Frankenstein

With the class reading of Frankenstein complete, I felt compelled to revisit a short essay I wrote for my application into a four year institution. The prompt asked "If you could take a figure in history or fiction to a place that holds deep meaning for you, where would you take them and why?"
Here is my answer:

There is a spot in New York City where one can turn to the left and see the buzzing blitz of the busy city. Turning to the right leaves one to gaze upon a series of quiet and calm parks, those being Goodwill Park, Socrates Sculpture Park and Rainey Park. Looking straight ahead reveals the distant lights of the Robert D. Kennedy Bridge, better known as the Triboro Bridge. An about face would leave one standing at the foot of a tall octagonal tower, constructed in stone and standing at approximately 50 feet in height. This structure is known as the Roosevelt Island Lighthouse, and the location is the Lighthouse Park. This is my spot. It is where I go to get away, and still feel a part of something. It is where I can be alone with my thoughts and simultaneously surrounded with the brilliance of this city. It is where I retreated to the day I buried my sister Brenda a decade ago. That day I sat on the outer stone barrier that separates the park from the East River. In my black suit I looked out onto the water, hoping to get some measure of closure or strength to allow myself a return to my family. Sitting there with my leather shoes dangling from my toes, threatening to fall and disappear into the water, I found myself wishing to sit next to someone who might feel as I felt. A year later I found this person in a book. His name was Victor Frankenstein.

Some time before my sister’s death, she sat with me on the floor of her room and asked me to promise her something. It was a simple request. “Promise me you’ll be in my hospital room when I go, ok?” The fact that she was terminal was not a secret in my family. We knew she had little time to live, but like many other sicknesses, AIDS does not provide one with a timetable. Every other month that passed, my sister was rushed to the hospital, cared for, and returned. It had become a fairly predictable cycle and I had become complacent to it. I focused my attention on my own interests, but unlike Victor Frankenstein immersing himself in science, I immersed myself in arrogance and a search for affection. I missed the call to rush to the hospital and with that, I broke a promise.

The Lighthouse Park is where I first opened the novel by Mary Shelley. I sympathized with Victor for his obsession, and his desire to attain the impossible, and eventually his tremendous guilt. This book was merely a work of fiction, but it helped put into perspective my own thoughts and the guilt I carried. If it were at all possible, I would bring Victor Frankenstein to this spot in New York City, and share with him the experiences of my life. My hope would be that I could help him the way he helped me.

Critical Thinking Blog Post # 9

This course has shown me that Science and the Humanities are intimately connected. The scientific advancements we receive assist (and sometimes hinder) our continued existence, and our needs and concerns often prompt science into action. It is a a cyclical relationship that is not always portrayed kindly. If crops are dying out, science has the potential to strengthen them through modifications, which can be seen as unethical mingling in nature. The question then becomes, is it better to starve or to accept a deviance of natural order?

I found that my original ideas on science and humanities have been strengthened to an almost bleak position. Let me explain. I have wrestled with many questions during this course, question I have tried to answer in one semester, questions that have in one way or another entered my mind in the last decade through my exposure to film and books. Is cloning wrong? Is AI a threat to mankind? What is it to be alive? If there are three of me, which one am I, and does it matter? Is saving my own life over another an abhorrent act of selfishness? I feel now that I have acquired at least the first parts to my answers for all of these questions, though I am not exactly happy to hear them.

Cloning can help millions. It can save lives and improve the way we live. It can also scare the crap out of us, especially if we breed life, not just body parts. I like the idea of having a spare heart growing somewhere that can be used in case I ever fall victim to a stroke. I don’t like the idea of another me being sacrificed to retrieve said heart. Ethics does play an important role in decided whether or not to advance this field, but I feel this is an easier task then that of AI.

AI is a threat, because humanity will make it so through fear and feelings of incompetence. The robots will be better than us. That much is clear. What isn’t clear is how much we’re going to hate them for it. Like a parent that secretly wishes for his son to trip on the last leg of the race he never won in his youth. The biggest problem here is that robotics and AI are inevitable. I think the partial reason for this is that the science of 11111’s and 00000’s is led by consumers. A program that responds to your commands as quickly as you can think them will sell. It will be included in the new iPhone, the new personal computer, the new watch… and so on. People want this. They just don’t want what will come of it, in the same way people want the newest version of their phone and ditch their old model which ends up on the shores of a far off country corrupting the soil. We don’t like the thought of a five year old picking through motherboards for precious metals, but we looooooooooove our new iPad. I don’t see this problem being fixed, so I’ll be one of the first people in line to get injected with nanobots that will turn me into a walking computer. Not because I like the idea, but because it is inevitable. :-/

It's going to happen. Just saying.

As for the question of altruism, I am still wrestling with that, but I feel that rational self preservation is not a bad thing. The main problem with that argument is how can one be rational at a time of crisis where immediate action is needed and duress is pressed on the mind? Rationality is not generally seen as am immediate actions, which means my argument would have to be centered on an unconscious ‘rational’ aspect that is present in our minds and works as a potential survival instinct. I’ll let you know when I finish reading the 90 paged paper I have found on the topic.

Dammit if this doesnt make at least a little sense.

I’m glad to have used this blog as a conduit to express my thoughts and share my findings. Although I have experienced some difficulties keep up with the actual finished post, I have spent a great deal of time compiling my notes and refining what it was I wished to say on here. I can only hope this came through in my writing. I plan to continue this discourse into technologies and the promises and perils it can bring for as long as it is a relevant topic to me, and seeing as how I consider myself both a science and humanities person, I expect this to be a very long time.

Critical Thinking Blog Post # 8

The prompts for this post reminded me of a short essay I had done on my independent research of Einstein’s Letter. I believe that my comments here apply to Oppenheimer as well as these two men were central to the eventual development and use of atomic weaponry.
On the second day of August 1939, famed physicist Albert Einstein placed his signature upon a letter authored by himself and fellow colleague Leo Szilard. This letter was addressed to then president Franklin D. Roosevelt and contained within it a strict warning that there laid a possibility to set forth a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of Uranium which could unleash an incredible amount of energy that could be used as a new source of power, or as a tool for destruction. Furthermore in this letter, Einstein went on to suggest that this terrifying new prospect may have been within the grasp of Nazi Germany, and its relentless leader Adolf Hitler. This letter had a significant impact on world in that it was the catalyst for starting the nuclear race.

Einstein, famous for his scientific achievements and revolutionary concepts in physics, was a well known advocate for peace. He openly opposed mandatory military service and sought to use his stature to express messages of hope to the governments of the world. It was with great burden that he decided to send this letter, as it would inevitably suggest the American government to reach the milestone of discovering the methods to this hypothesized chain reaction before the Germans did. His fear was that an instrument of war would be made and used to conquer and so he ventured to have the Americas hold this great power as a deterrent to all other nations who would seek to use it for destruction. President Roosevelt, understanding the urgency in Einstein’s message, approved funding for this war research and by December of 1942, a reactor that could sustain the chain reaction of splitting Uranium atoms was constructed. Under the guide of Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, The Manhattan Project was underway. During the testing of the newly constructed bomb, Oppenheimer famously quoted from the Bhagavad Gita when he said “I am become death. Destroyer of worlds.” Oppenheimer knew then the scope of his work. While he saw it as a necessity, he also understood the terro behind it.

By July of 1945 the world witnessed the United States detonate the first Atomic bomb in a test facility and as early as August 6, 1945 the world saw Hiroshima, a city in Japan as the site of the first usage of Atomic weaponry on a population.

The words carried by Einstein’s letter to President Roosevelt had a resounding effect on the condition of the world and its future. We can see through history how this warning led to the succession of events that ultimately claimed the lives of more than 90,000 individuals. Einstein, who wished for not more than a peaceful existence for all man, felt the difficulty in ascertaining the ethical concerns involving the principles of science and discovery. Submitting to a commitment for the advancement of scientific inquiry without holding into view the ethical effects said advancement might birth to the world is akin to withdrawing oneself from the very society they wish to help. With the conjoining of science and government that can be witnessed today the question of ethics becomes much more prevalent and can only be answered on a global scale. While the continued advancement of weaponry, for any nation, can be seen as a promise for defense, it also holds the inescapable potential for destruction. The relationship between science and humanities is prevalent when one considers that all advancements work to benefit or (unintentionally) harm mankind. Scientists are on the precipice of this ethical quandary as their decisions today can mean the continued existence or demise of tomorrow’s people.

Critical Thinking Blog Post # 7

Rosalind Franklin is a name that has gained some noted recognition in the last decade or so. She was a British biophysicist and she is famous for her work in Xrays that contributed to the deciphering of the DNA double helix structure by Francis Crick and James Watson. Through their incredible model, Crick and Watson were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, and honor Rosalind Franklin did not share.

In the Dignifying Science graphic novel, we are presented and image of Rosalind Franklin that often goes unseen when discussing her achievements. In this the images in this book, one can quite literally see Franklin’s personality, that being a strong, confident and loud scientist, a sharp difference from what was at that time considered ladylike. This story highlights the difficulties women such as her faced in a predominately male run industry. In the opening pages of the book we are treated to a scene in which Dr. Wilkins first meets Rosalind Franklin. His immediate assumption as he callously addresses her ‘Miss Franklin’ is that she is there to assist. She immediately corrects him and states that she is not there to assist, but rather she her own important research to attend to. This shows the constant struggle she had to endure to just be noted as an equal researcher. It can be argued that her seemingly short temper and kurt attitude may have actually been the defense to successfully exist in that field for so long.

Her work and creative deduction on photograph 51 is what led to the eventual understanding of the double helix structure. Had she not contributed her finding, there is no certainty Crick and Watson would have finished their model when they did. Her dedication was an inspiration. While fighting two fronts, one to demolish sexist views and the other to unlock the secrets of science, she was able to create a bridge that led people to question, if science is the search for truth, why is there room for abhorrent behavior like sexism and even racism? I feel that her contributions have helped pave the way for female scientist to be fully recognized for their achievements and capacities.

Critical Thinking Blog Post # 6

For my research paper I will be writing about Philip K. Dick’s prospect of a future filled with androids who are almost indistinguishable from human beings. I will explore the merits of this cautionary tale and find an argument as to whether advancements in technology pose a threat to humanity and whether or not it should slow down or cease altogether.

I have two sources which will serve to help this discussion. The first is an article written by Ray Kurzweil for Newsweek in 2005. Mr. Kurzweil, an inventor and proponent of our continued advancement of technologies, gives an incredibly positive outlook on humanity’s future. He cites that artificial intelligence will match the computing power of the human brain by 2030 and is poised to surpass human capacity thereafter. This article, found on Lexis Nexis, also discusses the continued research being done on nanotechnologies. He feels that these tiny robots will have the ability to fight cancers, unclog arteries and work seamlessly with our body’s own natural defenses, thus introducing a stronger, healthier version of humanity. While messing with genetics and advancing intelligence that is foreign to the human mind might seem a bit terrifying to some, Kurzweil sees this as an opportunity for humanity to jump onto a new paradigm shift of existing on this world. I feel his attitude, although arguably over optimistic, has a quality that is often ignored in this world. Most often, I have witnessed either fear or ignorance when announcements have come of fantastic new breakthroughs in sciences once thought impossible to meddle in.

Another source I have found helpful is the book We, Robot by Mark Stephen Meadows. In this book, Mr. Meadows shows how advancements in robotics have assisted many people for decades, from replacing lost limbs to creating military robots that disarm bombs and provide soldiers with reserve rations and ammunition. In slight contrast to Mr. Kurzweil, he does go on to mention possible dangers with advancing these technologies too far, namely that if we are to create a race of robots to serve and help us, and we willingly upgrade these servants with AI capable of facilitating their functions by allowing them the use of what might be considered ‘human’ attributes such as emotion, self awareness and a desire to help, then we might find ourselves in the mix of slavery once again. The only thing that would be needed to spark a standoff would be a robot receiving an order and replying with a stern ‘No’. Mr. Meadows warns that to avoid what will be an undesirable conflict, we must define the limits to our advancement and ensure these limits are enforced.

Cloning, AI, eugenics are all too often labeled terrifying prospects, but the good that can come from understanding these must be examined in order to find a coherent answer to the question “How are far is too far in race for technology?”

Blog Assingment #5 - Midterm Practice

Artificial intelligence, as defined by the standard American dictionary, is the capacity of a computer to perform operations analogous to learning and decision making in humans. The advancements in AI have been remarkably progressive since the early 1990’s. In the year 2011, it is commonplace to have some form of AI in almost any type of electronic. Cars are now able to park themselves. Video games have enemies that adapt to your attacks and formulate strategies against you. Even credit card companies have software that actively searches your normal purchase habits to ensure your card is not being used by an unauthorized person. The advancements in AI seem to take an incredible leap forward every few years. What happens, however, when an AI gets so advanced it believes itself to be the same or better than humans? We see this scenario explored in the book “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” by Philip K. Dick. In this book, Mr. Dick introduces the character of Rachel Eldon, who holds conversations just like any other person. She is by all rights a deceptive, brash, and confidently strong woman, until of course she fails the Voight-Kampff test, a sort of empathy tester. She is an android. While she may have been artificially created, it can be argued that she was indeed intelligent and that her consciousness was as real as any human’s consciousness.

There are items within humans that separate them from other beings in this world; emotion, rationality, the ability to question their own existence (Philosophy) to name a few. If these were emulated, and if humans were unable to immediately tell the difference, they would default to being real in the sense that they would be accepted as such. An example might be a person with Alexithymia, a neurological disability which creates difficulty in distinguishing, understanding and processing emotions. This disorder is common to about 85% of people suffering from autism. Because the concept is so foreign to them, they often appear to be completely devoid of emotional expression. Many of these individuals have to learn alternate methods to simply read emotion on another person’s face. This can be seen as an artificially fix to the problem of replaying emotions seamlessly as most humans can. It is not unreasonable to assume that many people would still hold these autistic beings to still be human, which is evidence that a mastery of emotion is clearly not the sole component that makes one human.

This is just a brainstorm. More to come shortly…

The Promise and Peril of Robots

Robots. Androids. Cyborgs. Bionic Commandos. These concepts almost seem written into our future, don’t they? From adorable robots like ASIMO to terrifying war machines like the Terminators, they are all tearing themselves out of the pages of science fiction and finding a comfortable home in science and engineering books. Why is it that we are so eager to push forth new robotic and artificial intelligence technologies? Is it simply because we can do it? That’s an excuse from sci-fi movie. The truth is, we push forward because we believe it will assist us in some form or fashion.

Take bionics as an example. If you had lost a limb in an accident, would you rather live life with only one arm, or would you entertain the idea of having a mechanical replacement fitted that would do many of the tasks your old arm did? This very issue continues to be addressed within the field of bionics where companies work with doctors to advance the technologies of replacement limbs. It is an astonishing feat to compete with years of evolution in such a short time. Bionics don’t just assist in continuing a semblance of one’s own life prior to losing a limb, they have extraordinary psychological value. Patients with replacement limbs, especially those made to look as human as possible, tend a significantly lower trend in depression than those without one. While this technology is still relatively new, it shows the promise of hope it can bring into human living.

Where should we draw the line though? Creating a bionic arm for humans seems like a reasonable endeavor, but what do we get out of creating whole bodies with artificial intelligence? The obvious answer is labor. It always has been. Think about it. The Ford assembly line, the microwave, the Rumba; all of these provide something, namely convenience. Some people might say “Well we don’t need androids making our lives convenient!” To these people you need only ask “Do you have a Data plan on that cell phone? Do you use iTunes, Netflix and other software that take your preferences and give you suggestions? If you do, then you’re using AI already, and it might not be farfetched for us (or rather our children) to come to rely on Android aid. I remember a time before the internet, when to meet up with a friend you had to be at the place and time you had previously agreed upon. These days you can just whip out your phone and text “On my way” while you sit back and finish watching the latest episode of Battlestar Galactica. The point is, while I remember the beauties and simplicities of life before the great spawn of technologies that now encompass our lives, I would not only be going against social norms if I tried to live the way I did when I was a kid, I would be making my life, a bit less convenient. That may sound garish, but I wish to be honest in this. I like getting my weather updated to the minute. I like sending emails and texts instead of letters. I like carrying 10 digital books on my iPad instead of 10 bulky paperbacks. I don’t really want to go back, well maybe for a day, but I am who I am now, today, and that might be the sentiment we carry with us when we see the benefits of androids and AI.

Convenient!

I will share my concern though. Right now, we aren’t in danger of our microwaves purposefully irradiating us to death, or our cell phones shooting dangerous isotopes into our brain. With artificial intelligence comes the possibility of developing an understanding of fairness that goes beyond human insight. Let us remember that we humans, as adapted as we have become, are still incredibly irrational beings. We suck up our resources, invent concepts like imaginary money (which we call credit) and tend to think in a self serving manner. If someone dies in an accident, we often hear “Who is responsible?” which is a reasonable question, except when you think of the term ‘accident’. An artificial intelligence may have greater cognitive capabilities that humans, but it may also ‘think’ in a drastically different way from us. Is it fair for a lion to kill and eat a zebra? Of course. So would it be fair for a Terminator robot to tear a human’s face off? The Terminator might say ‘Yes’ and that is when we will have a problem.

Look out! He's here to take names and rip faces!