What I found interesting about the Barabasi article was the whole idea of connectedness. The article talks about how there are connectors and hubs that provide the links for computers, just like people can in society. In the article the example of 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon was given to show how people are interconnected and how some people are more connected than others and some are hubs that allow us to be connected. The same is true for the internet as there are some hubs that provide the links for various different sites and organizations. The fact that we are so connected makes the World Wide Web, which is so large and expansive seem small because there are ways to get to most things in a few short clicks making something that is far away and distant seem so close. The way in which the internet is linked is much the same in which society works because as people we liked to be connected and our levels of connectedness are what can help us in life and what some people use to distinguish themselves from others.
When I read the article and it talked about how people were connected I thought about how I feel I am so connected. I have lived in Seattle my whole life and grew up in one house, in the same neighborhood. In my life I have attended three schools, my grade school, high school and now the University of Washington. The fact that I have lived in the same area my whole life has made me very connected to the area. With the same group of people going to my grade school and then high school it was fairly easy to stay connected. It seems as if I am so connected to this area that I cannot go somewhere without out seeing someone I know from my neighborhood, any of my schools, or someone that knows my family. It doesn’t matter where I am going I am bound to run into someone I know. I could go down to the University Village and I would see someone I know. I could go out to the bars and I would see someone I know. This whole level of connectedness, which at times can seem inescapable, is actually fairly reassuring. It is nice to know that I am always going to know people wherever I go. It is also nice to know that whatever I may need I have some sort of a connection to someone in the area that can help. If I were to need a lawyer, I know a bunch of those. If I needed a dentist or a doctor, there are several. This is also very reassuring because I know that if I know someone who needs something and they are not from the area then I can help them out because of the connections that I have established with numerous people in this area over the years. The most relevant example that I can think of to represent this is when my sister was attending the University of Washington and a friend of hers, who was from California, needed a dentist and so my sister called up our family friend who is a dentist and got her friend an appointment. In society this level of connectedness is very important and influential. Much is the same for the internet because it takes a large and daunting “presence” and makes it smaller and much more manageable.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Week 4 Blog
Week 4 Blog:
What I got from reading the article titled “Immersion vs. Interactivity: Virtual Reality and Literary Theory,” is that virtual reality is a lot like novels. The whole idea of immersing your self and becoming interactive with the virtual reality is very similar to what one can do with a book while reading. When part of a VR a participant is able to interact with the surrounds and become a part of the surroundings as if they were real and this was just a part of the participants life. When reading a book, a reader can become deeply involved with the characters and sub-plots just as if it were a VR. The reader is in my mind actually participating in a VR that exists within their own mind. Readers create images for what characters and places look like and they create their own ideas as to how the plot takes place and how every interaction would look. Although a VR reality provides the image for you and allows you to “touch” object in the VR, I feel that the mind of a reader can do pretty much the same thing.
Assuming that I have the right understanding of what Marie-Laure Ryan is discussing in the article then there are a couple of thoughts that I have on virtual reality. First I found this article to be interesting because of the whole topic of virtual reality and the idea of physically being able to interact with a virtual environment. While reading this article I remembered the time I went to the NCAA Final Four Fan fest from 1995 when it was at the Convention Center in Downtown Seattle. At the fan fest there were all sorts of basketball related activities including one activity, which I believe was VR. I was only 9 at the time but remember putting on a glove and a “helmet” so to speak and “entering” a virtual world where I got to play one-on-one basketball against a computer created athlete. This was still 1995 and the VR was not that great but it created a whole new world essentially, that I was able to be a part of. While that was fun and all, looking back on it has also raised some questions. I wonder with the evolution of VR what sort of restrictions would be applied because it would be very easy to cross some boundaries that would not be appropriate. If you look at the internet, think about how much “adult material” is out there and think about what could be done with a VR of that material. Who would censor this sort of thing? What would you do if a child came into contact with the VR of that “adult material?” It even stretches beyond that material and into the realm of video games. I can say that I think it would be really cool to have VR video games where you are interacting with the players, sort of along the lines of Nintendo’s Wii, but even more so with the player actually being a part of the action. But what do you do when the games are not age appropriate and involve violence and sex. With all the games in the world there are hundreds of them that involve violence involving weapons and physical interaction. Do we, as a society, want games that allow users to actually be in the reality where we beat up or kill someone, or get beat up or killed ourselves. There are also games like the Mansion and the Guy Game, that involve living in the Playboy Mansion and running the magazine and also a cross between the television show Street Smarts and the Girls Gone Wild series. Where do we draw the line? Who is in charge of any restrictions? If this is like the internet then we can’t really censor it because there would be numerous ways to get around any restrictions. All of these create problems that people would want to stop but they can only be answered when VR becomes more prominent.
What I got from reading the article titled “Immersion vs. Interactivity: Virtual Reality and Literary Theory,” is that virtual reality is a lot like novels. The whole idea of immersing your self and becoming interactive with the virtual reality is very similar to what one can do with a book while reading. When part of a VR a participant is able to interact with the surrounds and become a part of the surroundings as if they were real and this was just a part of the participants life. When reading a book, a reader can become deeply involved with the characters and sub-plots just as if it were a VR. The reader is in my mind actually participating in a VR that exists within their own mind. Readers create images for what characters and places look like and they create their own ideas as to how the plot takes place and how every interaction would look. Although a VR reality provides the image for you and allows you to “touch” object in the VR, I feel that the mind of a reader can do pretty much the same thing.
Assuming that I have the right understanding of what Marie-Laure Ryan is discussing in the article then there are a couple of thoughts that I have on virtual reality. First I found this article to be interesting because of the whole topic of virtual reality and the idea of physically being able to interact with a virtual environment. While reading this article I remembered the time I went to the NCAA Final Four Fan fest from 1995 when it was at the Convention Center in Downtown Seattle. At the fan fest there were all sorts of basketball related activities including one activity, which I believe was VR. I was only 9 at the time but remember putting on a glove and a “helmet” so to speak and “entering” a virtual world where I got to play one-on-one basketball against a computer created athlete. This was still 1995 and the VR was not that great but it created a whole new world essentially, that I was able to be a part of. While that was fun and all, looking back on it has also raised some questions. I wonder with the evolution of VR what sort of restrictions would be applied because it would be very easy to cross some boundaries that would not be appropriate. If you look at the internet, think about how much “adult material” is out there and think about what could be done with a VR of that material. Who would censor this sort of thing? What would you do if a child came into contact with the VR of that “adult material?” It even stretches beyond that material and into the realm of video games. I can say that I think it would be really cool to have VR video games where you are interacting with the players, sort of along the lines of Nintendo’s Wii, but even more so with the player actually being a part of the action. But what do you do when the games are not age appropriate and involve violence and sex. With all the games in the world there are hundreds of them that involve violence involving weapons and physical interaction. Do we, as a society, want games that allow users to actually be in the reality where we beat up or kill someone, or get beat up or killed ourselves. There are also games like the Mansion and the Guy Game, that involve living in the Playboy Mansion and running the magazine and also a cross between the television show Street Smarts and the Girls Gone Wild series. Where do we draw the line? Who is in charge of any restrictions? If this is like the internet then we can’t really censor it because there would be numerous ways to get around any restrictions. All of these create problems that people would want to stop but they can only be answered when VR becomes more prominent.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Cybernetics and Society
Cybernetics and Society
I found the article on cybernetics and society to be an interesting article. All of this cybernetics and other talk is a foreign concept to me and at times completely and totally confusing. What I got out of this article was the importance of communication, but not just any communication, the importance of feedback. Everything from this article seemed to revolve around feedback. Whether the feedback was that which we receive from a communication interaction or that of a reaction associated with Parkinsonianism. Wiener writes a lot about the feedback and Parkinsonianism and how we can use the information that we observe from brain feedback in Parkinsonianism to help create a device like his moth and bedbug contraption to obtain a better understanding of the importance of feedback.
I found it interesting how Wiener was using his moth and bedbug device as a potential to create advancements in human development of artificial limbs and hearing devices. The way in which Wiener explained the progress that was being made in hearing devices to help deaf people was intriguing. Wiener states that there are three parts to hearing, first there are the acoustic symbols which are the vibrations in the air. Second is the various phenomena that occur in the inner ear. Finally there is the semantic stage which includes the transfer of symbols into experience of meaning. Wiener points out that in deaf people the first and third stage are still present and the second stage is what is missing. It was interesting how he pointed out that it would be possible to create an alternate second stage for deaf people requiring them to use their eyes which would be very difficult task on their most important sense, or they could use their sense of touch to create a modified second stage to help in the overall communication process. I don’t know exactly what he is referring to when he talks about using the sense of touch but I think it is probably pretty similar to how Braille is used by blind people to help them read. The fact that studying the feedback that results from the brain in something like Parkinsonianism and using that to help someone interpret other feedback from the brain to help deaf people to be able to “hear” in a sense is an amazing topic to me.
I think that the best way I can relate this reading to the other topics in this class is just through the vast importance of technology. Being able to help deaf people hear is a tremendous achievement that is still not perfected although we do have ways in which to improve the chances. With the constant advancing nature of technology it seems to me like progress is being made to help people with any sort of disability. Helping deaf people to “hear” and thus be a part of communication interactions is a monumental achievement but I think that this is only the beginning of where technology can take us in terms furthering the communication process. From helping deaf people hear to maybe helping blind people to see the boundaries of potential technological help seem endless to me and hopefully can continue to develop and evolve as time goes on.
I found the article on cybernetics and society to be an interesting article. All of this cybernetics and other talk is a foreign concept to me and at times completely and totally confusing. What I got out of this article was the importance of communication, but not just any communication, the importance of feedback. Everything from this article seemed to revolve around feedback. Whether the feedback was that which we receive from a communication interaction or that of a reaction associated with Parkinsonianism. Wiener writes a lot about the feedback and Parkinsonianism and how we can use the information that we observe from brain feedback in Parkinsonianism to help create a device like his moth and bedbug contraption to obtain a better understanding of the importance of feedback.
I found it interesting how Wiener was using his moth and bedbug device as a potential to create advancements in human development of artificial limbs and hearing devices. The way in which Wiener explained the progress that was being made in hearing devices to help deaf people was intriguing. Wiener states that there are three parts to hearing, first there are the acoustic symbols which are the vibrations in the air. Second is the various phenomena that occur in the inner ear. Finally there is the semantic stage which includes the transfer of symbols into experience of meaning. Wiener points out that in deaf people the first and third stage are still present and the second stage is what is missing. It was interesting how he pointed out that it would be possible to create an alternate second stage for deaf people requiring them to use their eyes which would be very difficult task on their most important sense, or they could use their sense of touch to create a modified second stage to help in the overall communication process. I don’t know exactly what he is referring to when he talks about using the sense of touch but I think it is probably pretty similar to how Braille is used by blind people to help them read. The fact that studying the feedback that results from the brain in something like Parkinsonianism and using that to help someone interpret other feedback from the brain to help deaf people to be able to “hear” in a sense is an amazing topic to me.
I think that the best way I can relate this reading to the other topics in this class is just through the vast importance of technology. Being able to help deaf people hear is a tremendous achievement that is still not perfected although we do have ways in which to improve the chances. With the constant advancing nature of technology it seems to me like progress is being made to help people with any sort of disability. Helping deaf people to “hear” and thus be a part of communication interactions is a monumental achievement but I think that this is only the beginning of where technology can take us in terms furthering the communication process. From helping deaf people hear to maybe helping blind people to see the boundaries of potential technological help seem endless to me and hopefully can continue to develop and evolve as time goes on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)