Final communication essay

I Think, Therefore I am .. Not

Many scientists, philosophers, and religious people groups often debate whether the ability to think is limited only to biological creatures such as animals and Homo sapiens, or if this ability can be exhibited by a machine. A. M. Turing posits in his work "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" that a machine is able to think in the same manner that a human does as evidenced through a test that he created, and named after himself: the Turing Test. This test is meant to show that a machine is capable of intelligence that is indistinguishable from that of a human’s by having both the machine and a human being answer questions that are asked by an interrogator who is in a separate room from them both. If the interrogator is unable to tell which is the person and which is the machine, then the machine is said to pass the test. Turing uses this test as proof of his belief that machines are capable of thought. However, when Turing’s article is looked at in respect to writings by other authors, his claim of a machine being capable of intelligence is contradicted by these other works. Steven Pinker’s work "An Instinct to Acquire an Art" describes how the ability of language acquisition is unique to the human species because it is an innate ability, and so it is not able to be taught as it is taught to the machine. In the article "Troublesome Language" in the textbook Understanding Human Communication by Adler & Rodman, the concept of words or phrases that can be interpreted in more than one way is examined. Misunderstandings can come from this type of communication which a machine would be unable to understand in context because a machine is not able to understand that one phrase can have two separate meanings, such as when a phrase or word is used in a metaphor or in a sarcastic way. These two articles discredit his belief that machines are indeed capable of human thought because a machine is not human and cannot understand language naturally.
Steven Pinker’s article "An Instinct to Acquire an Art" talks about language acquisition, and how it is an instinct that humans are born with as opposed to "a cultural artifact that [they] the way [they] learn to tell time or how the federal government works."(Pinker 42) The ability to learn and understand how language is used as well as structured cannot be taught to another creature or machine according to this statement. According to Pinker, "[l]anguage is a complex, specialized skill, which develops in the child spontaneously, without conscious effort or formal instruction"(Pinker 42), which means that a machine is not able to think of language in the same way that humans are able to. The ability to use language is not a characteristic of a machine such as a computer at its birth, and it is not until a programmer introduces all of the grammar and rules of language into the computers operating system that is able to use that language.
The fact that a machine cannot be "born" with the ability to learn language on its own could add to a couple of the arguments that are set against machines in "Computing Machinery and Intelligence." However the one that it seems to assist the most is Lady Lovelace’s Objection. Lady Lovelace’s Objection is that "[the machine] has no pretensions to originate anything. It can do whatever [programmers] know how to order it to perform."(Turing 83) The computer in Turing’s test is able to mimic human answers to questions posed by the interrogator about almost any topic, but that does not mean that the machine is intelligent. All that means is that the machine has vast amounts of information within its memory that has been placed there by it’s operators. The computer is not be able understand colloquial expressions such as idioms or slang, as well as being unable to use or understand sarcasm because it has not been programmed into it. The inability to comprehend or acquire the knowledge of how to interpret any of these different aspects of language contradicts Turing’s defense of the argument which is that "the evidence available to Lady Lovelace did not encourage her to believe that [machines] had [the ability to set up a conditioned reflex that could act as a way to learn]." (Turing 83) Until that conditioned reflex is introduced to the computers system, it knows nothing and is not able to learn anything on its own. That fact is a large argument against the opinion that a machine is capable of thought on the same par as a human being since a human is capable of learning without being told to do so.
As has already been talked about, a machine is not able to differentiate between a sentence spoken in earnest and a sentence that is meant as a sarcastic comment. Sarcasm is not able to be programmed into a computer, though Turing may argue that it is only because the evidence is unavailable to people at the moment that we do not think computers are capable of eventually learning it. However, in the absence of proof of what a machine is in fact capable of, we must assume that it in unable to learn the aspect of communication known as sarcasm. It is true that sometimes humans are oblivious to other’s use of sarcasm, especially as children the first time that sarcasm is introduced to their speech. The difference between the computers inability to understand sarcasm and a human is that the human has the natural ability to learn and assimilate sarcasm to it’s own speaking patterns. The computer is not able to learn about sarcasm simply from introducing it to the computer’s known world, which only includes the knowledge that has been feed into the computer.
In addition to sarcasm, the more logical fault with a computer being able to think in the same respect as a human being lies in its inability to allow something, such as slang, to mean more than one thing. Slang is, "language used by a group of people whose members belong to a similar subculture or other group."(Adler & Rodman 101) For example, when talking with friends, youths will use slang terms to explain or describe certain things such as events, ideas, or objects. If a teenager says to one of his friends, "That lion that we saw at the zoo was sick," it could mean one of two things. In the literal sense of the phrase, the lion that they had seen at the zoo was physically ill. This is more than likely how the computer would interpret this sentence because in the English language, sick means to be ill. However, in slang terms, sick is used as another word for cool, which is itself a slang term although it is far more common to both adults as well as children in it’s meaning. Many slang terms used are not common knowledge, and instead are shared by groups of friends or colleagues of the people who use the terms. The ability to quickly decipher a slang term’s meaning is not shown in computers because they do not have the common knowledge of a human that allows the computer to identify that the slang term can not possibly be meant literally in the context it is in, and so it must be slang for something else. The computer would not be able to pick up on this different use of a word that logically has no reason to be placed where it is.
Turing’s reasoning for machines being capable of the same definition of thought as human beings is thorough when read within his own article, but when cross-examined with articles by readings from other authors, it is contradicted. A machine is not "born" with the innate ability to learn language as a human child is. It is instead unable to even form words or sounds until it is programmed to do so, which supports the argument that it can only do "whatever [the programmers] know how to order it to perform."(Turing 83) Since language acquisition is natural in a human and not in a machine, it can be said that a machine is obviously not capable of the same ability to think as a human because it is not human itself. A human’s ability to think allows them to adapt or assimilate new language constantly, which a computer does not have without being programmed to display a trait that resembles the learning ability. That’s not to say that the machine would be incapable of mimicking certain aspects of speech that a human being would have, but it will not be able to learn about language on its own. This lack of natural ability to learn and interpret language is evidence of a fault in Turing’s belief that machines are able to think in the same manner as humans so well that they are unable to be told apart.

Tasered

Journal of Robert Dziekanski: October 2007

*Translated from Russian

"Today I'm going to the airport to see my mother. I'm looking forward to her cooking cause she always made the best sausages!! It'll be hard to find her though because I can't speak English which means i'll be on my own. Oh well, it shouldn't be too bad. There's security there if anything bad were to happen. I just can't wait to see her!!"

The Next Day:

Obituary for Robert Dziekanski

Mr. Dziekanski died yesterday from a mixure of electical shock to his system from being tasered, as well as the weight of several of homeland securities finest officers tackling and crushing his neck as well as back. He had gone to the airport to meet his mother, and became angry about something, throwing computer equipment around the greeting area. This apparently authorized the use of lethal force"

Alright, the above was totally made up by me, but it seems like something that could have been true. I know that when a guy is throwing things around an airport that it's going to attract attention that will get him knocked on his ass at least. But he should still be able to breath the next day. He didn't try to shoot anyone or smuggle shit onto a plane.

I understand how in this day and age especially, airport's are going to be way more drastic in reaction to things than 8 years ago, but there is too far, and Robert seems to be a victim of that kind of over-reaction.

The most popular male is still behind a hundred popular women

As a guy, I don't really care about reading what some other guy, no matter how famous he is, has done wrong. Mel Gibson throwing racial slurs around interested me about as much as the mating patterns of flies. But when a female star gets in trouble. like Lindsay Lohan snorting blow or Britney Spears being a horrible parent, then at least there's still the attractiveness of a girl. And yeah, I know how sexist that must sound, but that's the only reason that I can see that girls getting in trouble is way more popular than guys.

So if guys only read or listen or watch that kind of stuff if it's about women, and women will read about either sex because they read to get the dirt on what is going on, then it makes sense that media will fixate on the women because as informative as these mediums are, at the end of the day they are a business. And to make the most money, they need to try and get the largest possible target audience.

Although I'm sure that another reason for this lack of testosterone in the public eye is a little bit of sexism, that word seems to get thrown around alot today. If a woman can't do something as well as a man, its labelled sexist to say so. When the positions are reversed though and a man cannot do something as well as a woman, then its because they aren't as skilled. That kind of pisses me off

But whatever. As long as women starlets keep doing things that can be exploited by the media, then men will be a distant second (or three hundred and fourth as the case may be) place.

Video killed the radio star, and Apple killed video apparently

According to http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/10/23/itunes.3b.songs.sold/, Itunes accounts for 36% of the companie's total revenue, and according to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/23/BUN4SU8RB.DTL&feed=rss.business, it made $6.2 billion in revenue from sales of its iPods, iPhones and Macintosh computers this summer. That figures to be roughly 2 billion dollars for itunes sales. Not only does it make that much money, but it brought the idea of actually paying for music back into existence all by itself. But apparently, no one gave this information to Jeff Zucker. The president and CEO of NBC doesn't seem to be too wild about apple and how little money it makes him. Just a mere 15 millions dollars a year. But I should cut him a little slack. After all, most presidents these days have no clue what's going on around them.

Itunes has become one of the last hopes of both record companies looking to earn money from the bands that they have signed, as well as television studios and movie comapanies to sell their films and sitcoms. With sites like youtube and literally at least hundreds of online places to watch these things, the concept of paying for what you can get for free seems more and more ridiculous.

It's fine if he wants to pull all of his TV shows and shit off of the apple itunes site, but to go and bash what they're doing to the entertainment industry? Its like walking up to a guy and while that guy is helping you fix a flat tire on your car, you blindside him with a baseball bat and then screw his wife.

AND, on top of verbally thrashing apple, he has the balls to complain that he doesn't get any money from the hardware they sell? Then in that case, why isn't he forking over a percentage of the complete season dvd's of Lost to apple?

Or a box set of The Office? 30 Rock? My Name Is Earl?

I'm sure that they've hooked a fair number of viewers into buying the seasons after they have downloaded a single episode on itunes to sample it out. But no, thats not the way things go for good old Jeff. Now he's just going to lose more money when consumers start downloading episodes of all of the series' on his network off of some website that doesn't care about net revenues or potential bankruptcy. Serves him right for that forked tongue of his.

Prime ministers are the lowest common denominator

What should we do with PM's once they're no longer making our country's decisions?
well there's always the second most prominent job that Canada is recognized for.
Wouldn't Jean Chretien be very well suited to pouring out medium coffee's with two milks? Or how about Paul Martin serving up some appetizing bear claws? If this seems a little beneath men that once lead our country, then you should just look at their accomplishments after their terms in office. Or seeming lack thereof. Now they seem to be reduced to not only hauling their own luggage around, but doing guest stints on relatively small time television shows such as when Paul Martin went on The Rick Mercer Report

It does feel disrespectful to put former leaders on par with people that serve us coffee everyday, but really, I've barely ever put the prime minister on par with the president of the united states anytime i think of them. They really seem to be like a sidekick more than a superhero if I was talking in comic book terms.
Batman = Bush Robin = Martin

Prime Ministers can do whatever they want to do after their terms in office, because no one is going to go out of their way to try and assassinate someone who was the equivalent of the Boy Wonder in office.

Halo 3 is heaven sent

The hype leading up to Halo 3 has been happening ever since the first gamer finished Halo 2, watched the cliffhanger ending, and started writing on his blog OMG THERE'S GONNA BE A THIRD ONE!!! This has got to be the biggest game since something along the lines James Bond or Final Fantasy. This game has shooting, a good plot line, a main character that really kicks ass. And that's really all you need.

The company behind the game, Bungie Studios, has really gone to town promoting this game. Not only have they put out trailer after trailer after trailer for it, but they have used almost every conceivable mode of media they can. They have used television obviously, as well as special promtional drinks such as Game Fuel, a drink put out by Mountain Dew which features pictures of Master Chief all over it. Then they sponsered a Nascar driver and plastered the Chief's face all over that too. Toss is some added features from Pontiac and Burger King and there's almost no age group of people that they haven't gotten word out to. They even have replicas of vehicles from the game to show off.

I think that this may all be a bit much, but really, this game is so amazing that its hard to say it doesn't earn some bragging rights. Fighting off an alien invasion while simaltaneously stopping giant rings that will destroy the universe on your own? That's just cool.

Thousands of people are all looking forward to the release date of Halo 3, and speculation about whats going to happen in it is crazy. The line ups to get in to the stores to get the first copy will more than likely be just as insane. I think that i'll wait a little while before jumping into that riot waiting to happen

Shape of thighs to come

Alright so since when has some fashion show or gala opening or celebrity define the next big style of clothing and body type? ahhh thats right, ever since the some guy ran out of clean clothes, wrapped a bedsheet around his shoulders and claimed it was called a toga. The next day Rome was all over that. There must be thousands, if not millions, of people that have dressed like decked out barbarians before, but since this guy is at some fancy opening of an art show, he gets noticed. People swoon over him and mutter how great he looks. If some no-name Tom, Dick or Jane was walking down the street like that tho, he'd be compared to this guy.

But the people with mass media connections get noticed and praised for the image they present. Pfffftt. Whatever. I know that there's some kind of hypocrisy in there from me somewhere since how I dress is influenced by something or someone else. But trends shouldn't be set by someone saying its "the new thing". See something you like and want to assimilate as your own? Fine. Have a blast doing it. Just don't tell me what's the thing I SHOULD be wearing.

Robots: The up and coming lover

The thought of humans marrying and then consumating that marriage with robots is weird. Not just weird in the plainest sense of the term, but weird in that it holds a sick kind of wonder to it. Once you get over the initial disgust of such personal acts with a machine, there's questions like, "Could it be programmed with all the same interests as me? How would I ever get sick of something that I could continuously change? Is love actually more than a feeling between to humans?" I think that humans won't be as adverse to this thought however as much as they were to gay marriage. After all, science fiction shows have been painting this future for ages now. Shows like Futurama hit the topic without even being seen as controversial

http://comedy.videosift.com/video/Futurama-Dont-Date-Robots

What could be the ramifications of this possible future be though? If everyone is able to create their own perfect person in a metal machine, then it seems like the birth rate would begin to decrease rapidly. The number of women getting pregnant would have to be affected by it. After all, this would be the safest form of sex since the condom was introduced. No STD's, no unplanned babies. It's almost perfect.

Also, just how much artificial intelligence would they have? Would it be like that movie where they become so smart that they begin to rebel and take over the world? If that's another possibilty then I'm not so sure that it's worth it. A great man once said that, "with great power comes great responsibility." So with the power to create this artificial love, is it not also our responsibility to make sure that we don't get carried away playing God. It almost seems like the same type of deal as genetically designing how your babies will be born.

http://geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=122

It just isn't supposed to be that way. Technology is reaching a point where almost anything is becoming possible. Maybe in like 100 years we'll be able to travel through time and be able to pick anyone out of history to love, or save people that we loved and lost. But the implications of all this tech is so unknown that it seems to be moving a bit fast.

Critical Communication 2

Perception is a critical device that affects how anyone will view the world personally. It affects how people will communicate with other people, groups or ethnic groups of people, and even byproducts of those people, such as films, books, music, or art. How I perceive the world has been shaped by influences such as how my parents raised me, along with how my friends talked about everything from a persons cultural background to which genre of music is acceptable.
Like everyone else, I have condensed all of these different perceptions of the world into my own personal outlook and preconceived notions. As evidence as to how my perceptions influence my attitudes towards people, I will use one of my own personal experiences.
There is a woman at my work who I dislike very much. This stems from my first impressions of her, and how they were all negative. When we first met, she did not know what she was doing, asked me questions constantly, did not stay where she was supposed to, and she also told me that she had not graduated highschool yet despite being two years older than most people who had. These first impressions were all such negative images in my mind that now I see everything that she does with a negative connotation. My perception of her is consistent with the perceptual tendencies talked about in lecture, as well as in Understanding Human Communications. (Adler, Rodman & Sevigny 42 - 44).

Adler, R., Rodman, G., Sevigny, A., Understanding Human Communication. Don Mills: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Critical Communications 1

If I am not talking to someone in person, then there is no such thing as a conversation that does not include the constant use of slang words as well as jargon. Slang is, "language used by a group of people whose members belong to a similar subculture or other group," (Adler, Rodman & Sevigny. 101), and jargon is a, "valuable kind of shorthand for people who understand its use."(102). Using short terms for rather long phrases is a time saver in a world that is moving so fast, it has become a necessity.

Some people argue that some of these slang terms make no sense to people that have not heard them before, but that is true with any word at all. All they have to do is ask what the slang term means. Every single day, I use numerous slang terms without even thinking about it, such as saying, "Let’s bounce," instead of, "Let’s get going." The place where I, along with most kids under the age of twenty, use jargon the most is over msn messenger. When talking to my friends over this online chat site, I use a multitude of jargon terms to save time. There are widely known ones such as "LoL," (laugh out loud), "idk," (I don’t know), and "ridic," (Ridiculous). More common terms like these can be found in the UHC textbook (103). I also have terms that are unique to my group of friends, such as, "DQYDJ," (Don’t quit your day job), and "tots bruts," (Totally brutal).

Although these little short-hand terms seem pointless, when you use each of them tons of times throughout the conversation, it saves a significant amount of time. They make communicating with friends much more simple which is proof that it is a useful tool for communication.

Adler, R., Rodman, G., Sevigny, A., Understanding Human Communication. Don Mills: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Refer-End-Um

I have almost no clue about anything involving politics. I didn't even vote this year because I have no idea who stands for what or what, if anything, they will do. Even the different parties involved hold no distinction for me. So in order for the government or potential MPP's to reach me, they would need to come up with a way to reach me through some form of media that catches my attention. Or at the very least, holds it.

This does not keep me interested.http://yourbigdecision.ca/en_CA/Media.aspx

The media that has been put out there for the vote is next to nothing as far as I have seen. Never once did I see any commercial for the vote on television (at least as far as I could tell). Though they did place vids on youtube, the odds of a person looking up Ontario Referendum are slim



Again, this doesn't hold my attention at all.

The information on this thing was not put out nearly well enough for the general populace to get wind of. Especially for people like me, kids really, barely old enough to vote and that are supposed to take part in something as large as deeming who is fit to make the rules. This is why I didn't vote. No one explained to me well enough why I should vote to change the elctoral system we have now. I mean, when wikipeida does a better job describing what the vote is all about than the people saying "Vote for me!", you know there's been a ball dropped somewhere