First, I would love to comment on Starfish’s blog because it explains Umberto Eco’s theory about reality to its finest interpretation about the reading. Personally, I am so relieved our class has come to the discussion about technology and the way it tries to depict reality because most Americans don’t realize how far our society has gone with this phenomenon. As, Starfish mentions the continuous creations of games or entertainment devices that are constantly put on the market for the “obsesses,” it show a correlation with Dr. Rog’s statement (“Our values depend on what it is worth”) to Benjamin’s theory. The value in this case is the yearning sensation that this obsessed technology community holds and the creators eventually produces a better marketable device to fulfill their wants, in most cases these devices are worth more than the last device.
All of this thinking about creating one’s reality brought another idea to mind, which is how people who live in these areas like Baldwin Park are undergoing these same practices as those obsessed with technology. These areas have rules that the community must abide by in order to continue to be a resident. Those who wish to live in a community like this only pursue these options because they want to be in a safe environment, live in duplicated areas, or create a better life for them or their kids. It also takes away from the unfortunate since they can’t afford to live in these expensive communities, which eliminates them from these “perfect” neighborhoods. These communities mainly interact with themselves which causes isolation to the real world or they hold their status above those who are not in their community because the outsiders are seen as the “underprivileged”. This is a sign of masking and denaturing reality since our society isn’t based off of strict living arrangements other than the laws that are provided by the government to all Americans.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
kMO 2/28
Bumble brought up an important point regarding “authenticity.” Baulldriard's questioning of the existence of reality directly parallels our class discussions on Thursday...Interactions between the “virtual world” and the “real world” are becoming normal. Speed equates technology which in turn equates communication. For example, my blackberry is my calculator, alarm system, cell phone, texting mechanism, internet connection, facebook access, notepad, calendar, voicemail, GPS, camera, blue tooth connection, and email. I rely more on this device than any other object. Could this type of dependency be what all of these theorists are warning us about??
In someone’s post the concept of change and its impact on society was brought up. They stated that change throws off the general population due to the fact that humans are creatures of habit. I believe that this is true to a certain extent…In my opinion the younger generation embraces change whereas the older generation shys away from it. For example, when new features are added to my blackberry or a new model is released I immediately want it (because I have conformed to the “newer is better AND faster theory). My grandparents on the other hand would not trade in their phones (from 5 years ago) for a million dollars. The thought of having to re-learn a system even if it was to be in their greater interest is absolutely terrifying to them...
In regards to the way we conducted class on Thursday – I really enjoyed it. Hearing 3 different explanations regarding the important points in Durham and Kellner’s readings were beyond helpful. Also, everyone keeps commenting on Raj’s groups interpretation of their readings so I might as well jump on the band wagon. The idea of chips being implanted in our brains during childhood or anytime after that is a NOT GOOD. I am not a scientist and even I can pick out a detrimental idea when I hear one. I wont deny that the mind/tv interaction sounds cool but as far as pushing reality goes…we are definitely on that path...
In someone’s post the concept of change and its impact on society was brought up. They stated that change throws off the general population due to the fact that humans are creatures of habit. I believe that this is true to a certain extent…In my opinion the younger generation embraces change whereas the older generation shys away from it. For example, when new features are added to my blackberry or a new model is released I immediately want it (because I have conformed to the “newer is better AND faster theory). My grandparents on the other hand would not trade in their phones (from 5 years ago) for a million dollars. The thought of having to re-learn a system even if it was to be in their greater interest is absolutely terrifying to them...
In regards to the way we conducted class on Thursday – I really enjoyed it. Hearing 3 different explanations regarding the important points in Durham and Kellner’s readings were beyond helpful. Also, everyone keeps commenting on Raj’s groups interpretation of their readings so I might as well jump on the band wagon. The idea of chips being implanted in our brains during childhood or anytime after that is a NOT GOOD. I am not a scientist and even I can pick out a detrimental idea when I hear one. I wont deny that the mind/tv interaction sounds cool but as far as pushing reality goes…we are definitely on that path...
Sgt. Pepper, 2/28
Since everyone is giving their two cents about the different setup of class last week, I guess I will too. I also liked being able to split up into groups and get my peers' perspectives on the article because it's interesting to see how our minds differ, but I also thought we shouldn't have relied solely on our ideas to understand Poster's article. When we switched off to tell about our specific section, some people from other sections had a lot to say that I didn't notice when reading the article, but some people I didn't learn anything from. And I'm not blaming them, but I think we should've had a little insight from Dr. Rog, at least, before trying to teach it ourselves.
Anyway, the section my group talked about was the first. Like I mentioned in my pre-class post, I really liked Poster's "historical metaphor" of emerging technology to the Middle Ages. Our section was basically just Poster's introduction, and I think the major point he was trying to make in his introduction was that the advancement of technology isn't just the advancement of technology. It is affecting people and will continue to affect people in many more ways. Like Poster describes in the metaphor to the Middle Ages, one major thing that comes with the advancement in technology is the change in the way people communicate. Communication is consistently becoming quicker, easier, and most important, less and less personable. Talking face-to-face is becoming drastically less prevalent, so naturally people's social skills will change, thus their personalities will change. (This is a theory) We will all adapt to a more individually-based frame of mind, and that could lead to seriously bad things for the world.
So I think basically what Poster is trying to say in the introduction that my group was assigned to that while the advancement of technology will bring many good things to the world, if we get too caught up in it, it might be too late to realize the negative aspects.
Anyway, the section my group talked about was the first. Like I mentioned in my pre-class post, I really liked Poster's "historical metaphor" of emerging technology to the Middle Ages. Our section was basically just Poster's introduction, and I think the major point he was trying to make in his introduction was that the advancement of technology isn't just the advancement of technology. It is affecting people and will continue to affect people in many more ways. Like Poster describes in the metaphor to the Middle Ages, one major thing that comes with the advancement in technology is the change in the way people communicate. Communication is consistently becoming quicker, easier, and most important, less and less personable. Talking face-to-face is becoming drastically less prevalent, so naturally people's social skills will change, thus their personalities will change. (This is a theory) We will all adapt to a more individually-based frame of mind, and that could lead to seriously bad things for the world.
So I think basically what Poster is trying to say in the introduction that my group was assigned to that while the advancement of technology will bring many good things to the world, if we get too caught up in it, it might be too late to realize the negative aspects.
kaymac 2.28.08
First off, I loved going around in the different groups and talking about the article. It was good to see different perspectives of the article on a one to one level.
One thing that really caught my attention in the discussions was what Raj's group was saying about these new Wii games, named Mii (I think?). Apparently, the makers of Wii are coming out with these controllers that you wrap around your head that literally read your brain in order to know how your character on the screen will move/function/react whatever. Then with these Mii's, you will be able to connect to the virtual world of Miis and interact with other Miis, enter contests, vote on issues, and pretty much live in this virtual community. Talking about this made me think of a novel I read a long time ago by M.T. Anderson entitled Feed. In this futuristic world, people have these chips that are inserted into their brains when they are newborns that act as a computer, cell phone, television, PDA, iPod, etc. all rolled into one. If you do not have a Feed in your brain, you are an outcast in the world and therefore cannot function. If you have ever seen Gattaca (a wonderful film with Ethan Hawke, Jude Law, and Uma Thurman) you will know what I'm talking about with the not being able to function in society thing. So Raj's Miis and Wii's and any kind of "ii" made me think of this.
Technology has led us to this interactive experience and going off of what Bumble and Habermas were saying, we do live in a hyperstimulated world. We are spending time with people who are not physically there for our social interaction. However, when you think about it, people used to do that back in the 1800's as well, in the time of letter writing. People would sit there and write letters back and forth because that was their form of communication--they were spending time with people who weren't there either. Granted, it was not as instant or evolved as it is today, but that did exist back then as well.
Another question that is raised was is this real? We have to use our imagination a lot when dealing with virtual worlds and spaces like this. There is an inherent trust in persons' presentations of themselves but we have to ask is this really reality? Is this not reality? Are we talking with the person or the virtual space that represents them? How can the human identity and mind be compressed onto a chip that can almost be a back-up of our own brain?
In a way, we are immortalizing ourselves, and is that what virtual reality means to do? Think of Facebook and Myspace and whatever website had Myspace profiles for people who have died. We still exist in this virtual world, even after our death.
One thing that really caught my attention in the discussions was what Raj's group was saying about these new Wii games, named Mii (I think?). Apparently, the makers of Wii are coming out with these controllers that you wrap around your head that literally read your brain in order to know how your character on the screen will move/function/react whatever. Then with these Mii's, you will be able to connect to the virtual world of Miis and interact with other Miis, enter contests, vote on issues, and pretty much live in this virtual community. Talking about this made me think of a novel I read a long time ago by M.T. Anderson entitled Feed. In this futuristic world, people have these chips that are inserted into their brains when they are newborns that act as a computer, cell phone, television, PDA, iPod, etc. all rolled into one. If you do not have a Feed in your brain, you are an outcast in the world and therefore cannot function. If you have ever seen Gattaca (a wonderful film with Ethan Hawke, Jude Law, and Uma Thurman) you will know what I'm talking about with the not being able to function in society thing. So Raj's Miis and Wii's and any kind of "ii" made me think of this.
Technology has led us to this interactive experience and going off of what Bumble and Habermas were saying, we do live in a hyperstimulated world. We are spending time with people who are not physically there for our social interaction. However, when you think about it, people used to do that back in the 1800's as well, in the time of letter writing. People would sit there and write letters back and forth because that was their form of communication--they were spending time with people who weren't there either. Granted, it was not as instant or evolved as it is today, but that did exist back then as well.
Another question that is raised was is this real? We have to use our imagination a lot when dealing with virtual worlds and spaces like this. There is an inherent trust in persons' presentations of themselves but we have to ask is this really reality? Is this not reality? Are we talking with the person or the virtual space that represents them? How can the human identity and mind be compressed onto a chip that can almost be a back-up of our own brain?
In a way, we are immortalizing ourselves, and is that what virtual reality means to do? Think of Facebook and Myspace and whatever website had Myspace profiles for people who have died. We still exist in this virtual world, even after our death.
romulus 02.28
Thursday's class felt like a supercharged video game, much like Super Smash Brothers Brawl which is about to be released. Every time groups were reformed there was this clash of ideas and opinions about a multitude of topics. The hyperactive nature of the classroom discussion highlighted several major concepts, each bursting with data. The pace was impressive and energetic. Giving us the power to design the lecture, showcased the rhizomic nature of conversation.
Virtual reality pretty much took the cake. Technology lets us live in what seems a science fiction novel. Looking at the opportunities to fully engage in the network where we live. Within a matter of time, people will 'connected' to the net 24/7. There is a bridging of the gap between reality and virtual reality. The two are being fused.
"The use of [brain-computer interface] technology represents a potential breakthrough in human-machine interfaces, changing the realm of possibilities not only for games, but in the way that humans and computer interact," said Paul Ledak, vice president of IBM's Digital Convergence.
Nintendo Wii is going to offer a whole new realm of gaming experiences using a mind control headsets. The age of the mouse is dead. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/02/gaming_with_the_power_of_your.html
We are able to virtually manipulate space and time, and to control our own destiny like in Second Life. The game has blurred boundaries between reality and virtual reality via its free market capitalistic state. When creating ones online identity, brand marketing, familiarity and popularity lets us trust sites like Facebook and Myspace above other social networking sites. It should not be an issue if someone is smoking marijuana or drinking underage because cyberspace is where one can be themselves. Its horrible when institutions like governments try to impose censorship on the net. There so be none. The human race is finally able to mass collaborate, and by being able to communicate with each other we can share knowledge, Wikipedia, our history's, ideologies etc., weed out the bad ones and head towards great progress. The majority of the world will see eye to eye, and we will all be able to link and live in a world that slides from R to VR seamlessly.
Virtual reality pretty much took the cake. Technology lets us live in what seems a science fiction novel. Looking at the opportunities to fully engage in the network where we live. Within a matter of time, people will 'connected' to the net 24/7. There is a bridging of the gap between reality and virtual reality. The two are being fused.
"The use of [brain-computer interface] technology represents a potential breakthrough in human-machine interfaces, changing the realm of possibilities not only for games, but in the way that humans and computer interact," said Paul Ledak, vice president of IBM's Digital Convergence.
Nintendo Wii is going to offer a whole new realm of gaming experiences using a mind control headsets. The age of the mouse is dead. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/02/gaming_with_the_power_of_your.html
We are able to virtually manipulate space and time, and to control our own destiny like in Second Life. The game has blurred boundaries between reality and virtual reality via its free market capitalistic state. When creating ones online identity, brand marketing, familiarity and popularity lets us trust sites like Facebook and Myspace above other social networking sites. It should not be an issue if someone is smoking marijuana or drinking underage because cyberspace is where one can be themselves. Its horrible when institutions like governments try to impose censorship on the net. There so be none. The human race is finally able to mass collaborate, and by being able to communicate with each other we can share knowledge, Wikipedia, our history's, ideologies etc., weed out the bad ones and head towards great progress. The majority of the world will see eye to eye, and we will all be able to link and live in a world that slides from R to VR seamlessly.
Bumble: 2/28 post class
My post will probably ree flect some of the fear that comes out of Starfish's response...
why is it that technology always seems to get us into a frenzy? For one thing, humans are creatures of habit and so thinking about dramatic change can throw someone off and make them freak. But, if we all notice gradual changes which creep up on our society (as in all of the technology we are obsessed and involved in) we accept them, because we do not view them as change.
The class about technology initiated a lot of discussions and thoughts regarding development of technology… where in the world is it taking us? One of the most fascinating things about class was all of the tangents that we could connect to the Poster reading. In my group we were discussing that technology has led to an increase and shift of communication patterns and techniques. What is boggling is that a majority of our lives are spent communicating and interacting with people who are not physically there. If we each got a penny for the number of times we pick up our cell phones to communicate in the virtual world of technology, we would be billionaires. Then, if we continued with the number of times we each went into a virtual space like the internet and either spoke with someone via e-mail or instant messenger, we would have money to the gazillionth power! First of all with the amount of time we are walking and talking with people who are not around you, reminds me of the Habermas concept of hyperstimulated sensitivity. I can be in a room with 10,000 people and be talking with someone who is thousands of miles away. This also relates to the post modern concept of blurring the lines of space and time. I can instantaneously press a call button on a little cell phone and talk with my parents in Dubai, when they might be having dinner and I am eating breakfast. The physical space is irrelevant and time is blurred, we are taking but they are living in tomorrow. It is eerie to think about how we even try to conceptualize time and space and categorize it. Honestly though, by taking a post modern stance on it all, there is no such thing as time, it is intangible. Internet allows us also to follow time in a cyclical pattern and not linearly. Think about a book online, you can click on a word that might take you to a tangent that you might be thinking about, and then click again and keep moving your thoughts rapidly in a non-linear progression. Imagine we applied the information technology concept to a regular paper… In school we learn to follow a thesis and intro which leads you in order through a progression in a paper. While jumping from concept to concept might make sense to the writer, would it make sense to the reader? Perhaps we still need to keep this linear lines for certain things.
What does this development of interactions in the virtual world even mean? For one thing, it brings up the aesthetic of speed and technology. If I am at work in an office, who has time anymore to get up and walk to the person down the hallway? NO ONE! We have a need for speed and with a click of a button we can intercom them or e-mail them.
Another thing is that it all contributes to the shift in communication techniques and strengths. In the past, before the explosion of technology, people were dependent on face to face interpersonal communication. People needed to directly interact and were dependent of non verbal cues. Now, if we look at the preferred means of communication it would be the least face to face as possible. Particularly between the relationship between males and females who are attracted to one another. The easiest thing is to pick up a phone and text them, or “facebook” them, which has now become a verb. What does it mean that we have come to the point that our communication skills have so depleted to the point that picking up a phone and calling is still a step in the “too extreme” direction. My brother, who is just 6 years older, finds texting aggravating, and is much more comfortable talking to other people in face to face communication.
In this world where we are spending more and more time in cyber space, we have to put our imagination to good use! Are our relationships and communication with others online actually real? This reflects Baulldriard’s idea of reality, and is there such thing as reality?
I feel like these developments question what it means to be human. Particularly as we keep delegating tasks from our mind (our central processing system) to faster, smarter and more efficient computers. Particularly with cell phones and memorizing numbers, we already outsource that information. The last time I memorized a phone number was when I was in middle school. We have all delegated our mathematical skills to calculators; we delegate information searching to our blackberries and google.com. Will humans ever have to think again? What happens when they put these outsourced like our phones in a chip and implant them into our heads? We will truly be living into a virtual world.
why is it that technology always seems to get us into a frenzy? For one thing, humans are creatures of habit and so thinking about dramatic change can throw someone off and make them freak. But, if we all notice gradual changes which creep up on our society (as in all of the technology we are obsessed and involved in) we accept them, because we do not view them as change.
The class about technology initiated a lot of discussions and thoughts regarding development of technology… where in the world is it taking us? One of the most fascinating things about class was all of the tangents that we could connect to the Poster reading. In my group we were discussing that technology has led to an increase and shift of communication patterns and techniques. What is boggling is that a majority of our lives are spent communicating and interacting with people who are not physically there. If we each got a penny for the number of times we pick up our cell phones to communicate in the virtual world of technology, we would be billionaires. Then, if we continued with the number of times we each went into a virtual space like the internet and either spoke with someone via e-mail or instant messenger, we would have money to the gazillionth power! First of all with the amount of time we are walking and talking with people who are not around you, reminds me of the Habermas concept of hyperstimulated sensitivity. I can be in a room with 10,000 people and be talking with someone who is thousands of miles away. This also relates to the post modern concept of blurring the lines of space and time. I can instantaneously press a call button on a little cell phone and talk with my parents in Dubai, when they might be having dinner and I am eating breakfast. The physical space is irrelevant and time is blurred, we are taking but they are living in tomorrow. It is eerie to think about how we even try to conceptualize time and space and categorize it. Honestly though, by taking a post modern stance on it all, there is no such thing as time, it is intangible. Internet allows us also to follow time in a cyclical pattern and not linearly. Think about a book online, you can click on a word that might take you to a tangent that you might be thinking about, and then click again and keep moving your thoughts rapidly in a non-linear progression. Imagine we applied the information technology concept to a regular paper… In school we learn to follow a thesis and intro which leads you in order through a progression in a paper. While jumping from concept to concept might make sense to the writer, would it make sense to the reader? Perhaps we still need to keep this linear lines for certain things.
What does this development of interactions in the virtual world even mean? For one thing, it brings up the aesthetic of speed and technology. If I am at work in an office, who has time anymore to get up and walk to the person down the hallway? NO ONE! We have a need for speed and with a click of a button we can intercom them or e-mail them.
Another thing is that it all contributes to the shift in communication techniques and strengths. In the past, before the explosion of technology, people were dependent on face to face interpersonal communication. People needed to directly interact and were dependent of non verbal cues. Now, if we look at the preferred means of communication it would be the least face to face as possible. Particularly between the relationship between males and females who are attracted to one another. The easiest thing is to pick up a phone and text them, or “facebook” them, which has now become a verb. What does it mean that we have come to the point that our communication skills have so depleted to the point that picking up a phone and calling is still a step in the “too extreme” direction. My brother, who is just 6 years older, finds texting aggravating, and is much more comfortable talking to other people in face to face communication.
In this world where we are spending more and more time in cyber space, we have to put our imagination to good use! Are our relationships and communication with others online actually real? This reflects Baulldriard’s idea of reality, and is there such thing as reality?
I feel like these developments question what it means to be human. Particularly as we keep delegating tasks from our mind (our central processing system) to faster, smarter and more efficient computers. Particularly with cell phones and memorizing numbers, we already outsource that information. The last time I memorized a phone number was when I was in middle school. We have all delegated our mathematical skills to calculators; we delegate information searching to our blackberries and google.com. Will humans ever have to think again? What happens when they put these outsourced like our phones in a chip and implant them into our heads? We will truly be living into a virtual world.
Bella Post Class 2/28
Starfish, now that I know who you are, I’ll be posting on you all the time! In my last post, I talked about how ‘without my technology, I’m not sure I know who I am’. After our discussion in class, I realized I may not be as bad off as some other people in the world–you mention your fear of the Second Life world and how bizarre it is that real money and real identities are created and lived out in a virtual world. After class, I went and checked out Second Life, just to see what it’s all about. I see it as a grown up version of The Sims (my only, and favorite computer game growing up). The reason these worlds are so attractive is because they allow you to create a persona, maybe someone that looks like you maybe what you wished you looked like. That person can have any job, fulfill any dream at YOUR command, and behave any way you like. If you’re an uptight, shy, lonely man that joins Second Life, your character maybe the attractive, flirtatious, loud and funny business man you always wished you could be. It’s bizarre to think about, but, as Eco said, the fake world is sometimes more entertaining and rewarding that the real world. In the fake world, we have everything we want at our control and for many people that is appealing. If I had time between everything I do on campus as well as my seemingly infinite pile of homework, I might get back into the virtual world. For me, however, I found it so addicting that it took up too much time. It’s like watching your favorite TV show and being able to control the ending…you can’t get enough. I had to hide my games from myself so that I would stop playing them and actually live my life, like you said. It was scary to think that I was spending more time pretending to be someone else than I was enjoying who I am. You said that last class made everything 'click' for you, and I have to agree. Since the last class, the last essay (which I actually understood), and our exam, I have really come to understand a lot of the basics about post modern society. We live in an age of instant gratification, constant development, and scarily obsessive tendencies. We are obsessed with making things new and better, pushing the boundaries of technology, and revolutionizing the world we live in. I feel like technology is just snowballing forward, at a pace that's almost impossible to maintain...what could happen if it crashed? What would happen if our society just...crashed. It seems to me that we can't keep this up forever, and that it has to stop some time...but when?
http://secondlife.com/
http://secondlife.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)