30 Matching Annotations
  1. Aug 2019
    1. To achieve this goal, a synthesis of theoretical perspectives and research into a new instructional model known as online content construction (OCC) is necessary. OCC is defined as the skills, strategies and dispositions necessary as students construct, redesign, or reinvent online texts by actively encoding and decoding meaning through the use of digital texts and tools

      Here is the definition of OCC. It is absolutely necessary to teach students to encode and decode online text because this is the way we communicate today. However, teachers need to be taught as well.

    1. I believe that the word choice involved in identifying construction as opposed to creation is also of the utmost importance. Creation can be viewed simply as the act of producing, or causing to exist.  Construction is the building or assembling of an infrastructure. Construction is equal parts inspiration and perspiration. Construction calls on creativity as well as persistence, flexibility, and revision. Construction asks our students and teachers to focus on the power and patience employed during work process…and not just the final resultant work product

      This is a great description of the difference between creation and construction of an online content.

  2. Jul 2019
    1. Creation can be viewed simply as the act of producing, or causing to exist.  Construction is the building or assembling of an infrastructure. Construction is equal parts inspiration and perspiration. Construction calls on creativity as well as persistence, flexibility, and revision. Construction asks our students and teachers to focus on the power and patience employed during work process…and not just the final resultant work product.

      differences between online construction (building, framework) and creation (bringing into existence)

    2. . She identified that in order to “identify, in textual terms, how the Internet mediates the representation of knowledge, the framing of entertainment, and the conduct of communication”, our understanding of construction and creation needs to be broad enough to allow for change in the future. I believe that viewing the work as construction and more expansive that just creation allows for this eventuality.

      OCC and allowing content to be able to change and evolve in the future

  3. Dec 2017
    1. Construction also brings in the role of groups of learners in the process of learning and as a result includes elements of social and cognitive constructivism. Learners are encouraged to be creative as they build and revise content.

      OCC is collaborative and always changing

    1. How does an insubstantial word like “apple” lead you to think of a real thing—an object of a certain size that is red, round, sweet, and has a shiny, thin-peeled skin? How could a plain acoustic sound produce such complex states of mind, involving all those qualities of color, substance, taste, and shape? Presumably, each different quality involves a different agency. But then—in view of all we’ve said about why different agents can’t communicate—how could such varying recipients all “understand” the selfsame messages? Do language-agents have unusual abilities to communicate with different kinds of agencies?

      What article doesn't bring up is the context of the environment that the person grew up in. If we were to describe the word apple to someone who has never seen or tasted it, they would not be able to visualize what it is with just the word. The mind would try to relate it to an object that you have already experience to fill in what an "apple" may be.

  4. Oct 2017
    1. All our steps in creating or absorbing material of the record proceed through one of the senses—the tactile when we touch keys, the oral when we speak or listen, the visual when we read. Is it not possible that some day the path may be established more directly?

      Throughout reading this article I couldn't help but laugh at the dramatic irony of our experience as students in 2017 reading Bush's predictions for the future of mechanics and technology in 1991. He speaks with a bit of wonderment, obviously trying to shock the reader with ideas considered fantastical at the time and then undermining them as "not so fantastic;" the joke of course being that even his most fantastic ideas seem rudimentary to us. That is, until I reached this part of the article, where Bush's predictions seem to have closely aligned with those of our own in the modern era. In this quote he seems to suggest a total departure from the tactile, oral, visual, and so on. Whether explicitly or not, Bush is referencing transcendence of machine (mechanical or digital) which, when you think about it, is a "fantastic" notion even by our standards of technology in 2017.

  5. Sep 2017
    1. Even if government may (and perhaps must) monitor and regulate the way that drugs or TMS devices affect our health and safety, there may be aspects of the way we use such cognitive enhancement tools that should be reserved by the Constitution (or perhaps through other means) solely for free and unrestricted individual choice.

      Except mind altering drugs often affect more than the individual themselves. Autonomy out to give way, in instances like these, to the greater public good/safety. Our choices always affect more than just ourselves.

    2. One could conceivably argue that just as these personal decisions about medical procedures are insulated from the state power, so, too, should be the decisions someone makes about whether to receive a particular kind of psychiatric or psychological treatment.

      Except states regularly infringe upon these rights and/or limit/remove the means of exercising such rights

    3. Thus, the Court has drawn on the Constitution—and specifically its “due process” requirements and the safeguards they raise against arbitrary restrictions on bodily freedom—to assure that government does not impose such treatment on prisoners or mental patients without powerful reasons.

      This is false. For instance, there are countless documented cases in which the state has forcibly sterilized prisoners or used unwilling sterilization as a means of obtaining early parole for segments of the population deemed lesser (i.e., women of color, poor people, etc.)

    4. It is up to me, not the state, what beliefs I adopt, what opinions I voice, or what religion I practice.

      Except not really. Social institutions like school, religion, saluting the flag, etc. socialize us into acceptable thought/behavior. We are free, to an extent, to rebel against these socializations, but rarely without backlash from friends, family, community, etc. See also: Red Scare

    5. Indeed, as noted earlier, one well-known thought-enhancement technology is written language itself and perhaps use of language more generally. As Levy writes, “speech does not merely allow us to articulate thoughts that we would have had in any case. Instead, it allows us to externalize our thoughts and thereby treat them as objects for contemplation and manipulation. Externalized thoughts can be worked over, criticized, and improved.”21:38-39

      This is an interesting concept, particularly with regards to writing, because many people, myself included, think as they write. I often times do not even really know what I think about a topic until I start writing about it. Essays, for example, are usually difficult to start, but I end up figuring out what my argument is by the end because the process of writing itself has allowed me to think through the subject in a way normal biological cognition would not normally allow me to.

    1. – Well, it’s masquerading as a sci-fi novel but it’s really, uh, my own personal manifesto about the plight of the individual in the 21st century. I sort of created a utopian society where we all sort of… Uh… Uh… It’s really… it’s really… Uh…

      In this statement, our narrator explains to us the premise of his novel. I picked this statement in particular because it represents the casually slippery slope of transhumanism. Here, he says that his novel was ultimately supposed to be its own science fiction alternative universe, when really he was hiding little pieces of his personal experience with the changing roles of humans and machines through a fictional world. He then says he wished to create a utopian society where they assumably functioned together harmoniously, while trailing off an unable to imagine or comprehend a vision of what the future holds for a transhuman relationships.

    1. Everyone knows the two statements that answer our question. One says: Technology is a means to an end. The other says: Technology is a human activity. The two definitions of technology belong together. For to posit ends and procure and utilize the means to them is a human activity.

      Heidegger attempts to define the foundation of his argument by creating an absolute. Rather than stating "One could define technology as..." or even "Many accredited scholars and scientists agree technology is...." our author goes for the jugular and declares "Everyone knows..." With this statement he hopes to not only construct the platform for his essay, but also make his concept irrefutable by cementing it in the court of public opinion. With these choice words, he may even subtly convince readers with undefined opinions to adopt this perspective. Because for many people, being told - even discreetly - that they are different and alone in their thoughts is enough to sway the silent majority in many cases.

    2. Everywhere we remain unfree and chained to technology, whether we passionately affirm or deny it. But we are delivered over to it in the worst possible way when we regard it as something neutral

      In today's society it is common to hear that we are chained to our smartphones, computers, and other personal electronics.The author is supporting this by saying that we are imprisoned by technology even if we like it or not. The author is also suggesting that if we resist technology our lives would be harder than it already is.

    1. The discussion remains mired at a relatively abstract level about the ethics of procedures like cloning or stem cell research, and divided into one camp that would like to permit everything and another camp that would like to ban wide areas of research and practice.

      Very little should be seen as this black or white. Almost everything lies in the grey in between. To have such a one sided perspective could be reason for lack of progress.

    1. Well, I don’t think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before  and it has always been due to human error.

      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.

    2. Open the door, Hal. Rotate pod, please, Hal. Stop pod rotation, please, Hal. Rotate the pod, please, Hal. Rotate the pod, please, Hal.

      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.

    3. – Two days ago, one of our rocket buses was denied permission for an emergency landing.

      I have never seen this movie, so the start of this scene is a bit confusing. Why are these people secluded from what seems like the rest of society? I also notice that there are no people of color aboard on this "rocket bus;" it seems like only the upper class are included so far.

    1. Good proposed a meta-golden rule, which might be paraphrased as “Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors.” Its a wonderful, paradoxical idea

      The author provides us here with some insightful guidance for navigating the pitfalls of technology in our near future. However, the dichotomy is that this poetic and magnanimous declaration is also implicitly self-serving. 'Let's be benevolent to our creations, so they don't rise up and incarcerate us.' This statement shows the complexity and discord of the human animal. I agree with Vinge that we should indeed adopt this philosophy in the future. I doubt that will happen though, as we don't do it now. As a rule, we don't treat 'lesser' species with any regard or 'humanity'. We don't even treat other humans with much compassion. The difference in living conditions and experiences from the richest of humans to the poorest would be inconceivable and rage inducing. We exploit the animals and our planet all to 'better' ourselves and get shiny new stuff. This duality comes from both our insecurity, and our hubris. Another quote sums this up succinctly. "In humans, the hardest development problems have already been solved." It would seem that even the authors think we've got it all figured out, even though they spend most of their piece warning of and impending techno-doom. But we haven't got anything figured out. Humanity is like a five-year-old with a gun. Do we really need a bigger gun?

    2. Large computer networks (and their associated users) may “wake up” as superhumanly intelligent entities.

      The author refers to both the computer network and its user when he refers to them "waking up." This may be a prediction of a soon to be symbiotic relation to us and technology. We are already using technology to mange our social life, our infrastructure, and even our health with pacemaker. We are already living in a world where we are inseparable from technology, but will we one day be completely be inseparable?

    3. Computers that are “awake”

      Saying that computers are "awake," creates a relationship between deception and consciousness. When computers are turned on, one may personify them to be "awake," but they are not actually conscious; they are deceptively "waking up." This mirrors how the author sees human beings and technology, as one in the same.

    4. Computers that are “awake” and superhumanly intelligent may be developed. (To date, there has been much controversy as to whether we can create human equivalence in a machine.

      The author speculated of technology that could think for itself, in other words Artificial Intelligence. Surprisingly, these things already exists. For example the computer developed by IBM, "Deep Blue". This computer was created for the sole purpose of thinking for itself and playing chess. This computer even beat a word champion in chess, Garry Kasparov. Although, this computer could only think about one thing this still support the fact that super humanly intelligent computers could be developed.

    1. Admittedly, most high-tech interventions in the body’s functioning aim merely at restoring ordinary human health, or else at least opposing its decline. But that might easily change as our methods grow in power. Already, many interventions do much more than this, or something rather different

      Not to sound ominous, but this could be considered the path to a slippery slope. Blackford asserts that these advancements have indeed started out with the best of intentions, the may however - like many technologies before them - leave humanity with unintended and dire consequences it their wake. For example, amazing breakthroughs like GPS embedded microchips can track your children's whereabouts in an emergency. Conversely, humans can now be tracked anywhere on the globe by anyone with the means.

    2. Transhumanists speak, too, of transcendence or transformations (but again, not of a “beyond” or a transcendent order).

      I think that this quotation makes clear the fact that transhumanism is similar to secular ideology in the sense that both are entities striving to achieve something greater than the natural human being. However, the difference in the two lies in the purpose of the wanted "transcendence". To be honest I didn't have a clear understanding of what the author is trying to say in this essay so don't regard this as correct; but rather as what I got from it.

    3. Pill is now, and much like “mere” tools such as cellphones or computers.

      This part of the text is a good example of how technology has become transparent because cellphones and other computers are used so regularly that the knowledge of how to use them, are second nature; however, social groups that are excluded from this idea are the lower class whom cannot afford such luxuries. Most of these examples seem to be geared towards the upper middle class.

    4. At some point, we may be able to make extensive modifications to human DNA, body tissues, or neurophysiological functioning, or to merge our bodies with sophisticated cybernetic devices.

      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.

    5. Female fertility is not an injury or disease, and the Pill is not (in its most common use) a treatment or a cure. Indeed, it suppresses a bodily function, but in a way that gives women greater power, helping them control when they can and cannot reproduce.

      I have to argue with this. Everyone seems to think that the only thing pill is capable of doing is preventing pregnancy. The pill can be used in other ways as well. Some women can have hormonal imbalances in their bodies and can have an abnormal menstrual cycle. With an abnormal menstrual cycle some women can have issues such as experiencing menstrual cycles for the whole month, or even skip months without getting their period. With an abnormal cycle it is very hard to regulate these cycles and know when they are supposed to start or end. The pill contains hormones which helps keep these cycles regulated. The pill can even reduce pain from PMS which is a plus because some cramps can be unbelievably painful. The pill can even help with acne and other such problems. These are just some of the benefits the pill is capable of doing. In the paragraph he says that the pill is not a treatment or a cure but that is just plain wrong. The pill is helping cure many women who experience hormonal problems.

  6. Jul 2017
    1. OCC is defined as the skills, strategies and dispo-sitions necessary as students construct, redesign, or reinvent online texts by actively encoding and decoding meaning through the use of digital texts and tools

      OCC defined

    1. Creation can be viewed simply as the act of producing, or causing to exist.  Construction is the building or assembling of an infrastructure. Construction is equal parts inspiration and perspiration. Construction calls on creativity as well as persistence, flexibility, and revision. Construction asks our students and teachers to focus on the power and patience employed during work process…and not just the final resultant work product.