While doing this assignment I started thinking about all of the movies that feature the “real wild women” or “wild real men” characteristics. I was surprised when a ton of films came to mind. But the one that fit this assignment the best was the Life Time movie “Love’s Deadly Triangle: The Texas Cadet Murder”. This enticing movie is based on the true story of two teenagers who kill out of love and devotion for one another. They commit a heinous crime and justify their actions through romantic motivation.
The main characters of this film include Diane Zamora, David Graham and Adrianne Jones. Diane Zamora is high school student who is madly in love with her practically perfect boyfriend David Graham. She is a straight A student and has plans to attend a military school after graduation. David Graham also wants to follow the military route like that of his soul mate. He is a great student and athlete and has plenty of plans for the future. Adrianne Jones is a bright eyed sophomore who loves running track. She is smart and beautiful and an all around threat to Diane Zamora.
The author of “Seduction and Betrayal in the Heartland: Thelma and Louise” describes the Thelma and Louise movie as avoiding “the trap of superficial gender – war movies, typified by female-abuse –and –knee –jerk revenge plots” (Boozer 212). This description can also be applied to “Love’s Deadly Triangle: The Texas Cadet Murder”. This movie lacks the typical woman seeking revenge from a man and instead offers a woman seeking revenge from another woman. The movie describes a warm night when the two lovers swear that nothing will ever come between them and that they will always be together. However despite his promise to Diane, David Graham finds himself kissing Adrianne Jones after a track meet. When David can no longer stand the guilt he confesses his sins to Diane. She is mortified and demands that something be done immediately. Her and David plot to kill Adrianne and after they have achieved their goal they go on living their lives as if nothing has happened. It is not until years later that their secret is uncovered and they are finally brought to justice.
Diane Zamora clearly represents what is described as the “real wild women” character. She is the aggressor throughout the story. Once she realizes she has been deceived by David she is blood thirsty and craves revenge on Adrianne Jones. She manipulates David into killing Adrianne and after David has shot her Diane takes a turn of her own. Often films reflect the male murderer or aggressor. This movie incorporates the hatred and evil of a female perspective. David Graham also falls into the category of the “wild real men” characteristic. He partakes in the killing of Adrianne but does so reluctantly. He is hesitant to hurt this innocent girl but is under the control of Diane as she is the dominating spouse.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Peer Review
Jade- I always look forward to reading your blogs. Not only do they offer detailed information but they are extremely relatable. Your summary of Wright’s article was great. It informed me of the issue at hand but only focused on the main points. I really liked how you explained the complex of a computer not being able to handle the simple things. Your painting description was equally good. You were able to relate to the picture and interpret what the artist was trying to say. I agree that this particular artwork gives the observer the opportunity to form their own conclusions and ideas. Great job Jade!!!
Jessica- Your summary of Wright was well written. It was easy to understand and written in way that allowed me to form my own conclusion to the issue. I loved your explanation of the painting. You did an exceptional job researching the history of this artwork. Based on your knowledge of the artist I could actually feel my heart breaking for her. It turned what may have been a grotesque drawing into a tearful masterpiece. Your information was brilliant and I liked that you were able to personalize your blog by relating to her pain. Keep up the good work!!!!
Jessica- Your summary of Wright was well written. It was easy to understand and written in way that allowed me to form my own conclusion to the issue. I loved your explanation of the painting. You did an exceptional job researching the history of this artwork. Based on your knowledge of the artist I could actually feel my heart breaking for her. It turned what may have been a grotesque drawing into a tearful masterpiece. Your information was brilliant and I liked that you were able to personalize your blog by relating to her pain. Keep up the good work!!!!
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Frida Kahlo
I was really hesitant to do this assignment originally. I am not an art person and couldn’t begin to write “impressionistic description”, but after looking at the different pieces Frida Kahlo has created I was actually moved. I am familiar with some of his work but had no idea he had done so many paintings. As I browsed through them, I was aware of how detailed and graphic Kahlo’s work is. I also noticed how similar all of his artwork seemed to be. For this assignment I chose a painting done by Frida Kahlo that I caught my eye the most. The painting is called Self Portrait Along the Border Line Between Mexico and The United States.
In this portrait Frida has painted a Mexican woman wearing a pink gown. In one hand she holds a Mexican Flag and in the other a cigarette. The woman is standing on a cement block with an engraving carved in the stone. On the ground to her left are what appears to be fans and lights, electricity. To the woman’s right is soft dirt and vegetables. In the background, past the lights, the artist has drawn buildings and a factory with the word FORD painted on the smoke stacks. Polluted air fills the sky and a faint American flag is seen. On the side with the vegetables Kahlo has painted rocks, dirt and a tomb. The sun, the moon and lightening are also incorporated and ancient artifacts liter the earth.
I loved staring at this painting. I found it to be extremely symbolic and had me thinking about so many things. Frida Kahlo clearly portrayed the cultural differences between the countries of Mexico and the United States. He painted the U.S as a money and power hungry society that revolves around our factories and companies of any sort. The painting shows the pollution and sky scrapers as consuming our country. On the other hand, Mexico is seen as being non-inhabited and culturally preserved. There is weather and clouds over looking fresh grown vegetables. There are artifacts are lying on the ground untouched and deserted. And no part of any industrial revolution is seen on the Mexico side. There isn’t electricity or production of any kind. I think the artist was trying to convey the concept of how different these countries are as well as what may be important to the people of these said countries. I also believe that the Mexican Flag represents Mexico, while the cigarette represents the United States, which speaks volumes. I have to admit even I see Mexico as Frida painted it, old and lacking industrial motivation. However I know this to be false. Mexico too has shops, factories and companies. But I found myself asking these questions; is the United States just as Frida Kahlo painted it? Has all or most of our sacred land become smoke stacks? Are we thought of by other countries as nothing but pollution?
In this portrait Frida has painted a Mexican woman wearing a pink gown. In one hand she holds a Mexican Flag and in the other a cigarette. The woman is standing on a cement block with an engraving carved in the stone. On the ground to her left are what appears to be fans and lights, electricity. To the woman’s right is soft dirt and vegetables. In the background, past the lights, the artist has drawn buildings and a factory with the word FORD painted on the smoke stacks. Polluted air fills the sky and a faint American flag is seen. On the side with the vegetables Kahlo has painted rocks, dirt and a tomb. The sun, the moon and lightening are also incorporated and ancient artifacts liter the earth.
I loved staring at this painting. I found it to be extremely symbolic and had me thinking about so many things. Frida Kahlo clearly portrayed the cultural differences between the countries of Mexico and the United States. He painted the U.S as a money and power hungry society that revolves around our factories and companies of any sort. The painting shows the pollution and sky scrapers as consuming our country. On the other hand, Mexico is seen as being non-inhabited and culturally preserved. There is weather and clouds over looking fresh grown vegetables. There are artifacts are lying on the ground untouched and deserted. And no part of any industrial revolution is seen on the Mexico side. There isn’t electricity or production of any kind. I think the artist was trying to convey the concept of how different these countries are as well as what may be important to the people of these said countries. I also believe that the Mexican Flag represents Mexico, while the cigarette represents the United States, which speaks volumes. I have to admit even I see Mexico as Frida painted it, old and lacking industrial motivation. However I know this to be false. Mexico too has shops, factories and companies. But I found myself asking these questions; is the United States just as Frida Kahlo painted it? Has all or most of our sacred land become smoke stacks? Are we thought of by other countries as nothing but pollution?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Week 3 Blog Reviews
Jessica-
I really enjoyed reading your blogs this week. I feel that you and I share in many of the same beliefs and love being able to read your views on certain topics. I found the article on Minsky to be entertaining but I completly disagreed with his overall idea. I was surprised to read that you too found the concept of a "conscious computer" to be questionable. You made an exceptional point when you emphasized that inorder for a computer to "be aware" or to process, a human being would have to manually enter in the information. I also liked your thoughts on "What is Consciousness?" You clearly explained how something as broad as conciousness could be considered scientific. As previously said I really enjoy reading your blogs. Your writing is detailed but gets to the point.
Jade-
I was thrilled to see that you had answered the other possible question. I liked being able to compare my thoughts and ideas with yours. I think you did a great job on incorporating pop culture and entertainment, the I- Robot was a smart connection. I disagreed with Minsky, but oddly enough found myself agreeing with the main points of your blog. I guess anything really is possible and technology does seem to have endless possiblities. You know your'e a good writer if you can persuade the reader to change their mind about something. Good Job!!!
CAN MACHINES THINK????
Although somewhat confusing and repetitive, Robert Wright’s essay focuses on one major question, “Can Computers Think?” Wright introduces his article by discussing the chess tournament between experienced competitor Garry Kasparov and IBM’s chess program Deep Blue. Kasparov was determined to win in order to defend the “human dignity” as he proclaimed. The chess match, human versus machine brings to light the issue of computers and their overall capabilities. When a machine is able to complete a task just as a human would is it thinking? And if the computer can think what is preventing it from reasoning or having a conscious? These unanswered questions are the key ingredients to Wright’s article. As Wright points out, Deep Blue’s chess playing skills were never doubted it was the notion that the program was actually “thinking” for itself that launches the debate.
Despite the continuing progress of technology, Wright says that people still hold the belief that machines in fact cannot think. His article explains that such people categorize thinking as an emotion. With this being said an emotion can only be experience by a living breathing being, something that has consciousness. He uses Deep Blue and Kasparov as a prime example. When Kasparov lost his first game he was sad and upset. Would Deep Blue have felt or thought these feelings upon losing? Most individuals would answer no but, as Wright’s article talks about, could this change?
The article goes on to explore the debate between Chalmers and Daniel Dennett. Chalmers, a professor of philosophy and Dennett a well known philosopher have argued over the concept of consciousness. Chalmers sees consciousness as “a deeper puzzle than many philosophers have realized.” (Wright 142) Dennett on the other hand is convinced that as far as consciousness is concerned “the puzzle has been reduced to “a set of manageable problems.” (Wright 142) The issues concerning this debate intertwine with Wright’s key points. Depending on how someone may view consciousness ultimately sways their decision on whether or not our computers are thinking.
I really enjoyed reading your blogs this week. I feel that you and I share in many of the same beliefs and love being able to read your views on certain topics. I found the article on Minsky to be entertaining but I completly disagreed with his overall idea. I was surprised to read that you too found the concept of a "conscious computer" to be questionable. You made an exceptional point when you emphasized that inorder for a computer to "be aware" or to process, a human being would have to manually enter in the information. I also liked your thoughts on "What is Consciousness?" You clearly explained how something as broad as conciousness could be considered scientific. As previously said I really enjoy reading your blogs. Your writing is detailed but gets to the point.
Jade-
I was thrilled to see that you had answered the other possible question. I liked being able to compare my thoughts and ideas with yours. I think you did a great job on incorporating pop culture and entertainment, the I- Robot was a smart connection. I disagreed with Minsky, but oddly enough found myself agreeing with the main points of your blog. I guess anything really is possible and technology does seem to have endless possiblities. You know your'e a good writer if you can persuade the reader to change their mind about something. Good Job!!!
CAN MACHINES THINK????
Although somewhat confusing and repetitive, Robert Wright’s essay focuses on one major question, “Can Computers Think?” Wright introduces his article by discussing the chess tournament between experienced competitor Garry Kasparov and IBM’s chess program Deep Blue. Kasparov was determined to win in order to defend the “human dignity” as he proclaimed. The chess match, human versus machine brings to light the issue of computers and their overall capabilities. When a machine is able to complete a task just as a human would is it thinking? And if the computer can think what is preventing it from reasoning or having a conscious? These unanswered questions are the key ingredients to Wright’s article. As Wright points out, Deep Blue’s chess playing skills were never doubted it was the notion that the program was actually “thinking” for itself that launches the debate.
Despite the continuing progress of technology, Wright says that people still hold the belief that machines in fact cannot think. His article explains that such people categorize thinking as an emotion. With this being said an emotion can only be experience by a living breathing being, something that has consciousness. He uses Deep Blue and Kasparov as a prime example. When Kasparov lost his first game he was sad and upset. Would Deep Blue have felt or thought these feelings upon losing? Most individuals would answer no but, as Wright’s article talks about, could this change?
The article goes on to explore the debate between Chalmers and Daniel Dennett. Chalmers, a professor of philosophy and Dennett a well known philosopher have argued over the concept of consciousness. Chalmers sees consciousness as “a deeper puzzle than many philosophers have realized.” (Wright 142) Dennett on the other hand is convinced that as far as consciousness is concerned “the puzzle has been reduced to “a set of manageable problems.” (Wright 142) The issues concerning this debate intertwine with Wright’s key points. Depending on how someone may view consciousness ultimately sways their decision on whether or not our computers are thinking.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Class Discussion
Marvin Minsky is a founding father of the Artificial Intelligence or AI. A director at of the AI Laboratory, Minsky set out to create computer software that would mimic the characteristics of a human. It is his belief that machines could be built with a conscious. “Consciousness is being aware of what is happening in the world and in one’s mind.” (Minsky) With this definition of the human conscious, Minsky goes on to explain that machines will surpass the human brain. He states “The human brain has only very limited records of what it has been doing recently.” (Minsky) Therefore a machine of any sort would be far more conscious than a human because we as humans “didn’t evolve for that.” (Minsky) A computer on the other hand has the potential to “be programmed to keep a record of all its internal states and then to trace back through these.” A human lacks this capability thus making Minsky’s point.
Marvin Minsky clearly states in this article that he does not see an advanced computer as being smarter than the mind of a human being. He admits that a computer could be designed to have a high level of consciousness and yet still be unfamiliar with what to do with it. This is where the concept of common sense becomes a challenge to Minsky’s goals. But in regards to which or what is smarter, Minsky is well aware that there are still multiple things that the most sophisticated machine is incapable of doing.
Although I enjoyed reading this particular article I do not agree with Marvin Minsky’s ideas nor do I agree with his definition of consciousness. The human brain is extremely complex and unexplored. Despite our scientific notions on what goes on for the most part there are things science simply can’t explain. A person’s conscious, thought, idea or feelings are these types of unexplainable things as well as biological features that cannot be placed in a machine. In regards to the idea of a computer having more consciousness than a person, I have to agree with John Searle, “Consciousness, he argues, “is a natural biological phenomenon.” With this being said how can a computer achieve the mind of a person? Furthermore, a person’s conscious is a far more in depth concept than Minsky describes. It is not as simple as being aware of what is happening. It involves feelings, thoughts and ideas of human being.
Marvin Minsky clearly states in this article that he does not see an advanced computer as being smarter than the mind of a human being. He admits that a computer could be designed to have a high level of consciousness and yet still be unfamiliar with what to do with it. This is where the concept of common sense becomes a challenge to Minsky’s goals. But in regards to which or what is smarter, Minsky is well aware that there are still multiple things that the most sophisticated machine is incapable of doing.
Although I enjoyed reading this particular article I do not agree with Marvin Minsky’s ideas nor do I agree with his definition of consciousness. The human brain is extremely complex and unexplored. Despite our scientific notions on what goes on for the most part there are things science simply can’t explain. A person’s conscious, thought, idea or feelings are these types of unexplainable things as well as biological features that cannot be placed in a machine. In regards to the idea of a computer having more consciousness than a person, I have to agree with John Searle, “Consciousness, he argues, “is a natural biological phenomenon.” With this being said how can a computer achieve the mind of a person? Furthermore, a person’s conscious is a far more in depth concept than Minsky describes. It is not as simple as being aware of what is happening. It involves feelings, thoughts and ideas of human being.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Class Discussion/ Peer Review
Class Discussion Page 96
2. It is my personal belief that certain parts of the study of consciousness can be considered scientific. Although the concept of consciousness is obviously associated with brain function it lacks certain scientific requirements. Robert Hazen writes this in his article, “For a question to be scientific, it must be answerable through a reproducible process of observation, experiment and theory”. Which leads me to believe that some parts of consciousness is scientific while others are not.
According to Robert Hazen, any study of brain function is deemed scientific. Scientists have the ability to “focus on the mechanics of consciousness”. They can study the human reaction to external stimuli as well as capture brain waves and how it functions. All of these aspects of consciousness are on the scientific spectrum. The problem that falls outside the scope of consciousness is what Hazen describes as “the intangible connections between the physical brain and self-awareness, emotion, perception, and reasoning”. It is this other side of consciousness that cannot be scientifically studied and therefore cannot be considered scientific.
The beliefs of a reductionist are that neurons alone can explain the concept of a thought, idea or emotion. They see anything that involves the brain as being scientifically explainable. On the other hand, there are the skeptics. Skeptics believe the exact opposite, in that there is no way of physically understanding consciousness. I fall in between these two groups believing there is truth to both arguments.
PEER REVIEW
Erin Lyng- Didn’t have Postings for 9/1/09 or 9/3/09
Jade Arneson- I really enjoyed reading your blogs Jade. Not only did you make identifiable points but your writing is easy to follow as well as comprehend. I completely agreed with your view of “self” in regards to the online classroom and liked how you reflected on your previous notions prior to reading Kenneth Gergen’s essay. Your blogs are well thought out and detailed.
Jess Tavizon- Jess, I have to start by saying I love your background, it’s colorful and creative. I also found your writing to be extremely detailed and entertaining. I thought your example of not truly knowing somebody unless you have met them was exceptional. I too would think you were an extrovert had you not clearly explained that you are in fact not. I felt this was a great way to show evidence towards your overall point. Great writing!!!!
2. It is my personal belief that certain parts of the study of consciousness can be considered scientific. Although the concept of consciousness is obviously associated with brain function it lacks certain scientific requirements. Robert Hazen writes this in his article, “For a question to be scientific, it must be answerable through a reproducible process of observation, experiment and theory”. Which leads me to believe that some parts of consciousness is scientific while others are not.
According to Robert Hazen, any study of brain function is deemed scientific. Scientists have the ability to “focus on the mechanics of consciousness”. They can study the human reaction to external stimuli as well as capture brain waves and how it functions. All of these aspects of consciousness are on the scientific spectrum. The problem that falls outside the scope of consciousness is what Hazen describes as “the intangible connections between the physical brain and self-awareness, emotion, perception, and reasoning”. It is this other side of consciousness that cannot be scientifically studied and therefore cannot be considered scientific.
The beliefs of a reductionist are that neurons alone can explain the concept of a thought, idea or emotion. They see anything that involves the brain as being scientifically explainable. On the other hand, there are the skeptics. Skeptics believe the exact opposite, in that there is no way of physically understanding consciousness. I fall in between these two groups believing there is truth to both arguments.
PEER REVIEW
Erin Lyng- Didn’t have Postings for 9/1/09 or 9/3/09
Jade Arneson- I really enjoyed reading your blogs Jade. Not only did you make identifiable points but your writing is easy to follow as well as comprehend. I completely agreed with your view of “self” in regards to the online classroom and liked how you reflected on your previous notions prior to reading Kenneth Gergen’s essay. Your blogs are well thought out and detailed.
Jess Tavizon- Jess, I have to start by saying I love your background, it’s colorful and creative. I also found your writing to be extremely detailed and entertaining. I thought your example of not truly knowing somebody unless you have met them was exceptional. I too would think you were an extrovert had you not clearly explained that you are in fact not. I felt this was a great way to show evidence towards your overall point. Great writing!!!!
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Do You Need God to Be Good
I found Thursday’s reading to be particularly interesting for many reasons. As a religious individual I would like to uphold the assumption that religious priorities prevent us from wrong doing. I think myself, as well as others often make this misconception. As a society, we can be quick to stereo-type. For instance; a Sunday school teacher wouldn’t steal but an atheist might. The author of this article does an exceptional job of providing evidence of this faulty thinking. He introduces research studies that have proven an individual of belief is more likely to commit a crime.
To answer the question at hand, I do not believe someone “needs God to be good”. The author clearly makes this point in his writing in the Beedles’ chapter. As human beings we can often be classified by our beliefs or thoughts. But it is not our ideas so much as our actions that matter. In other words, if I am a follower of God and preach the gospel but steal from the collection plate, what really matters? In this situation my actions have overpowered my beliefs. The same is true for an atheist. Just because someone is lacking in faith does not discredit their moral consciousness. With this thought in mind I also feel very strongly that individuals do not in fact “need God” in order to have morals or good behavior.
The truth of the matter is that we are humans and therefore subject to mistakes. People are not without flaw and thus it goes without saying that not all religious people are always good. As the chapter from Beedels discusses, research has in fact proven that people with religious affiliations will cheat or lie or ignore a helpless victim. At the same time an individual may show good behavior without the guidance of a higher power. Although there are always exceptions it is unfair to assume that in order to be moral you must partake in religion.
To answer the question at hand, I do not believe someone “needs God to be good”. The author clearly makes this point in his writing in the Beedles’ chapter. As human beings we can often be classified by our beliefs or thoughts. But it is not our ideas so much as our actions that matter. In other words, if I am a follower of God and preach the gospel but steal from the collection plate, what really matters? In this situation my actions have overpowered my beliefs. The same is true for an atheist. Just because someone is lacking in faith does not discredit their moral consciousness. With this thought in mind I also feel very strongly that individuals do not in fact “need God” in order to have morals or good behavior.
The truth of the matter is that we are humans and therefore subject to mistakes. People are not without flaw and thus it goes without saying that not all religious people are always good. As the chapter from Beedels discusses, research has in fact proven that people with religious affiliations will cheat or lie or ignore a helpless victim. At the same time an individual may show good behavior without the guidance of a higher power. Although there are always exceptions it is unfair to assume that in order to be moral you must partake in religion.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Online Interaction
Social Psychology – The Individual Self
The concept of one’s self is complex and almost indefinable. Although we may believe we are one person comprised of oneself we are in fact constantly changing who we are. In order to blend or function in varying situations we may be forced to portray different images of who we truly are. As a result of our ever changing identities, our true selves can often be lost or compromised. “Self” as related to an online class can also fall in the category of adjusting to the situation. Although they are speaking through a computer, an individual may still feel the need to alter his or her self.
However as previously mentioned, an online class lacks what Charles Horton Cooley describes as primary group interactions. The impression we make in an online class versus a traditional class can differ dramatically, solely based on the lack of face to face interaction. In the traditional class room setting we are forced to introduce ourselves putting a name to a face. Thus being able to comprise an impression of who we feel this person might be. Seeing a blog and a picture of someone can create an entirely different impression than that of an actual meeting.
To truly know and understand someone, I think it is important to be able to sit and speak with them in person. I really enjoy online classes and have taken many of them over the course of my educational career. However, I will be the first to admit that I have always walked away feeling as if I never really knew the instructor or my fellow class mates. I spoke with them on a regular basis but it was always school related. I was never able to know them on a personal level like the students in a regular classroom. This is just my outlook and others may strongly disagree but a certain kind of relationship is formed when are given the opportunity to sit next to someone versus communicating with them via the internet.
The concept of one’s self is complex and almost indefinable. Although we may believe we are one person comprised of oneself we are in fact constantly changing who we are. In order to blend or function in varying situations we may be forced to portray different images of who we truly are. As a result of our ever changing identities, our true selves can often be lost or compromised. “Self” as related to an online class can also fall in the category of adjusting to the situation. Although they are speaking through a computer, an individual may still feel the need to alter his or her self.
However as previously mentioned, an online class lacks what Charles Horton Cooley describes as primary group interactions. The impression we make in an online class versus a traditional class can differ dramatically, solely based on the lack of face to face interaction. In the traditional class room setting we are forced to introduce ourselves putting a name to a face. Thus being able to comprise an impression of who we feel this person might be. Seeing a blog and a picture of someone can create an entirely different impression than that of an actual meeting.
To truly know and understand someone, I think it is important to be able to sit and speak with them in person. I really enjoy online classes and have taken many of them over the course of my educational career. However, I will be the first to admit that I have always walked away feeling as if I never really knew the instructor or my fellow class mates. I spoke with them on a regular basis but it was always school related. I was never able to know them on a personal level like the students in a regular classroom. This is just my outlook and others may strongly disagree but a certain kind of relationship is formed when are given the opportunity to sit next to someone versus communicating with them via the internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)