[^^zix home page] [HYPER-SPACE (mfa)] [Quick Index/Map]
-[Promenade/Galleries]-
ma: z^humanist
See also: [L/D] [S/D]
See also: [af/art3/pkda2001 - pizoig gaming projects]
Ab Fr
\ /
+----------------+
/| /|
/ | / |
/ | / |
Fu / | / |
\ / | / |
+----------------+--Hu |
| | "RS-3" | |
[Quick Index] | Jz--+----------|-----+
| / | / \
| / | / Sc
| / | /
| / | /
|/ |/
+----------------+
/ \
Sp Ar
"Reality Structure 3" (mark II)
This iconosphere owes much of its
existence to Phillip Glass:Symp #3 & #2. [Learn more about the Iconosphere]
[Cross Product Space] (entry port ABxAB)
[Semi-linear blog-o-sphere] (and duck crossing)
-^_6
Humanist
On this page: {Intro}
{Health}
{Concerns}
{Mythology}
{Psychology}
{The Anthropic Principle}
{Robots}
{Robots: Sex}
{]Extremities and Boundaries]
Intro
This section of the iconosphere deals with all things human. To a
certain way of thinking this would be ALL parts of the iconosphere.
We restrict ourself necessarily to a few areas:
The humanities (but spilling over into the artist and jazzist when necessary).
The humanist approach -- literally where man IS the centre of everything.
And of course what it means to be human -- including the social,
historical, and psycholoogical
sciences, etc.
Most importantly we have adages (homilies, epigrams, sayings, etc)
that "guide" us as human beings. One of the most useful was penned
by intentor/stateman/printer Benjamin Franklin:
"Early to bed, and early to rise
keeps a man, healthy, wealthy, and wise."
So, we begin:
Down to: {Health}
Concerns
In this section: {Intro}
{The Environment}
{Evolution}
{Mental Stability}
{Consumerism}
See also: -[Humanist concerns Meta-Statement]- (separate file/paper)...
Intro
The Environment
Evolution
Mental Stability
Consumerism
Humanism and Health
In this section: intro
the body
hypdocondria
Intro
A treuly caring person (we take as examples Dr. Albert Schweitzer
and Mother Terresa) is *only* concerned the health of their patient.
People who are hard-liners, only care about their dogmas.
Take for example, the early "scientific" investigations into
the questionable practice of "acupuncture".
More properly, as a humanist, i would say:
"the supposedly open-minded examination of
time-tried Chinese practice of accupuncture
by Western-trained doctors".
As it turns out, it does work. And after setting aside
their skeptical doubts, it turns out that a whold "unknown"
science of "endorphins" (as well as other) chemical messagers
was was discovered.
Thus, we begin,
The way of the "healer" are several, and i wish to examine them
in some depth (even at the expense of covering other topics).
We might list (to start) and i will list them "west, to east,
and then south to north",
Surgeon
General Practice Doctor
The Body
(and this being the self-centred humanist section, we
of course mean "the Body Human")
Being a whirl-wind tour of the body.
We take it as read that the human body starts out as the
union of a sperm and an ova; each carrying 23 chromosomes
(half of the parent's) to re-combine to form a "normal"
46-chromosomed person.
A chromosome is the major genetic group that determines the
way that DNA (dee-oxy-riboh new-clay-ihc acid) is used to
make a living creature. You may think of a human being
(see map) as being composed of a recipe book that has
46 chapters (each chapter being called a "chromosome").
Now it's not so simple as chapter 1 - the brain, cahpter
2 the spleen, etc. There are a LOT of corssing from one
chromosome to the other - and frankly, Frank (i am), i
don't *really understand it at all*.
When the baby is born it is then an independent (organically
speaking) unit, however, it (like all living/non-living) things
is a part of a much vaster environment and community. For example,
a baby born into a vacuum would die (unless it was based either
on neutornium or helium-3; as i understand it). So, as such the
old debate "nature vs nurture" continues; ie, hardware internal
vs software/hardware/environment external.
Until the age of about 21 humans do not have all of their bones
completely intact. At about age 18 or so, there are mainly 206
bones in the human body. And despite certain fanciful tales,
males and females have the same number of ribs. And further,
the so-called "racial" differences are a bunch of bolix! After
all you're mainly talking about the largest organ of the body
(the skin) which has little or no determination as to the nature
of a human's humanity; eg, behaviour, thought, generosity/selfishness,
ingenuity, capacity to love or be loved, etc. Thus, we take it
as read that the supremacists (not to be confused with the
so-called "suprematists" as an art movment; which would of course
be quite opposed to *any* form of racism, predjudice, etc). Anyway
racism is simply some sort of "us/they" or "fight/flight" evolutionary
mechanims gone completely wrong. And finally, we take all evolutionary
thought as either read, or at the very least accepted as non-gospel.
The main systems of the body are:
Digestive
Respireation
Circulatory
Reproduction
Nervous
Structural
The primary function of life (if, we may be so directly
anthropic) is the process of survival. This is accomplished
by two functions: Procreation and Stability. The various
systems (other than reproduction) contribute to the on-going
stability of the system. The reproductive system has been so
over described and glorified that i will give it scance note.
With the introdution of more than one sex (ie, not a-sexual)
reproduction, the rate at which evolution (and hence increasing
the survival possiblities) of life forms at least squared
(doubled) in affect/scope/possiblity; ie, sex made the world explode
- despite the glory afforded to money, power, and unlimited
rice pudding, it literally made our world what it is today.
i have taken to group muscles, skeleton, skin, etc as "structural".
Essentially to house all of the components, most living systems
create a "shell" to contain them in; this being treu of humans
as well.
The outer layer is the skin that covers all areas with a few
appertures (eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, urethra/anus (excretion).
In addition the so-called "navel" is the connecting link to the
mother's umbilicus and also gives rise to the idea of
"omphamlaocophis" (the worshiping of one's navel; tips towel to
Mrs. Byrnes and her dictionary) ??sp??.
The skin consists of three layers; the outer most being a dead layer
carefully connected to sense organs producing the sense of touch.
Skin, hair, and finger/toe nails are primarily made of a protein
variant called "keretin" ??sp??. On the surface of the skin there
is a continuous battle to protect the body. This mostly goes
un-notices, as bacteria which live on the skin in symbiotic
relation to the rest of the human body, continually fight and
consume foreign particles, bacteria, molds, funguses. Without
the skin (a living system all to itself) and these "friendly"
bacteria, we would die. Thus, people who continually use
bacteriological soaps to clean their skins, are just playing with
dice (see "gambling" in sci-maths-randomnes) as to whether they're
killing the bad (foreign, innimicale) or good (symbiotes that we
carry with us our entire lifetime).
The most dangerous threats (other than over-cleaning) to the skin
are toxins (chemicals, bacteriological, radiative). For the most
part, the skin is a self maintaining system. Unforutnately, in
the modern era (see map), we tend to do things that are unfavourable
to the proper functioning of the skin; eg, sweating with confining
clothes, extreme climate conditions, wear and tear, etc. Of course,
we attach no moral tag to this, only noting that showering/bathing
and the use of mild soaps keep the oil/dryness as well as the
bacteriological content of the skin in balance for the most part.
Unfortunately, since the skin IS such a constant environment, many
life forms find it a suitable place to live; eg, foot fungus,
shingles, scoriasis, etc. The problem in treating these, is that
if you use something strong enough to kill them, you'll probbaly
kill the skin itself (and possibly the host inside it; ie, the
human).
The other major threat to skin health is of course direct sunlight,
particularly UV (Ultra Violet light; mostly invisible, but near the
"blue" end of the visible spectrum; hence "ultra violet" - beyond
the blue). With the increasing degredation of the Earth's protective
ozone layer, more and more of these strong radiations get through
(and don't be such a pug to think that it's just you! When the tree
frogs, honey bees, etc start to go exinct, then you'll know what of!).
Regardless, other than avoiding exposure (staying indoors or using
protective clothing), many sunscreen ointments are available. In
general, less exposure to sun is better; but, as usual moderation.
The next major component is of course the combination of the digestive,
the respiratory, and the circulatory systems. One of the defining
definitions of life is that it eats, moves, and excretes. Actually,
the last of these is NOT a requirement, it simply would mean (as
with the case of some insects) that by not being able to get rid
of various toxins through an exretory system, the creature would
die of poison by the body's own waste products; eg, consider a
person with kidney failure. The kidneys (the nephrons of which,
specifically) extract water soluable toxins (mainly salts) and
with their failure, the fluid balance (elctrolyte balance, etc)
of the body would cause death within a few days.
The respiratory system, mainly the lungs) bring in the earth's
atmosphere and exchange carbon dioxide for oxygen, Actually there
is much more to it than this. In humans (unlike sharks) the
muscle of the diaphram squeezes and releases the lungs, like
the bellows used by an ironsmith to heat a fire. Air that is
brought in has about 75% Nitrogen and 25% Oxygen (it might be 80/20 ???
and when you breathe out there is considerably more carbon
dioxide in the air breath. This is due to the primary
digestive processes of the body, which use oxygen as the
"fuel" to create energy and in the process produce CO2
(carbon dioxide) as one of the waste products.
Mainly note that the respiratory system consists of the
mouth and nose which bring in the air (with quite a bit
more filtering performed by the nose; ideally, one would
breath in through the nose and out through the mouth - this
is the basis for so-called "Yoga Breathing"), as well as
the trachea (Greek: ?????) or air tube that leads from the
back of the mouth, down the neck and to the lungs. There
is a small flap of skin in humans (unlike dolphins) that
opens to allow food to go down the throat into the stomach,
and opens to allow air to go down into the lungs. Of course,
hicoughs (hih cuhPs), choking, gaasping for air, etc are
all brought about when this flap isn't quite working correctly.
(technically hicoughs are related to some sort of nerve
signal being incorrectly sent; again, of which, i only know
little of).
The lungs consist of two large "lobes" on either side of the
trachea when begins a dividing process not unlike that of a
tree's branches, smaller and smaller, more and more divided.
Until the smallest "lobeletts" (if i may coin such a phrase)
are rached; they are usually refered to as the "aveolae"
(uh vee oh lie). It is here that the smallest bloodvessels
(the capilarieis) intimately mingle with the lobeletts and
that the transduction (carrying across) of oxygen and
carbon dioxide occur. The blood is flowing through the
capilaries, and take the oxygen enriched blood away to the
rest of the body.
The main threats to the lungs come from dust and bacteria.
For the most part, we breath continusously from the moment
that we are born until the day we die and mostly this goes
unnoticed. Oddly enough, breathing is the only automatic
system that we have some control over; again with Yoga
breathing. The glands that detect the build up of carbon
dioxide are located under the arms and they send a signal
to the brain forcing us to breath - hence, why you can only
hold your breath for so long. Swimmers have long known of
the idea of "hyper ventilation" which involves, taking
large, deep breaths of air, thus *over charging* the
ssystem; sometimes to the point where you might actually
pass out. In some cases of panic or anxiety, the person may
hyper ventilate; breathing in and out from a paper bag,
allows the build up of carbon dioxide - an old "cure".
Again, the problems of obstruction of the air passage are
the main problems that occur; eg, dust, smoke, chemicals,
etc. The white paper, dust masks do NOT keep out smoke or
chemicals!! Special masks (usually large, rubber masks with
charcoal activated filters) will do this; one should be carefull
around things like lacquers, paint thiners/strip-ers, acids, etc.
The lungs were "made" for air, not anything else; with the
possible exception of a bit of water vapour. Also, extreme
conditions (exceptionally hot or cold air, or very dry or
moist air) can cause problems as well. Is any of this new to you?
The circulatory system consists of a heart with four chambers
(unlike frogs) and a closed set of arteries and veins. The
oxygen enriched vessels are called artieries (???) and the
oygen depleted (and carbon dioxide rich) vessels are called
veins (????); except for the artery from the heart to the
lungs and the vein from the lungs aback to the heart this
is the case.
The heart is the strongest muscel in the body, and by its
construction it "wants" to beat. Oddly enough, during open
heart surgery, etc, the problem is to keep the heart from
beating. A severe electrical current is put into it ??voltage??
to stop/start it - we've all seen those operating room scenes.
In the normal life time, the heart generates enough force to
lift a battle ship some 100 metres (yards) into the air; so,
it *really* wants to beat!
The blood has to a certain extent the same chemical content
as the sea, thus giving rise to the phrase "Once we swam in
the sea, now the sea swims in we". Although, there are
definite differences, the saltiness and "balance" of the
blood is of a particular chemical compostion and nature.
The biological (ie, not just inorganic salts and such)
components of the blood consist of three main things;
red corpuscels (erthyrocyies, Greek ???), white corpusels
etc, as well platlettes responsible for clotting (when
exposed to air, they change their compostion, forming
the common "scab" that we see on a wound". In the
genetic disorder of "hemophelia" (????) the clotting
mechanism doesn't work properly and even a small cut
could lead to a person bleeding to death.
The main problems with the ciruclory system occur when the
blood pressure is to high or low, or when there is a cut
in the body, causing bleeding. Integral to first aid is
knowing where the "pressure" points are in the body. By
placing constant pressure there (eg, a tourniquet), you
can literally keep someone from bleeding to death. Of
course, by restricting the blood flow, there is also a
distinct chance that the limb (leg or arm) may die from
lack of oxygen.
High or low blood pressure problems develop in the course
of a person's aging process or though birth/genetic defects.
Since the ciruclatory system is responsible for keeping
the body alive (you an go about a week without water, or
even 2 or 3 weeks without food - but, after about 3 to 10
minutes without oxygen you die; usually). As i often
put it: Check your blood pressure, stay on your medications,
after all "Mr. Stroke" is NOT our friend.
Due to the way that the blood functions, there are so-called
genetic markers on it (i think) and this gave rise to the
idea of blood types. Saddly enough, the typing of blood was
discovered by a black-skinned chap, and as he was not allowed
to be admited to an all-white hospital; he died. Lanston or
something like that, name escapes me. Prior to his discovery,
blood transfusions would as often as not (makes no odds)
kill the patient rather than save them. I myself carry around
some 6 units of someone else's blood; at the time, it didn't
even occur to me to ask: What colour was their skin? Or more
to the point: Do they prefer green to red, or are they left
handed, or do they snap then zip or zip then snap; but, alas:
i digress. (Now, i already *did* tell you that racists weren't
going to be welcomed here; now, didn't i?)
Since we as humans (i temporarily include myself in that category)
consume quite a varied lot of food, our digestive systems are
at one and the same time very complex and delicate (unlike
a bryophyte). The process of digestion is pretty much as
follows.
The food is smelled by the nose, and if found "wanting" is
often not eaten simply because it doesn't smell right; eg,
rotted food, or extremely odiforous and therfore possibly
poisonous. The food is "masticated" (chewed;) and the
saliva (spit, if you want) has in it chemicals that already
start the digestive process; specifically enzymes (biological
catalysts that make chemical processes go more quickly/easily)
start turning starches into sugars. The food (now technically
refered to as "bolus") is then swallowed. And again, the problem
with choking. The esaphogus (????) is the tube from the mouth
down to the stomache (technically the "fundus" ??sp??).
The stomache is a marvel of engineering. It is coated with
tinly little fingers (really, pretty much micorscopic) which
excrete a mild solution of HydroChloric Acid (HCl) to break
down the chemical bonds in the food into it component parts
(amino acids, sugars, carbohydrates, and in some cases down
to the atomic elements themselves - but, usually these
elements are "bound" (techncially, "chelated" (key lay ted,
Greek: "with jaws") to other atoms; eg, iron as Ferric Oxide
(pretty much common rust).
Additional enzymes and chemicals wash around in the stomach
as it physically massages the food and keeps working for up
to 2 or 3 hours to break things down. Many of the digested
components are absorbed into the stomach lineing and pass into
the blood stream.
After the "wash and spin" cycle, the stomach opens a little
flap (the so-called "pyloric valve" (????) and the un
digested food is pushed down into the upper intestine. Here,
more of the food is digested, and then it continues (over the
course of the next few hours - sometimes as long as 8 or 10)
into the lower intestine. During this process much of the
water is extracted from the food, and of course it ends up
as feces to be excreted when possible. Similarly, the excess
water is held in the bladder (????) until it is urinated
out. As part of a human's maturation (unlike a housefly)
process is the conscious control of the sphincters that
control defication and urination.
Another part of the cirulatory system's function is the
transport of neutrients that have been broken down by
the stomache, as well as being "helped" by processing in
the liver. Bile ????????
At the lowest level, each cell is its own little universe.
It's cell walls form a skin around it allowing neutrients
and oxygen to come in, and waste products and carbon dioxide
to go out. The "brain" of the cell, is of course the
nucelus and it is constantly getting chemical messages from
the cell and sending chemical responses back. These messages
are in the form of chemical chains and the study of this
is "cytology", again something with which i am only partly
familiar with of.
Cells of course divide and this is the way that the body
renews itself. Again, this is all under the genetic control
of the nucleus of each cell. When this process goes wrong,
cancer results: The uncontrolled dividing of cells. Not
only crowding out other cells, but often not even performing
correctly their normal functions.
There are two more major systems: Muscels and Skeleton. These
are pretty straight forward the skeleton is the framework of
the body, the ligaments (eg, cartilidge) and muscels hold
it togeher, and make it move. Of course the energy comes from
the digestive process and the small bits of chemical energy
that each cell creates for use by the body. So-called marrow
cells in the bones create red blood cells, specialised glands
in the body process and create very imporant and complex
chemical messagangers used throughtout the body, and
especially...
The nervous system.
This consists of a number of special organs (eg, eyes, ears, tongue)
as well as the nerves that transmit the messages around, and the
brain - the thing that is the most you in you. Every part of the
body is in some way under the control of the brain, which is built
in several layers. (must i really go through all of this?)
Anyway, the "lowest" layers are the autonomic systems (like
breathing, heart beat, digestion, and signals to and from
the rest of the body). One of the main components is the
so-called brain stem (the medula oblingata ????). Next,
"up the line" is the limbic system which is pretty much
where a lot of our emotional processing takes place - if
you see a snake you don't want to *consciously* think about
all of the various kinds, you need to react as quickly as
possibly - usually retreating!
Above this are the three main parts of the brain in "higher"
order animals: The cerebellum (???), nd the
cerebrum (thinking). As Rita Carter points out in her
excellent book "Mapping the Mind" there are a lot of
up/and down connections between the layers and a lot of
things going on; most of course, i don't really pretend to
understand.
well, that's it for now....
-^_6
Hypocondria
The ability to WILL ourselves sick ma humanist.html#health hypdocondria
Mythology
See also:
Psych - Collective Un-conscious (Calling Dr. Howard,
Calling Dr. Fine,
Calling Dr. Howard,
Calling Karl-urh Jung...
{Karl Jung}
In this section: intro
the giants & meta-giants
Myth: The Giants & Meta-Giants
tell myself: need quotes by "the giants"
In this sub-section: bullfinch
robert graves
edith hamilton
charles lamb
and taking Mythology "to the next level" (meta-mythology?)...
Joseph Campbell
Mircea Eliade
John Bierhorst
Susan K. Langer
======= MEAT & POTATOS SECTION =======
bullfinch
robert graves
edith hamilton
charles lamb
so, am i diderot yet?????
(and they wonder why i drink!!!)
I mean think about it (even though the technology has improved
(ie, the computer, THE NET, and of course html), the VAST has
expanded "a bit" (well, er, ahh), "just a bit"
======================= INSERT PSUEDO-CARTOON HERE ===============
so Diderot (and his lady friend) produced one of the first EN cyclo paedias
and here i am "producing a *sufficient* encyclopedia for the entire
palent Earth (see map) for the 21st century (read that as "the new millineum)
-- i mean, it's as bad as Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead:
It took them 600 theorems (or so), and THEN, they were
able to PROVE (not "prove", but ACTUALLY prove)
1 + 1 = 2
oig! (listening to 4th movement of Shosty's 11th)
i mean the worst thing is that i want to write an article about
volvox (a kind of plant) and then i find that i haven't even
created a SECTION for ANY of the sciences (i mean i have place
holders and such), so off i goes to create that stuff (takes
a "bit longer" to frag it out and then the phone rings (hate
recorded messages - and worst off is that they sya PUSH 8 to
take you off our call list.
BUT THAT's RUBBISTHS!!! it doesn't get you off their call list.
It just removes you from that ITEM list.
They still have your num, and will call you again -- so, then
instead of calling for the "REDUCE YOUR DEBT" list, they "promote"
you to the next entry: "REDUCE YOUR CREDIT CARD DEBT" list.
(wonders/wanders off into mumbling something about "a duck" or
miss sunshine???....
-- peace to all,
Frank.
========================= END PSUEDO-CARTOON =================
Joseph Campbell
Mircea Eliade
John Bierhorst
Bierhorst, John. (). The Mythology of Mexico and Central
America.
---------- (1987). The Naked Bear: Folktales of the
Iroquois. The William Morrow Company. New York.
Susan K. Langer
Psychology
(notice how i keep "pushing down" / "putting off" - the anthropic principle?)
Sigmund Freud
Karl Jung
Sigmund Freud
Karl Jung
The Anthropic Principle
Roughly speaking the anthropic principle revolves around the existence
of man. Man exists, is self-aware, and able to act (change things, etc).
As such, the question arrises as to why there is anything at all. That
is, with the curious balance of what physicist Martin Rees calls
"Just Six Numbers" (see book by the same name) we find ourselves in a
stable universe. That is, the physical factors such as the speed of light,
the graitational constant, Plank's constant, etc are all just perfectly
balanced to create an enivrionment in which we can exist. If of course
some of these values were not as they are, then our universe might well
not be such that life (and intellegent life specifically) could exist.
Thus the strong form of the anthropic prinicple says that the universe
exists SO that we can exist. That is the purpose of the universe is to
allow us to exist, and thence consider not only ourselves, but the
universe in general.
From a materialistic and often religous point of view, this leads us to
say that "man has been given dominion" over the world; qv, "Genesis".
However, there are two possible interpretations of this:
1) Carte Blanche (a blank check) to do what ever we want. Tear down
a rain forest so that we can have fire lighters? No problem. It
is left to future generations to fix the problems brought about from
our party.
2) Stewardship to maintain the world as it was when we entered it. That
is, that when we pass there is NO sign of our ever having existed.
That is, furture generations will have the exact same stage upon which
to danse as we did.
Robots
See also: -[Scientist entry]-
In this section:
{Humans AS robots}
{Robots: Is Commander Data a Toaster?}
{Robots: Sex}
This section deals specifically with the idea of buidling robots that
humans can feel comfortable with. We should also consider how animals
will interact with (I/A) with them.
In the first place, the idea of the robot monster is of course a
distincet possiblity, but in keeping with the wisdom of the
sf-writer/futurist Isaac Asimov, we *should* try to create well
engineered robots. (See the Scientist link above for that discussion).
*** IN PROGRESS, many revisions, and links to current research coming ***
Most robots today are far from human in eitehr appearance or
mimicry. Glad to say this is quite a good thing. Recent work
with autistic children show that they get along BETTER with
verarious classes of robots than humans (???transcribe that articel??)
As it turns out, while humans are quirky, robots behave in very
predictable ways and are thus seen as more of an enhanced toy
to the auttistic child -- that they can manipulate and thus
relate to more than a person. On existant theory of autism
is tha they have a different time sense than do "normals"
(this was exploited as the excellent basis for a story by the
late, great author/futurist Philip K. Dick in his story
"Martian Time Slip" -- Dick wrote extesnively about robots
and his work is reflected by the "PKD-A (Philip K. Dick Android)
project under the guidence of David Hansen of Hansen Robotics. ** LINKS ??? ***
Regardless, the problems of human-robot (or more generally,
human-AI (Artifical Intellegence) are the sujbect of this essay
and of course of much debate. One of the earliest attempt to
"humanise" robots was in the sf film "Forbidden Planet". There-in
"Robby the Robot" was incapable of harming a human possibly
indicating the writers/producers awareness of Asimov's Three
"Laws" of robotics. In the sf film "2001: A Space Odyssey"
director/writer Stanley Kubrick and writer/futurist Arthur
C. Clarke collaborated in the creation of "HAL" a robot so
human that it can play chess (something thought to be
impossible by most computer scientists of the time), and
has a near nervous breakdown when confronted with problems
aboard the space ship with a crew which it programmed to
protect but finds that it can full-fill its programming.
A major consideration in robots that "appear human" is that
they will not necessarily mimic human gestures, facial
expressions, etc. Anyone who has spent more than just a
casual amount of time around animals (even domesticated
ones like cats and dogs) can not help but be struck by
their occasional "alienness". However, humorous it might
strike us the character "Wilson" that ??character?? (played
by Tom Hanks) creates in the film "CastAway" is more telling
and bears investigation.
Inherent in our interaction with the world is our ability to
"anthropormorphise" even inanimate objects; eg, refering to
a ship or a plane as a "her", large animals are often refered
to as males regardless of their actual gender (eg, a fish is
refered to as "he's a big one isn't he?"), etc. When an
inanimate object or machine doesn't "behave properly" we give
it "warnings" (or cajole it to co-opperate), etc.
This almost innate tendance (possibly brought about by our
experience as children with a favorite toy or pet) will be a
useful paradigm to remember as robots become more prevalent
and intimate. Naturally the extent to which we *should* create
human emotions, responses, vocabularies is open to much debate
as well. We already know from pet studies (as well as studies
of co-dependency problems), that humans can "bond" to almost
anything in times of stress or loneliness. This is not necessarily
a good thing since in many cases it may mask a more serious
underlaying problem that should be addressed more directly.
Asimov in one of the stories from volume one of hsi short
stories "I, Robot" addressed this when a woman falls in love
with an early robot prototype. This is not as far fetched as
it seems, since disfunctional (and fairly functional) people
may deeply bond with the "oddest" (if we may use a value
judgement) of fetishes, objects, or as mentioned previously
via ineffective co-dependent relationships with other people.
Many sf writers (includng myself) have addressed these problems,
as well as the inverse problem; ie, where a robot begins to take
on more and more human characteristics. In another of Dick's
stories, a robot actually thinks that it IS human. This is
as well a moral and ethical problem that MUST be considered,
lest we fall prey to Dr. Frankenstein's problems. Note that
u have YET to see a film or play that comes even close to
the philsoophical problems of AI/Aritifical Lifeforms
explored so brillianly by Mary Shelly in the original story.
READ IT!!! The "moster" goes thru the most agonising of
self-realisations that mimics that of a human becoming
alienated. Her work stands with the best in this regard
and although so casually dismissed, i would place it up
there with the existential works of Franz Kafka, Albert
Camus, Henrik Ibsen, August Wilson, etc.
An important aspect of the social/humanistic engineering of
the robot is to make it able to explain that it does not
understand something. The more human a robot becomes (either
in interacting or "mere" appearance) the more likely that
humans will tend to think of the robot as "human". THis
can only lead to at the very least humourous mis-understandings,
or at worst tragic problems. These possiblitites continue to
examined by modern sf writers (eg, Japanese ??authro??, etc).
I would say that the potential for danger would be on the
order of people accidentally (or not) taking overdoses of
medications -- including the often perceived as "harmless"
OTC meds (over the counter).
Severl key areas of consideration present themselves:
1. Inter-dependency. This is most common in friendships,
parentlng, or other close/personal
relationships. One person depends upon aother to perform
an action; eg, picking up a child after school, etc. IN
the modern/hectic world it is often the case that somehow
these actually quite important things "slip through the
cracks". I am continually amazed at people who time such
critical acts so that thre is almost no leeway for error.
Common among them is the parent leaving their child in
the car "for just a sec", while they run into the store.
Imagine now, that we depend upon a robot to do something
like that (watch over, pick up, remind a person to take
their medication, or perform some other critical function).
We can see the potential for suffering and in the worst
case, loss of life.
2. Like reasoning. Closely related is the problem of thinking
that a robot thinks like us. This is a
problem with human vis-a-vis interactions already. One person
"assumes" that another will act in the same or at least in a
similar/acceptable/equivalent manner. In the case of a robot,
we may run into (as with HAL) a condition which causes a
total disconnect from our relatiy by the robot. Regardless,
so complex a system that is to intimately interact with humans
(in and of themselves not the most rational/predictable creatures)
can not be foolproof. Thus, a robot may react in a perfectly
"correct" way from its programming and the available input
but its actions may be totally inappropriate way.
3. The falacy of dependability. One area of application is the
robot as "care giver". Since they
are unable to get tired (alghough this might be a bogus assumption
presuming that they might break down or malfunction which would
be operationally equivalent) -- they can be "replied upon". Again,
the analogy is the way that people come to depend uopon technology
in general. Most recently this was pointed out by the so-called
"Y2K criss" when in 1999, the clocks might not have rolled over
properly to "2000" -- many clocks used only two digits for the
year, so suddenly, instead of the year "99" becoming "00", it
would become "100" and possibly causing major compputer malfunctions.
Regardless, people depend on antilock braking systems, cel phones,
oven timers, and a whole host of things that surround us. That these
things are potentially in many cases prone to failure or even lethal,
we tend to (through familiarity and dependency) come to ingore them
and take thir flawless operation for granted. We need only look at
the number of electrocutions from hair dryers, accidents involving
icy sidewalks/roads to see how common this blind sightedness is.
When we introduce a robot into the equation -- a machine that seems
to think and even be aware of when it has a problem, then we begin
to see the magnitude of this falacy.
4. Conflict resolution. Key in the film "2001" is the idea of how
to resolve a problem of contradictory
input. A key communications component goes out, and yet there
doesn't seem to be any problem with it. This occurs all the
time with technology from the simplest case of not having the
corrct "interface cable" for a cammera, lap top computer, or
tv set, to the wrong blood type being delivered to a patient.
Fortunately there are many "dummy proof" checks and balances
that a good engineer will put into the stream. But, in many
cases these can and will break down. In the case, where there
are more than one option and the wrong opption is indicated,
the only "hope" is that by following the rules the checklist
will detect the problem before it becomes serious. And in the
case of complicated decisions, the possibility that the checking
and feedback tests themselves may have a fatal flaw or an
unknown oversite looms ever present. In the case of a robot,
it may be that the problem as perceived by the robot and
those around it (humans and/or other robots or systems) may
not be taking into consideration ALL or even the SAME factors.
And who is to say who is right. If a robot is insisting that
a patient has already taken their medication and the person
is suffering from early signs (but undetected) of Alzheimer's
disease...
5. Mis-read queues. Again returning to "human like" behaviour.
A major concern must be how a person (both
initially and over time), will "read" the robot's behaviour,
facial signals, and actual speech, mannerisms, and gestures.
Much of our interaction with the world is through both reasoning
through a situation (using past experience, analogical/metaphorical
models, guessing, etc) as well as by "touch and feel". A common
example, are couples who seem either in-sympatico or not with
each other. The wife who knows that she must remind her husband
to not forget his keys three times -- even though he says "yes"
each time is a common example. Thus, the signal "yes, i know"
actually has no meaning except for the final time when she
hears him pick his keys up and put them into his pocket. If
we imagine the problems arrising with human-robot systems we
begin to see this idea. A robot will probably NOT be programmed
to forget, give false or misleading queues/responses, or to
lie, etc. However, humans often do these things without even
thinking. Also, when one adds the complexity of language queues,
we open a whole 'nother can of worms. Some of this concern can
be worked around by the "learning methods" and pattern recognition
algorithems and heuristics that the robot employs to "tune in"
to the human's behaviour patterns, speech, actions, etc.
six. Deliberate mis-representation. Humans are nortorious for
rebelling, and it may often
times only be a temporary reaction based on some frustrating
event that just happened. It may be due to a long forgotten
memory that suddenly manifests itself, etc. Thus, there is bound
to be a "lag" between the time that the aberant behaviour by
the humans is first put forth and then detected and properly
be handled and/or compensated for. In just the same way, that
people will often try to circumvent protective safeguards of
machines, they may try to "get around" a robot's seeming
interference by deliberately mis-representing their motives, etc.
7. Call for help. Ultimately, one of the primary safeguards
is the robot deciding that it needs help
to figure out or properly handle the situation. The sf author/
futurist Robert Sheckly has investigated this at some depth in
various of his stories. In one story, a person picks up a robot
that is supposed to help cure him of his paranoia (wich is
the state of the art of robtics in the future that they are
just another form of OTC medicine). By accident he picks up
a model programmed for Martian Problems. Rather than return
the unit, he continues being treated. In the end, of course
disaster occurs when instead of curing him, the machine
substitutes an euqivalent form of "Martian Paranoia". The
lesson here is clear: THe robot must have a back up system
in place of trained technicians that can recognise and deal
with problems. In some of Asimov's stories the robots them
selves thought themselves to be handling the "situation"
properly and humans had to call in a special team of diagnostic
trouble shooters. It is important to note that while Sheckly
and Asimov's approaches are different and meant as "intertainment",
we should be mindful of Arthur C. Clareke's admonition: "The
only people who should be allowed to talk about the future
are sf writers." I would also point out that Clarke (like
most futurists) has spent most of his life "living" in the
future. Asside from a small handfull of technical writings
(collected in the book "Ascent to Orbit", all but ONE of his
fiction works (the story "Glide Path") has been in the sf
genre and of course we must all remember not to trust him
too much since any man who (in 1945) can invent the synchronous
orbit (often refered to as "Clarke Orbits") satellite and NOT
take out a pattent on what is potentially the single most
lucrative intellectual property since the invention of
sliced bread -- is certainly to looked at with skepticism
and ascances; if not deep admiration and respect -- his
groundbreaking work on the understanding of the biology of
coral reefs (notably the "Great Coral Reef of Australlia)
not-with-standing.
But, alas; i, digress.
Thus, the key points are: As robots "appear" to become more human,
humans are more likely to carry the extent of that humanity to a
further than warranted/recogmended extent. As well, as the fact
that the old human factors engineering ideas, erognomic design
principles, and the chimera of "User Friendliness" will have to
be re-thought. One communications engineer (Jack Reed at Nortel)
assessed "user friendly design" (which often ISN'T) as really
"Fredly G. Moore" -- a sort "grimlin in the machine" responsible
for making things that are supposedly "user friendly", most
assuredly NOT. And of course, always be mindful of "Murphy's
Laws".
An interesting site: -[Cartoons about the Touring Test, The Chinese room, etc]-
Humans AS robots
The True Believer
turning off one's humanity
this and the next section are hopelessly (no! there is always
(i hope) hope!) muddled and need sortingout.
Robots: Is Commander Data a Toaster?
I now wish to explore the idea of robots as approaching human
capabilities and intellegence; and esp: emotions.
In an episode of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" (??episode??)
a Star Fleet Admiral (or some such) shows up and wants
to take Commander Data (an android/robot) apart to see
what makes him tick. As it turns out, he has "no rights"
since he's not human. Picard is chosen to defend him
in a court -- Data as decided to resign rather than be
taken appart and thus "die" -- in about the only wayt
that one might say that he could die. The classic line
comes when Captain Picard (portrayed by Patrick Stuart) sez:
It all comes down to this. Is Data a human being or is
he a toaster? Part of our mission is to find new life
forms. Well THERE HE SITS.
This is of course a re-occuring theme in all literature (in fact
a recent book addresses this: Is Data Human?: Or, the Metaphysics
of Star Trek Richard Hanley ). In essencce the idea of "human rights"
is the argument of the abolutionists and humanists that "slaves
have rights", etc. -[Excerpt here]-
Other recent vid work includes:
"AI" - based not too badly on Brian Aldis' work of the same
name (film by Steven Spielberg)
"Glitch" -- from the new edition of Joseph de Stephano's
"The Outer Limits"
"Author, Author" - Star Trek the next generation, exploring
whether a hologram has rights.
The idea that i have come to is this (and again "nothing new under the sun")
is from the existentialist POV:
"Even if we do not have free will, as long as we are able
to act as if we do - ie, we are *free* to act in any manner
that can not be shown to be different from free will -- then
we DO have free will.
This goes back to a Philip K. Dick story where a person turns out
to be a robot but has been programmed so that "he" doens't know
it. His reality is on a punched tape. He finds out (by accident)
that he is a robot and beings covering up holes in his tape,
and punching new holes ??title??
And suddently a flock of ducks flew through the room
(not an exact quote)
And of course this goes back to V/R (virtual reality) as well.
So, as {B.F. Skinner} might well have put it (one of the first
behavioural psychologists - carrying it to the extent to
create a "bionic" bed for his own daughter) -
"the difference between us and rats is very little.
but the main difference is that we (like they) are
programmed -- but we can change our programming."
-- def NOT an exact quote.
He wrote (at the age of 90 or so) that he used reward/punishment
even on himself. If he would review a paper that he didn't really
want to, then he would allow himself to watch TV that night
(as i recall "Archie Bunker" (All in the Family).
And we recall Albert Camus' "The Stranger" -- so is Merseme ??sp??
a robot? He kills the Arab for no reason (or because "the sun
got in his eyes"). And of course the work is "just" an allegory
for World War II (why did the Nazi's kill - and recall that
they even killed/imprisioned Fritz Haber (a Jew) without whom
the first world war would have been over for Germany much sooner
as their sources of nitrates (needed for explosives) was cut off
with the loss of shipping to Chile.
And so, where are WE?
There is an sf story ("The Ethical Equations" ??author??) which
describes the classica Socratic/Platonic idea of being invisible
and doing what we please. When we look at the "Terminator" series
of vids (which i still maintain are horror not sf; but, then what
are we to do with "RoboCop?), we see that the terminator is
completely programmable (as with any weapon/tool) and recall that
he doesn't understand why people weep - as such he IS a toaster
not a robot/human/etc.
SImilarly, in the Star Trek film "Generations", Commander Data
finds his lost cat (an entirely white cat, appropriately named
"Spot) and finds that he is happy but weeping. Councelor Troi
re-assures him that his emotion chip is working "just fine".
If a machine weeps - it is human. But, what if it is programmed
to weep like ??name?? mailto:cynthia@ai.mit.edu ??
-[kismet site]-
This goes back to Shakespear/Bacon's "Hamlet" where the actor who
can portray ancient Greek tragedy with real teers (but Hamlet
can not act or perhaps even weep). So, are the teers real? And
then we go back to the film "Love Story" with Ali McGraw weeping
and then telling Robert Evans (her husband) that the teers were
for him. Are those teers real?
Does John Donne's "involved man" who is a crag, a part of the main
and rings the bell for thee? is the poet real? Does it weep?\
Dr. Schwietzer cared for "those africans" because he (a humanist)
-- like Mother Terressa (a christinan) were "involved in mankind"
and could not turn away. And yet, we know that people can turn
off their humanity -- see previous section. So, the borderland
becmes:
Can robots "turn on" their humanity?
What if it (he/she/neh?) is only programmed to simulate emotions
or thinking or action. One only has to view "Ballet Robotique"
by ??name?? to see robots dancing and evoking as much emotion
as Stravinski's "Rite of Spring" -- probably not quite that
much, but certainly more than rote dancing by humans; but, then
the robots (industrial robots) ARE doing *everything* by rote
-- ie, programming.
And then Asimov gives us (in "I, Robot", volume 1) a religious
robot with attendant followers -- followers dedicated NOT to
humans, but whose actions become vitally protecctive of humans.
So, just as the surgeon must become "an inhuman engineer" (Johnathon
Miller - The Body in Question) and *distance* themself from
the whatness of what they are doing when restoring proper
heart action to an old woman.
notice the dichotomy here:
the poet must pick up their scalple and be well aware
of their incisions - the novelist even more so, and
of course the scholar at the ultimate height of "now"
awareness.
"the poet and the soldier/thinker - no allowance for the other"
sez Jethro Tull in "Thick as a Brick" - by no means an exact
quote
and then the surgeon -- suspending emotion
and the painter/sculptor/etc pure emotion but silently guided
by the music of some formless entiry called "creativity"
And even Star Trek has Commander data playing the violin (but,
alas "without soul"), but then his painting (apparently) does
have soul (or the start of something approaching). And Lloyd
Biggle, Jr. in his sf novel "The Light that never was" has
aliens learning to paint (more than that: Pure theoretical
mathematicians), and even a slug-like creature as well. Larry
Niven explores "taste sculptures" in his "Known Universe" series.
And so: The beat goes on.
I think it goes back to: It is the search for meaning that
gives life it's value. And if any
"life" gets *some* value, then
it's existence was not in "vain".
Whatever the phot, THAT means.
Or as Joeseph Stefano and company put it in the original
"The Outer Limits" put it:
We now return control to you.
INSERT CARTOON HERE
Meepo: Well, now THAT is a relief. All of that philosoophical
mumbo jumbo was beginning to get a bit disturbing.
Gleeba: Why do you say that?
Meepo: It's a relief. Because now we have control again.
Gleeba (mumbles) - but we never had it to begin with.
Meepo: What's that? Speak up!
Gleeba: May the truth set you free and not destroy you.
Meepo: Balderdash! There you go again.
Gleeba: Do i? Oh, i forgot; sorry. (exits, humming Liz Story's
version of "Mac the Knife")
(meanwhile a toaster ejects two slices of a bit dark toast and
and old poet listens to Bartok; and suddenly it was Wednesday
which was rather nice, since up until that point it had been
Tuesday for the 14th time that day)
erk, sorry that's Barber, not Bartok (vocal; "scenes and pictures")
END CARTOON
Robots: Sex
See also:
Fundamentalists vs Humanists
-- the fact that "they" (fundamentalists) view "us" (humanists) etc.
What they are opposed to science/scientism, spirutality/free-thought,
humanism/man|earth-centred, etc..