Forgotten Post - - Licklider/Flusser
Group 7 (Andrea, Alex, Dominic)
Man-Computer Symbiosis
Licklider proposes the symbiotic relationship between man/woman and computers where computers would be able to interact intelligently with its human operators; moreover, it would operate as an equal, providing valuable feedback in the problem-solving process and not merely be a tool for solving complex equations.
In this respect, we do not believe that there is a true symbiosis with computers today. The computer still remains a tool for helping us accomplish difficult tasks, however, they still do not possess the ability of abstract or interpretive thinking, or thinking at all for that matter. They are simply the some of their parts and programming. We provide variables and scenarios for them to process but they do not actually ponder these circumstances. They are completely logical and process information in a linear fashion all based on their original and edited programming. Despite the fact that much of what computer systems do is daunting and complicated, it is still nonetheless a product of our programming capabilities, even when we extend it into the realm of artificial intelligence. Although some of these A.I. programs are capable of learning, they are still based in programming and are not sentient, nor do they have personalities of their own. Furthermore, their learning capabilities only extend as far as programmed algorithms within their matrix(not the movie), as opposed to living beings where we merely learn from experience whether we've encountered these circumstances before or not. We have no choice but to adapt or perish.
A New Imagination
In this text, Flusser talks about human imagination and thought, and how these are complicated abstract concepts, which have been subsequently demonstrated through several different writing constructs (i.e. alphabet, numeric structures, and what the author refers to as digital code).
Basically, as I understood it, Flusser uses 'digital code' to refer to the representation of our thoughts and imagery in its base form, or rather numeric computer codes, which consequently is the only way our creation, the computer, would be able to understand it.
All this made me think of how the total value of the chemicals in the human body is only worth something like 13$. Although chemically, a human being is not worth much, it is more a measure of the essence of a human being, i.e. the sum of its parts, being worth more than the individual pieces. That is my problem with Flusser's idea. Although imagery can be represented by digital code, will the transfer into that representation lose something along the way? Does the actual image hold more meaning than the digital code?
Man-Computer Symbiosis
Licklider proposes the symbiotic relationship between man/woman and computers where computers would be able to interact intelligently with its human operators; moreover, it would operate as an equal, providing valuable feedback in the problem-solving process and not merely be a tool for solving complex equations.
In this respect, we do not believe that there is a true symbiosis with computers today. The computer still remains a tool for helping us accomplish difficult tasks, however, they still do not possess the ability of abstract or interpretive thinking, or thinking at all for that matter. They are simply the some of their parts and programming. We provide variables and scenarios for them to process but they do not actually ponder these circumstances. They are completely logical and process information in a linear fashion all based on their original and edited programming. Despite the fact that much of what computer systems do is daunting and complicated, it is still nonetheless a product of our programming capabilities, even when we extend it into the realm of artificial intelligence. Although some of these A.I. programs are capable of learning, they are still based in programming and are not sentient, nor do they have personalities of their own. Furthermore, their learning capabilities only extend as far as programmed algorithms within their matrix(not the movie), as opposed to living beings where we merely learn from experience whether we've encountered these circumstances before or not. We have no choice but to adapt or perish.
A New Imagination
In this text, Flusser talks about human imagination and thought, and how these are complicated abstract concepts, which have been subsequently demonstrated through several different writing constructs (i.e. alphabet, numeric structures, and what the author refers to as digital code).
Basically, as I understood it, Flusser uses 'digital code' to refer to the representation of our thoughts and imagery in its base form, or rather numeric computer codes, which consequently is the only way our creation, the computer, would be able to understand it.
All this made me think of how the total value of the chemicals in the human body is only worth something like 13$. Although chemically, a human being is not worth much, it is more a measure of the essence of a human being, i.e. the sum of its parts, being worth more than the individual pieces. That is my problem with Flusser's idea. Although imagery can be represented by digital code, will the transfer into that representation lose something along the way? Does the actual image hold more meaning than the digital code?
posted by Quandrei at 7:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home