The End of the Course as we know it...

Okay, the major essays are all marked and can be collected from me in room G.07. I'll be in my office most of next week (Nov 15th - 19th), so please do come and pick your essays up.

Also, can I take this opportunity to thank you all: firstly, for your reflective posts which will be very useful in evaluating the course (and thanks for the kinds words about your tutor, too!); and, secondly, and most importantly, can I thank you all for your participation in the many facets of Self.Net. It has been a real pleasure running this course and being your tutor and participating in some fascinating conversations about all things digital which, I'm sure, will continue long after the course has faded in your memories!

I hope your increased critical awareness of digital culture serves you all well in the future, and with any luck I'll see a number of you in other courses, or doing Honours (since so many of you are writing at a level which would see you do very well in an honours program).

Byebye.

Reflective post on SELF. NET

I thought the Workshops and use of Blogger suited this unit and the themes and issues we were discussing. They allowed us to interact with some of the issues dicussed that might have been more difficult to get to grips with if we had not had the opportunity to explore them more hands on or interactively in the workshop and through the use of the tute blog.
I think the online workshops were great to, as they gave us individually a chance to explore and play around with the digital culture we were discussing.
Obviously having an element of online work might have presented problems for some students if they were not familiar or used to working from the internet to such an extent, but the little teaching workshops at the beginning of the semester I think were a great way to get everyone up to speed. I also think it is important to try something new and innovative, and Self.Net allowed the perfect opportunity. It is good to take people out of the traditional comfort zone of University style teaching, but also, on saying that, it is important to work out what new methods add to the learning experience and what subtracts from it.
It is important to have the tutorials were people can discuss face to face and present ideas, and also to have this blog through which people can further bring up points and create a sense of community within the unit if they wish.
I think the problem raised about the nature of the essays that seem to not particularily fit with the ideas being emphasized in the course could easily be overcome. I think it is important to still have the traditional essay style way of addressing issues etc as it might become too confronting to bring in other methods of assessment altogether. However, in terms of participation marks and using blogger and the workshops, there could be room for more interactive work through the net etc. Eg, the use of posting up the webliographies and commenting on others over the blog was a good way to bring old style methods of assessment and new ones together.
Cyborg? haha well judging from the conversation in the last tutorial I would probably have to say I was one. Considering I wear contact lenses for a lot of the time and would be blind without them I cant escape technology. Also yes, the mobile phone features largely in my life, as well as internet connections blah blah blah etc. Simply my mobile phone seems to have become an essential method of organisng day to day activities with friends eg meeting for lunch etc, and my use of my laptop and internet allows me to email people and talk to people in other parts of the world, eg friends who have gone overseas. So, as well as my body being constituted of technology such as contact lenses, my social interactions and indeed things considered essential for human happiness such as community and friendship seems to be increasingly mediated by technology. I guess at the beginning of the course I accepted myslef as a cyborg depending on the definition one might wish to follow, which is what I still do. I wouldnt go as far as to say I fit the qualifications of 7 of 9 or whatever her name is in Star Trek, but if technology keeps progressing the way it does and we continue to consume it and incorporate it into our everday lives such as we have done with mobile phones etc, it seems that we could well end up in a similar state.
The question I always ponder about is whether all this technology, vaccines etc and daily drugs that people take to increase vitamins levels and all other things, has made the human essentially kind of soft. I mean, if we were to place ourselves back in time and try to survive would we die out, cos I hardly think we could be considered the 'fittest' anymore cos we rely so much on technology. People who would of died out from weakness, and even things like eyesight problems would surely of been bred out before, but becasue of technology we can still live on and pass on our weakness to the next generation (yes I know this is an incredibly pessimistic view but I might as well raise it). I always think about the "war of the worlds" and how the aliens were simply defeated by the common cold...one day will we be like the aliens?
Anyway, THanks TAMA I thoroughly enjoyed the course...:) you can give yourself a chocolate bar

Politics of Playing- Political Simulation Games

1) When looking at September 12, New York Defender and Kabul Kaboom, the idea of communicating a political message through interactive games would seem to be an ‘effective’ way of drawing people into relating to the message being conveyed. Interactivity is far more appealing than long pages of political protest, and would appeal to a wider audience. That said however, ‘games’ do appeal and invite a certain user or audience. And for the game to be completely successful in imparting an effective response in the user, he/she must be familiar with the use of standard computer games or have grown up with an understanding of their enjoyment and value. To reach a wider audience maybe an interactive flash movie would have been more appropriate as more mature audiences eg, say 40 and above, or those not interested in games, would have found more enjoyment. That said, these political simulation games, unlike any short flash film, offer a larger amount of user empathy and connection, and draws the player into the plight, connecting them on a more emotional level in such a short time. Eg, in New York Defender, the player is implicitly connected to say the plight of providing defense for American civilians, (eg taking on the role of say the military, CIA etc) in having to quickly detect the threat of incoming airplanes, and responding fast enough to shoot them. This however is a hopeless plight as the game suggests as, as fast as the player shoots, the number of planes will increase. The affect of having a game player feel a sense of inadequacy as defending his/her goal, has a much stronger affect in a shorted time on a personal level, than simply watching a flash movie. And in September 12 and Kabul Kaboom, the user can identify with more abstract political ideas and can be placed in positions more foreign and difficult to connect respectively.
2) I think the political message in all three of the games mentioned was immediately easy to recognise as soon as you play the game or finish playing the game. I think the notion of ‘I lose, therefore I think’, is incredibly strong, as in a game where you cant possibly win you tend to think, why the hell did anyone make a game like this? Because, naturally people associate games with entertainment, and connect them with the idea that they are meant to generate a sense of achievement, part of playing and enjoying it is being able to say, “Hey finally I killed Andariel with ice bolts after dieing 50 times!!”. Or alternatively, thinking about even the basic level of gameplay, say “Snake” on any mobile phone, people always want to get the high score, or ask what your highest score is. However, people would be far less amused saying to each other, “Hey did you play that game where you can’t win? How badly did you lose?”. Basically, in all three of these political games there is a low if not non existent level of enjoyment with the gameplay. You play September 12 and enjoy watching the cute little people walking around their city, and then as soon as you shoot the terrorist you think, “bollocks, hang on, more of them have been created then I killed!!” plus it is impossible to kill the terrorist even when you think they have walked to the edge and there aren’t any “nice” people around them. Almost instantaneously with your first interaction with the game, you feel a sense of failure and futile effort in trying to actually attempt what the game has told you to do. The goal seems non existent and reward even less so. Any user or player of computer games would immediately recognise and question the idea of this game, and even anyone not familiar with game play would pick up the political message.
3) I have absolutely no idea of a political game, I don’t have that much imagination lol. However, from looking at examples of political simulation games I would say the most effective way of creating one would be: a) have your idea create an interesting environment in which to play, eg, like in September 12 it was very cute, similar to Theme Hospital, because you would want to generate the idea that this game is for fun, and entertainment (even though it isn’t!!). b) I would be inclined not to mention in the instructions that there is no way to win the game, just to make the sense of defeat and futileness kick a bit harder because people would think they could win, after all, people think they can win a war. c) game play should be testing some kind of skill of the user, eg speed, accuracy, however no matter how fast how quick etc, the inbuilt nature of the game should increase exponentially to make achievement impossible. d) user should either fail simply by not completing the desired interaction that should cause a win state, or should have their interaction lead to increase negative effect instead of positive, e) finally, if the game either times out, or the player loses, a negative message should be written or some remark that reflects the political statement being made, instead of a traditional “Bad luck try again, or Congratulations”. Then at the end of the game, you could have a message saying it is impossible to win in a game such as “insert political action here=eg War, Terrorism etc”

I do think however, that Political Simulation Games would achieve a stronger impact on viewers/users associated with traditional gameplay, and who are looking for the standard notions of achievement etc that a game normally embodies. For someone who has no expectation of being able to win, or seeing it as a test of skill, the effect would be far less, although it would still be present on some level. Obviously because the nature of these Political Simulation Games rely on the already existing expectations of gameplay in order to make their point.

Look Everyone A MUD!!!

Hey everyone, since we were talking about MUD's last week and didnt think there are many left, here is one that you might like to look at.
I used to play on it when I was in school cos I am/was a great fan of Terry Pratchett's novels.
I have no idea how it is still going now, having only found it again the other day...anyway, take a look :)
Enjoy..
Discworld MUD

CyberLife's Creatures- Playing Games Simulating Worlds

Games are constructed with real life imitation. Technology, as it has become more advanced has led to more advanced versions of artificial life and its simulations of the real world in computer games.

Sarah Kember explores the nature of computer games, most specifically Cyberlife’s "Creatures", as well as "SimLife" and "SimCity" etc and notes their relation with reality, science and culture.

Her article explores the ways in which these simple computer games have been developed and been used by consumers, as well as a reflection on the nature of the game play involved.

It becomes apparent when reading her article that the genre of computer games Kember cites, draws on a particular aspect of game play. These games are not the macho shoot-em-ups seen today like the popular ‘Halo’ or the strategy games such as ‘Command and Conquer’, instead each one seemingly reflects on a more mundane aspect of human life and existence, such as the running of a city, management of environment, evolution, and even in the case of "Creatures"… small fluffy animals.

The ‘real world’ as such, has been transformed into a simulation that we can master within the square box of our computer. Within our computer, ‘virtual’ communities of animals, civilisations, species, gene pools etc are generated that we can manipulate (to a certain extent!). What Kember notes is interesting however, is how science, the idea of evolution, ‘life’, AI, biochemistry, has been taken over by the computer engineer, who now builds, gene by gene, element by element, a ‘living creature’.

As well as communities being created within the structure of these games, they also allow for users to create societies and communities through the internet. Kember notes that these communities, specifically that of "Creatures" indicates how the line between producer and consumer is becoming increasingly blurred as users of the computer game, with the right technical skill, have a free range and often help from the producers, to create new adaptations to the game and manipulate it. This can be seen by viewing the new release of the “creatures docking Station” http://www.gamewaredevelopment.co.uk/creatures_index.php and http://www.cyberlife-research.com/. Similar things can be seen through new developments from the “Sim” games, including the new "SimCity" game and "The Sims" http://www.maxis.com/ and http://thesims2.ea.com/community/

Naturally of course, as it becomes easier and easier to manipulate the game to ones own ends, questions arise, especially such as those concerning ‘artificial life’ such as “Creatures”, about the treatment and moral actions of many of the games players. Kember notes the activity of the player Antinorn and his creation of a website, where he displays his tortured and abused Norns and writes of how to torture Norns, spurring a myriad of abuse from other players and a number of ethical debates. Most interestingly in a mirror of real life the creation of the SPCN (Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Norns) *think of the RSPCA*.

It is interesting to consider the nature of Norns and their relationship with the player, it is far greater than the player/character relationship expressed by Mia in her article, as these Norns, as well as requiring the effort of constant care, are also autonomous ‘living’ creatures.

Furthermore, in terms of thinking about the environment and artificial (mirror) worlds created in the Sim games, Kember notes the educational benefits and learning possibilities these worlds offer. Yet we must also consider how the game positions the player/user, and the limits of their manipulations of the game…

“…imaginative or conscious autonomous agents pass through an object or instrumental stage to become microcosms of human- like cultures and societies in which human agents invest anthropological, psychological or sociological concerns. In other words, they become mirror worlds offering novel opportunities for narcissism.” Kember (CyberLife’s Creatues p109)

Webliography Responses

For guidelines on making your Responses to your peers' Critical Annotated Webliographies, please see details here.

Re fromatted Webliography

Guiding Question:
“From Frankenstein to the Visible Human Project [VHP], technological ‘progress’ has always forced society to re-evaluate the meaning of ‘life’.” Discuss critically

Introduction:
I noted several key words to help research this question: “Frankenstein”, “VHP”, “technological ‘progress’” and “meaning of life”. Initially, I re-read both of Catherine Waldby’s articles in the reader, to get an idea of some themes to explore[1]. From these articles I developed some basic ideas in relation to the guiding question; firstly, ‘VHP technology displaces the body in a ‘simulated’ space and computerized data creates living flesh from the dead’, secondly ‘the creation of Frankenstein to modern robots/AI raises religious issues about ‘life’, what is life and our position in nature?’. My next step was to search the internet through ‘Google’, ‘Yahoo’, and the UWA Library website. I searched for other related Catherine Waldby articles, terms like ‘Robot’, ‘AI’, ‘Technological Progress’, “Frankenstein’, ‘VHP’ and lastly, ‘Life’. From these searches I developed several major areas through which to answer the guiding question: ‘Technological Progress and Singularity’, ‘Frankenstein and AI/Robotics’ and ‘VHP and Genetic Enhancement’. I classified articles found under these headings, in relation to how the meaning of ‘life’ has been changed, and discovered a growing tension between ‘science’ and ‘nature’ and ideas of life as technology has progressed.

Technological Progress and Singularity

Technological singularity[2] identified the possible consequences of technological progress, and introduced some common theories by Dr. Vernor Vinge and Moore’s Law. This article raised the idea of whether human life will come to an end, and touched some of the anxieties that are intrinsically linked with technology and were discussed in Shelly’s ‘Frankenstein’. Because this article is limited due to being an encyclopaedia article it acted only as a stepping stone in giving me some basic ideas, however it enabled me to decide to pursue the idea of ‘technological singularity’ in other search areas to see whether articles might connect it more closely with the other terms I was interested in.

James Bell’s[3] article further incorporated the idea of ‘singularity’ with the argument I wished to develop. Bell remarks that ‘technological progress is driving… toward a “Singularity”… [where] technology and nature will have become one. At this juncture… new definitions of “life”, “nature” and “human” will take hold[4].’ This article explicitly brings out how technology is changing the view of “life”. It establishes the thread of the dichotomy that exists between technology and nature. This dichotomy is being broken down through progress and its uncontrolled development[5]. I would then be able to use this article to illustrate the development in GNR[6] technology that allows them to self ‘replicate’ e.g. give ‘life’ to another version of themselves.

Frankenstein and AI/Robotics

Roger Clarke’s[7] article provided information on Asimov, a central figure in robotics. It noted Asimov’s view, from as early as 1940, of where robots would stand in comparison to humans[8]. The article serves to establish that robots would be viewed as ‘slaves’ to human control, but that this would also be impossible to ensure as robots developed consciousness, and became more ‘human like’ and viewed themselves as part of humanity. The article critically analyses Asimov’s work, posing the question at one stage that if a robot ‘is human enough, he would be accepted as a human[9]’. In forming my argument I would use this article to establish that robots would become like humans, no matter what laws were developed to restrict them, and that this would lead to questions about how we distinguish humans as living and robots as not. If there comes a time where one cannot be distinguished from the other, how can we say robots are not alive, and that they should be slaves?

Dr. Garis[10] highlights moral dilemmas of AI machines; he is a prominent figure working in this area, giving his paper authority in this field. He illustrates ideas connected with the construction of ‘brain-like computers containing…artificial neurons[11]’. This raises ideas associated with how we might view ‘life’, especially in regards to humans. One definition of human life would be our ability to think rationally, is this what separates us from animals? However, Dr. Garis illustrates that AI will be able to think, and be superior in intelligence to humans. He also raises issues of AI experimenting with ‘Darwinian evolution’ on themselves. His article notes the relation between human and AI, and their meaning of life, integral to my essay question.

Mooney[12] notes interesting points associated with humanity and its use of technology to set itself aside from animals. He notes that it was technological progress, new and unknown sciences that made Shelly question life, creation, nature and religion. This has implications for my question. His discussion of “Frankenstein” links with the VHP in the notion of humans being broken down into parts due to technology, removing the divine and natural idea of ‘life’ and associating more with science and anatomy, the use of corpses, a taboo, similar to VHP. He further notes the dichotomy between invention and birth and how life is connected to female creation, and that male invention is connected with death[13]. This would link Frankenstein and VHP together, and follow the thread of science/nature. However, his article I assume is for academic purposes[14].

VHP and Genetic Enhancement

Waldby[15] further discusses issues raised by Mooney about the breakdown between science and nature. She raises serious issues in reference to human life (a term central to my question) linked to the VHP: the issue of flesh into binary code to create living matter, the idea of reproduction of the body removed from the female and instead through technology, the dead body used to discover life, life as an abstract force of animation/simulation and dismemberment/re-memberement of body. She highlights the idea that technology is removing life from birth and that it is becoming an ‘economy’[16]. Waldby is informative, and she proves her authority on the subject, having written a number of other articles linked to the study of the VHP. She would also be helpful in positioning human life in terms of technology and links on to ideas associated with genetic engineering of human life.

Bailey’s[17] article is written in a highly political and journalistic style, however it gives some insights into the differences of opinion related to scientific progress. He makes an interesting comment on how the magic of life has been removed by technology, and that it may not act supportive of human development, but change it completely, as in genetic engineering. Bailey discusses concerns raised by Wolfson about human design and perfection. Bailey’s article, although coming from a magazine, highlights how society’s view of human life is challenged by new technology. His article picks up on a fear similarly found in Shelly’s novel of new technology and the nature of uncovering that human life is no longer divine, but can be interfered with.

Conclusion
These articles addressed each area of the question, and under the sections I decided to investigate, provided and adequate base with which I could generate an argument. The meaning of ‘Life’ has been re-evaluated due to technology, as the boundary between nature and science has become increasingly blurred. The use of human bodies in the VHP, and the adjustments to human life by technology, as well as the possibility to create humanlike robots, has confused these boundaries. It becomes increasingly difficult to identify life, when the dead can be re- animated through computer code, and machines are able to think and replicate themselves. The maternal mother is now under threat of being replaced by the male inventor, who gives birth to genetically modified humans, and AI that can out surpass us in intelligence.

Footnotes!
[1] Waldby, Catherine. “The Visible Human Project: An Initial History”, in The Visible Human Project: Informatic Bodies and Posthuman Medicine. London and New York: Routledge, 2000, pp.1-18. And, Waldby, Catherine. “The Instruments of Life: Frankenstein and Cyberculture”. Prefiguring Cybercultures: An Intellectual History. Eds. Darren Tofts, Annemarie Jonson and Alessio Cavalaro. Sydney: Power Publications, 2002, 28-37. Her two articles cover issues on technology and how it has changed our views of the ‘body’ (VHP) and ‘life’ (Frankenstein and Cyberculture) and mentioned ethical and moral dilemmas of technology.
[2] Wikipedia, “Technological Singularity” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity, (last modified 2004), last accessed 2.9.04 The idea of technological singularity involves technological progress accelerating beyond human understanding, and the idea of smarter-than-human intelligence which humans may be unable to influence or predict the consequences of their creation.
[3] Bell, James, “Technotopia and the death of nature”, Earth Island Journal, http://80-gateway.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:pqd&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=article&rft_dat=xri:pqd:did=000000116101305&svc_dat=xri:pqil:fmt=html&req_dat=xri:pqil:pq_clntid=20923, 2002, last accessed 2.9.04
[4] Bell, James 2002.
[5] Bell quotes Kevin Kelly’s idea that the ‘realm of the born… (nature) and realm of made… (human construction) are becoming one’. This quote could be used to highlight how technology is confusing the creation of life, and how its whole meaning will change when technological singularity is reached, and progress is uncontrolled (Bell, James, 2002).
[6] GNR= genetics, nanotechnology and robotics, Bell, James 2002.
[7] Clarke, Roger, “Asimov’s Laws of Robotics Implications for Information Technology”, http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/Asimov.html, 1994, last accessed 2.9.04.
[8] Asimov’s Laws establish that a robot’s ‘meaning of life’ will be subservient to that of humans, they are by nature of the meaning of the word ‘robot’, slaves (Clarke, Roger, 1994)
[9] Clarke, Roger, 1994.
[10] De Garis, Hugo, “The 21st Century Artilect: Moral Dilemmas Concerning the Ultra Intelligent Machine”, http://www.cs.usu.edu/~degaris/essays/Artilect-phil.html, 1989, last accessed 2.9.04.
[11] De Garis, Hugo, 1989.
[12] Mooney, Adam, “The Dilemma of Artificial Nature: Forbidden Knowledge in Frankenstein and The Terminator”, Dystopian Science Fiction and Technofear – Artificial Nature, http://members.ozemail.com.au/~admoon/essay/04_artificial_nature.htm, 1995, last accessed 2.9.04
[13] However he goes on to break down this positive/negative dichotomy between natural birth and scientific invention and establishes that technology is part of human nature and we come to view established technologies as natural e.g. no one today finds a plane flying in the sky to be an unnatural or frightening phenomenon (Mooney, 1995).
[14] However, the quality/clarity of his writing, and the substantial amount of references of academic quality and links to notable Universities, made me evaluate this work to be of a suitable academic nature.
[15] Waldby, Catherine, “The Visible Human Project: Data into Flesh, Flesh Into Data”, http://wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/ReadingRoom/VID/wildbiol1.html, last accessed1.09.04.
[16] “…if the force of Life is understood as informational code, the program of Life itself can be rewritten.” And … “any technique which seeks to replicate living matter involves the effacement of the maternal body as point of origin, even when, in practice, no technique has been able to dispense with maternal bodies completely” and further “…biomedical fantasizing about human life and Life in general as an informational economy which can be animated, reproduced, written and rewritten, through biomedical management”, (Waldby, Catherine, “The Visible Human Project: Data into Flesh, Flesh Into Data”, 2004).
[17] Bailey, Ronald, “Right- Wing Technological Dread” Reason Online Magazine, http://reason.com/rb/rb013101.shtml, 2001, last accessed 2.9.04

Biblio/Weblio

Text Articles For Initial Reference: Waldby, Catherine. “The Visible Human Project: An Initial History”, in The Visible Human Project: Informatic Bodies and Posthuman Medicine. London and New York: Routledge, 2000

Waldby, Catherine. “The Instruments of Life: Frankenstein and Cyberculture”. Prefiguring Cybercultures: An Intellectual History. Eds. Darren Tofts, Annemarie Jonson and Alessio Cavalaro. Sydney: Power Publications, 2002

Online Sources Used For Webliography: Bailey, Ronald, “Right- Wing Technological Dread” Reason Online Magazine, http://reason.com/rb/rb013101.shtml, 2001, last accessed 2.9.04

Bell, James, “Technotopia and the death of nature”, Earth Island Journal, http://80-gateway.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:pqd&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=article&rft_dat=xri:pqd:did=000000116101305&svc_dat=xri:pqil:fmt=html&req_dat=xri:pqil:pq_clntid=20923, 2002, last accessed 2.9.04

Clarke, Roger, “Asimov’s Laws of Robotics Implications for Information Technology”, http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/Asimov.html, 1994, last accessed 2.9.04

De Garis, Hugo, “The 21st Century Artilect: Moral Dilemmas Concerning the Ultra Intelligent Machine”, http://www.cs.usu.edu/~degaris/essays/Artilect-phil.html, 1989, last accessed 2.9.04.

Mooney, Adam, “The Dilemma of Artificial Nature: Forbidden Knowledge in Frankenstein and The Terminator”, Dystopian Science Fiction and Technofear – Artificial Nature, http://members.ozemail.com.au/~admoon/essay/04_artificial_nature.htm, 1995, last accessed 2.9.04

Waldby, Catherine, “The Visible Human Project: Data into Flesh, Flesh Into Data”, http://wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/ReadingRoom/VID/wildbiol1.html, last accessed 1.09.04

Wikipedia, “Technological Singularity” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity, (last modified 2004), last accessed 2.9.04

Other Articles Accessed: Bostrom, Nick, “Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence”, http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html, 2003, last accessed 2.09.04 Capps, Robert, “The Humanoid Race” Wired Magazine, 12.07, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.07/race.html?pg=1, 2004, last accessed 2.9.04 Rev David, Jones, “Cloning and Stem Cell Research”, http://www.health.thechurch.com.au/scr_027.html, 2001, last accessed 2.09.04 Kunkle, Daniel, “John Von Neumann: Genius of Man and Machine”, http://www.rit.edu/~drk4633/vonNeumann/, 2002, last accessed 2.09.04 Thacker, Eugene. “Lacerations: The Visible Human Project, Impossible Anatomies, and the Loss of Corporeal Comprehension.” Culture Machine, 3, 2001,http://web.archive.org/web/20030510181251/http://culturemachine.tees.ac.uk/Cmach/Backissues/j003/Articles/Thacker/impossible.htm last accessed 2.9.04 Wikipedia, “The Turning Test”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test, last accessed 2.9.04

The Horror of the Webliography!

This Webliography is incredibly difficult!! I am finding it impossible to restrict it to 1000 words.
Maybe the problem is in the information being given, or how I am presenting it. I think I shall try breaking down the assessment of the sources into just points about the source.
All I want to do is write the essay!! THat would be so much more fun!!! WHY OH WHY CANT WE WRITE THE ESSAY!!!!!!!!!
Can I put info into the footnotes maybe? That might give me more wordcount to work with.....
That example in the instruction sheet, if you added up the words and used the same amount for 6 - 8 sources, then the conclusion, it SO would of come to more than 1000 words!!
TAMA can we have 1,500!!!????
PLEASE!!!!!!!

MENU DRIVEN IDENTITY RESPONSE

1. Which categories are available for users to choose from when signing up for Hotmail, Yahoo! Mail or in order to use the Second Life gameworld? What presumptions do these categories make about users, and what does the absence of certain categories of identity say?
2. What sort of 'identities' are visible in the profiles on Lavalife? How are they displayed? What presumptions does this display make about both the people reading these profiles and those users who made them?
3. How much of the "identity" that we can see online for the users on Lavalife is restricted by the overall design of the website? What changes would you suggest in order to "improve" the sorts of identity Lavalife users can construct?
4. Are any of the websites you've visited inherently racist? Why or why not?
1) Hotmail: Other than standard categories such as name, gender etc, Hotmail does not seem to give its users an option to create an identity based on race information. However, you could interpret that some form of race identity could be created through the choice of Country and Language. If we look at this the default language is (surprise) English and the default country is US, even though I am accessing the site from Australia. From this point of view we can interpret there is some bias in favour of a dominant English speaking US group. However, in the US there are a number of ethnic and racial groups, and the selection of the US as a country, as well as the spoken language of English (which Tama admitted himself is the most common language if we include second learned) does not act as a completely discriminatory act in terms of race etc. The fact that race is not explicitly a question in the form can mean one of two things : when filling out this form it is irrelevant what race you are, everyone gets the same treatment, or, the dominant thought is that everyone is white so why bother with the question. In Hotmail’s privacy statement and user agreement forms etc, they do include ideas of race, and also the notion of internet stalking and signing up under a false name or identity. Hotmail remarks that it is not right to sign up without using your correct name or that any racial abuse etc should be carried out within their sites otherwise it is breaking the terms of the agreement. YAHOO: does not seem to take race into consideration, similar to Hotmail, however the default country is set to Australia. However, it is interesting to note that an example name is ‘dairyman’ is this a play on words considering our question or what? The example seems to point to a ‘white male’….SECOND LIFE: no question for race in this sign up, however I would think options would be available later on when creating your character. It is interesting to see though that examples of names appear to be typically western.
The absence of questions relating to race seems to suggest that in these contexts it is not a factor in the signup process, and that the standard appears to be for a white person, speaking English. However I think it is important to note that there are a number of factors for why these signups would not question race and assume that English would be the dominant language. Also when listing countries, languages etc there are a large number of choices. I don’t think it would be fair to say that from this specific viewpoint of looking at these sites that they are racist. If there was a site that explicitly asked me to list my race, what would that imply? Why would they want to know? And how would it affect the service I received?
2) Ok, Lavalife does seem to have some issues on gender and race….for a start the default setting is a male seeking a woman. Interestingly enough if you accept that it comes up with a predominant listing of Asian women. Maybe if you were to access the site from inside the signup option you would be given a more detailed search where you might be able to discriminate between asian, other, white etc in who you want to search for a match with. Peoples descriptions do tend to include their race, and most seem to be white, most gave their alternatives such as asian etc, while a few gave OTHER as a type. I would think in a dating service the notion of race would have to be brought up based on cultural compatibility. Naturally some asian women would only want an asian boyfriend/lover etc, due to simply a fact that they would have the same cultural background and it would make it easier to date. I don’t necessarily think the listing of race on lavalife is negative. I think lavalife illustrates the distinction between online and offline self perfectly. Here we can really see that race is an issue to people. For Hotmail and Yahoo in their signups race did not appear to be a factor, this is not necessarily saying they thought we are all white, but that they just don’t need the information for the creation of this online identity. In lavalife there is the assumption that at some point the people who are reading your description are going to meet you face to face, and so obviously both the readers and writers believe race to be an important factor, why, we can only speculate depending on the individual. It would be an interesting space in which to attempt the delay race issue brought up from the reading.
3) For a start, those people that don’t want to place photos could put up avatars, that would be cool. That would be a great way to indicate race and a number of other things. The site isn’t really catering for gay/lesbian from what I gather but there are other sites specifically for those. In terms of search criteria they could do to include race and language searches. There category pictures of ‘dating’, ‘relationship’ or ‘something else’ could do with some other racial groups in them other than just white people. However they do have a ‘black’ couple in other photos around the site.
4) I don’t think it is possible to say any of these sites are inherently racist. They seem to assume at times a certain internet user, but, if research has shown that this is the dominant user, than they are just using good business sense in assuming that user. The sites do seem to allow for the identification of race on the net. Remember, in Hotmail and Yahoo these are just the signup pages, once inside people can identify their race in a number of ways through the use of avatars etc. What is evident though, is that race in many situations does not seem to be an option to select from, like male/female. If I had to say that any of these sites where racist I would say Hotmail and Yahoo, and only because on their profile options in their member directories you cannot list what race you are, unless by means of a photo. This may suggest that they view that there is no place or necessity for race on the net. Whether this is a discriminatory attitude or a way of preventing racial discrimination by other members of the site I do not know.

Changes to this tutorial blog

Hi Everyone,

New Link
A couple of changes to your tutorial blog. Firstly, you will notice I've added a link to the main Self.Net blog; this contains occassional posts from myself or Karen focusing on items which may be of interest for all students. Also, a number of curious people have found my own personal blog. Since some of you have found it, I may as put a link here, so if anyone else wants a read, you're most welcome (but do keep in mind, this is my personal blog, so isn't always 100% academically orientated!).

Blog Navigation Bar
I'm sure you've all noticed this new Navigation Bar at the top of the blog:

This adds some functions which might make using the tutorial blog easier:

• The orange Blogger button will take you directly to Blogger.com.

• Entering a search into the empty form box (the white box) and hitting search will search this blog (or whatever blog you are viewing). This should make finding earlier material much easier (only 15 posts remain on the front page, the rest go into the archive, accessible via the links on the side).

• Finally, the BlogThis! button will automatically open a window to let you write a blog post.

FollowUp Comments for those Introducing Readings
Just a quick note: most of you who have already introduced readings this week in tutorials have gone back and published your reflection upon the tutorial after it finished. Those who haven't (and those presenting in the coming weeks) please remember that part of your tutorial presentation is to go back to the post you made before the tute and reflect on how well your presentation went (how well the ideas were received; what sort of conversation happened; any ways your ideas about the reading might have changed/expaned). Ideally, this should be done as soon as possible after your tutorial presentation (but really should be before the next meeting of your tutorial). Others are reminded, that they are always welcome to comment on any posts in their tutorial blog and are also welcome to post relevant links/ideas whenever you find things! (oh, and for those of you who've never read other people's comments, give it a go; there are some really interesting dialogues taking place in the comments!).

A reminder:
Before clicking the 'Publish Post' button, if you place the cursor inside the window where you have written your post press either Ctrl+A to select all and then Ctrl+C (on a PC) or Apple+A to select all and then Apple+C (on a Mac), this will place the text you have written in the memory of the computer (this is referred to as placing text on the clipboard). If something goes wrong during the attempt to publish, all you need to do to make the post a second time is place the cursor in the post window and press either Ctrl+V (PC) or Apple+V (Mac) to paste the text from the clipboard into that text box. (Occassionally blogger does 'hang' [which means not finishing the posting function], so it is useful to make this quick backup in order to avoid typing out the entry a second time!)

Gattaca Response

“Does the prospect of scientific manipulations of genetics have to be a negative thing in terms of gender? Is there something to be said for ‘Liberating’ women from reproduction?”

In terms of considering scientific manipulation, in the form of eugenics, I would think that it would immediately create a response that questions whether there would be negative implications for gender. But I don’t think this has to be the case. Obviously it has been evident through history that male children in many cultures have been considered a greater ‘blessing’ than that of a female child. But this is limited to cultures and their value of male and female as part of society. Women are linked not only biologically with reproduction but in many other ways as a ‘mother’ figure or the gentler version of the sexes. But if women are no longer the only means of producing a child I don’t see that this would HAVE to be a negative thing in terms of gender. I think females have other qualities that have been recognised in society today, they represent compassion, provide a substantial portion of the workforce, and excel at jobs etc that men may not necessarily be so skilled at. I think it is key to look at male and female as the two opposite sides of a coin, they each possess what the other lacks. Women don’t just contain the capacity to reproduce while the men have every other quality. Eugenics may offer the benefits of creating the ‘perfect human offspring’ but is there one single definition of what the perfect offspring would be?
I think that there is definitely something to be said for liberating women from reproduction. Today it is commonly known that women do not want to have children until they are in their 30’s! Why, because already women have broken out of the confines of simply being considered the ‘mother’. They are pursing their rights and positions in the public sphere, previously only dominated by men. If women themselves are no longer focusing on their ‘supposed’ only real reason for existence, that of giving birth, then why would the ability to not be the only reproductive force pose a threat. I would think they would welcome it. Think of all the women out there who suffer the fate of believing themselves inadequate and enduring the pain (and shame) of not being able to give their husband a child. They are not able to reproduce, but that doesn’t mean that creating a child from their genes would be inferior. There genes are still worthy of being reproduced.
If a fear of the negative effect of scientific manipulation is present, I think it should be interpreted more from an angle of the fear of our creation no longer being natural or ‘god given’ but being reduced to that of simple gene manipulation and like that of creating robots or computers. For anyone to think that they were born in a test tube (no matter whether it was still from elements of a ‘mother’ and ‘father’) is surely a terrifying thought and would have devastatingly negative effects for the human mentality I should imagine.
And think how much a child would cost then!! Even their creation would be more expensive then what it would be from natural reproduction!! And I should think the bond between husband and wife would also be lessened.
IF there were to be negative effects for gender I’m sure they would be felt not only by the women but also THE MALE. The male as well as the mother would also be detached from his original role in the nature of reproduction. Would the father still think of himself as a father of a test tube baby? What happens if his wife was to use the genes of another man to create a child? Would the husband consider that infidelity?
Unfortunately I was unable to attend the workshop as I have been ill and didn’t get to see Gattaca, so I’m having to answer the question from a wider angle. I apologise for my absence and if you would like to see my antibiotic prescription to justify my missing the workshop feel free to ask!

Hello fellow Bloggers

Hey everyone im testing
Wow a serious blog to participate in, not like that *cough cough* livejournal :)
My favourite website at the moment (ie the one I can remember) is yetisports
This is just some small fun games involving penguins and a yeti. Number four is good, but the orca the whale is hard. Beware addictive!!!
-Cheers

Welcome!

This (we)blog is intended for the Monday, 2pm tutorial group (Tama Leaver's group) in the unit Self.Net: Communicating Identity in the Digital Age.