My initial idea for the class project was to create a store using Half.com and Ebay.com. Although I will not throw that idea out completely, I have a hard time imagining exactly how I can connect our readings with E-commerce. I’m not saying that it would be impossible, but I’d have to be creative or look at E-commerce from a different perspective to relate it with the ideas of Engelbart, McLuhan, Bush, etc. 

So I went back to the drawing board and began brainstorming some other potential ideas for the class project.  I began thinking about the creative possibilities of using Youtube: 

1)      My life-long dream has always been to direct a movie, so perhaps if I could write a script of “The Garden of Forking Paths,” then I could recreate the story into live-action (be aware that I am no expert by any stretch of the imagination in directing, editing, or cinematography. I only have one sister, mom, and dad who might be willing to contribute in terms of performance and cinematography).  If I do go down this path, then expect a very amateurish job. However, the skills I’ll learn along the way will be more valuable than the final outcome.

2)      Along those lines, the McLuhan video we watched in class also piqued my interest and engendered some creative ideas.  I spend most of my time on Youtube viewing spoofs of anything I’m familiar with, whether it is a song, a movie, show, etc.  I believe I could come up with a comical spoof of the McLuhan video and could play many different characters from the video, from the guy who starts the video in the green, suburban atmosphere, to interviewers, to McLuhan’s friends and family, to McLuhan himself.  Each character would have their own costume and unique personality.  I’ll have to flesh out the idea a bit more, but I think I could pull it off with some degree of success because the success of the video would be dependant on the personality of each character, rather than the production elements.   

After watching the video that Dr. Campbell presented to us in the last part of class this past Thursday, I went to Youtube to see more of McLuhan. The clips the video showed were just brief snippets, so I had an urge to watch McLuhan with the full context attached. I came across this:

 http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZF8jej3j5vA

Essentially, McLuhan states that the media was not doing its job when they aired the debate between Carter and Ford. He said, “this was an incredible show of incompetence and misuse of that medium.” Some of the arguments he made was that the three moderators were too “authoritative,” which disallowed the two candidates to have spontaneous and open-minded conversations between each other. McLuhan believes that the best way to execute the debate would have been to have “unscripted” and open conversation much like the conversation McLuhan and the other two journalists were having.

Considering this is election year, I’d be curious to see what McLuhan would have to say about our debates. Have they progressed? Well, based on his arguments against the debate, practically nothing has changed from my perspective. You still have candidates up there leaning on a pedestal being asked “scripted” questions for which, I’m sure, they have prepared answers for. The reason for this, as McLuhan points out, is because the candidates are too engrossed in their public image that having free and open conversations would be impossible because candidates are too afraid to misstep and say the wrong thing that could ruin their bid for office.

Sure, we may have those CNN/Youtube debates that create the illusion that the people have a say, but in reality, I’m sure there is some filtering process that goes on to try and find the questions that the moderators would have asked anyways. I bet McLuhan would be disgusted with the way our debates have remained static, where candidates are forced to talk in sound bites to keep their image strong, while not really contributing to the conversation about where they stand, and why.

Now, obviously, when talking about politics, you enter dangerous territory, but unfortunately, the ONLY candidate in our presidential race who has said anything remotely controversial and dangerous is Ron Paul, and he doesn’t even have a chance of winning. Wonder why? Well, McLuhan said in the end of the first video that Ford sounds better than Carter if you listen to him on the radio. However, when you watch Carter and Ford on a colored television set, Carter looks better, which, according to McLuhan, may have a strong impact on the way voters make their opinions about candidates.

If Ron Paul was on the radio, and people couldn’t see the skinny, aged, and fragile man, and just listened to what he had to say, would Paul actually get more votes? McLuhan probably thinks so. I encourage everyone to watch the below video.

Skip to 3:25 and just listen to his voice. He actually advocates exactly what McLuhan advocates.

 http://youtube.com/watch?v=2WLGMLpA-20

I bet McLuhan jumped out of his grave and gave a standing ovation for Dr. Paul after that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7248875.stm 

So I was surfing on Digg.com as I usually do when I have free time, and an article with a highly relevant title to New Media studies  immediately caught my eye.  The title was: “Machines ‘to match man by 2029.”  Initially, I thought that the article was most likely a undergraduate writer blogging about robots and rambling without contributing a rational thought (sound familiar?).  However, after I clicked on the link on Digg, I was directed to BBC News.  I was shocked to see a reputable news outlet like BBC posting a story that sounds more like a fool’s dream. According to the US National Academy of Engineering, which is made up of eighteen technology experts (including Google’s Larry Page), we will be able to create artificial intelligence “with the broad suppleness of human intelligence including our emotional intelligence by 2029.” 

That is mind blowing for me.  Never had I even imagined in my wildest dreams that technology that sophisticated could emerge in such a short period of time (i.e. in my lifetime).  However, the article also paints a bit of a different kind of picture of what artificial intelligence will be like than the one we’re used to seeing in movies (Terminator 2, 2001: A Space Odyssey, etc.).  Typically, when we think of artificially intelligent beings, we think of separate entities.  The BBC article, on the other hand, imagines miniscule robots living inside us as mutual parasites.  For a moment, I began wandering what Licklider would have thought about such an idea.  After all, he believes that man and machine should be able to coexist by virtue of simple interaction between user and computer, but did he ever in his wildest dreams expect man and computer symbiosis, as he called it, in the literal sense? 

These artificial intelligent entities which could be as small as a grain of rice could supposedly cure diseases and make us smarter by attaching themselves to our brains. In contrast to Engelbart’s ideas about thinking differently and outside our means to become smarter,  the process of thought would be defeated if robots attached to our brains and fed us what we needed to know and did all the work for us.  Do we want that though?  I won’t argue that it wouldn’t be nice to effortlessly pass every test I take throughout my educational career, but if everyone could do that, then what would even be the point of testing? And who remembers what Dr. Campbell said about programs? “There is no perfect program.”  Does anyone want our robots that we depend on and that maintain our super high tech thought processes to be imperfect?  I don’t.

On a similar note:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ClxR-8VLxD8 (start at 1:49)

New Media is great and has vastly helped us become the progressive and technologically advanced society that we’ve become that can effortlessly share information with anyone around the world, but can we just keep New Media separate from our bodies, please?   

“If Dr. David Reuben can write about sex I can certainly write about computers”YES! Now THAT’S what I’ve been waiting for! With all due respect to Engelbart, Bush, and Licklider, despite their unprecedented intelligence, innovative ideas, and a common goal to serve the good of mankind, their writings were about as much fun reading as watching meat decay in a jar. That may not be a fair statement, but it’s my opinion, and I’d be willing to bet that I’m not alone. Regardless of my opinion, that’s not to say that the world doesn’t need boring and systematic manuscripts that outline the details of the how, what, when, where, and why kind of questions that a new medium brings forth, because the world does, in fact, need them. It’s actually because of the aforementioned genleman that we even have our modern notion of this new medium. Theodore Nelson takes a different, more casual and entertaining approach (I suppose because the computer is an established entity, rather than an abstract concept by 1974) to convince the masses to accept and embrace computers. By using less intimidating and less technical jargon, I think he achieved his goal (if my interest in him is any indication).

So we all have been taking the Apgar test for the past few weeks in class and initially, I was a bit skeptical of the system because I felt it was a waste of valuable time in a class that needs all the time in the world.  Well, I never thought I’d say this, but I digress.  This week, I can proudly put a “2” for the question that asks about how long I spent reading something relevant to the course material.  The Apgar test encouraged me to read an unassigned article in the Intro to New Media Studies textbook that I found very fascinating.  It was called “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” by Alan Turing.  I’d encourage anyone to read it if you’re interested about Artificial Intelligence or New Media studies in general. The question of whether machines have souls or not is even considered which was really piqued my interest.   

Turing’s paper is insightful because it takes a different approach to viewing machines as thinking entities. Turing doesn’t want to answer whether or not “machines can (in fact) think,” as much as whether or not they can fool a human to believe that they are human in an imitation game. Had Turing argued the former argument, he would have hit a dead end with his reasoning, but his latter argument provides a lot of gas mileage and various ways to get to his destination.  

 One of the more significant and well-formed arguments he makes in terms of whether or not machines can think is in his counterargument, ”The Theological Objection.” The most convincing aspect of the argument is when Turing approaches the problem from a philosophical point of view and questions how, for example, I know my classmates have a soul? Unless I can go inside them and see that they have a soul, how do I know that they aren’t just illusions or soulless creatures? I’d go even further and argue to those who contend that we are the only creatures that have souls: how do you know? Have you ever seen your soul? Have you ever died and gone to Heaven or Hell and then somehow resurrected from the dead to enlighten the masses? The theological objections goes as far as to say that animals don’t have souls either, which stands as a testament to its lack of authority in the matter because as far as I know, the only thing that separates humans from a dog is our ability to acquire language among other physical and intellectual characteristics, but the argument of a presence of soul is scientifically unfounded.   

Turing argues that the same exact thing can be said about machines because for those who think that animals and machines don’t have souls, unless they can find a way to get inside them, then they don’t deserve to argue about something as if it’s objective.  

I commented on someone’s blog because she said something about Engelbart that interested me: “It is clear that he truly has humanity’s best interests at heart- he isn’t merely trying to impress us, or create technology for the sake of being famous.”

She may be right, but given my cynical and pessimistic view of the world, I’ll try to give a possible counter argument.

I don’t know if I would call Engelbart a saint who looks out for humanity’s best interests. Just because he isn’t widely known doesn’t mean he didn’t want to become famous. In fact, fame would have done a lot of good for Engelbart, and I think he knows that. His ideas are radical, and ingenious, something that would redefine and revolutionize the way a majority of people think. Had he fame, perhaps more people would have followed his message rather than tune in every weeknight to American Idol. Unfortunately, even with the introduction of a plethora of information provided by computers (which Engelbart helped envision), Engelbart’s integrated domain and augmentation of mind has never come to pass in an ideal sense. His vision will never be realized until more people know more about him, and until there is a cultural revolution, the unthinking majority will remain asleep. Sounds depressing, I know, but look on the (cynical) bright side: if everyone could think, then there would be no need for herders because everyone would be (thinking) sheep who would follow their own mind. That may be good or bad depending on your perspective, but I don’t know about you guys, I like power (as does pretty much every other human if he or she gets the chance).

Here is the Portal flash game which is good, but nowhere near as amazing as the 3d version:

 http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/40…

Here is a video of the 3d version:

 http://youtube.com/watch?v=if3Qv2tHyfA

And finally, here is a video of the ending credits (MUST SEE. WARNING SPOILERS).

 http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y6ljFaKRTrI

Everyone knows (well, everyone in our class knows) about Engelbart, about his genius, about his unwavering pursuit to tap into our mind’s fullest potential, and we know that he influenced the mouse and keyboard.  Watching the demo, I immediately witnessed the mouse in its most archaic form taking the shape of a black dot on the CRT monitor and appearing very bulky and aesthetically unattractive in hand.  However, there was one device besides the keyboard and mouse that piqued my interest. It was something that Engelbart was resting his left hand on. I decided to do some research and find out more about a device that’s called a chord that seems to be nonexistant today.

 http://www.cedmagic.com/history/first-computer-mouse.html  That’s a link with a pretty good picture of what I saw in the demo for those who don’t know what a chord is.    Pressing different keys in different combinations would result in different inputs and commands for the computer to follow.  The idea was for the user to have one hand free while using the chord.  Today, it can’t be found because, ironically, a five button system was very complicated because it took a steep learning curve to learn all of the chains of command.  It’s interesting to think what a less complicated one-handed device would be like. Afterall, as I type this blog, I cannot use a mouse, can’t hold an object, can’t drink a soda, among other things while typing with both hands. 

We’ve read a few articles this semester that deal with new media and a underlying theme that I’ve noticed is that of collective knowledge.  However, I’m a bit confused on what “knowledge” really is and how it differentiates from intelligence.

To make my point, if I take the IQ test which, theoretically, is supposed to measure my intelligence.  Let’s say the test asks me a question like: “what is the capital of Egypt?” Now, this question would be all too easy for a Geography major, however, if the test asks a different question to a Geography major like, for example, something about a particular Sophoclean tragedy, it wouldn’t be as easy to answer for him as it would be for an English major.

So I would guess then, to that degree, every human is intelligent, but there are different degrees of knowledge that humans attain depending on your culture, and exposure to that culture.  So what’s culture? Well, I’d define it as the overall amount of information that is provided to you in society, whether it be school, your job, religious institution, etc.

Something I believe is important to recognize in New Media Studies is that Computers are tools that transmit and share different cultures to people all around the world by virtue of the internet. A Kenyan who writes about his experiences about surviving ethnic cleansing can post his story online and an American can learn something more about that culture and perhaps research more about Kenya. Thus, if the researcher learns more about Kenya, then next time he gets an IQ test question that asks for the capital of that country, he’ll be more knowledgable, but I guess not more intelligent.