people began to change their way of thinking “like clockwork” (Paragraph 16). Carr makes the comparison to the Internet by examining how people’s way of information-processing is changing. Although he claims himself to be a “worrywort” like that of Plato, he fears that future generations will rely heavily on Google and any other form of information search engine in order to receive a very “skimmed” summary of a topic (Paragraph 32). While search engines can be efficient and time managing, Carr is not quite sure if the conceptual understanding of the information will be obtained at the depth that a physical book may offer. Therefore, Carr has a very skeptical point of view. He does not disagree with Google or prohibit its use, but rather wonders if search engines are the best possible supplement for the human brain, or will our society one day refer to the human way of thinking as “Google-work”?
In this particular article, Carr focuses on the ways that the Internet has altered our society from the past to the present. He mentions in the last paragraph that his biggest fear is a scene in the movie 2001 when the “humans go about their business with an almost robotic efficiency”. Carr fears that our culture will lack philosophical depth and the capacity to think critically about life. Carr worries that without filling our minds with rich and meaningful texts, our culture will take away our ability to gain the intellectual abilities to understand a concept in-depth rather than on the surface. He feels as though our culture will be one that knows “a little about a lot” rather than “a lot about a little”. Moreover, the founders of Google, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, are very intellectual in Carr’s point of view. He respects their abilities to use a search engine that can enable people to find just about anything and may one day be linked to our brains. However, Carr agrees with Maryanne Wolf when she says that “deep reading is better for us for more than just the intelligence” but it is also good for the “quiet space that allows the reader to focus”. While Carr respects both the Internet and “deep reading” as means of processing information, he wants to challenge our culture to try and look beyond what a computer understands about the world so that we will not display an “artificial intelligence”. Although he is not against using a computer for a means of research, he does not feel as though our culture should rely on it alone for our means of information and deep thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)