Show and Tell, Human Head Transplant

            Going off from my show and tell presentation on Tuesday about the head transplant. Many people are extremely curious to find out if this operation will be a success. To recap some details, the head neurosurgeon is Dr. Sergio Canavero, the operation will last about 36 hours, and there are about 150 doctors, nurses, and medical staff that are required for the operation. This operation is planned to take place in December 2017.

            The man who is undergoing the surgery is a Russian man named Valery Spiridonov. He has a rare genetic disorder called Werdnig-Hoffmann disease. This disease causes motor neurons in the brain stem and spinal cord to die off. This results in diminished muscle mass and paralysis. He will be taking the body of another brain-dead patient.

            There are obviously huge pros and cons about this operation. On the pros side, one can argue that this surgery might give someone a better quality of life, advance society’s medical abilities, and pave the way for new medical discoveries. On the cons side, one can argue that there are some serious ethical issues associated with this surgery, this surgery can potentially be a “waste of money” if it is unsuccessful, and that society should be focusing on dealing with the current diseases and cancers in the world rather than taking a huge jump with trying to replace a human head.

            There have been some animal studies conducted, however these studies are inconclusive. I have heard that some of these experiments have been successful, and I have heard that some of the experiments have been unsuccessful. Will this surgery work out? Will this neurosurgeon be able to successfully place someone else’s head on another person’s body? These are all questions that people want answered.

            Now, there is the ethical side to this surgery. If this man’s head is placed on another person’s body, then it will essentially be one person controlling another person’s body. If this man chooses to have children, then his children will have the original body’s DNA and genetic makeup. Although any actions completed by the new body will be accredited to the Russian man who took over the body. So, the body will have its own specific DNA and physical appearance, however the identity will be the Russian man’s.

            If this surgery is a success, then it will greatly increase the advancement of modern medicine. It will also lead to the advancement in medical education too, but this is a long-shot that is considered to have very low chances of success. Also, if this surgery works, then another issue will arise that deals with what determines who will get a body and who will be able to undergo the surgery because this is an extremely expensive and physically demanding surgery. What will decide if one person gets the surgery versus another. Financial status will definitely play a huge role in this choice, but it will still be a matter of concern for those who are paralyzed or do not have a functioning body. 

https://youtu.be/Nr8ru47Rnjs 

I, Robot (final project ideas)

Hi everyone,
I know I kind of asked about it a little bit in class, but I wanted to flush out some ideas here with y'all to see if anyone had any thoughts that would potentially help me out? So bear with me as I try to untangle my final project ideas.

So the movie I, Robot was released in 2004 and stars Will Smith who is a police officer in 2035 Chicago where robots that are designed to help humans are very common. There is a set of laws instilled to prevent robots from attacking or harming robots. Smith's character is named Del Spooner, and Spooner is very distrustful of robots because when he was in a car crash, a robot saved him over a 12 year old girl because he was more likely to survive, statistically. As a result of the crash, Spooner himself has a cybernetic arm, lungs, and ribs. The man who created robots, Dr. Lanning, is found dead from an apparent suicide, but Spooner doesn't believe that its possible and that a robot must have violated a law and killed him. He meets a robot who is named Sonny and learns that he is able to break the laws and has dreams and emotions, something that Dr. Lanning programmed into him and some other later model robots. I haven't rewatched the movie yet, but I think the two scenes I'm going to focus on are one of the earlier ones where Del talks about his accident and why he has such a hard time trusting robots, and another scene towards the end where Del and Sonny are in a warehouse and Sonny is trying to hide among the other robots in his model that haven't been activated yet. To me, the first scene is important because it highlights a major difference between humans and robots (at least the older models). The second scene I like because although Sonny and the other robots look the same, its clear which is Sonny and which are the other robots that havent been activated, which kind of shows that the robots are less like each other when they have emotions and unique features, just like humans.

So I guess for my final project I wanted to talk about something having to do with what exactly is the difference between being human and being a robot in this movie specifically, and where aura fits into all of this. Does Sonny have an aura because he can dream and feel emotions? What about the aura makes humans human? What is Del, considering he has some robotic features in his body that saved his life? Does that diminish his aura? This has always been one of my favorite movies, especially after this class because it kind of makes you think about what being human means and once we answer that question, do we appreciate our uniqueness? Does any of this matter? Is being human only worth something because we die? Do you see how I need some help picking one topic? Haha well if you read this far and have any ideas, thank you, let me know what you think would be more interesting to read about, because I personally think this is all really interesting!

Thanks again!
Sedona :)

Blog Post #2: Show and Tell- Stephanie Clinch

For my show and tell, I showed a clip from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and a trailer for a French film called Reality+. These movies seemed pertinent to what we had been learning about human reproductions and its effects on the world. Furthermore, these examples show two different scenarios that could potentially arise in the future; These futures from the past tell us about the time that these films were made and about society and what its expectations for the future might have been. They also tell us about how technologically advanced society was at the time. The idea of using technology to replace humans and how it crosses into human boundaries is an area of speculation as we advance technologically.  

In the clip from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Charlie’s father was let go from a job at a factory after rises in toothpaste sales called for machines to replace humans. Machines that can take the place of humans has been an issue in the past few decades, as it is proven that machines can do certain human jobs more efficiently. This scenario could be an indication of how society felt at the time and their fear of machines completely replacing humans and leaving everyone impoverished and obsolete. This clip provides a potential pathway that the future could follow in regards to how technology could be used.

The other clip, the trailer from the movie Reality+, shows a different scenario. In Reality+, a man goes to a company where they install a chip in the back of his neck so that he may join a virtual community where people have enhanced their appearances. The people in this community have twelve hours to equip their “plus” appearance, but they must rest their brains for the other twelve hours of the day. This proves to cause many problems as people struggle to plan around others’ twelve hours of activation. Furthermore, some people choose to hack into their systems so that they can operate with their plus appearance 24/7—which ultimately results to be harmful for their brains. There is also an underlying problem—people are using technology to replace aspects that they do not like about themselves with illusions that disappear after twelve hours instead of embracing their flaws, resulting in psychologic problems. This idea of using technology to enhance the human body is complex in that, it does not replace humans, but in a way it does. The human body is still intact, but it is arguable that the aura is not the same because humans are meant to be flawed (and perceived as such) and this use of technology erases (or at least masks) that part of humanity, creating a human-android-hybrid illusion.

There are two very different presentations of the future in both films. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory shows humans being completely replaced by machines, minimizing the need for human employees. In Reality+, humans are not completely replaced, but their flaws are, questionably replacing their human auras with fabricated confidence and appearances. These theories are interesting depictions of the future that shed some light on the possibilities and results that advancing technologically might bring.

The Kardashians

I'm pretty sure we have all heard about the sensational Kardashian family. Not only do they have their own clothing, their own makeup, their own workout regimes, and their own television shows, but they also have all the fame. Normally, I am not one to keep up with these sorts of shows or give them glory, but I found it relevant to our previous topic of Jennicam. Also, my roommate insists upon watching it every morning, so I may as well put my knowledge to good use!

As we learned with Jennicam, it had a large influence on the webcam culture we have today, and it was definitely a sensation itself. Anybody could watch it at anytime and see exactly how she lived, and she did not change herself or her life in anyway (so far as we know) so it was very authentic, which made it such a desirable thing to have and watch. Kardashians isn't necessarily a form of webcam because they are more than likely told what to say and they have producers and directors and all of those, but I feel that it is today's version of webcam. Today, some people crave to be something different than what they are, so watching the life of a realistic person and see what they normally do everyday too boring. People want to see what the life of celebrities is like and they want to know how celebrities act in "everyday life" so they can try to be more like them. However, the Kardashians do not live a practical way of life, so trying to be like them is unrealistic. Why do we watch them if we know we will never be them? Or do we think we will be them someday?

I think most people know that they won't be like the Kardashians someday (others might argue), so the reason behind watching the television show is much less superficial than that. I believe that people watch these shows in order to live the Kardashian life through television. It's almost like internet surfing as a form of travel; you aren't actually becoming the Kardashians, but you can feel like it by watching how they live and gaining knowledge about them. You're closing the distance between you and them, and, although you will never be them, you feel that you could be them because you know everything about them.

Other examples of this notion are shows like Duck Dynasty, Honey Boo Boo, and probably hundreds of others. What all of them have in common is that they delve into the so-called "everyday life" of families and people who may not have talents or anything going for them, but they are considered celebrities because they are on television. Despite the fact that most of these are likely scripted and not true in some way or another, they have something in common with Jennicam: there is nothing that these people can do that any normal person can't, but people worship them and crave to know what their life is like. Maybe it is true that they want to be more like these people, like I stated earlier, but maybe it's also true that we crave reality tv shows to simply prove to ourselves that we are normal and we relate to these people in one way or another. They just have more money.

They even have their own website!
http://www.eonline.com/shows/kardashians

"New Journalism" and Present Day News Media

In class, we briefly talked about the significance of Henry David Thoreau’s use of the first person in Walden. This expanded into a discussion about the changes in how both societies and individuals have thought about the “I,” as well as the consequences of these changes.

Something that came to mind when thinking about this topic was the movement of “New Journalism” that started in the ‘60s and ‘70s with authors like Tom Wolfe and Hunter S. Thompson. These authors brought individuality to journalism that has fascinating ramifications not only in the context of the development of the “I,” but also in how news media is created and digested in the present day.

“New Journalism,” as a movement, essentially entails the placement of the journalist inside the narrative that they are reporting on. Even within the genre, different authors take vastly different approaches to the concept of “news.” Thom Wolfe, in books like The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, includes interactions with himself and the people which he writes about but is more of an observer than a participant in the action. On the other hand, Hunter S. Thompson, in books like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, throws himself in the center of the plot, sacrificing almost everything that made conventional journalism “journalism” while doing so.

However, the threads that weave themselves through the “New Journalism” movement as a whole are worth exploring for this class. Perhaps the most relevant of these characteristics is one that goes hand in hand with the introduction of the first person in literature: subjectivity. Classical journalists solicited the reader’s trust by reporting as an objective third party, giving their audience only the facts, allowing them to come to their own conclusions. New journalists, on the other hand, tended to create stories that they saw to be “truthful rather than factual.”¹ This distinction between truth and fact is one that has exasperating consequences for the modern American.

As a fringe movement, “New Journalism” worked well. They could offer a more nuanced perspective on controversial issues in stories which often accomplished great feats as works of literature, let alone pieces of journalism. In many cases, they were successful in arguing that the truth can be more important than the facts, and their stories provided insight into an aspect of American life in a way that conventional journalism could not. However, Hunter S. Thompson in no way dismantled the credibility of the entire news industry. Although Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail may have been an entertaining and perhaps insightful read, people still trusted the mainstream media to provide them with accurate, daily coverage of the president. 

            If the “New Journalism” movement is to be posited as a precursor to the state of the news media today, this is the most important distinction. Although Hunter S. Thompson may have relied on “alternative facts” to get his point across, he was not offering these facts up every day on Twitter as a source of news. One could imagine Thompson writing a novel about a politician running a child-sex ring out of the back of a pizza shop, but it would be hard to imagine people taking the story as seriously as they did.

In short, a piece of information can only be false if there is a conflicting piece of information which is deemed as true. The demolition of the credibility of mainstream news in the eyes of so many Americans has created a culture in which fake news cannot be accepted as fake because nothing is accepted as universally true. The failure of objectivity to survive through the digital age renders the elevation of truth over fact to be useless because neither can be shown to mean anything anymore.

¹Arlen, Michael J. "Notes on the New Journalism." The Atlantic (1972). The Atlantic. Web.

Artificially Engineered Human Skin

I was looking at the different technology articles on Yahoo, and I came across an article that talked about an engineer making human skin that allows the user to detect touch and temperature. The head researcher/engineer said there were 3 criteria that she wanted to meet before designing the artificial skin. It had to bend and stretch, can detect pressure and temperature, and can pick up and send information about the environment to the user. The third criteria were claimed to be the most difficult because "if the skin can sense but the brain can't understand it, then there’s no sense of touch."

            They explained the different types of prosthetics available, and they mentioned that the prosthetics that are currently out there today are can bend and stretch but don’t pick up any sensory information or prosthetics that are rigid but pick up all types of sensory information. This engineering team’s goal is to create skin that can do both.

Our society is growing quite rapidly, and this article helps to tie in the idea of being half human/half robot. Prosthetic limbs and other body parts are used by many different people who are in need of an arm, leg, etc. This is; however, the first-time skin has been reconstructed, and it is designed to work as efficiently as real human skin. This can potentially be used for burn victims, and other patients who have had their skin destroyed.

            While this is an amazing feat, what are the other possibilities that can arise from this invention? Maybe other prosthetics that are used for other limbs will be made even more life-like, and will work even more efficiently than regular limbs? This is all speculation, but no one can tell where all this advancement in technology will take us. Eventually, if we continue to advance in artificially creating body parts we will begin to build half human half robots. This is a common theme among sci-fi movies, and we might soon be living out the films.

            This would truly be a helpful tool for patients in need. I believe this invention is also the first step forward to building robots. If we can design something that can be incorporated into a real human, then eventually we will learn how to make it operate alone and without a user. With any given piece of technology there is always the potential for harm as much as there is potential for good. I truly believe that everything in this world has its own pros and cons. With this material, the pros are that it can help replace skin and help humans in need. However, the cons for this invention would possibly be the price of the material and the accessibility. When this item first comes out it will not be available to many people, but it will most likely be available to those with more power and money. It will definitely take some time for this creation to reach the average citizen, but it is an interesting invention nonetheless.

Link for the article: https://www.yahoo.com/tech/stanford-engineer-making-stretchable-flexible-154622312.html

What Does Copying a Person Mean for the Original?

                Imagine that your consciousness could be transferred into a new body at any time. The catch is that your conscious is not actually transferred. Instead a copy is made, one copy is placed in the new body, and the other remains in the old one. Which copy ends up in which body is called ‘the coin toss’. The end result is two identical consciousness in two different bodies. So which one is the original, and how is its aura affected?

                This is the question the video game SOMA seeks to explore. The main character, Simon, is a copy of the original Simon who died 100 years ago. He was awakened in order to help the digital imprint of another person, Catherine, launch a satellite carrying the brain scans of other humans into space. Throughout the course of the game Simon remains in denial of the fact that he may be a copy, preferring to believe that he is the original Simon simply transferred into a new body. When the time comes to finally launch the ARK, as the satellite is called, into space both Catherine and Simon’s consciousness are copied onto it. Unfortunately one Simon is left behind, while another gets to live idyllically on the ARK. The one left behind rages at Catherine, accusing her of lying to him before she is shut down. Meanwhile, the other Simon wakes up on the ARK, and walks through a nice forested area before meeting the copy of Catherine. So which is the original and how can the player tell?

                The first method the player has to determine which Simon is the original is which Simon’s viewpoint is presented. Because the player is allowed to see both of the points of view of both the Simon left behind and the one on the ARK it obfuscates which is the original Simon, and which is the copy. For both of them life continues on from the moment they launched the ARK, but in two separate scenarios. In the end it is left to the player to decide which is the original and which is the copy.

                This is contrasted with an earlier portion of the game, where Simon has to copy himself onto a new, more durable, body. The Simon in the new body is followed, while the other Simon is put to sleep. The implication of course is that the Simon in the new body is the original, while the old body is inhabited by the copy.

                But what does this all mean for Simon’s aura? Is his aura diminished every time he is copied? Is his aura somehow fragmented between all of his identical copies? Do each of his copies have the exact same aura? Do each of the copies have their own distinct aura? Did his aura die along with his original body 100 years ago? These are the question left to the player by the game.

 I am of the opinion that his aura is in fact a combination of all of the above. To me, each copy receives a copy of the original’s aura, which it develops its own way through its actions. So the original which died 100 years ago had its own aura, as do the Simon on the ARK, and the Simon left behind. By their choices, and their reactions to their situations each Simon develops its own distinct aura which further serves to set it apart from all the other Simons.

Below is the relevant clip from the game so that you can make your own interpretation on which Simon is the original, and how his aura is or is not affected.