Love, Homo Sapien Style

I have no problem with marriage. Marriage is a perfect way to show your love and devotion to someone. I believe marriage is a beneficial idea that needs to be preserved.

            "In every known hunter-gatherer culture, marriage is the norm—not necessarily monogamous marriage, and not always lasting marriage, but marriage of some sort” (Wright 283). This quote sums up my thoughts about marriage. It should be between two people who love each other and would like to cherish the rest of their lives together. I don’t care if it is between a man and a woman, two men, or two women; marriage is still marriage. Marriage is a union of two people who care and trust each other, no matter what gender they may be.

It is ridiculous that people are against gay marriage. I do not understand their logic to deny these people of something that straight people have. I learned that people are treated equal no matter what race or sexual orientation. I believe most people who are against gay marriage are very religious and confide strongly in the bible. Religion isn’t something people should be allowed to force upon others. People may complain that homosexuals cannot procreate, but they consist of only approximately a tenth of the population. There are plenty of people who can still procreate. Homosexuals are actually helpful in a way of population control. Obviously, if more people convert, then it can be harmful to the survival of our race, but that is very unlikely to happen.

            Marriage is a means to publicly confess your care and fidelity of another person. I purposely keep it vague because gender shouldn’t matter if someone loves each other or not.

Directed Freewrite P.246

I couldn't think of any situation that wasn't already in the book. I will take a zero for this assignment and fall on my sword gracefully

Week 6 Blog Reviews

Amber:

The American Family

This was very well done. You explained your opinions clearly and used great sources from the book. The second quote you used was just the ideal way, but is rarely followed. I don’t think that he was contradicting himself as much as just saying what he believes is the perfect American Family. Otherwise, great job. I like the questions at the end because it gives the reader something to think about.

Real Wild Women

This post was easy to read and your summary of the movie was well done. I have seen the movie and can tell exactly what you mean. I didn’t feel the quote was necessary because it contradicts what you believe. Possibly, try finding a quote that supports your argument. I enjoy your conclusion sentence and this was a great post.

Katie

Homosexuality, Capitalism and Technology

You did a great job summarizing the essay. You used a great quote than you clarified exactly what he means. I enjoyed how you introduced your opinion and you explained it clearly. I cannot think of any ways to improve your post. This is very well done.

Hidden Histories

"The American Family" is different to each person. Some people may believe it consists of a husband and wife with two children. Some may believe it is more or less children. this saying has been distorted and construed beyond what used to be the definition. Obviously, with the uprising of lesbians and gays, procreation will decrease. Many people believe this is a negative thing, but I believe it is actually positive. With more couples that cannot procreate, the population will not increase as we are already in so much debt that more people will not help us. People may argue that those children are part of the future and it is up to them to help. I believe that if these children don't have a steady family and childhood, they will not use their whole potential and will almost be wasteful for the economy. I don't believe having gays and lesbians hurt our economy. They work just as well as heterosexuals and should be treated equal.

Real Wild Women/Wild Real Men

The first thought of any multimedia that involves a dominant female figure compared to a passive male figure was the show Chuck. This show consists of a nerdy Stanford dropout (was expelled for cheating), Chuck, who gets sent a super computer that gets stuck in his brain. This computer contains all of the government's secrets, so they have to protect him. They send two spies, one male and one female. The female agent, Sarah,  protects him in a way that rivals the assumption "women are generally passive and dependent" (Beedles 203).

Throughout the show, Sarah is the gun weilding, ass-kicking, protagonist of the show and Chuck is the "Damsel in distress" position, although he is a male. "The protagonist is increasingly trapped (and usually martyred) the more desperately he/she seeks emancipation" (Boozer 209). This quote sums up the first two seasons of the episode where Chuck, the protagonist, always gets into sticky situations where it is up for the spies to free him.

Obviously all shows evolve and now he has become almost as skillful a spy as the two "handlers," as they are called. He learned to become a spy through an update of the computer in his head. This teaches him fighting styles and moves seconds before any confrontation.

Another example of sexuality is that Chuck falls for Sarah in the show. Sarah falls for him, but it is not allowed by her job. Beedles explains, "members of the masculine gender 'naturally' desire members of the feminine gender" (Beedles 203). This just plays in part with how throughout the show, Chuck tries to be there for Sarah and hopefully end up in a relationship with her. He sticks with her through thick and thin and never gives up.

I believe it is actually a change of pace having a male be the one needing help from a female. It is like a reverse of the expected. It is quite genius because Chuck shows all the signs of being less masculine than Sarah. Chuck is always the romantic and the one who cares how she is feeling. Sarah is the one who shields all her emotions and protects him any way necessary. I believe it is inspiring to woman because she is the one doing all the action while Chuck is in the backgrounds, hiding for his life.

The show is still on television today and has evolved to Chuck and Sarah being a couple. The show is on every Monday at 7pm on NBC. You should watch it. It is quite comical with lots of action and romance.

Analytics Essay-Rough Draft

If anyone wants to give me some advice, I could really use it.

Identity and Consciousness

What is consciousness? Is it thought or ideas? I am here to explain the reasoning and what consciousness really is. It isn’t just something in your brain. It is very complex and intricate.

An idea is not easily defined. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary has seven different definitions. “A transcendent entity that is a real pattern of which existing things are imperfect representations,” is what I believe is the most accurate definition. An idea comes from the consciousness of the mind. Anything can illicit an idea; a vision, a thought, a noise. An idea starts out like a bucket of words in your mind. Your conscious and sub-conscious collaborate to form slowly filter this bucket to something smaller until it becomes something coherent. Once complete, it forces its way to the front of your consciousness and it feels like it just pops into your head. An idea is unique to each person’s own mind. Therefore, this becomes a part of someone’s identity and makes them who they are.

Consciousness is what makes up your identity. Your identity is not just a face. It is not just a body. It is not just an image that people see. It is not just a name. Identity is so much more than that. It is how people see and react to you. It is what makes you unique. Identity is what you believe in. Religion, football, television are all different ways to think of someone. Stay with me here, you are not just what skin color you are or height or weight you are. You are what you say and do in different situations. You are what your hobbies are. If you like to play football, you are a football player. If you love Star Trek, you are a Trekkie (or whatever they are called). What I am finally getting at is identity is what you do.

Machines may be able to do mindless tasks that humans hate, but humans will always exceed machines. Humans will always have a conscious and this makes us so much more unique than machines. Machines are programmed to come up with a solution. If you were to run a program to see how often a machine chooses between two things, it will be the same 100% of the time. This is because of the programming that causes them not to be able to be unique. A human may choose on while another will choose the other. Consciousness is what makes our decisions. We choose to do something using it. Everyone’s consciousness is different and that is why there are people who would rather steal then buy, read rather than watch television, fight rather than mediate, etc. The ability to feel sensations such as hot and cold is something machines cannot do. Machines can tell if something is hot or cold, but it doesn’t know the feeling. It doesn’t know the feeling of love or heart-break. We are all special because of this ability that machines will never acquire. This isn’t Hollywood were a robot gains emotions and learns to love. This is why machines will never succeed human beings no matter how advanced they can become.

Consciousness is the construction of your mind. It is everything you imagine, think of, do, etc. It is essentially you. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines it as “the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself.” It is not talking about being aware of people around you or that the light just turned yellow. It is being aware of what you believe in. Being aware of your identity. This is an easily disputable subject that will illicit different thoughts from each unique person. This is what consciousness is and identity that goes along with it.

Works Cited:

Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Week 4 Blog Reviews

Hilary Cummings:

“Summary of Wright’s Essay”

This is very well-written. You explained everything clearly and appropriately. I cannot provide any possible improvements to this post. You did a great job explaining it as if I had never heard of the idea or anything like that. Very good job and I would have rather read this then the article.

“Frida Kahlo”

Your description paragraph is very detailed and well-done. You described every part perfectly and allows someone to imagine the picture from it. The only thing I could think of for improvement, is saying the Frida is lying in the center of the picture. Otherwise, great description. Your interpretation of the painting is great. You said what you believe and what it relates to. You could have explained what the overall meaning of the painting is. Good job overall.

Jessica Chee

“Page #165, Discussion 1”

I really like how you made the first paragraph explains the background of your post. Great use of the sources to further the power of your post. Great work on the example of how machines can never overtake humans. This was very-well done and I am going to stop repeating myself.

“Page 199 #1”

Great description of the painting. I didn’t notice the blood until you described it. You could have explained a little more about Frida’s pose and how she is staring at the viewers. Your interpretation was very well done. The first paragraph was unclear to me if it was actually a fact or just your opinion. Your meaning of the painting is noticeable and agreeable. Great job with this one.

Armando Teran Jr.

“Thinking Machines Take Two”

This was a very difficult post in my opinion. Your explanation is great. It is clear and anyone can read it, even if they have no background knowledge of the idea. Your introduction and description of Chalmers and “Cog” is very well written. Other than a few typos, there is nothing left to improve.

“Wounded Deer_Description Painting”

Your description is very discrete and thorough. I hadn’t noticed the lightning until you brought it up. You could have talked about how she was facing the audience as another description. You did not explain what it means to you. I know you said that you didn’t know, but you could try to interpret it. Each person interprets it in a different way and there is no harm in explaining your opinions of it.

Frida Kahlo and Artistic Identity

I chose "The Love Embrace of the Universe, the Earth (Mexico), Diego, Me, and Senor Xolotl" painting because it is very intricate and interesting. This image has a  symmetrical background with night and day next to each other. The color scheme for this image is very surreal. It has deeper meaning that must be analyzed. In the middle, it shows Frieda holding Diego's unclothed body. Diego is holding a flame in his hand. She is being embraced by a nude, green woman that represents Earth. There are cacti and an assortment of desert plants that resemble Mexico. A shadowy figure that is not fully opaque is embracing all of them and the plants withing her arms. This represents the Universe. There are roots that connected to the arms of the Universe to show how deep it is in life.

This painting has a deep meaning to it. Every part has a meaning that makes up this painting. The background, being made up of day and night, is to show the constant presence of the characters. The character meant to portray the Universe. The arms are almost emerging from the night and day to show that it is there, just not always visible. In her arms, there are desert plants that are all shades of green and yellow. This represents the dryness and desert of Mexico. The woman surrounded by the plants is the Earth. She is green to represent plant life and the oxygen they provide. She is naked to show her true beauty and that there are no secrets. She is holding Frieda and Diego. Frieda is embracing Diego's chest to show her love for him. He is holding a flame that represents the spark of life within. He is naked to show he is truthful and has nothing to hide. This image is very intricate and one of the most complex paintings Frieda has created.

Works Cited:
Kahlo, Frida The Love Embrace of the Universe, the Earth (Mexico), Diego, Me, and Senor Xolotl
http://www.artchive.com/viewer/z.html

Week 3 Blog Reviews

Hilary Cummings:

“Human Vs. The Machine”

In your first paragraph, you use the sources nicely. You explain what Minsky believes before you try to impress your beliefs onto the reader. You give two great points Minsky makes. In the second paragraph, you explain your point that human beings are smarter. You repeat your opinion without explaining why. You could have explained how machines cannot have emotions or feelings. Also they do not have moral compasses that make them unique. Try to gives reasons for your opinion. Otherwise, great job and it wasn’t too long (thanks for that).

“What Do You Think?”

This is very well done. I am strapped for any idea to make it better. You explained what you believed a thought and an idea are. You even gave an example and talked about the movie Inception. In your paragraph about what an idea is, you mostly described how the movie portrayed it. You didn’t give your own actual definition. Maybe before you explained about Inception, you could have put in your own definition. I honestly believe your post is nearly perfect and it would be hard to improve upon it.

Jessica Chee:

“Can Computers Think?”

You started out hard and bold, explaining exactly what Minsky believes. This worked very well in your case, because it allowed the reader to know exactly what the post is about. Your example works very well because you used something everyone is familiar with. I agree with you about how robots are smarter but only in what they are programmed to do. The whole “Go have a kid” part was quite blunt and honest. I enjoy when people get to the point and don’t beat around the bush or repeat the same point in a different way. This was well-written and the only real tip is to either use an indentation for the beginning of each paragraph or a line between each. It gets a little crowded without it. Great job, otherwise.
“Directed Freewrite”

I’m sorry if this is short, but I am running out of time. The words “thought” and “know” came up a lot. Seriously, you did a great job on explaining, but you didn’t exactly answer all the questions. The book asked where you place your beliefs, but you don’t say where. This is well-written; you just forgot to answer all the questions the book poses.

Armando Teran, Jr.:

“Can Computers Think?”

You displayed Minsky’s viewpoints and used the sources well. You explained your reason very simply. You can try elaborating on it to strengthen your argument. I am sorry that this is short, but I have like five minutes left until midnight.

“Identity”

You explained what an idea and a thought were in two separate paragraphs. This works well, with your conclusion summing up what they are and the difference between them. You explained what the quote meant clearly and this was well-done. The only problem, albeit small, were a few typos where you forgot the “h” on “thought” and added a “d” on “an.” They are very slight and almost anyone would be able to tell what you mean. I am just letting you know.

Philosophy— Thinking Machines, Take Two

Wright’s Essay Can Machines think? Maybe so, as Deep Blue’s Chess Prowess Suggests, suggests many things about machines. Wright explains what he believes machines are capable of doing. He poses the question: Are machines better than human beings?


Wright explains that Alan Turing believes that machines may be smarter than us or quicker than us, but will never exceed us. No matter how advanced machines are, they will never have souls. Human beings have subjective feelings or conscious. A machine’s conscious consists of what it is programmed to do. We cannot be programmed in that way and therefore, we will always make choices using our conscious; moral or unmoral.

Another machine, called Cog, can have consciousness. Chalmers poses the problem about consciousness being necessary in his book The Unconscious Mind. He believes the world could work just as well without consciousness. He believes that consciousness was put into this world to give it significance. It does change physical aspects of the world by influencing behavior.

In this essay, Wright explains how they are two sides to the argument. Chalmers is not clear on what he believes and therefore, causing this to be very controversial. Chalmers also explains that we may be creating a new species of sentient life, without thinking of the consequences.

Can Computers Think?

In the article Terminators: The Robots That Rodney Brooks and Hans Moravec Imagine Will Succeed Humans, Not Serve Them, Brooks explains that he works to make robots small. The artcile explains how Brooks studied crawling insects and used the neural activity of an insect to serve as the activity of hir robots. He decided on smaller sizes for the advantages they provide. Creating small robots  costs less money and therefore, keeps the budget manageable. Funds is always something that is needed in any research program. Another advantage of small size is that it is discreet and unnoticeable. Brooks, along with Flynn, wanted to design a gnat-sized robot. In their essay "Twilight Zones and Corner Stones: A Gnat Robot Double Feature," they explain there reasons for creating such a small robot: "We want to build gnat-sized robots, a millimeter or so in diameter. They will be cheap, disposable, totally self-contained autonomous agets able to do useful things..." (P.128)

Many small organisms survive in this harsh world. It is mostly due to their size and discreetability. An example is plankton. Plankton is so small that most underwater lifeforms don't even realize it is there. They are largely unharmed due to this. Small size mostly helps for being inconspicuous. Many insects are smaller than a finger-nail. We mostly overlook them, no matter how deadly they may be. Being that small, they can fit through small spaces and end up where we don't want. Sometimes, we we find flies and such insects inside our homes and rooms. We never think twice about how they got in there. We just decide an open window or something. Thye may be slipping in cracks within the walls, floor, or ceilings. Small size is a definite advantage for life, organic and artificial.