The motivation for Hamlet’s transformation is the charge given to him by his deceased father’s ghost. Before that he is what people could consider normal if not a little depressed. Hamlet is changed to the core of his being. He becomes sharper with his speech. His comments more pointed especially towards his mother, Claudius and Polonius. Internally, it is all he can do to think about how he is to get revenge and kill Claudius.
It is convincing because while he is alone, he rants and raves about what he must do. His appearance, call it, to say is changed because towards those around him, it seems as though he has gone mad.
His transformation is not well received by those who are closest to him. It seems to them like he is pushing them away. Claudius is worried because he fears Hamlet is up to something and he feels like he needs to keep an eye on him. Both Gertrude and Ophelia are concerned for Hamlet because both of them believe that he has gone mentally insane. The change in Hamlet appears to have created a stronger bond between him and Horatio, for it seems Horatio is the only one Hamlet can trust. He is the one who Hamlet contemplates and consults with on how they are to prove that it was Claudius that murdered his father.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Formal Argument- Negative, Did Gertrude betray her husbadn and son
Formal Argument
Gertrude did not betray either her husband or her son. Hamlet feels betrayed because his mother remarried so quickly. But everyone is different. Some people take less time to get over the grieving process. What if Hamlet Sr. and his wife really weren’t that close? It gives no indication that they were. The ghost of Hamlet Sr does tell hamlet Jr not to kill Gertrude but that is because he loved her. Times and circumstances could have dictated situations that caused them to grow apart for a while and so Gertrude felt less attached. When the grieving process was finished, she had her eyes open and her goals clear. By marrying Claudius she would be killing two birds with one stone. She was keeping her position as queen, since she was not born into the royal family but married into it, and she was solidifying her son’s position on the throne should Claudius die as a result of old age or some unfortunate accident. It was all part of Gertrude’s plan. Although she appears dependent and unsure, it is a ploy, a mask to lull others into a false sense of security so that she might accomplish her own ends.
Soliloquy
Bloody bawdy villain! Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindless villain! O vengeance! I would that the God’s have given me half less a mind as to deal with the unworthiness and the inanity of the lout who dares call himself my opponent. Oh Sprits! Perhaps the problem lay not in my opponent himself. Merely his arguments to say. Perhaps they hold sense only to half-wits and those who madness has deemed well enough to bestow its crippling self upon. Yes that is it. That must be it. Let that son of Satan feel the wrath of him above the kings, as all his crimes make themselves manifest. To put that monster in his place I shall speak daggers to him and use none. How in my words he be shent. To give them seals never my soul consent. Alas oh heavens strike me down now so I may be spared the most cruel and torturous death and live til my sins be purged, bound in the blackest night to hear the wail of my adversary’s concernancy. Hark I must away…
By: Tyler Keith with excerpts from William Shakespeare’s Hamlet
Gertrude did not betray either her husband or her son. Hamlet feels betrayed because his mother remarried so quickly. But everyone is different. Some people take less time to get over the grieving process. What if Hamlet Sr. and his wife really weren’t that close? It gives no indication that they were. The ghost of Hamlet Sr does tell hamlet Jr not to kill Gertrude but that is because he loved her. Times and circumstances could have dictated situations that caused them to grow apart for a while and so Gertrude felt less attached. When the grieving process was finished, she had her eyes open and her goals clear. By marrying Claudius she would be killing two birds with one stone. She was keeping her position as queen, since she was not born into the royal family but married into it, and she was solidifying her son’s position on the throne should Claudius die as a result of old age or some unfortunate accident. It was all part of Gertrude’s plan. Although she appears dependent and unsure, it is a ploy, a mask to lull others into a false sense of security so that she might accomplish her own ends.
Soliloquy
Bloody bawdy villain! Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindless villain! O vengeance! I would that the God’s have given me half less a mind as to deal with the unworthiness and the inanity of the lout who dares call himself my opponent. Oh Sprits! Perhaps the problem lay not in my opponent himself. Merely his arguments to say. Perhaps they hold sense only to half-wits and those who madness has deemed well enough to bestow its crippling self upon. Yes that is it. That must be it. Let that son of Satan feel the wrath of him above the kings, as all his crimes make themselves manifest. To put that monster in his place I shall speak daggers to him and use none. How in my words he be shent. To give them seals never my soul consent. Alas oh heavens strike me down now so I may be spared the most cruel and torturous death and live til my sins be purged, bound in the blackest night to hear the wail of my adversary’s concernancy. Hark I must away…
By: Tyler Keith with excerpts from William Shakespeare’s Hamlet
Debate 2 Report
On Friday December 12, 2008, in Room 204 at 8:30am a debate was held to determine whether Hamlet, in Shakespeare’s tragedy Hamlet, was crazy or not. Judges Nicholas Leblond, Yannick Lee, and Jennifer Ross overlooked the debate. Arguing that Hamlet was mentally insane were Ilayda Williamson, Mary Collins, and Michaela Blaser. Those responsible for arguing that Hamlet was not crazy were Kelsey Campbell, Melissa Watson-Shotton, and Jessica Barton.
The affirmative side opened with situations involving those mentally insane and reasons why Hamlet would go insane. There was a little bit of rambling about somewhat morbid topics. The negative opened by saying that their opponents misunderstood the situation and context of the story.
The rebuttals from both sides were strong, clear, and concise. Neither team wasted any time getting right to the point. The second point from both sides included strong arguments as to why Hamlet, or “Paul” according to the judges’ rules, was or was not crazy.
The free-for-all was not particularly interesting it seemed because the crowd seemed rather inattentive. There were some raised voices and even a few vulgar expressions as one of the team members on the affirmative side felt as if a member of the audience was encroaching upon her personal space.
Both sides continued on with strong points and counters challenging each other at every opportunity wasting no second. The side arguing the negative had a particularly strong finish. According to the rulings of the judges, the team arguing that Hamlet was not crazy, the negative side, was the winner in this extensively researched debate.
The affirmative side opened with situations involving those mentally insane and reasons why Hamlet would go insane. There was a little bit of rambling about somewhat morbid topics. The negative opened by saying that their opponents misunderstood the situation and context of the story.
The rebuttals from both sides were strong, clear, and concise. Neither team wasted any time getting right to the point. The second point from both sides included strong arguments as to why Hamlet, or “Paul” according to the judges’ rules, was or was not crazy.
The free-for-all was not particularly interesting it seemed because the crowd seemed rather inattentive. There were some raised voices and even a few vulgar expressions as one of the team members on the affirmative side felt as if a member of the audience was encroaching upon her personal space.
Both sides continued on with strong points and counters challenging each other at every opportunity wasting no second. The side arguing the negative had a particularly strong finish. According to the rulings of the judges, the team arguing that Hamlet was not crazy, the negative side, was the winner in this extensively researched debate.
Debate 1 Report
On Thursday December 11, 2008, at 1:35pm in room 204 a debate was held as to whether Miller’s definition of modern tragedy was appropriate to the modern age. The team arguing in the affirmative, composed of Dawson Lybbert, Justin Sweeney, and Ben Cousins, squared off against the team arguing for the negative, which consisted of Stephanie Boucher, Stephanie MacDonald, and Rebecca Ritchie. Presiding over the debate were Judge Seth Epps, Justice Colton Bissonette, and Keeper of the Peace Logan Lubuk.
The affirmative side opened up by stating what is essential in a tragedy and how a tragedy and a comedy are almost polar opposites. The negative side opened with an explanation of what a tragic character is according to Aristotle. Ms. Boucher also brought up the only relevant point found throughout the course of the debate. She brought up Millar’s definition of tragedy and how it applied more to Shakespearean times. Both rebuttals were more based on attacking the other teams format or way of presenting information and no real progress was made.
The second point for both teams continued on with the affirmative side suffering from a severe lack of points of interest. This resulted in attacks in the form of blonde jokes. The negative retaliated by quelling the attempted harassment of their arguments.
As the free-for-all started, mayhem ensued. It became a yelling match between the two apparent leaders, Mr. Lybbert and Ms. Boucher, of which tragedy was better and why. The rest of the debate continued in much the same fashion minus the yelling. Both teams resorted to insulting each other during the final rebuttals. The result from the judges, in the unanimous, was that the side arguing for the Shakespearean, the negative side, won by a landslide.
The affirmative side opened up by stating what is essential in a tragedy and how a tragedy and a comedy are almost polar opposites. The negative side opened with an explanation of what a tragic character is according to Aristotle. Ms. Boucher also brought up the only relevant point found throughout the course of the debate. She brought up Millar’s definition of tragedy and how it applied more to Shakespearean times. Both rebuttals were more based on attacking the other teams format or way of presenting information and no real progress was made.
The second point for both teams continued on with the affirmative side suffering from a severe lack of points of interest. This resulted in attacks in the form of blonde jokes. The negative retaliated by quelling the attempted harassment of their arguments.
As the free-for-all started, mayhem ensued. It became a yelling match between the two apparent leaders, Mr. Lybbert and Ms. Boucher, of which tragedy was better and why. The rest of the debate continued in much the same fashion minus the yelling. Both teams resorted to insulting each other during the final rebuttals. The result from the judges, in the unanimous, was that the side arguing for the Shakespearean, the negative side, won by a landslide.
Activity 1.5
There are 4 major acts that Hamlet did that can be classified in Maslow’s Hierarchy.They are: The killing of Polonius, the killing of Claudius, the killing of Leartes and when hamlet listens to the Ghost of his father.
The killing of Polonius:
This act can be classified under the Safety section of Maslow’s Hierarchy. He was talking with his mother and he assumed they would be alone. When Polonius made the call for help, Hamlet immediately took to challenge what he considered a threat. He killed Polonius without even realizing who he was. He felt that his and his mother’s safety was jeopardized so he took the appropriate steps to neutralize the threat.
The killing of Leartes:
This act can also be classified under the Safety section. Hamlet and Leartes were dueling and after both Hamlet and Leartes are wounded, both realize that they are to continue fighting until one of them should fall. Hamlet kills Leartes to protect his own livelihood. Although he is unsuccessful in keeping his life, he made attempts to keep it and that is what really counts.
Hamlet listens to his father’s ghost:
This could be considered the Esteem part of the Hierarchy. It could be considered esteem because Hamlet needed a lot of confidence to follow a ghost. He was proving to himself and those with him that he was not too afraid to follow and find out what the requests of a ghost were. He was doing it so he would be able to feel comfortable with himself knowing he did all he could to fulfill the request of his late father.
The killing of Claudius:
This could be considered Self-actualization. Hamlet feels that his reason for being is to kill Claudius once he learns that it was Claudius who was responsible for his father’s death. Having Claudius alive was what Hamlet considered a problem. He took the appropriate measures to solve that problem. He makes it his sloe purpose in life, his being, his thoughts, his morals, all change to accommodate what he must do to rid himself of Claudius.
Activity 1.3
Hamlet transforms the actual reality into his own by basically ignoring everything that is going on around him and focussing on his single goal: avenge his father by killing Claudius. He lost sight of his education. He ignored the possibility of the threat posed by Fortinbras. He became single-minded in his determinations.
Gertrude creates her own reality by essentiall living in a dream world. She ignores her late husbands death and instead focusses on her new husband and her supposedly depressed and suicidal son. She stays under the self induced illusion that everything is going well and that there are no problems in her life.
Claudius lives in a scared reality he created himself by murdering Old Hamlet. He lives in constant suspicion of everyone. He relies on only those whose emotions he can manipulate. He fears Hamlet most because he knows that Hamlet is the rightful heir to the throne. He plots to have Hamlet killed so that he can finally live in peace without fear of being dethroned.
The family unit was once critical to society. As time progresses the family becomes less and less important. One of the reasons for this is that divorce and separation are becoming more prevalent. It was the basis with which society founded its rules. It made those rules to reflect the values of the family. To quote "Together we stand, divided we fall," is applicable here. The fmaily is the backbone of society. This is because every working member of society is either working for themselves or for their family. If the family starts to crumble then the people within the society will begin caring and thinking for only themselves. If that happens, and compassion between people is lost, society and it's rules will cease to exist. This is why the family unit is important
Gertrude creates her own reality by essentiall living in a dream world. She ignores her late husbands death and instead focusses on her new husband and her supposedly depressed and suicidal son. She stays under the self induced illusion that everything is going well and that there are no problems in her life.
Claudius lives in a scared reality he created himself by murdering Old Hamlet. He lives in constant suspicion of everyone. He relies on only those whose emotions he can manipulate. He fears Hamlet most because he knows that Hamlet is the rightful heir to the throne. He plots to have Hamlet killed so that he can finally live in peace without fear of being dethroned.
The family unit was once critical to society. As time progresses the family becomes less and less important. One of the reasons for this is that divorce and separation are becoming more prevalent. It was the basis with which society founded its rules. It made those rules to reflect the values of the family. To quote "Together we stand, divided we fall," is applicable here. The fmaily is the backbone of society. This is because every working member of society is either working for themselves or for their family. If the family starts to crumble then the people within the society will begin caring and thinking for only themselves. If that happens, and compassion between people is lost, society and it's rules will cease to exist. This is why the family unit is important
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Activity 1.4 Advertisement
Does that odour from your dog stink up the house? Does car reek because of your son’s gym clothes? Is you bathroom aroma not the greatest?
Look no farther for the air freshener that’s perfect everywhere. It needs absolutely no electricity and doesn’t take up very much room. This perfect little thing can go with you anywhere. Comes in so many varieties you can’t count them. It's even got a smile to brighten up any bad day. All you need is A Father’s Cure.
If you’re still not convinced, check our customer feedback.
Telmah Roines: “But soft, methinks I scent the morning air”
Anne Stains: It’s incredible. It actually works.
A Father’s Cure. The Solution to Everything*
Activity 1.4
Thesis
Did Hamlet really love Ophelia? (Yes he did)
Outline
Reason: He told her he loved her.
Example: “I did love you once” (Act 3, Sc 1, line 115)
Explanation: This phrase was said in anger to try and provoke an emotion from Ophelia. Even though it was said to provoke he was being truthful. He was using the truth to elicit a reaction.
Reason: He sent many letters to her.
Example: “And with them words of so sweet breath composed as made these things more rich. (Act 3, Sc 1, line 98-99)
Explanation: Ophelia was referring to letters that were addressed to her from Hamlet. This as she was returning them unopened. For Hamlet to react with anger, as he did, means that he put a lot of thought and probably poured his heart out to her in those letters.
Counter Reason: He told her he never loved her
Example: “I loved you not” (Act 3, Sc 1, Line 119)
Explanation: Hamlet has been truthful to Ophelia up until now. There is no reason to suggest that he would lie to her.
Rebuttal: Hamlet was in a rage and did not mean what he said
Example: Nymph in thy orisons… (Act 3, Sc 1, line 88). Or if thou wilt needs marry, marry a fool, for wise men know well enough what monsters you make of them (Act 3, Sc 1, line 139-141)Explanation: Before Hamlet became really angry with Ophelia he referred to her as a nymph. After they started fighting Hamlet insulted Ophelia. He spoke with without giving any thought to what he was saying. The same holds true for when he told her that he never loved her. Such emotion is often the case when love is involved.
Did Hamlet really love Ophelia? (Yes he did)
Outline
Reason: He told her he loved her.
Example: “I did love you once” (Act 3, Sc 1, line 115)
Explanation: This phrase was said in anger to try and provoke an emotion from Ophelia. Even though it was said to provoke he was being truthful. He was using the truth to elicit a reaction.
Reason: He sent many letters to her.
Example: “And with them words of so sweet breath composed as made these things more rich. (Act 3, Sc 1, line 98-99)
Explanation: Ophelia was referring to letters that were addressed to her from Hamlet. This as she was returning them unopened. For Hamlet to react with anger, as he did, means that he put a lot of thought and probably poured his heart out to her in those letters.
Counter Reason: He told her he never loved her
Example: “I loved you not” (Act 3, Sc 1, Line 119)
Explanation: Hamlet has been truthful to Ophelia up until now. There is no reason to suggest that he would lie to her.
Rebuttal: Hamlet was in a rage and did not mean what he said
Example: Nymph in thy orisons… (Act 3, Sc 1, line 88). Or if thou wilt needs marry, marry a fool, for wise men know well enough what monsters you make of them (Act 3, Sc 1, line 139-141)Explanation: Before Hamlet became really angry with Ophelia he referred to her as a nymph. After they started fighting Hamlet insulted Ophelia. He spoke with without giving any thought to what he was saying. The same holds true for when he told her that he never loved her. Such emotion is often the case when love is involved.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Long ISU Neuromancer
Neuromancer
Computers of the past were physically large and incapable of Internet communication. Computers in the present day are small and capable of almost anything. They can communicate with each other from around the world. They can provide entertainment for those using them. They can be used for business as well. The one thing that has not changed from the past to the present however is that computers cannot think for themselves. They always require a human or a human’s programming to work. It has been said if humans were to make a computer that is sentient and can think for itself that it would be the downfall of the human race. In a book entitled Neuromancer, by William Gibson, this idea is challenged. In the novel a character by the name of Case, a virtual cyberspace reality hacker, is recruited, by a man named Armitage. As the novel begins Case has no idea what his purpose is, other than that his skills are needed. He later finds out that an artificial intelligence known as Wintermute manipulated Armitage to get him to hire Case. With this knowledge he is also told that Wintermute is only half of an artificial intelligence. Case learns that it wants to merge with its other half, known as Neuromancer, because alone Wintermute considers itself, “a, shall we say, potential entity”(Gibson, p120). Through the storyline it suggests that having a computer or artificial intelligence that can think for itself would not be a bad or even a harmful thing. A sentient computer could be a good thing. This is demonstrated throughout the story because Wintermute saves Case’s life, and as the story finishes, the entity formed from the combination of Wintermute and Neuromancer, does not cause the destruction of the human race. As well, having a sentient computer is just like creating another human being that is smarter and faster with a different body.
It is thought that if humans were to create a computer that could think for itself that they would get more than they bargained for, that the computer would work on it’s own agenda with little regard for humanity or human life. In the novel Neuromancer this is not the case. Before Armitage hired him, Case was living in a cheap hotel and on the streets, did drugs, and was headed in a downward spiral towards death. “[He’s] suicidal…The model gives [him] a month on the outside. And [the] medical projections says [he’ll] need a new pancreas inside a year”(Gibson, 28). Although it was Armitage that hired Case, Wintermute engineered the hiring. The personality known as Armitage was created by Wintermute after a certain Colonel Corto was seriously injured in a covert operation known as Screaming Fist. After building up the new personality of Corto from the ground up, Wintermute was able to influence what the new personality would be like. He had Armitage/Corto hire Case because he was the best hacker there was available. When Case accepted the job he was given a blood transfusion and a custom made pancreas. It was custom made so that he would be unable to get high off the drugs that he had been addicted to. So although it was not directly it was, in essence Wintermute that saved Case’s life and brought back his career, thus proving that the computer cared not only for it’s own design but also for the comfort of someone it considers important.
It could be considered unethical to give a computer it’s own personality and the ability to think. The concept however is no different than having children. Aside from the obvious physical difference there is nothing distinguishing the difference between creating an entity that can think for itself and learns as it grows. This can be applied to either an infant or an artificial intelligence. It is stereotypical in the basic mindset of humans that a computer that is essentially conscious would go to any lengths to achieve that which it has set out to do. To really think what it would mean to have a sentient computer however means that the computer would rationalize and make decisions. Depending on the personality that would go with the ability to think for itself, it would or would not pursue its goal with blind ambition. Just the same as some humans pursue their goals without thought to how it affects others, a computer could be the same. A computer, though it could think for itself could be reclusive and quiet and still think for itself. It is often thought that computers, given awareness would go on a rampage for their goals just because they have the means to and don’t tire like ordinary humans. A computer could still have compassion on people who helped it attain its awareness. When Wintermute finally did mesh with Neuromancer, the first act was removing the poison sacs that lined Case’s blood that Armitage had put there to ensure that Case did as he was supposed to.
Once Neuromancer and Wintermute become a single unit, a single being, the end of the world does not happen. Case is rewarded for his troubles and life goes on as it would have if nothing had ever happened. If anything Case’s life is improved as a result of his dealings with Wintermute. The only difference being that a family would now be without the artificial intelligence that it had before, it having moved on. For some, life didn’t change. This cascade of events affected only a small majority of the society mentioned. It also goes to prove that since the computer could think for itself that it could think and choose not to ruin the careful balance that is known as life, and could instead choose to preserve it.
There is the argument that sentient computers would not be beneficial towards humanity however. There are reasons as to why there are some people who still believe this. Two reasons are that sentient computers can toy with death, and either prolong it’s coming or quicken it, and that computers have almost absolute freedom with humans being powerless to stop them before the single deed is done. In Neuromancer there are many who are opposed to the combination of Wintermute and Neuromancer to form a conscious computer. One of these so-called characters is Neuromancer itself. It works with all it has to prevent Case and Wintermute from succeeding. It even tried to lure Case into a place “hoping…to keep [him there]. But [it] failed. […]”(Gibson p 259). Neuromancer was against the merge from the beginning. It knew what would be created worked to stop it.
Although it would be difficult for a computer to go on a long-term rampage, it would not be difficult for them to commit a certain act and then not care about the consequences. Much the same way a sociopath commits a crime and then proceeds not to care about the penalty. This can be shown when Case is being arrested by what is known as “Turing.” He was being taken to a more convenient spot where his accusers could better interrogate him, when Wintermute intervened. Though he did not appear in person because he had no body “[he] killed ‘em,” Case panted, running. “Crazy [mother-trucker], [he] killed ‘em all…” If a computer were to turn this sort of attention on a high political figure, such as a president or prime minister than it could throw entire countries into chaos, this because of a lack of a leadership figure.
Another reason that some people could be against an artificial intelligence with thoughts of it’s own, is that it has more power over death than humans do. Both their own and the death of those who created it. For one thing, a computer never really dies. Until the casing and materials begin to decompose the computer will remain. What is more disturbing to some is that computers could have control over whether they live or die than they do. Some people believe that there is a “time” to die. A time when they feel they’ve accomplished their life’s goals and are ready to move on. A computer bent on keeping a person alive would know exactly what to do that would prevent the person from passing on. This would be considered, by some, as disrupting the natural way of life. This could be a big problem with many people because stereotypically, humans are opposed to change. Though it is one of their downfalls they would rather keep something they already have than change or exchange it. Even if only the person’s memory or a likeness of the person were kept alive it could be a problem. But to some it doesn’t matter, “to live [there] is to live. There is no difference.”(Gibson, 258) Being sentient, computers could come up with reasons for doing such things too. Being as highly sophisticated at they are computers would be able to see
It is placing too much power in something that humans have too little control over. This makes many uneasy because typically humans will lean towards wanting control of their own destiny rather than place it in the hands of something else.
Neuromancer was against the merger between itself and Wintermute. To have ideas such as this, Neuromancer would have to be at least partially sentient. To recognize that the fusion of the two halves would create something that the world had never known beforehand, and that that fuse would bring about change unlike anything else. To resist that urge to change, Neuromancer would have to be thinking by itself. It would not have an outside source to govern it. This is known because the Wintermute/Neuromancer was an AI, an artificial intelligence, used to look after the family who owned it while their bodies were frozen cryogenically until a time of re-awakening.
Stereotypically it is thought that computers given, consciousness would have little regard for human life if it got in the way of their goal. To be thinking for oneself, it means that the individual makes their own decisions on a variety of circumstances that appear throughout the lifetime. To have a computer making it’s own decisions based on what it thinks does not mean that it would kill people for no reason. The reality of the situation is that the essentially living computer would be about as likely to kill a person or people as a certain human is to kill another being. The chances are slim to none. Although computers do have a wider range of capabilities in certain areas than humans do, they have more limitations physically. True, sentient computers would be free to do as they choose, but all humans can do whatever they want. Having a sentient computer would be no more dangerous to a country or economy than a child being born would. The only exception is that computer would learn and grow far quicker. Humans are manipulated by laws and customs to get them to behave a certain way. These are however not binding. There are consequences should certain laws be disobeyed but if a person had their heart set on something in particular thy would work as hard as they possibly could to obtain that goal. Everything sentient thing can do whatever it wants.
Although changed is looked upon fearfully, sometimes it is necessary. As times change, so do people. With the growing era of technology, sometimes it is important to retain that knowledge by retaining the memory of the person or people who conceived it. As far as human abilities go, it would be impossible to keep another persons mind alive just through memory. By preserving a persons memory, it is preserving everything they have done in their life, everything they have worked for and everything they have accomplished. Humans broke the “natural order of life” once they began building cities, using metal and concrete, and being concerned with more than food and survival. This does not mean that it is a bad thing it merely means that as times change, events and items around the society need to change with it. Rather than “tear it all down and start building again […] it’ll change something”(Gibson, 260). Falling into a rut is one thing that humanity on a whole needs to strive to avoid. Falling into a rut. Once this happens goals become meaningless, and actions towards those goals cease. Life becomes useless and void of purpose because the same thing would happen day after day. Sentient computers are a way to change life, give it a new twist, and possibly prevent a calamity that would ultimately prove the downfall of the human race.
Computer will continue to be a part of human life whether people like it or not. They are here to stay. As humans constantly work to make their lives better, often by making them easier, they will turn more and more to computers. Eventually the only way to go will be to give computers their own thoughts so fast is technology progressing. The computers of today “[…] don’t know, because they can’t know […].” As a result of the way they have been made, it is impossible for computers to have thoughts of their own. Until the computer is re-designed to integrate the possibility of personality, then the innovative world has come to standstill. New computers are being made faster and faster with more memory, but there are no new concepts being introduced. Neuromancer shows this is entirely possible. William Gibson, the author, suggests that while it is not only possible, it would be worthwhile to have computers with sentience. They can save lives, and further the knowledge and productivity of the human race. One of the desires of humans is to be able to play as a God figurehead as well. By being able to create, essentially, life in a moment and have that entity learn and grow, it fulfills one of a human's most coveted goals. To be able to give life.
Bibliography
Gibson, William. Neuromancer. Tenth Anniversary Speical. New York: The Berkley Publishing , 1986.
Computers of the past were physically large and incapable of Internet communication. Computers in the present day are small and capable of almost anything. They can communicate with each other from around the world. They can provide entertainment for those using them. They can be used for business as well. The one thing that has not changed from the past to the present however is that computers cannot think for themselves. They always require a human or a human’s programming to work. It has been said if humans were to make a computer that is sentient and can think for itself that it would be the downfall of the human race. In a book entitled Neuromancer, by William Gibson, this idea is challenged. In the novel a character by the name of Case, a virtual cyberspace reality hacker, is recruited, by a man named Armitage. As the novel begins Case has no idea what his purpose is, other than that his skills are needed. He later finds out that an artificial intelligence known as Wintermute manipulated Armitage to get him to hire Case. With this knowledge he is also told that Wintermute is only half of an artificial intelligence. Case learns that it wants to merge with its other half, known as Neuromancer, because alone Wintermute considers itself, “a, shall we say, potential entity”(Gibson, p120). Through the storyline it suggests that having a computer or artificial intelligence that can think for itself would not be a bad or even a harmful thing. A sentient computer could be a good thing. This is demonstrated throughout the story because Wintermute saves Case’s life, and as the story finishes, the entity formed from the combination of Wintermute and Neuromancer, does not cause the destruction of the human race. As well, having a sentient computer is just like creating another human being that is smarter and faster with a different body.
It is thought that if humans were to create a computer that could think for itself that they would get more than they bargained for, that the computer would work on it’s own agenda with little regard for humanity or human life. In the novel Neuromancer this is not the case. Before Armitage hired him, Case was living in a cheap hotel and on the streets, did drugs, and was headed in a downward spiral towards death. “[He’s] suicidal…The model gives [him] a month on the outside. And [the] medical projections says [he’ll] need a new pancreas inside a year”(Gibson, 28). Although it was Armitage that hired Case, Wintermute engineered the hiring. The personality known as Armitage was created by Wintermute after a certain Colonel Corto was seriously injured in a covert operation known as Screaming Fist. After building up the new personality of Corto from the ground up, Wintermute was able to influence what the new personality would be like. He had Armitage/Corto hire Case because he was the best hacker there was available. When Case accepted the job he was given a blood transfusion and a custom made pancreas. It was custom made so that he would be unable to get high off the drugs that he had been addicted to. So although it was not directly it was, in essence Wintermute that saved Case’s life and brought back his career, thus proving that the computer cared not only for it’s own design but also for the comfort of someone it considers important.
It could be considered unethical to give a computer it’s own personality and the ability to think. The concept however is no different than having children. Aside from the obvious physical difference there is nothing distinguishing the difference between creating an entity that can think for itself and learns as it grows. This can be applied to either an infant or an artificial intelligence. It is stereotypical in the basic mindset of humans that a computer that is essentially conscious would go to any lengths to achieve that which it has set out to do. To really think what it would mean to have a sentient computer however means that the computer would rationalize and make decisions. Depending on the personality that would go with the ability to think for itself, it would or would not pursue its goal with blind ambition. Just the same as some humans pursue their goals without thought to how it affects others, a computer could be the same. A computer, though it could think for itself could be reclusive and quiet and still think for itself. It is often thought that computers, given awareness would go on a rampage for their goals just because they have the means to and don’t tire like ordinary humans. A computer could still have compassion on people who helped it attain its awareness. When Wintermute finally did mesh with Neuromancer, the first act was removing the poison sacs that lined Case’s blood that Armitage had put there to ensure that Case did as he was supposed to.
Once Neuromancer and Wintermute become a single unit, a single being, the end of the world does not happen. Case is rewarded for his troubles and life goes on as it would have if nothing had ever happened. If anything Case’s life is improved as a result of his dealings with Wintermute. The only difference being that a family would now be without the artificial intelligence that it had before, it having moved on. For some, life didn’t change. This cascade of events affected only a small majority of the society mentioned. It also goes to prove that since the computer could think for itself that it could think and choose not to ruin the careful balance that is known as life, and could instead choose to preserve it.
There is the argument that sentient computers would not be beneficial towards humanity however. There are reasons as to why there are some people who still believe this. Two reasons are that sentient computers can toy with death, and either prolong it’s coming or quicken it, and that computers have almost absolute freedom with humans being powerless to stop them before the single deed is done. In Neuromancer there are many who are opposed to the combination of Wintermute and Neuromancer to form a conscious computer. One of these so-called characters is Neuromancer itself. It works with all it has to prevent Case and Wintermute from succeeding. It even tried to lure Case into a place “hoping…to keep [him there]. But [it] failed. […]”(Gibson p 259). Neuromancer was against the merge from the beginning. It knew what would be created worked to stop it.
Although it would be difficult for a computer to go on a long-term rampage, it would not be difficult for them to commit a certain act and then not care about the consequences. Much the same way a sociopath commits a crime and then proceeds not to care about the penalty. This can be shown when Case is being arrested by what is known as “Turing.” He was being taken to a more convenient spot where his accusers could better interrogate him, when Wintermute intervened. Though he did not appear in person because he had no body “[he] killed ‘em,” Case panted, running. “Crazy [mother-trucker], [he] killed ‘em all…” If a computer were to turn this sort of attention on a high political figure, such as a president or prime minister than it could throw entire countries into chaos, this because of a lack of a leadership figure.
Another reason that some people could be against an artificial intelligence with thoughts of it’s own, is that it has more power over death than humans do. Both their own and the death of those who created it. For one thing, a computer never really dies. Until the casing and materials begin to decompose the computer will remain. What is more disturbing to some is that computers could have control over whether they live or die than they do. Some people believe that there is a “time” to die. A time when they feel they’ve accomplished their life’s goals and are ready to move on. A computer bent on keeping a person alive would know exactly what to do that would prevent the person from passing on. This would be considered, by some, as disrupting the natural way of life. This could be a big problem with many people because stereotypically, humans are opposed to change. Though it is one of their downfalls they would rather keep something they already have than change or exchange it. Even if only the person’s memory or a likeness of the person were kept alive it could be a problem. But to some it doesn’t matter, “to live [there] is to live. There is no difference.”(Gibson, 258) Being sentient, computers could come up with reasons for doing such things too. Being as highly sophisticated at they are computers would be able to see
“ […] death coming. In the patterns [one] sometimes imagined [one] could
detect in the dance of the street. Those patterns are real. [It is]
complex enough, in [its] narrow ways, to read those dances. [It] saw her death
in her need for [him] […] As clear to [it] as the shadow of a tumor to a surgeon
studying a patient’s scan […] and her deepest wish was that [he] would pursue
and punish her –[it] intervened. [It] brought her there. Into
[itself].”(Gibson, 259)
It is placing too much power in something that humans have too little control over. This makes many uneasy because typically humans will lean towards wanting control of their own destiny rather than place it in the hands of something else.
Neuromancer was against the merger between itself and Wintermute. To have ideas such as this, Neuromancer would have to be at least partially sentient. To recognize that the fusion of the two halves would create something that the world had never known beforehand, and that that fuse would bring about change unlike anything else. To resist that urge to change, Neuromancer would have to be thinking by itself. It would not have an outside source to govern it. This is known because the Wintermute/Neuromancer was an AI, an artificial intelligence, used to look after the family who owned it while their bodies were frozen cryogenically until a time of re-awakening.
Stereotypically it is thought that computers given, consciousness would have little regard for human life if it got in the way of their goal. To be thinking for oneself, it means that the individual makes their own decisions on a variety of circumstances that appear throughout the lifetime. To have a computer making it’s own decisions based on what it thinks does not mean that it would kill people for no reason. The reality of the situation is that the essentially living computer would be about as likely to kill a person or people as a certain human is to kill another being. The chances are slim to none. Although computers do have a wider range of capabilities in certain areas than humans do, they have more limitations physically. True, sentient computers would be free to do as they choose, but all humans can do whatever they want. Having a sentient computer would be no more dangerous to a country or economy than a child being born would. The only exception is that computer would learn and grow far quicker. Humans are manipulated by laws and customs to get them to behave a certain way. These are however not binding. There are consequences should certain laws be disobeyed but if a person had their heart set on something in particular thy would work as hard as they possibly could to obtain that goal. Everything sentient thing can do whatever it wants.
Although changed is looked upon fearfully, sometimes it is necessary. As times change, so do people. With the growing era of technology, sometimes it is important to retain that knowledge by retaining the memory of the person or people who conceived it. As far as human abilities go, it would be impossible to keep another persons mind alive just through memory. By preserving a persons memory, it is preserving everything they have done in their life, everything they have worked for and everything they have accomplished. Humans broke the “natural order of life” once they began building cities, using metal and concrete, and being concerned with more than food and survival. This does not mean that it is a bad thing it merely means that as times change, events and items around the society need to change with it. Rather than “tear it all down and start building again […] it’ll change something”(Gibson, 260). Falling into a rut is one thing that humanity on a whole needs to strive to avoid. Falling into a rut. Once this happens goals become meaningless, and actions towards those goals cease. Life becomes useless and void of purpose because the same thing would happen day after day. Sentient computers are a way to change life, give it a new twist, and possibly prevent a calamity that would ultimately prove the downfall of the human race.
Computer will continue to be a part of human life whether people like it or not. They are here to stay. As humans constantly work to make their lives better, often by making them easier, they will turn more and more to computers. Eventually the only way to go will be to give computers their own thoughts so fast is technology progressing. The computers of today “[…] don’t know, because they can’t know […].” As a result of the way they have been made, it is impossible for computers to have thoughts of their own. Until the computer is re-designed to integrate the possibility of personality, then the innovative world has come to standstill. New computers are being made faster and faster with more memory, but there are no new concepts being introduced. Neuromancer shows this is entirely possible. William Gibson, the author, suggests that while it is not only possible, it would be worthwhile to have computers with sentience. They can save lives, and further the knowledge and productivity of the human race. One of the desires of humans is to be able to play as a God figurehead as well. By being able to create, essentially, life in a moment and have that entity learn and grow, it fulfills one of a human's most coveted goals. To be able to give life.
Bibliography
Gibson, William. Neuromancer. Tenth Anniversary Speical. New York: The Berkley Publishing , 1986.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
1.2 Family Unit project
The major family units it the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare are:
-The Family of Hamlet
-The Family of Polonius
The Hamlet Family
The family tree of Hamlet is this. Hamlet (senior) and Gertrude are married and they have a son named Hamlet (junior). Claudius is the brother to Hamlet (sr) and an uncle to Hamlet (jr). He becomes Hamlet (jr)’s stepfather once he marries Gertrude after Hamlet (sr)’s murder. The crisis that affects the Family of Hamlet is that of the death of old Hamlet. The way Hamlet copes with the death is by distancing himself from his mother and his uncle. He becomes snide in his remarks and very unpredictable. Gertrude on the other hand does not see overly bothered by her husband’s death. She goes on with life as though nothing happened. She remarries rather quickly and does not spend much time mourning. Claudius is not bothered in the least by Hamlet’s death, possibly because it was by his engineering that Hamlet died.
The Polonius Family
The family tree of Polonius is this. Polonius is the father of Ophelia and Leartes. There is no mention of the mother. The crisis that affects this family is the death of Polonius himself. He is murdered by the unknowing Hamlet. Ophelia takes her father’s very harshly. It drives her to insanity and eventually to suicide. Leartes reacts with anger. He swears revenge against Hamlet and promises his downfall.
The roles of stereotypical family are fulfilled in this play using the family of Hamlet before old Hamlet's death. It had Hamlet (sr) as the father and Gertrude as the mother, with Hamlet (jr) as the son. This continues until the death of Hamlet (sr) and Gertrude remarries Claudius. This then becomes an extended family.
-The Family of Hamlet
-The Family of Polonius
The Hamlet Family
The family tree of Hamlet is this. Hamlet (senior) and Gertrude are married and they have a son named Hamlet (junior). Claudius is the brother to Hamlet (sr) and an uncle to Hamlet (jr). He becomes Hamlet (jr)’s stepfather once he marries Gertrude after Hamlet (sr)’s murder. The crisis that affects the Family of Hamlet is that of the death of old Hamlet. The way Hamlet copes with the death is by distancing himself from his mother and his uncle. He becomes snide in his remarks and very unpredictable. Gertrude on the other hand does not see overly bothered by her husband’s death. She goes on with life as though nothing happened. She remarries rather quickly and does not spend much time mourning. Claudius is not bothered in the least by Hamlet’s death, possibly because it was by his engineering that Hamlet died.
The Polonius Family
The family tree of Polonius is this. Polonius is the father of Ophelia and Leartes. There is no mention of the mother. The crisis that affects this family is the death of Polonius himself. He is murdered by the unknowing Hamlet. Ophelia takes her father’s very harshly. It drives her to insanity and eventually to suicide. Leartes reacts with anger. He swears revenge against Hamlet and promises his downfall.
The roles of stereotypical family are fulfilled in this play using the family of Hamlet before old Hamlet's death. It had Hamlet (sr) as the father and Gertrude as the mother, with Hamlet (jr) as the son. This continues until the death of Hamlet (sr) and Gertrude remarries Claudius. This then becomes an extended family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
