Posts Tagged cyborg

Week 9 Lifestream Summary

Reflections on cyborgs, embodiment and cognispheres

This week my lifestream reflects the readings I have been doing on Gies, Badmington,  Hayles, Shields, and Muri.  I have continued with my experiment of copying out into Tumblr passages from my reading on which I wish to reflect.  My usual method is to outline writers’ ideas in MindManager – mapping out their logic.  However, in my MindManager approach I also highlight key passages so that aspect is replicated in Tumblr.  I then am able to review my selected passages in my lifestream.  I was nervous about doing this initially but I am finding it interesting.  My gleanings this week are:

Gies:

virtual selves leave many traces, are monitored, and it is difficult to maintain anonymity and multiple identities (see separate blog)

Badmington:

remnants of humanism in posthumanism

Hayles:

the cyborg is now obsolete because it is not networked enough; the notion of the cognisphere captures the dynamic relations and interactive exchanges between global  networks of machines and humans

Shields:

the cyborg can be updated but the scale should not be at the human level but at the nano-scales of biotechnology as a potential counter-space

Muri:

debunking disembodiment when bodies are everywhere etc. – separation of mind/soul from body and distaste of body has routes in Christianity; gives cynical reasons why academics have promoted the idea of disembodiment

soul leaving body 2soul leaving body

The way I decided to pull out summaries of these writers mirror the impression I get of their arguments from just reviewing the lifestream.  However, in my lifestream I also have some links to current developments that I think link  into the  literature I have read this week.

The first link raises the issue of whether the cyborg is really obsolete.

Contact lens with built-in virtual graphics (article from New Scientist)

 Contact lens with built in graphics

A contact lens that harvests radio waves to power an LED is paving the way for a new kind of display. The lens is a prototype of a device that could display information beamed from a mobile device.

Realising that display size is increasingly a constraint in mobile devices, Babak Parviz at the University of Washington, in Seattle, hit on the idea of projecting images into the eye from a contact lens.

One of the limitations of current head-up displays is their limited field of view. A contact lens display can have a much wider field of view. “Our hope is to create images that effectively float in front of the user perhaps 50 cm to 1 m away,” says Parviz.

On the one hand, this development seems to support Shield’s contention that we must look at cyborg developments at a microlevel but at the same time, it contradicts this, as the  lens is to be worn by whole human body and the visual experience will incorporate both viewing the real world AND some projected virtual world.  Will real and virtual intermingle? Is this where the cyborg joins the cognisphere? Driving while talking on the mobile phone seems safe in comparison. The body is in the real world!

IBM Press Release on Developing a Computer that can simulate the human brain

computer brain

IBM (NYSE:  IBM) announced significant progress toward creating a computer system that simulates and emulates the brain’s abilities for sensation, perception, action, interaction and cognition, while rivaling the brain’s low power and energy consumption and compact size.

The cognitive computing team, led by IBM Research, has achieved significant advances in large-scale cortical simulation and a new algorithm that synthesizes neurological data — two major milestones that indicate the feasibility of building a cognitive computing chip. 

These advancements will provide a unique workbench for exploring the computational dynamics of the brain, and stand to move the team closer to its goal of building a compact, low-power synaptronic chip using nanotechnology and advances in phase change memory and magnetic tunnel junctions. The team’s work stands to break the mold of conventional von Neumann computing, in order to meet the system requirements of the instrumented and interconnected world of tomorrow. 

As the amount of digital data that we create continues to grow massively and the world becomes more instrumented and interconnected, there is a need for new kinds of computing systems – imbued with a new intelligence that can spot hard-to-find patterns in vastly varied kinds of data, both digital and sensory; analyze and integrate information real-time in a context-dependent way; and deal with the ambiguity found in complex, real-world environments.

The last paragraph supports what Hayles is saying about the cognisphere – that most of the interaction is between machines.  A cognitive computing chip would accelerate this  process.

Cyberwar is now a fact (BBC News)

cyberwar

“To go to physical war requires billions of dollars,” he said. “To go to cyber war most people can easily find the resources that could be used in these kind of attacks.”

The targets of such future conflicts were likely to be a nation’s infrastructure, said Mr Day, because networks of all kinds were now so embedded in peoples’ lives.

In response, he said, many nations now have an agency overseeing critical national infrastructure and ensuring that it is adequately hardened against net-borne attacks.

Again, the notion of the cognisphere is supported by the statement that ‘networks of all kinds were now so embedded in peoples’ lives’.

I think Hayles is correct in saying that the unit of analysis is not the individual – whether human or cyborg – but in relationships and networks.  And that is where ultimately the cyborg metaphor fails. Individualism has been a mark of the 20th century with roots going back to  the Enlightenment.  I suggest that we are moving away from individualism but it may be painful – and the realities of cyberwars may awaken us to this movement.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Week 8 Lifestream Summary

I had quite a busy week.  Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday I ran all day workshops – 9-5 non-stop while in the evening I was fitting in reading Haraway and Hayles. Thursday and Friday I was working with my friend and colleague Judy (face to face as I am in the States at the moment) to fine tune a chapter we are writing together. Judy has also read Haraway and Hayles this week and quite amazingly Hayles proved very pertinent to the ideas we have developed on our chapter – which gives an overview of the development of qualitative data analysis tools and how we see the future in Web 2.0 tools.  Hayles gave us the vocabulary for ideas we didn’t have the words for.  I used Tumblr which fed into my lifestream to pull out key quotes to reflect on. Haraway was new to me and as I didn’t have the time to read her in one sitting. I was initially frustrated as I felt she was really addressing issues about the direction of feminism and couldn’t figure out initially where cyborgs fit in. I noticed in the tweets that others were having problems, too, so I searched the web for material on her and the Cyborg Manifesto and found something that gave information on her background and provided a good summary of the manifesto which I tweeted to the class.  I also benefitted by other class members doing the same and tweeting links to other articles and videos about Haraway or Hayles. I felt twitter worked this week as a good medium to help each other find material to elucidate two challenging texts.

I had to keep reminding myself that Haraway was writing in the mid-eighties before the World Wide Web and with her background in biology, a lot of her notions of cyborg come from medical developments of the time, organ transplants, pacemakers etc. I have always been sympathetic to arguments that challenge dualisms so her vision of the cyborg as taking us out of dualistic thinking is attractive – although I find also a bit fuzzy. I understand that the cyborg is outside of the male/female dualism as being neither and that our relation with machines is intermingled with us – we create machines, we use machines, they do not dominate us, they are us – an aspect of our embodiment. And I guess while the thrust of her argument is about feminism, what we can take from her for digital culture is that the notion of  cyborgs can support an embodied view of digital culture.

Brain Machine Interface

I found Haynes more accessible.  Her mapping of the history of cybernetics, the politics involved, the erasures of certain ideas, the re-writing of history illuminated for me the background to some of the dominant ideas of digital culture

By turning the technological determinism of bodiless information, the cyborg, and the posthuman into narratives about the negotiations that took place between particular people at particular times and places, I hope to replace a teleology of disembodiment with historically contingent stories about contests between competing factions, contests whose outcomes were far from obvious. Many factors affected the outcomes, from the needs of emerging technologies for reliable quantification to the personalities of the people involved. Though overdetermined, the disembodiment of information was not inevitable, any more than it is inevitable we continue to accept the idea that we are essentially informational patterns. p. 22

For me, the most illuminating quote was from an interview with Hayles earlier this year – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBhFYkaift4

…what we see with digital media is not so much the death of the author, as the distribution of the author function in new ways. …if you create a digital work, you are collaborating with the software you are using to create that work. And the people who created the software, in a sense, are your remote co-collaborators. And you are also collaborating with the computer hardware. And all of these have constraints and possibilities that you can explore. Hayles, N.K. (2009) Interview with Stacey Cochran, YouTube – 28 March 2009

It is the idea of distributed cognition, which Hayles mentions later in the same interview, that makes us posthuman.  We are interacting with machines, with software, with applications which shape and are shaped by us.

Tags: , , , ,

Reflections on Haraway, dualisms and the promise of Cyborgs

I can’t say I found Haraway an easy read – partly because I needed to understand first the context in which she is writing.  She is a biologist and a socialist feminist and the Cyborg Manifesto is a critique and an alternative to the brand of radical feminism that was dominant at the time of her writing.  Theresa M. Senft has provided some very useful background and notes on the Manifesto at http://www.terrisenft.net/students/readings/manifesto.html 

What interests me is her argument about the Cartesian dualism that is dominant in Western thinking and the Cyborg as an alternative.

The dichotomies between mind and body, human and animal, organism and machine, public and private, nature and culture, men and women, primitive and civilized are all in question ideologically. p. 44

In the first block of this course, when we explored digital culture, the images were very black and white.  A lot of films view the machine, the cyborg as a threat to humans.  Yet, ironically, Haraway sees the cyborg as the saviour.

The machine is not an it to be animated, worshipped and dominated. The machine is us, our processes, an aspect of our embodiment. We can be responsible for machines; they do not dominate or threaten us. We are responsible for boundaries; we are they.

Michael Wesch has simplified this argument and made it more accessible and popular in his video – the Machine is Us/ing Us

YouTube Preview Image

 There is one point in the video where he makes this point very clearly:

When we post and tag pictures, we are teaching the machine. Each time we forge a link between words, we teach it an idea. Think of the 100 billion times per day humans click on a web page teaching the Machine.  The machine is using us – is us.

The words above Wesch has extracted from an article in Wired by Kevin Kelly – We are the Web. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/tech.html?pg=4&topic=tech&topic_set=

I suddenly made the connection with Wesch when reading Haraway. The machine is us/ using us is not a dichotomy but one and the same. We both control and are controlled by it. Rather than a dichotomy of either/ or, it is both.

It is late. Does this make sense?

Tags: , , ,