Monday, April 30, 2007
I don't have much of a scientific background, but I was able to grasp a bit of it enough it make sense. I still really enjoyed this story and kept drawing parallels between other works I've read/seen such as BLAME!, GITS series, and quotes from a character named Himiko, from a book title that escapes me, but I own. But mostly BLAME!, which I may or may not post about at a slightly later time. Anyways, her quotes were about decisions and myriad of ultimate universes that come form those choices one makes in their life times. It was exactly along the lines of what we discussed in class. I often ponder at the possibilities of my own choices in life, and what may have been. Or possibly was would an alternate universe be like somewhere in the expanse of the stratosphere of dimensions and universes in space. No, no I don't toke up while doing this either, just out of boredom or daydreams. This brings me to another subject: reality.
acorporeal people in VR or fleshed out in our reality of the material, or Cass's swimming in real water; reality is real for those living in it. Just because VR is virtual, it is still a reality? Another form of it different from our own but no less real. Yet even the material people in this book are living half way between the two realities because of how much technology, their inter connectivity with it, and the use of the Qusp like a "save point" (lol tap the save point, find the moogle) are allowing this to happen. What is reality then what we perceive as real. Can't reality involve another state of being and or perceptions ?
(NO, no matrix quotes, I hate that movie, they totally ripped off anime/manga. It was fine the first time I saw it but no no more.)
Friday, April 27, 2007
It was so perverse it was almost funny. She was perceiving the danger a billion times more clearly than she could ever have hoped to if she'd been embodied. She had all her reflexes at her disposal, and all her powers of reasoning, operating a billion times faster than usual.
It was just a shame that all of these advantages counted for nothing." (Schild's Ladder Egan 39)
What if you could live forever? What if your life, your consciousness, could constantly be transferred to other bodies (or even survive on its own)? What if your senses were enhanced beyond what you are able to with the body with which you were born? Would this satisfy you?
It is a question that might seem to be an easy answer: of course it would. But would it really? The above quote brought perspective that I openly accepted and incited me to post in reply. There is something unique about the human body that discarding it thoughtlessly might not appreciate. True, the idea of our senses being enhanced may seem appealing, but it ignores the intricate system of nerves and the brain that can be found in the human body. I have written about the complexity of the human brain and my doubt of it ever being duplicated, but there is a a desirable uniqueness in the human body. For me, even this cannot be duplicated completely, and the sensations are hard to imitate.
Again, as I have previously stated, there is a conflict for those who might not believe in evolution and rather believe in intelligent design. The idea of just trashing the body is a reminder of how insignificant evolution considers the design of man. There would be more of an importance to those who believe in a design, especially by a loving Creator. For these, the body is a treasure, not just some accident. It is not just something you throw away. So when I read this quote, it provoked my thought to this perspective and reminded me of the importance of the human body. There is still something special that Cass seems to recognize.
On a side note, as I already stated in regards to science fiction in general, this idea of immortality is still depressing. It is just some software program being transferred from system to system. There is nothing truly cherished in this presentation of the humans in the future. Again, for Christians, the hope of immortality is not just a machine; it is rejoicing in a perfect heaven for eternity. I definitely would prefer this, and the human body, over what the book describes.
After all, does she not say that the immortality in the book all amounts to nothing?
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
With the upswing of online universities, this almost (key word: almost) seems like a good idea. You can "sit" in a class with other people from around the world, and interact with them within the Second Life world.
The class knows about this, but for those who are reading this and unaware, Second Life is a virtual world (a la The Sims but more real) where people can make a persona and live a life as that person in the virtual world. I do not use this particular program, so I know relatively little about it as far as functionality goes.
While this may seem like a good idea, it may cause just as many problems. First, any member of an educational class could easily lie about anything about them. Not that that is anything new, but some people may have a problem not being able to see the actual person. Also, what about tests (not that I've encountered this problem in the online classes I took at UW-GB); it would be simple to make notes and have every possible resource available to take these tests, or be able to control that anyways. In my case, it was stated that they could be used (like no one would take advantage of that anyways.)
The article does mention that Second Life is its own culture, and I would agree with it, but this culture can only exist as long as it is plugged in. Also, there is no real room for advancement in real life (as far as I know). Anything you have or do is limited to what is on the server, or your computer, or whatever they use for it. So you own a house on there...so what? That doesn't help you here.
Used as a classroom setting, however, Second Life could have some great uses. Even if it isn't real life, you can still get some pretty diverse opinions, as there would be more people from different locales around the world.
One more problem with this is that it doesn't replace real life interaction with people, but can help create problems that can't be done safely in real life; natural disasters, nuclear explosions, or Michael Jackson dying and coming back as a zombie. This would allow people in these fields, such as health care, to attempt to take care of the problem in their own ways. Now, the program would probably be set up that the student/player would always "win", as attack dogs are always allowed to win in training, assuming that they perform the correct actions. Real life doesn't work that way, and may lead to false confidence in people. Also, things such as surgery probably can't be done this way.
So in a classroom setting, this could be great. In practical settings it can be hit or miss, depending on what that setting is.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
By the sounds of things, consciousness can travel between different forms in this novel. A living entity can start out in a physical human body, and transfer itself (memories, active thoughts, etc.) into another form, whether it be a mechanical body or a plethora of nano-sized clones. There is no limit to the boundaries which can be crossed, or so it seems.
Having just dove into the book, these thoughts raise a few questions. First of all, how is it possible?! It seems as if they just will themselves into other forms, which by present standards would be one miraculous feat of mind power. I think it would be rather difficult to force my consciousness into another physical form, whether I have some sort of technological aid in doing so or not. Why would I want to change my form, anyway? I can see some implications of immortality... if you were to transfer yourself into a fresh cybernetic body every time your old one got damaged/defective, you could potentially live for an eternity. The whole "transference of consciousness" reminds me of the ghosts in Ghost in the Shell.
Next question... how long did it take to develop such a technique? Is this something that has been researched for generations before it was perfected, or was it a gift from another species from around the vast universe? I know we're pretty handy with technology and continuing to advance, but there comes a point when fiction and reality cross and fight with each other. Personally, I don't think this is something we'll be able to craft up anytime soon, if at all.
The time limits for some of these forms seems incredibly short. Picoseconds? That's not a lot of time, folks. Not a lot of time at all. Yet they make it seem like it's an eternity in Schild's Ladder. This confuses me.
I'm sure I'll get some answers as I continue reading, but I thought I'd throw some of that out for other people to think about.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Creating a machine with biological components brings up a few unanswered questions as to its origin and function. First of all, where do these organs come from? It's apparent that the Rat Things have organic components derived from canines of sorts. Have these organs been ripped out of living animals to empower these new mechanical creations? If so, that certainly says something about the ethics and animal rights of the time. Taking organs from a recently deceased older dog probably wouldn't work because the organs would have been already "worn out" in a sense. If the organs didn't come from a living animal, where else could they have come from?
Perhaps it is possible that they could clone organs for the Rat Things. Better yet, what if they could simply grow organs? It'd be efficient, controlled, and there would always be spare components on hand for when pre-existing rat things take injuries/damage. This still doesn't answer the issues of ethics though, which we argue about even today. If this still isn't the case, then where do these organs magically appear from?!
The next issue is getting the biological components to function with the technological ones. This is an entirely new ballgame. You can't just put a heart in a machine and expect it to beat. There has to be some sort of method of combining the mechanics of the Rat Thing with the organs it has been set up to function with. What method this is, I don't know at this point...
I suppose the Rat Thing could be considered an actual possible creation of the future, but the ethics behind its design would slow down its creation.
Monday, April 16, 2007
If intelligence and freedom (the nam-shub of Enki) is simply one programed language, and slavery (babel/meta-virus/me's) is just another type of programed language I do not see that it matters much. That being, in this reading as well as in all our readings, we are getting a heavy dose of materialism and different versions of the strong AI thesis. the example in this story is tantamount to saying that one computer is alive or intelligent because it has different, i.e. better programming than the other. So if my calculator is programmed with the nam-shub of Enki and your calculator only has the "B-metavirus" then my calculator is intelligent and yours is not. Hmmm...
Of course Stevenson does not differentiate the medium or rather the physical instantiation that may or may not be necessary, i.e. a biological brain, but I do not know that it matters for him.
I was looking on the web today at DNA, and most sites have it described as the instructions, or genetic code for life in general or the specific individual. It is the "language of life" it seems. What is language? And just how important is it not only to life but for life? Stevenson seems to be saying that all life is nothing but an appropriate software program running on sufficiently complicated and fast enough computer, i.e. hardware (like the brain). The sum is not only greater than the parts it is almost entirely different. This is and has been bothering me as we delve into what is life and what is intelligence this semester. And if most of these writers and thinkers are correct humanity is "nothing" but a complicated machine.
But I do not believe that "life" can come from non-life. That is, it takes like to create like, not unlike. I do not see how taking a bunch of inanimate, i.e. lifeless objects (what ever kind you like) and putting them together will give you life. This is the very problem that materialists since the time of Lucretius have had to deal with. If "atoms" for example are the basic building blocks of life and they are simply the smallest inanimate chunks of matter, then how can putting them together in any arrangement make them other than inanimate?
Perhaps it really is possible to "create" or program intelligence, but if it is then I may argue that you can have intelligence with out having life. Since we can have life with out intelligence, is it the case that it is possible that it goes the other way too?
Program all you want, but my calculator will always be just a calculator.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
The vision of the church presented in this novel is one of business. The description that most affected me is found 193-196. I read with a certain amount of trepidation that was a combination of disgust (from what was being portrayed) and dread (knowing that this could become a reality). Still, the description that hit me hardest was the chapel itself: "The interior of the chapel is weirdly colored, illuminated partly by florescent fixtures wedged into the ceiling and partly by florescent fixtures wedged into the ceiling and partly by large colored boxes that simulate stained-glass windows. The largest of these, shaped like a flattened Gothic arch, is bolted to the back wall, above the altar, and features a blazing trinity: Jesus, Elvis, and the Reverend Wayne. Jesus gets top billing. The worshipper is not half a dozen steps into the place before she thuds down on her knees in the middle of the aisle and begins to speak in tongues" (195-196). This is what follows a waiting process that includes donations to enter the church. Knowing that I do not have a problem with church in general, and am only criticizing certain commercially motivated churches, I did find this portrayal to be incredibly poignant. Many churches are recognized by the design of the building, and bookstores and cafeterias are becoming common. The main offense I take to this is the portrayal of the speaking of tongues, which is important in my faith as it relates to the Holy Spirit. Still, the book makes the speaking of tongues I primary issue, and the emphasis on tongues within the church (an issue I myself am sensitive to and have been concerned about) in the pentecostal tradition leads to many people feeling obligated and sometimes people might try just from pressure (instead of letting it come "naturally") Speaking in tongues can sometimes be forced in some churches (though some have the spiritual gift, see Romans 12) However, the book seems to use this phrase throughout it rather flippantly.
It also impresses me how this book includes Biblical references in its discussion. most specifically, with the Tower of Babel. There is even a section where the Bible verses are mentioned by chapter and verse (Chapter 30) Still, the books make many statements about religion (when asked whether Snow Crash is a virus, drug, and religion, the response is simply "What's the difference?" 200) But what would obviously be the most offensive for me is the statement regarding the resurrection. For someone to say that you can't be a Christian with the belief in Resurrection is entirely oppositional to the center of Christianity. It is even more offensive for her to say that the "myth" of the Resurrection is "National Enquirer-esque" (201) Though, obviously, this book is not a Christian book.
However, in spite of its objectionable statements, the book does include an interesting one. One of the statements made on page 69 declares that "Ninety-nine percent of everything that goes on in most Christian churches has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual religion. Intelligent people all notice this sooner or later . . . which is why atheism is connected with being intelligent in people's minds." (69, my emphasis) While I do not entirely agree with this, I do fear that the church is becoming to superficial and that meaningful content is sometimes glossed over, which is ironic since that which is intended to draw people to the church is also turning away the intellectual. For every Sigmund Freud and his Civilization and Its Discontents, there is C.S. Lewis and Mere Christianity. Religion is not for idiots; some churches just dumb it down (though I refuse to neglect the many churches who do explore deeper, theological issues). However, if churches began to take the form of those represented in this church, including Reverend Wayne's Pearly Gates. However, 99% is an unfair number in modern age.
Why am I writing about Christianity in a class about cyborgs. The answer is simple: I write responses to books based on what most resonates with me. In this book, it was the religious aspect that fascinated me. And as everyone know, Christianity is important in every response I gave to the concepts in this class. How could I neglect the opportunity to respond to a book that deals with religion so prevalently?
Then we meet Ng, to tell us all about the Rat Things, around chapter twenty nine. But he's a weird specimen as well. He has an entire body device, with connection to that crazy van, that he simply calls an "extension of my body." But if you read the chapter...you know how elaborate of an "extension" this is! But isn't this how we discussed what a cyborg is, having a technological extension of the human (or animal I guess) body? What seems important, that makes humans and animals most special, are their brains and it's ability to control the surrounding technology it is engulfed in. Also interesting to note is when Ng reveals the Rat Things are of "dog parts," he tells the disturbed Y.T. that "your mistake is that you think that all mechanically assisted organisms-like me-are pathetic cripples. In fact, we are better than we were before." The whole concept that Ng brings up with the Rat Things and himself seem important to look at when we discuss cyborgs and what it means to be human (again, or animal...can't leave them out:).
And wasn't the story with Fido (or Number B-782) and the following section describing how he remembers Y.T., or the "nice girl," great? I especially like when B-782 thinks "in order to protect the nice girl, they are hurting some of the bad men...which is as it should be." All in all, what can these sections of the novel involving the Rat Things and their thoughts tell us? I'm still thinking about it, and I just really liked how Stephenson incorporated these creatures in the story...whatever they may be.
I'll note that the only time I've ever encountered the mailer daemon was when I would input a bad address. Other than that I never saw it.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Is this what makes us human? Our ability to classify, objectify,and see ourselves as better than the other; in reality and in cyber-space?
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Bob R. Rife's empire of media (and now church) reminds me a lot of Aol/Time Warner cable and how they own everything! I remember back in my old mass communication classes, discussing things about corporate conglomerations. When a company owns most facets of a particular service or product (monopoly), it drowns out competition and competitive, fair, prices. Also the quality of that product or service can go down, because there is nothing else and so consumers end up with it (I'm looking at YOU shitty Windows, oh yes I am). But more importantly related with this book, is the control of information. In a monopoly in the media, Information is controlled. The story is not always all there, especially if it is from the company or its affiliates making that news, or has an interest whether monetary or otherwise. People will get what is given to them and have few alternatives. Now with the internet that isn't so true, yet if Google can filter shit out for communist China, who is to say that AOL isn't doing the same. That's why I could totally see these conglomerate figure heads make their own news as to make more profit from the industry that they practically own most of, much like ol' Bob Rife.
Also, organized society in the burbclaves of their own nation-state franchises that connect like minded or similar people into a community that self governs. They share many things in common from culture, to interests, to status, etc. This is so similar to current trend on the internet, like Myspace, Livejournal, forums, and web rings. Essentially these things do the same function as these gated communities of burbclaves. Networking and residing on the internet as these people do in the real life (and sometimes the metaverse, as they are freer to be who they wish they were).
Some other similarities I found were the tower of Babel and the CIC library of congress thing, where knowledge, language, and culture tidbits are all protected by the god/librarian hackers. And the whole concept of neural hacking, and the god counter virus, as our brains function and are wired similar to computers, and the closer and more frequent we interact with computers, the more our minds are like them; there fore, the more susceptible to this virus and counter virus we become.
I also love Juanitia's take on faith. Just had to say. ^_^
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Monday, April 9, 2007
She is but that of a complex machine
In truth inhuman, life given by man.
There's hardware within not outwardly seen,
But what I see is seemingly "woman."
How I feel for this electric mistress;
O flawless fabrication, so alive!
I look upon your sheath wearing that dress,
And ignore what inside you was contrived.
What can we call this created creature
That appears to me precise as can be?
And wired within to function all features,
For built was she exclusively for me.
Human is how my eyes will behold "it,"
But that position she can never fit.
Interestingly, my professor, and many in the class, wondered if this was actually about a created cyborg woman, or if it was all metaphorically speaking about this woman being like a "machine."
Thursday, April 5, 2007
I was to say the least shocked by the ending. Suicide(!?) who would of thought. The sad condition of existence, the eternal struggle for existence and survival, it was to much for Helen. But the real straw that I believe was the one to break, is that of loneliness and isolation. In the last few sentences that Helen speaks she says "I never felt at home here. This is an awful place to be dropped down halfway" (326). This isolation and loneliness has been expressed by several characters in the works that we have read as well as characters in other works that we have not read this semester. From the latter category I am reminded of Victor Frankenstein's monster who rage at being alone, rejected and isolated is what spures him on to his murderous vendetta towards Victor. Also I am reminded of Data from the StarTrek: The Next Generation, where he too often laments on the state of his loneliness because he is the only one of his kind. Even among a world full of sentient life forms Data still longs for "another of his kind."
I would make that case for Helen that it was this, the realization of her loneliness and isolation, the realization that in a sense she truly was alone that drove her into existential despair. Even for the example of Helen Keller (which Dani brilliantly brought up, which had not yet occurred to me) she was not isolated in who she was, i.e. she was a human being amongst human beings. But not in the case of Frankenstein's monster, Data, or the Helen of this story, they were utterly alone. It is this realization, this despair that pushes Helen to desire "death" to a life of pain and anguish.
Yod and Joseph both wanted to live but ended up dyeing. I wonder if ultimately there difference would have led to a similar type of loneliness and isolation. Isolation when chosen in life, like so much else, is much easier to bear than isolation forced. For example, the child who is sent to his/her room for the night as punishment is generally not as happy as the child who ends up playing in his/her room of their own volition. Any condition that is forced upon us becomes a burden whereas when we choose that condition it is not a burden.
I keep searching for the lines "My maker did I bid thee make me?" which I still think is in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. But the point I wish to make is that in most if not all of the AI stories we have read this semester the created and/or the creator ends up regretting the act of creation, of life itself. We are left we "abandoned children" and "deadbeat parents" that end up dysfunctional, lonely, isolated and despairing.
I wanted a "happy ending" to this story for Helen, the same way that I wanted one for Yod, Joseph. It seems that authors of AI Sci-Fi do not like to give us those happy endings.
I couldn't help but think of this quote, as I was doing some other work and came across it:
“One thing is certain, though: there must be something wrong with any reasoned claim today to know any fundamental differences between men and possible machines. And there is a simple reason why such arguments must be erroneous: we simply do not know enough yet about the real workings of either men or machines.”
I think this quote is perfect for this book and a great comeback during an argument, wouldn't you say? We neither have total understanding of machines or your own selves, so how can one say otherwise when the information is incomplete? Computers and gadgets already have voice recognition programs, can work on visual stimuli, and try to act accordingly, depending on their function. When will it start conversing back?
What caught me was as Helen was learning the depth of language and all of it's layers and intricacies, it didn't just sound like a child(and she did have child like qualities) learning how to speak, but also as someone trying to learn a foreign language. As someone who is already involved in learnign how to speak many languages, many of the mistakes are similar to that of a student learning. I'm sure Powers himself expierenced this when he was learning Dutch and a little Italian, while abroad. She literally is translating computer language (and those with expereince in programming codes can attest for this) into a human language. They say that a culture's language is the window into the heart of the culture, a tool for trying to truly understand it and gaining deeper insight. Even to the simplest of colloquial phrases reveals something. I guessHelen, by learning our language (english is just one of many human language) she is learning about the human culture. She herself is not human, therefore, not apart of our culture but from something else. When she speaks, and it's hard to understand, Powers realizes she's communicating in her own way. "What you is the were for?" Helen doesn't have a concept of time as we do, she almost exsits in a world I'm guessing is much like dreaming, where there is no concept of time but a series of instances. The opposite of reality. She exists on a diferent level of reality and her speech reflects this. It is easy enough for people to mistaken her for just not making any sense, but so too can that be said for children, who, when learning to communicate, often speak aukwardly with their own interpretations. The "goose" for plane and flying come to mind. To further complicate things, she is not human, she cannot experience what we can physically besides aditory and speech. "It's a body thing, you wouldn't understand." She can't hold a ball, yet she has to understand what that means. Other humans have similiar issues; that their limits prevent them from totally understanding certain human experiences. Just like Helen, they substitue somthing in an equivalency the best they can to understand that expereince, to empathize what it's like, the sounds, the look. The will never be able to experience what a normal human can experience, yet they can come up with something else. Helen uses language as her tool, quotes to communicate, languge to "feel" out the world around her. The name "Helen" also reminds me of another Helen, Helen Keller. She was blind, deaf, and unable to speak until she found her voice. Her teacher got through to her. Both cannot share normnal human experience, yet both use what they have to find that equivalency and understamd concepts, language, and the world around them beyond their own limits.
And even thoguh Helen didn't have much of a body, I still thoguht she was cute! Her make up of electrical machine parts and huge number of boxes and wires, reminded my of the manga Blame! where they tried to simulate a "terminal net gene carrier" (close enough to us modern humans) human brain. It expanded an entire giant labratory and thensome, just massive, end even they couldn't get quite close enough. Lentz was doing somethign similar, by physically trying to create a "brain" out of machinery. He was right in there wasn't enough space. I wish I could scan in the picture and you all would understand what I mean by power and not enough size.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
There are many lines that I find intriguing, lines that show this recognition of the complexities of the human brain, which illustrate some of the points I tried to make. He comments on the expression that coincides with thought. When C. is described as thinking, Powers asks "Would a thinking machine, too, turn its simulated eyes away?" (63) This line struck me immediately and lingered afterwards, refining my own argument by providing detail to represent it. There are so many nuances, so many different actions, that the human brain allows, even beyond just those thoughts we might have. We might scrunch are brow, raise an eyebrow, smile, shake our head, do many different expressions that coincide with our reactions. Could a machine do that? Even more interesting, if a machine could, would it understand why? Even humans don't respond to questions or even jokes the same way. One might decide to laugh at a joke, while another might cringe. It is hard to actually anticipate how a person might react; how could this be imitated. Even if a robot did turn its "simulated eyes away," would it do it every time and, if it did, wouldn't it lack the spontaneity and unpredictability of a human's reaction?
The book even considers the human brain in mechanical terms to show how complicated it really is. This is evident in Powers description of how Diane reacts to a joking statement he makes: "She gave me a look, bafflement routed slowly by inference. That she could unpack, decode, index, retrieve, and interpret by reference at all was an unmodelable miracle. More miraculous still, I could watch her grin of understanding unfold in less than hundredth-millimeter increments, in split seconds." (182) Notice how he uses his knowledge of computers to describe the process of interpretation. She took sarcasm and in a short time was able to appreciate it, responding with an understanding grin (another reference to the facial expressions humans associate with thought). The use of the term "miracle," modified by the word "unmodelable" suggests two things: one, a human brain cannot be reproduced and two, the brain is extraordinary and divinely created (the book doesn't seem to imply a creator such as God, but miracle is most commonly associated with the divine).
Finally, the last quote I will include deals with another uniquely human quality: the well intended mistakes and errors. The book makes this distinction clear: "Helen, choosing the right answer for the wrong reasons, condemned herself to another lifetime of machinehood. Harold's girl, in picking wrongly for the right reasons, leaped uniquely human." (222) Powers seems to suggest that the ability to make a mistake even when are intentions are right is unique to humanity. While a person can answer a question wrong but have the right intentions in mind, a robot can only be right for the wrong reasons or (rarely, as the book would imply) right for the right reasons. Humans, however, can have the correct motivations but still err in their action. It is a part of humanity.
Overall, I agreed with the ideas in this book and appreciated the realistic content (though, I was bored by all the information about C.) However, I have nothing else to say that this book didn't already corroborate, though I could cite many examples of parts that I found funny. In fact, since this part connects to the other comments that the writer makes about the human brain, I will conclude by citing the part of humanity that makes me laugh, since it is so true: (After trying to talk to Helen through the microphone) "It hit me well after it should have. The mind is still an evolutionary infant. Most trouble with the obvious. I reached down and turned the mike back on. Then I read the words again." (290)
The broad topic of GALATEA 2.2. is of course artificial intelligence and a consideration of humanity itself in the process. One must understand a concept before setting upon the task of recreating that essence. Therefore, if a human decides to play god and set out upon creating artificial intelligence, they may soon find that they hardly understand their own humanity and stand dumbfounded while attempting to duplicate it, quite the paradox I’m afraid.
However, even more interesting than the surface implications of artificial intelligence are the effects on the psyche itself, namely: raison d’être, a reason to live, a reason to die; this is the essence of GALATEA 2.2. Everything in existence requires some form of purpose or it falls from existence, simple as that. When machines break down and fail to carry out their original purpose of job A or task B they are typically destroyed. Even animals such as a race horse which has broken its leg will be shot and then given the new raison d’être of an adhesive. Humans of course are a bit different, due to ethics, humans are typically considered an ends in themselves rather than a means to an ends. Therefore, a human may loose their raison d’être and continue to live, however, that may only a shadow of life in reality. The type of people who work meaningless jobs, then go home to waste away in front of the television. They aren’t living, but rather simply waiting to die. They have lost their raison d’être and they are as good as dead to the world.
Rest assured, it isn’t as though finding purpose is exactly easy, this is the reality of adolescence, a midlife crisis and what have you, and even the search for raison d’être can in itself provide purpose and can be found in any facet of existence. Commonly people choose to create families, provide for them and live with ultimate satisfaction, others will live for the work they do which instills an equal degree of satisfaction. These are truly blessed existence, for to have purpose (essence) is to have a solid grasp on your existence.
In GALATEA 2.2 it’s rather apparent what I mean simply by considering the main characters: Lentz, Powers, and the series of implications. Frustrated by the very cynical nature of their search is how we meet Lentz and Powers, and the gaps are filled in especially with the chapters on Powers past.
In the liberal arts nothing is really tangible, not like the concrete facts and figures of the hard sciences and as a result Powers reconsiders the worth of his work in the grand scheme of existence and is ultimately dissatisfied with his novels and teaching. He has lost the raison d’être of creation and occupation and his new raison d’être becomes C. He now lives for the sake of another person, the sake of love, but ultimately looses that existence as well and everything dissolves into a vague memory without anything to ground himself in the real world, Powers begins to disappear from it in a way, this is what I mean by dying in a figurative sense yet still existing in a literal sense. This is also I believe the purpose of the literary choice of using abbreviated names for most things from that existence, they all became vague and not quite real you might say. At this point, Powers is simply wandering around, finishes his last novel in a daze of stale ideas and falls into Lentz’s lap.
Lentz, the engineer, lives for an entirely different reason, he is totally engrossed in his own work to the extent that he has constructed countless walls around himself to protect his ego and raison d’être. Since Lentz has poured everything into his work, it would be natural for him to fear failure and more so, criticism. Failure can be dealt with as a callus develops overtime and success almost becomes more surreal, but what becomes truly frightening is the scorn of others. It is far more painful to be told you WILL fail than the actual act of failing. Therefore in a world of more fragile mental constructs, what people often want is to be left alone in “private invulnerability” (powers 96), ironic considering humanity is more fragmented now, even though communication is as simplistic as it has ever been.
Lentz and Powers, both with a fragmented raison d’être seek to create their new purpose by becoming gods in a way, by creating their own version of humanity. Humanity version 2.2 (the .2 referring to the dual creator: Lentz and Powers), a human purified by releasing itself from the bonds of sensory input and connecting to existence directly. The problem of raison d’être still remains however: humans create machine, machine then becomes self aware and looses the need for its creator, and humans thus loose their raison d’être not only in being disowned by their creation, but becoming obsolete in addition. Moreover, where lies the purpose of these implications, do they have any easier a task of acquiring raison d’être? Or is it that humanity version 2 has somehow even transcended what everything in existence requires: a raison d’être?
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
I know this is very vague, but that is mostly because I really don't know what is going on, although the main character has a new girlfreind and is back where he first lived.
Halfway through the book and memory seems to be a very strong theme. Not only for the many versions of Imp that have been created to win the bet, but also with the characters themselves. Powers finds himself not only struggling with the memories of C., B. and U. from his earlier life; a line for a book he wants to write and is sure he's heard it before; but also how Imp's memories are going to be formed and retained. Is this done just by repeation; strong connections stay, weak ones fade? Or does memory contain smells, feelings, sights; physical limitations of Imp, but strong memory triggers for humans. Lentz is struggling with his wife's memory being wiped out and even physical triggers cannot save it.
Do our memories make us human? Can a machine be taught more than just word generalizations and sentance structure? Stay tuned!
To me, this view of the web that Powers reveals and the way humans interact with it is so realistic to our current world (granted it was only written in 1995, but the point is he wrote it so truthfully). In effect, I think when people read this passage they are nodding their heads or at least relating to some of the things he said. Though not all people change who they are on the web or things like that, we at least know there are people out there that do all the time, some very dangerous people as well. I just though Powers did an amazing job depicting the web here and I notice as I read the novel that he uses this beautiful language, yet to-the-point phrases to express many other things as well, such as what I so far see as his love (or once love) for the woman C. (I'm not that far to know the whole story with C., but so far it is an interesting addition to the seemingly scientific world around Richard Powers in the novel.)