Telepresence, the Missing Discussion of Ethics and some Robots (just for fun)

It's almost hard for me to admit the rapid pace at which it seems our world is becoming a virtual(ly friendly) environment. As some of you have already posted, online educational games, courses, robots controlled by the monkeys' thoughts in addition to the the virtual organization,"virtual teleconferencing, manipulation of graphically rendered objects, telepresence surgery, architectural design and vehicle movement" mentioned in by Terri Toles Patkin in "Constructing the Virtual Organization: Using a Virtual Multimedia Simulation for Communication Education" are really beginning to make me think.

Architectural design and graphically rendered objects do not offend me. However, the although convenient, cars that park themselves, and telepresence surgery are two examples of what I believe are really going to foreshadow the next decade as such conveniences begin to integrate themselves into our lives.

This video is a great summary for the examples of telepresence given by Terri Toles Patkin, in additional to a new telepresence system Pebbles which is used for educational purposes.
Telepresence Robotics - Haptics, Pebbles, Virtual Surgery:


On thing, that is important to me but however remains largely unexplored are the ethics behind virtual realities, telepresence systems, embedded chips etc. I believe that our technology is advancing so rapidly people are not able to agree on a code of ethics, or rules. We are going to create Alife before we even understand how it should be appropriately used. Look at our online practices as of now. The internet has been a household item for more than a decade and still there is very little understanding of online practices such "flaming" and furthermore there is no agreement for the types of regulations that there should be when there are real world consequences for online actions. People think that "If it's happening virtually, then it must not *really* be happening right?" Well, an email may not be as formal as a written letter however you've contacted that person, they are informed of your message, decode that message and then either file or "discard" that message. Even the "codes" of email (as discussed in Ch.19)are still being understood however communications and interaction via email are definitely a large part of what dictates our real lives. Therefore codes of conduct and a better understanding of our online/ virtual-to-be nation is definitely a necessity. We are behind the ball on this one.

My last complaint (or flame) is that Philip A. Thompsen considers flaming to be a "social phenomenon"?? All I can say is PUHHHLEEZ!!

this is just absurd>>> Captured by Robots:

Say it With Me, Frankenstein is a novel, not a real incident

In reading Chapter 14, I was struck by something almost immediately, there is no argument. For Ms. Barnes, who has obviously done her research, there is only one conclusion augmenting the human brain without the body destroys the individual. While this is not a new sentiment, it is a little confusing as to how she reaches this conclusion as one minute she's talking about Cartesian perception and the next we're shattering human personalities by adapting them to the computers.

Her use of Margaret Mead's observations is very astute and it has the ring of reality to it. How are we to perceive a virtual reality when it only focuses on vision and hearing. Touch, at the time of Barnes' writing, was an as yet unexplored ability of cyberspace. While it is still a far off possibility today, advances have been with the recent announcement of a monkey using it's brain power to make a robot walk, how far off will a computer being able to feed us virtual weights and textures?

However, the most unnerving thing for me in the entire reading was when Barnes says, "Despite the fact they work with digital software instead of living wetware, this research is still clouded by the legacy of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein." (p. 237). While she goes to explicate that that the book is indeed a story of science gone awry, the implication is that this one book forever overshadows any attempts at creating new life. It acts as if that one book has instilled this innate fear of cyborgs into everyone.

In the end, I can't help but feel that Barnes piece reads as an alarmist piece of work, saying "Stop now, before we destroy our humanity," more than a piece examining the implications of artificial life. The conclusions are gone, abandon all hope and look elsewhere.

An interesting aside to this is that Barnes ideas are heavily mirrored in Sci-Fi, specifically in the British Sci-Fi Television series Doctor Who. In the series there are two robotic aliens the Doctor fights, the Cybermen and the Daleks. The Cybermen, created in 1967, were humans who spent their lives augmenting their bodies to preserve their lives. Somewhere along the line, the augmentations took over the body and many of the humans went crazy. So they developed an emotionally inhibitor that would stop them from feeling the coldness and loneliness of being a living brain encased in a metal body. Without emotions, they became mindless automonatons and lacked any real sense of individuality. The machine destroying the individual.

The Daleks, created in 1963, were once human in shape bu,t due to radiation, became mutated and disfigured. Over time they built metal cases to live in but cut themselves off, physically, from reality all data coming from extensions of their bodies on the metal shell. Eventually they too went crazy from the detachment and lost their sense of individuality and became machines who wanted to destroy all that was not like them.

Sue Barnes and Marvin Minsky Challenged

While no one has directly responded to the readings yet, I wanted to address a couple of things I thought about in CH. 14.

It was suggested that "By connecting ourselves to artificial worlds in cyberspace we not only leave our physical bodies, but also the physical world in which we live (p. 233)." I believe that this may conceptually be possible when one enters a MUD, MOO or themed chat room however, often times I believe that what one does online often overlaps into the real world. Personas lived in VR as described by Barnes on pg. 243 with her example of "The Naked Lady," prove that the development or change of self in the real world can be a direct result of one's connection to virtual worlds. Another way in which online communication and social interaction overlaps into our every day life is with the use of social networking sites such as MySpace or Facebook. From my experience, people on these sites primarily interact with friends and family. Besides the "edited" version of one's personality given in one's profile, people tend to try and represent who they actually are in the real world through customizing profile settings. It is less likely for someone to develop an entirely new persona or "character" in this environment where they are affiliated with the same people in the real world. And because they are dealing with friends and family, the CMC occurring here becomes more of an extension of one's real life into cyberspace.

Another point I wanted to debate was Minsky's discussion about replacing one's brain (or biological brain cells) with computer chips. Minsky says that microscopic difference between the human individual and the digital self would have microscopic differences because "it would be impractical to duplicate with absolute fidelity, all the interactions in the brain (p. 235)." He argues that these microscopic differences would not matter "because we are always changing as we age. Because people are never the same from one moment to the next, you cannot claim that your brain machine is not you...Therefore, from Minsky's view, there is no difference between the real you and your digital clone." .... I disagree.

Although we do change with age, the digital replication of you could not compare with you or be you as you might age. As we grow, new life experiences affect how we will react to certain situations in the future. As we learn/grow as individuals and have new experiences, we often change how we will react to certain situations in the future create new emotions. Your digital self cannot replicate these new emotions, reactions or sense of logic unless they are streamed data on your every new experience directly as you experience them and can learn directly from your reactions. Still, as a result your digital self would only be mirroring you current personality. An equal, individual/independent growth of the digital self that might parallel your physical self (like a clone) seems impossible. I think that the differences matter.

Also check out an interesting and kind of relevant link to this chapter about "Robots [Who] Learn To Lie".

See you all in class!