Post Digital Body
For our weekly task on the post digital body, I took the reins. I knew I’d be away the following week for a placement assessment and unable to contribute so it seemed fair.
I decided to make something of a montage with a voice over so viewers could easily see examples of the concepts we had looked at in class. I really enjoy editing so this task was a delight for me.
I found that this week’s task really made me think about the future of humankind, and what it means to be a person in a physical sense. With the growth of artificial intelligence and advancements with robots like ‘Sophia’, are we blurring the lines between person and machine a little too much? At what point does Sophia get a passport or human rights? If we were able to somehow transpose our consciousness onto a hard drive and live as avatars piloting machine bodies, would we still be human? If we can from man, but end up as something else physically, which aspect of our behind defines who we are? One of my favourite films of all time is the Matrix. I remember watching it as a child and thinking the idea of having all of mankind plugged into a computer network was a dark dystopian future I wanted no part of. As I get older, I feel like in a weird way I am becoming more open to the idea of existing in a simulation. After looking into aesthetics later on in the course, the idea of a simulation which was a perfect, identical copy of our world seemed way less daunting. This lead me to consider the positives and negatives of a matrix style existence and the need for a physical body.
Positives
-If managed correctly, there would be no war, poverty, or suffering
-Nature would be able to thrive without being threatened by man (deforestation, poaching, pollution)
Negatives
-Is taking away the option for a real life physical form, technological slavery?
-What if the system crashes.
In ‘New Hybrid Beings’, Lupton quotes “The Nexus of human bodies, digital devices, sensor-embedded spaces and data offers some intriguing possibilities for thinking through contemporary experience of the digitized human”. This made me question what the experience of a digital human might be. Today, there are humans who are digitally enhanced with devices such a hearing aids. However, there are people today who are seen as the forefathers of cyborg technology. Jesse Sullivan, a double amputee, now lives with two robotic arms which allow him to live his life independently. Jens Naumann, a blind man, was able to see again with the introduction of an artificial vision system. These people have used technology in a way which enhances their lives, but only to a position where they would be considered ‘able-bodied’ again. If someone were to receive a chip in their brain which allowed them to search the internet immediately, would we openly praise such a device? Or condemn it for its ability to make the owner hyper-able, in essence; is our openness to cyborg technology limited to what is most natural to a human? Is the introduction of digital technology into our everyday life to the be praised for making our existence easier, but condemned if that ease goes above and beyond what is the norm for a conventional human?
I found that this week’s task really made me think about the future of humankind, and what it means to be a person in a physical sense. With the growth of artificial intelligence and advancements with robots like ‘Sophia’, are we blurring the lines between person and machine a little too much? At what point does Sophia get a passport or human rights? If we were able to somehow transpose our consciousness onto a hard drive and live as avatars piloting machine bodies, would we still be human? If we can from man, but end up as something else physically, which aspect of our behind defines who we are? One of my favourite films of all time is the Matrix. I remember watching it as a child and thinking the idea of having all of mankind plugged into a computer network was a dark dystopian future I wanted no part of. As I get older, I feel like in a weird way I am becoming more open to the idea of existing in a simulation. After looking into aesthetics later on in the course, the idea of a simulation which was a perfect, identical copy of our world seemed way less daunting. This lead me to consider the positives and negatives of a matrix style existence and the need for a physical body.
Positives
-If managed correctly, there would be no war, poverty, or suffering
-Nature would be able to thrive without being threatened by man (deforestation, poaching, pollution)
Negatives
-Is taking away the option for a real life physical form, technological slavery?
-What if the system crashes.
In ‘New Hybrid Beings’, Lupton quotes “The Nexus of human bodies, digital devices, sensor-embedded spaces and data offers some intriguing possibilities for thinking through contemporary experience of the digitized human”. This made me question what the experience of a digital human might be. Today, there are humans who are digitally enhanced with devices such a hearing aids. However, there are people today who are seen as the forefathers of cyborg technology. Jesse Sullivan, a double amputee, now lives with two robotic arms which allow him to live his life independently. Jens Naumann, a blind man, was able to see again with the introduction of an artificial vision system. These people have used technology in a way which enhances their lives, but only to a position where they would be considered ‘able-bodied’ again. If someone were to receive a chip in their brain which allowed them to search the internet immediately, would we openly praise such a device? Or condemn it for its ability to make the owner hyper-able, in essence; is our openness to cyborg technology limited to what is most natural to a human? Is the introduction of digital technology into our everyday life to the be praised for making our existence easier, but condemned if that ease goes above and beyond what is the norm for a conventional human?
Comments
Post a Comment