HUMAN INTERACTION

Reflective practice, research, publication

Interesting idea. This would tell aliens a lot about us.

This is interesting!

Frontal Wigs Human Hair - Nana Hair

The writers of this document seem to view education not only as a means of expanding one's knowledge but as a means of improving one's inherent nature from one of evil and corruption to one of goodness and virtue. I find this notion classist and fallacious, as it seems to suggest that those who are not educated (including those who cannot afford education) are inherently worse as people than those who are educated and also that education can fundamentally change who a person is.

the violence of human right in Myanmar make the people decided to immigration to other country.

I found this statement incredibly depressing yet profound. Depressing in the idea that our central task is learning how to die (really who wants to be that morbid and think like that) (potentially digital humanists?), yet profound, because the soldier is not talking about us as individuals, but as a human civilization, as a whole, as a group, as a collective.

This section reminded me of the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes who believed the nature of man is inherently bad and the purpose of government and education is to control man's selfish desires. In my opinion, I side more with John Locke's philosophy that the nature of man is inherently good but society is corrupted by certain negative people. Education's purpose should be to remind people of their virtuous nature and not become distracted by the inequalities and failures of society.

Unconscious knowledge of human character described by Joanna Baillie, Introductory Discourse

This book is not about religion, although I talk about religion. It's about religious tolerance and the fight for human rights; the first battlefront in public discourse about human rights.

Freedom of religion was the first base upon which other understandings of freedom have been built upon.

this was left on the cutting room floor, but Hal's behavior can actually be attributed to human error. In the novelized version written by co-screenplay author - the famous Arthur C. Clarke - it is stated that Hal is briefed on the mission, but told to lie about it and obfuscate the facts about the mission and it's details to the crew. It is implied that this is what ultimately makes Hal malfunction. This helped me to understand this movement in the context of the film far more easily, and it also highlights Heidegger's focus on mankind's responsibility to it's technology and those unintended consequences.

This movie took place in the future. However there are many parallels it has to present day. Hal, the artifical intellegence on the spaceship, reminds me of A.I personal assistance that we have today. For example, Amazon Echo, Google Home, and Siri. They all were created by humans, for the sole purpose of making life easier. These personal assistance devices can play music, turn off lights, and adjust the temperature in a house. Which is similar to Hal on a spaceship. With that it in mind it is terrifying to see how technology could turn against us and malfunction, like how the director portrayed Hal. Hal seemed perfect at first, but later on in the movie he began to malfunction. This portrays that humans can try to make technology perfect, but there is always human error which makes it vulnerable to malfunctions.

In this passage the author is allowing his intended audience, people who are curious in transhumanism, a glimpse into the future when technology merges with the human body. At this point one must question at what point does technology becomes a prosthesis? The author uses this imagery of technology merging with our body to form prosthesis, devices that function as a artificial body part, to suggest that technology at one point may be an extension of the human body. This extension of the human body supports his trans humanist ideas because it may allow a person to reach beyond their human potential.

从ITS 到ATS，捕捉情感实现自适应指导意义非凡

Ah ha! I was wondering how this was related to post-humanism. Maybe I'm slow on the uptake, but I'm only finally making these connections. So by expanding this view of rhetoric, "things" can persuade, too.

Like annotations-on-annotations-on-annotations, but less human-centric?

After last week, we can probably agree that "no"--it isn't. Vatz and Bitzer were talking inside the same "box," regarding the speaker, audience, and context as discrete parts, and the post-human is part of the movement which pushes us outside that box, wanting to argue that the parts are not, in fact, discrete.

Alienation

Oakwood International offers the best Human Resources training courses in the UAE! They are specialized in HR training courses that will prepare you well for a successful HR career and will enable you to progress to management with ease. For more information visit them today!

Go to chap. 14

• "we are spirits in the material world"
• "We are spiritual beings having a human experience"

or as I jokingly say:

• 'I am a Pleiadian being having a Human experience.'

Of course you're in a limited state. Being in a body is a limited state. It's a great nuisance carrying around this hunk-feeding it, housing it, keeping it clean, clothing it, making it beautiful, keeping it comfortable and attending to its many aches and pains. A nuisance, my God! Don't you just want to fly away sometimes? But the body is the garment you wear in being in this world, and it enables you to communicate here. You don't get much attention if you don't have a body and you want to communicate. Then it is hard to get people's attention. And if you do get their attention, you scare the daylights out of them, and they never want to have an experience like that again! So, obviously, our ability to communicate with people in the world seems very limited. We still give them something, but it will arise from within them and they will think it is from themselves.

https://hyp.is/CxRY8prCEeafH6-CvEocWw/gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/QmPmEFwAKZTkEDca6uRR4VwkHwmmrdFuuBvopgfGPmKEsg

Though details are scarce, the very idea that Facebook would tackle this problem with both humans and algorithms is reassuring. The common argument about human filtering is that it doesn’t scale. The common argument about algorithmic filtering is that it requires good signal (though some transhumanists keep saying that things are getting better). So it’s useful to know that Facebook used so hybrid an approach. Of course, even algo-obsessed Google has used human filtering. Or, at least, human judgment to tweak their filtering algorithms. (Can’t remember who was in charge of this. Was a semi-frequent guest on This Week in Google… Update: Matt Cutts) But this very simple “we sat down and carefully identified stuff we think qualifies as clickbait before we fed the algorithm” is refreshingly clear.

Homi Bhabha is an academician who is currently the Director of the Humanities Center at Harvard University as well as the Anne F. Rothenberg Professor of English and American Literature and Language. He is a significant figure in the contemporary post-colonial studies and had contributed key ideas to the school such as Third-space, Hybridity, Ambivalence, and Mimicry to name a few.

Short Answer: A football (or as Americans like to say, soccer) player.

Long Answer: Born in Marseille, France to Algerian immigrants, Zidane is most well known for being a three-time FIFA World Player of the Year who led France to victory in the 1998 World Cup. He has played for clubs in France, Italy and Spain, but his career ended when he was expelled from the 2006 World Cup final for headbutting an opponent.

Rather than saying the relief is what makes the situation humorous, I would be more willing to believe that the humour makes me feel more relieved about the situation.

Or maybe seeing something unexpected would cause you to be relief, and because you're not as tense as before, you're able to laugh and see the humour in it?

So in other words, a situation is humorous if it evokes conflicting emotions within the person viewing it.

Key and Peele - I do feel conflicted about this sketch because on one hand, it's a serious and pertinent problem in reality as the sombre tone of the first few seconds of the sketch conveyed while it was still being pretty normal. However, as it continued on, it got increasingly interrupted by amateur magic tricks by the cop, who also had the most hilarious impressions thanks to Key, that did make me want to laugh. However, I felt that I shouldn't laugh - this conflicting emotions just make me feel guilty, not humorous. Am I misinterpreting this category?

Because she just won the Olympics final and since - very uderstandably - it is an amazing and wonderful accomplishment, she danced in this manner to express her joy in celebration.

The way the act was described covers a layer of deliberate prejudice over her actions, however. "...Crip-Walking all over.." implies a certain amount of chaos or scene being made when in reality, it barely lasted a few seconds, contained within her little spot at her side of the court. And watching her move like that with a huge smile on her face, as well as her sister's, anyone would be hard pressed or extremely biased to interpret this action as anything other than just an automatic reaction borne out of happiness and joy.

I think it refers to when someone makes fun of certain characteristics or features of another person with the intent to tease or amuse but without any malicious intentions. By this I mean, they did not do it to hurt the other, or would/should not have done it if they knew it would've hurt the person they were mocking regardless of it giving others enjoyment.

Does she mean the western civilization? That she would not have been part of the USA as she was then had it not been for slavery?

They were protective of her, then? They cared for her in a more sincere way separate from the superficial way the whites treated her despite the treatment being more "positive" towards her "joyful tendencies".

I wonder why though - is it because they felt the coloredness clearly and constantly unlike Zora and therefore could not share the joy she freely did in her childlike innocence?

I honestly don't understand what she means by this. Help?

I wonder what about the exchanges were queer to her. Did they compliment each other out of politeness about things they didn't really mean, which struck her, even as a young child, to be strange?

I can imagine this statement being very powerful in the social context of that time. When "people of color" was thrown around normatively, this sentence would have made many reconsider their idea of colored was and how one can be considered as such.

On a personal level, I can relate to this very well. As someone who grew up in Asia, I never considered myself a person of color or a minority or any other label that would not only distinguish but also made me inferior in one phrase. We had different ethnicities and different races, sure, but it didn't give me the feeling of somehow being less than "poc" in the USA does, even as the people of color themselves are trying to reclaim these terms as empowerment.

I can't decide if this is a sign of my privilege and luck previously as I am part of the major ethnic group in Burma while Singapore takes extraneous pains to ensure racial harmony and balance, or if it's just an imbalance in the part of the United States.

The instructions above used this as an example of how Zora Neale Hurston was not ashamed to be colored when to me, I interpreted it as her highlighting some sort of shortcoming on her part at that point of time that didn't make her "colored-ness" less severe.

The saddest and scariest thing to me about these hate crimes is that it has all to do with something beyond your own control. The perpetrators hate you, hurt you not for something you have done or can do, but rather for the sake of you simply being you. I can only imagine how much worse it would be for those who actually have experienced it and have this threat looming over them every day. It's unbelievably scary to me that we live in a world - no, a society - like this. But perhaps we can be empowered by the the fact that the fault lies in the beliefs and norms we have built around ourselves when it comes to race, and not something that is set in stone. I believe this means that we still have the power to turn these assumptions and harmful stereotypes around.

We're essentially creating things on purpose that are going to have the ability to make their own decisions, possibly be smarter than us, and also have a chance of malfunctioning... Why?

So if it threatens our understanding of what it means to be human.. is that beneficial to our ongoing research of essentially what makes us humans by constantly pushing our understanding to be deeper? or is harmful and uprooting of the interpersonal/cultural norms we've established?

It reminds me of the machine performance, the human performance and the idea of the text as a performative event (as in Johanna Drucker's theory of performative materiality).

Funny how he feels a need to sell this point to his own staff

This passage reminds me of Lyotard's introduction to The Inhuman, and this Onion article.

The 5 structuring types outlined by Doug Engelbart:

• mental
• concept
• symbol
• process
• physical

Selection by association, rather than indexing.

With the advent of Google Docs we're finally moving away from the archaic indexing mentioned here. The filesystem metaphor was simple and dominated how everyone manages their data-- which extended into how we developed web content, as well.

The declaration that Hierarchical File Systems are Dead has led to better systems of tagging and search, but we're still far from where we need to be since there is still a heavy focus on the document as a whole instead of also the content within the document.

The linearity of printed books is even more treacherously entrenched in our minds than the classification systems used by libraries to store those books.

One day maybe we'll liberate every piece of content from every layer of its concentric cages: artificial systems of indexing, books, web pages, paragraphs, even sentences and words themselves. Only then will we be able to re-dress those thoughts automatically into those familiar and comforting forms that keep our thoughts caged.

http://www.research.ucsb.edu/compliance/human-subjects/

This aligns with Confucius thinker Xunzi's attitude on properly cultivating morality in others. We are guided by our desires: whatever we feel a sense of lack in, we desire that object. It is the role of those with cultivated morality (gentlemen, sages) to act as an exemplar of moral goods, so that others who have yet to be cultivated desire what they have.

Claim on early development (and an accurate one, by contemporary standards).

This little diddy here smacks of Aristotle: what distinguishes humans from all other creatures are their cognitive faculties.

Again, rhetoric as what sets humans apart from other animals.

I find this quote to fascinating. Isocrates isn't necessarily a cynic, but he certainly is not the happiest of philosophers.

Is rhetoric just the title we give to innate, self-interested, behavior? Is the term 'rhetoric' to blame, or is it simply just a label we give to human interactions?