Some questions and answers for Human Sit, only a few days late:
* Are you an iTunes user? If so, please discuss the technology system required to deliver your music!
Nope! Oh oops, that means I can't answer that question!
* Disruptive forces are forces that change the status quo - they somehow throw off the equilibrium and sink social groups, businesses, and even societies into chaos. Identify a technology, past or present, that is serving as a disruptive technology. How is it changing the status quo? How is it impacting society?
It may be unorthodox to think of this as a "technology," but the invention of welfare seems like one of the most disruptive technology in lower class Americas. Listen, America! No longer do you have to work! Now you can just not work and barely scrape by as the government hooks you up to the great gleaming IV tube of its budget! Just make sure you have lots and lots of kids, so you can fully reap the benefits! Oh snap, did we just shoot ourselves in the feet? Well, too late to pull out now! I may be a typical uninterested-in-politics-and-most-current-events type American, but I know that welfare is one big technological mistake that America could have done without.
/Tirade
I also like to think of Interstates and Motors as disruptive technology. They aren't so much disrupting society as they are disrupting our attention to the world around us. Like we all learned so poignantly in Pixar's Cars, the Interstate cuts accross the land like a knife, rather flowing with it (like route 66 did, apparently). Motors allowed for the inventions of automobiles, speed boats, jetliners...all things which have put nature behind in favor of economy. Now don't get me wrong, I drive a car and am not adverse to accumulating some frequent flier miles, but I also believe that sometimes a person needs to put roaring engines away and experience the world in the way it used to be.
We didn't conquer it, we just think we did.
* No one has answered Adam's question fitfully - not even Adam. Do technics that are designed and created for the soul intention of doing something immoral inherently immoral themselves? Does form follow function? If the function is immoral, is the form as well? Can you come up with any other or "better" examples than a radar detector?
Sure. Let's talk about Cigarettes, Cigars, Smokeless Tobacco, and other misery-causing addictive type things. Millions of years ago the surgeon general cast down the whole Tobacco industry into a well of despair and infamy. Since then no one, not even smokers, have said that smoking is a good thing. Except maybe those smokers who can afford cigars for every smoke. What purpose do tobacco products serve besides body-ruining? Supposedly, recreation. I guess there are some people who say "let's go take a recreational smoke for the sake of smoking" and aren't talking about mind-altering drugs.
But still, when the judgment day comes, God isn't going to cast the cigarettes into hell along with the sinners. I'm pretty sure the smokes will to be left behind on earth, along with the radar detectors and the Microsoft Zunes (because those are pure evil).
* Does absolute right and wrong exist? In what context? Does absolute good and bad exist? Are we morally obliged to always do what is absolutely best?
In my eyes, absolute right exists. However, no human can ever attain it in this life. Jesus was the absolute right, and that's why we need his blood (wouldn't that sound terrible if you didn't understand the context?) to save our souls. We are morally obliged to follow Jesus' example as best we can, but to think that we can ever be as Absolutely Good as He is is to go down a road which quickly leads to madness.
Showing posts with label Human Situation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Human Situation. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Monday, January 29, 2007
Q&A Session
Okay! It's first blogging assigment time! Yes, I managed to pull myself away from the Wii long enough to do something constructive. I'm not at all sure what I'm planning to construct, however.
Some Questions and Answers:
Dr. Priest indicated that math is SALT - a Science, Art, Language and Tool. Can you give examples of each?
We did, of course, just talk about this kind of thing today. So here are some examples:
A Science: According to dictionary dot com, anything which ends in "ology" is a science, and "ology" is a general term to describe the study of something. I suppose by that logic Psychology is, in fact, a science. So let's say my example for a science is psychology, the study of human behavior.
An Art: This is the vaguest category. An art would seem to be an action, preferably a useful action, which can be honed to a sharp degree and become something even more useful. Many unassuming things have been taken by a gifted individual and transformed into an art, like what artists (in a different sense) did with film in the early photography era, or like what Lance Armstrong did with winning the Tour de France.
A Language: A language is an arbitrary system of sounds or characters used for communication between humans. Math has the distinction of being a universal language, which has transcended cultures to become understandable to all. A similar thing (perhaps more similar than we know) is the language of music, which is also, to a more ancient degree, universal.
A Tool: Another broad category. If some item is used to help a human progress in his or her life, it's probably a tool. One of the base signs of sentient life is the use of tools. Even apes use rudimentary tools to do those silly things apes do. I'll give a piece of paper and a pencil as my example of a tool. Both are used in conjunction to write our ideas, or perhaps our math problems, down in a permanent (hopefully) location so we can forget it and come back later. It's a tool to augment (or weaken?) our memory.
On to the next:
Dr. Priest indicated that he believes math to be discovered, not invented or created. What did he mean by this? Being that, as indicated in the reading, a lot of mathematics is applicable to things in the physical world, what are some conclusions that we can reach following Dr. Priest's line of thought?
I remember Dr. Priest saying "I'll give God the credit" or something to that extent in conjunction with the above statement. Obviously he believes that math, like fire, is a natural force which has always been, and it only remains for a human with brains enough to use numbers to figure it out. Of course I'm only able to add small digits together before I stop paying attention, but for those of us from more of a left-brained position, math can be quite a bit more helpful than fire.
Do we place too much value on statistics?
A while ago, for another similar class, I read a book by Neil Postman titled Technopoly. It was the author's tirade on the prevalence of technology and the hold it has on the nation. Quite an interesting and eye-opening read (some of you who are taking other Honors courses may be familiar with it). One of the items he went off on was our unswerving loyalty to statistics. How many chapel speeches, essays, or docu-dramas have you seen or heard which open with some kind of shocking percentage? How many have you believed? Postman pointed out that these kind of things are a problem in that to so many people, they are the highest authority. Who can argue with numbers, facts, and bar graphs? Which brings me to my next answer...
Can we truly trust any information or theories that are based on statistics?
"Correlation, not causation." That has always been a true statement. Statistics and polls are useful, but we as discerning individuals have to be careful of becoming gluttons of information. What's really true? Where did this info come from? Who compiled it? Can we really ever have the right answer? Who knows. The bottom line is not to believe everything you hear (just like your mom told you, hopefully).
Thus, my interview is complete. But wait, there's more! I have to take a couple minutes to showcase one of the best things about the Nintendo Wii: Mii creating! In the Wii universe, there exists a system which allows one to create a tiny, cartoonish version of oneself for use with Wii Sports and, presumably, other forthcoming Nintendo games. Here is my Mii of myself:
Mmm. Cartoonish self.
That's not all, though. There is no limit to the amount of Miis which can populate your little Mii plaza, so naturally I've been making cute, balloon-headed versions of basically everyone I know.
Here's one you may recognize:
Look familiar?
Unfortunately, "Picklesimer" didn't fit in the name box. But hey, our professor might show up on my baseball team or in the audience at my next bowling game! Hey!!
Some Questions and Answers:
Dr. Priest indicated that math is SALT - a Science, Art, Language and Tool. Can you give examples of each?
We did, of course, just talk about this kind of thing today. So here are some examples:
A Science: According to dictionary dot com, anything which ends in "ology" is a science, and "ology" is a general term to describe the study of something. I suppose by that logic Psychology is, in fact, a science. So let's say my example for a science is psychology, the study of human behavior.
An Art: This is the vaguest category. An art would seem to be an action, preferably a useful action, which can be honed to a sharp degree and become something even more useful. Many unassuming things have been taken by a gifted individual and transformed into an art, like what artists (in a different sense) did with film in the early photography era, or like what Lance Armstrong did with winning the Tour de France.
A Language: A language is an arbitrary system of sounds or characters used for communication between humans. Math has the distinction of being a universal language, which has transcended cultures to become understandable to all. A similar thing (perhaps more similar than we know) is the language of music, which is also, to a more ancient degree, universal.
A Tool: Another broad category. If some item is used to help a human progress in his or her life, it's probably a tool. One of the base signs of sentient life is the use of tools. Even apes use rudimentary tools to do those silly things apes do. I'll give a piece of paper and a pencil as my example of a tool. Both are used in conjunction to write our ideas, or perhaps our math problems, down in a permanent (hopefully) location so we can forget it and come back later. It's a tool to augment (or weaken?) our memory.
On to the next:
Dr. Priest indicated that he believes math to be discovered, not invented or created. What did he mean by this? Being that, as indicated in the reading, a lot of mathematics is applicable to things in the physical world, what are some conclusions that we can reach following Dr. Priest's line of thought?
I remember Dr. Priest saying "I'll give God the credit" or something to that extent in conjunction with the above statement. Obviously he believes that math, like fire, is a natural force which has always been, and it only remains for a human with brains enough to use numbers to figure it out. Of course I'm only able to add small digits together before I stop paying attention, but for those of us from more of a left-brained position, math can be quite a bit more helpful than fire.
Do we place too much value on statistics?
A while ago, for another similar class, I read a book by Neil Postman titled Technopoly. It was the author's tirade on the prevalence of technology and the hold it has on the nation. Quite an interesting and eye-opening read (some of you who are taking other Honors courses may be familiar with it). One of the items he went off on was our unswerving loyalty to statistics. How many chapel speeches, essays, or docu-dramas have you seen or heard which open with some kind of shocking percentage? How many have you believed? Postman pointed out that these kind of things are a problem in that to so many people, they are the highest authority. Who can argue with numbers, facts, and bar graphs? Which brings me to my next answer...
Can we truly trust any information or theories that are based on statistics?
"Correlation, not causation." That has always been a true statement. Statistics and polls are useful, but we as discerning individuals have to be careful of becoming gluttons of information. What's really true? Where did this info come from? Who compiled it? Can we really ever have the right answer? Who knows. The bottom line is not to believe everything you hear (just like your mom told you, hopefully).
Thus, my interview is complete. But wait, there's more! I have to take a couple minutes to showcase one of the best things about the Nintendo Wii: Mii creating! In the Wii universe, there exists a system which allows one to create a tiny, cartoonish version of oneself for use with Wii Sports and, presumably, other forthcoming Nintendo games. Here is my Mii of myself:
Mmm. Cartoonish self.
That's not all, though. There is no limit to the amount of Miis which can populate your little Mii plaza, so naturally I've been making cute, balloon-headed versions of basically everyone I know.
Here's one you may recognize:
Look familiar?
Unfortunately, "Picklesimer" didn't fit in the name box. But hey, our professor might show up on my baseball team or in the audience at my next bowling game! Hey!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
