alanaghunter - Tumblr blog

[alanaghunter]

Reflecting on Jurassic Park

This week, we watched Jurassic Park, which has, evidently, been one of my favorite movies since I was little. Ever since I was a kid, I have been fascinated with dinosaurs. I even wanted to become a Paleontologist when I was little, because of my interest in the topic. In terms of the idea of Jurassic Park actually becoming reality, I would never want the events of Jurassic Park to come to fruition. That has been a fear of mine since the first time I saw the movie when I was very little, maybe about four years old. I have no doubt that if the technology were to arise to make it possible, they would not hesitate to make a real version of Jurassic Park, completely ignoring the message of the movies. Dinosaurs are some of the only things I am truly afraid of, which is kind of funny to me. However, this fear makes me agree with the rhetorical argument of Jurassic Park: ‘progress’ for the sake of economic gain without the consideration of the ethical implications is wrong.

[alanaghunter]

Most Influential Text of the Semester

Out of all the readings and screenings we had this semester, the Black Mirror Episode “Be Right Back” my be the one that affected me the most. The idea of losing a loved one is an extremely common anxiety, which everyone at some point has to face head-on. Because of this, the episode is intensely relatable and heart-wrenching to watch. The technology in the episode, in which Martha is able to text, talk to, and eventually have a life-size version of Ash, is both tempting and revolting. It is such a strange feeling watching the show, because, in my experience, I knew that it would take a lot of will power to refuse this technology. In my opinion, when a loved one dies, even if it is painful, you need to grieve the loss, otherwise you will always be stuck in the grief and never be able to move on. I found it incredibly unsettling that Martha became so dependent on the technology. The episode really expresses the idea that this AI version of her husband, Ash, is not truly him. This is because the technology gets its information from his public posts and the videos, photos, and conversations that Martha agrees to submit. However, the technology will never be able to know their intimate moments, the moments they shared that were not caught on camera. The AI version of Ash is only a snapshot of him - using his pictures online to create his physical image ‘on a good day,’ as Martha mentioned. When her sister visited and told Martha that she was happy that she was moving on, it broke Martha. She knew that what she was doing was not healthy, and that others would realize this fact as well. I believe a huge reason that she holds on desperately to Ash’s memory was the fact that she was pregnant. At the end of the episode, we see that Martha was never able to get rid of this AI version of Ash. Instead, she keeps him in the attic and lets her daughter visit him on the weekends. Her daughter calls him “Ash” and not dad. I am also assuming that it is their secret, because it does not seem healthy, in my opinion, to be keeping an artificial version of your deceased husband in the attic for your daughter to visit on weekends and birthdays. It expresses this idea that she will never be able to let go of him, he will always be there in the background, waiting for another visit. It is because of that common anxiety about the eventual loss of family members or loved ones that makes this episode so compelling and heart-wrenching.

[alanaghunter]

Ethical Implications of AI

This week, we dealt with the controversial concept of AI. Prior to reading or watching the material of this week, I was not so sure that Artificial Intelligence could become nearly indistinguishable from humans. Through reading “Mind vs. Machine” and watching “Neuroscientist Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty,” I began to think that it was possible that computers could at some point become indistinguishable from humans. Dealing with this realization was interesting. I began questioning just how ethical or moral I thought that this kind of technology would be. The epitome of my opinion came to me when I was watching the Black Mirror episode “Be Right Back.” I knew at that point that it would just simply be immoral to have a technology that, through your online interaction, could mimic a deceased person who was close to you. The conclusion of the episode is exactly what would occur if we were to really attempt to create that kind of technology: it would never be entirely them. It would be “okay” at the beginning, because it would provide the grieving person the ability to interact with their passed loved one again. However, as time would go by, they would realize that everything would be surface-level. We can never truly see who a person is from what they put online. It seems to me that it would be impossible to download someone’s entire consciousness into an AI or a robot. The idea of the Connectome has come to mind, however I do not think that a mapping of a brain can really show what is inside - the human consciousness. The episode was very unsettling and tragic to watch. Having a fake version of her husband will quite possibly never allow her to really mourn the loss of him and move on. 

[alanaghunter]

Connectome

In regards to the video “Neuroscientist Explains One Concept in Five Levels of Difficulty,” Dr. Kasthuri explains the idea of Connectome to five different people. He does not really use Pathos, or make emotional appeals. When I was watching the video, the people he was explaining Connectome to were the ones making the emotional appeals about what it means to be human and what it means to have a consciousness. He mostly uses Logos, or uses logical arguments, that are simply based on his research to explain the concept of a Connectome to the five different people. He mostly bases his arguments on scientific and logical premises, however I did not find that he made many moral arguments about actually completing this project. He also often uses comparisons to be able to explain some of the more complicated concepts more simply. 

In order to explain what he hopes to accomplish with the Connectome, he simplifies the argument for the lower levels. For example, for the five year old, he only told him very basic things about the brain and how it works. He used that to explain that he works to understand the brain. He compared the cells in the brain to the stars in the sky, something simple that a child would be able to understand. He also personified the cells, saying that they talk to each other in order to work. For the next person, the thirteen year old, he began to make it slightly more technical, by saying that the electricity in your brain is what causes the cells to tell your body what to do. However, it is still void of complicated jargon or overly detailed explanations. He also presents the question that if he were to map his brain on a computer, would it be him? The thirteen year old said that the computer would not have feelings like he does, and Dr. Kasthuri mentions that emotions are just cells communicating in the brain, refuting his argument with logic. For the college student, it got much more complicated, he began using more complicated jargon that only got more specific when it got to the grad student and entrepreneur. He talked about the brain also using a binary way of functioning, like a computer. For the grad student and the entrepreneur, it is much more difficult to follow the conversation, because they begin to use jargon, and a lot of the concepts brought up are not explained. 

My opinion of Connectome is not very positive. I believe that it is very overwhelming to think that we can replicate a human brain through artificial intelligence. Dr. Kasthuri believes that the emotional part of our brains and our memories will be able to be replicated into the artificial intelligence as well. From my own personal standpoint, I would hope that there is much more to human consciousness than just complex connections of cells in the brain. I do not believe that a neural map is the same as consciousness. I believe that they can possibly replicate some artificial version of consciousness by going through with the Connectome project, however I do not think it would be possible to truly create life as we know it from artificial intelligence. 

[alanaghunter]

Rhetorical Implications of Shrek and it’s Relation to Frankenstein

For this week’s journal, I got the idea for it while in the process of writing my blog post. Because I was writing about the story of Shrek and also thinking about the proposal for my final paper, I realized something about the story of Shrek and its relation to the story of Frankenstein’s monster. At the beginning of Shrek’s story, you see him living alone in the forest in a swamp. He does not have any friends and the humans in a nearby town fear him, as they came to him with torches and pitchforks, like in the 1931 movie, Frankenstein. In these ways, Shrek can be compared to Frankenstein’s monster. Shrek also revealed at one point in the middle of the movie that he was not happy with the way people always treated him like a scary green monster. However, unlike in Mary Shelley’s novel, or the two James Whale movies, Shrek has a happy ending. Shrek may not have been made in a lab by a mad scientist, however, he expressed his sadness at being shut out from the world because of his scary appearance. It is a modern twist on the story of Frankenstein in which the monster rises above the people who fear him and gets a fairy tale ending. This shift from always having to kill off the monster and never allow them a happy ending to giving the monster a role of the hero and giving him a fairy tale ending is, in my eyes, a very nice change to see in popular media.

[alanaghunter]

The Rhetorical Power of Parody

Parody definitely has its own rhetorical value in its creation. Parody, from my own experience in consuming parody, has a way of expressing different ideas by being humorous. It can also reveal some common trope or tradition for its ridiculous nature, something that we would not question otherwise. If you think of something like political cartoons, they are using humor and satire to express a point, maybe even make fun of a policy they had been pushing that, in a different context, is now ridiculous. Parody, in my opinion, has a way of exposing the holes in an argument, by making fun of those not-so-sound claims.

I would also like to answer this question in relation to the movie Shrek, a very interesting film. Shrek is essentially a parody or a satirical rendition of the fairy tale, specifically Disney’s rendition of a fairy tale. By making the hero, or the “knight in shining armor” an ogre, and his “noble steed” an annoying talking donkey, it is poking fun at a story everyone has grown up reading or hearing about. Even the beautiful princess that is supposed to be rescued is revealed to be an ogre herself when it is nighttime. She is also able to fight, suggesting that she would have been able to leave the tower if she really wanted to in the first place. She simply stayed in the tower because she wanted to be released from her curse, which is through true love’s kiss. In this sense, the movie tackles an argument against traditional fairy tales about the “damsel in distress.” Furthermore, at the end of the story, despite the fact that Fiona could have broken her curse by staying with Lord Farquaad, she falls in love with Shrek, which meant that she would stay an ogre forever. The ending is quite serious, even if the movie is a parody of the fairy tale. The argument being made by having the story structured like this, is that the fairy tales always focus on beautiful, perfect people who end up as royalty living in castles at the end, who are universally loved by the people around them. In the end of Shrek, the townspeople are still in fear of Shrek and Fiona, however the outcasts, the fairy tale creatures, become Shrek and Fiona’s friends. In my opinion, Shrek is an incredible movie. The two main characters are not perfect or beautiful and they are not 100% heroic. It is making an argument that anyone can have their own fairy tale, or happy ending, even if they don’t look like a prince or a princess. 

In this sense, parody can be incredibly profound and impactful, despite the fact that it is usually written off a simply a piece of media to make people laugh.

[alanaghunter]

Improving My Writing

Interestingly, the activity that we completed for the blog post was something that resonated with me the most this week. Despite the interest I had in reading the text of Frankenstein, I found that the writing exercises were something I needed to get back into the headspace of writing. Throughout my entire university career until now, I had focused mostly on reading and analyzing literary texts, rather than trying to practice writing, even though that is where I wish for my career to go. In reading the section titled “Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking),” I found myself inspired to write much more than just the five facts that were given in each exercise. I even found myself writing much more than was asked from me in the final exercise in the blog post, and sending the hilarious final product to my friends. During high school, I would write funny stories and send them to my friends to make them laugh, however since then I had lost the motivation to write outside of an academic setting. In reading this section from Writing Spaces, I was able to find my creative voice again.  

[alanaghunter]

Writing Exercises

Part 1: (Detective)

My partner and I received an anonymous tip in the office mailbox, which was unmarked and unaddressed. Written on it was only an address and “MURDER” written in red ink. The address led us straight to the Sunset Mall Parking Garage. We arrived there at approximately June 7, 2010, 5:47 AM. After looking around for a few minutes, we came across a crowd of people. Upon approaching these people, we saw a body laid out on the floor, seemingly lifeless, with a pool of half-dried blood surrounding the body. Upon further inspection, my partner and I found multiple stab wounds on the man’s chest and back. Forensic experts at the scene suggest the time of death to be 10:37 PM on June 6, 2010. Attached to his body was his identification card, stating this man’s name, Mark Smith, and age, 35, along with a letter written in the same handwriting as the one placed in our mailbox just hours before. There appear to be signs of significant struggle in regard to the wounds located at Mr. Smith’s back. The chest wounds appear to have been carried through with little to no struggle, as the wounds are much cleaner and seem to be meant to form a triangular pattern. No witnesses to the crime have come forward with any information yet, and the position of the murder in the garage, conveniently out of sight of any of the security cameras, suggests the killer’s knowledge of the CCTV blind spots. 

Part 2: (Coroner)

Murder Case #1052

The subject Mark Smith is a caucasian male, 35, six feet and two inches tall, weighing 180 pounds. He has a shaved head, no visible birthmarks, one tattoo located on his left shoulder. The estimated time of death is June 6, 2010; 10:37 p.m, as a result of multiple stab wounds to his chest and back. The wounds have a trace of the dirt and gravel located in the parking garage, thus the murder occurred in the parking garage. After a post-mortem evaluation, it is clear that only the four back wounds were fatal. The consecutive 5 chest wounds appear to have been done after the subject had been incapacitated. The chest wounds are in a triangular pattern. The punctures of the weapon used seem similar to an ordinary kitchen knife. The skin around the punctures on the subject’s back, between the shoulder blades and adjacent to the spinal cord, has festered quickly, suggesting the addition of some sort of corrosive substance. The labs were unable to detect the exact substance used. The chest punctures were much cleaner and had not festered like the wounds on Mr. Smith’s back, suggesting the use of a second knife. 

Part 3: (Eulogy)

Mark Smith was the best of us. He had been a wonderful friend to each and every one of us. Even if he didn’t have a family to support him, he always reminded the friends around him that we were his second chance for a family. I have never come across anyone who would speak ill of Mark. He was a ray of light in each of our lives. He never ceased to give. Even if he could not get anything in return, he was always giving. I remember when he gave all his friends Christmas presents, even though he would not be able to buy anything for himself that year. I can’t tell you how many times I had to tell him to think of himself before others, that it would only come back to bite him. it only pains me more to think of that time, now that we found out that the cause of his passing was caused by his big heart. I can only hope that he is now at peace, looking down on each and every one of us with that same smile on his face. We will miss you dearly, Mark. 

Part 4: (Prosecutor)

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, this case that has. been presented before you is another preventable tragedy. The man and murderer James Johnson has evaded the law for far too long. The evidence presented against him can only point towards his guilt. I implore you all to make the right decision and end this man’s endless horrors. 

Final Questions

1. Which of the exercises did you find easiest to write? Why? 

The first three exercises were very fun to write, which made the process easier for me to complete. I found myself easily able to think of the jargon, with the help of course of the examples located in the reading for this assignment. These were very fun to complete, but also a very useful challenge in considering your role and audience in a writing assignment. 

2. Which of the exercises did you find hardest to write? Why? 

The final exercise, in which we are the prosecution in court, was the most difficult because I have no experience of law jargon. I did not know how to address the jury, which hindered my creativity a bit. I was worried that the format of the section and the jargon used would be wrong. I had to do a bit of research to figure out the general structure of it, and even now I am quite doubtful that I did it correctly. However, it was still an interesting challenge to tackle that helped me a lot in my understanding of rhetoric.

3. What does the rhetorical situation of academic writing demand? Who is the audience? What tone is appropriate? What jargon might be needed? 

The rhetorical situation of academic writing demands a credible and well-made argument to be made. The appeals used in the writing must be well thought out and carefully done, as to not fall victim to common fallacies. The audience must be considered and the jargon that is related to the content and the intended audience of the writing must be used as well. The audience seems to usually be an academic audience, either in the field you are writing in, or if it is for a school assignment, the audience would be the professor that will be reading the paper. However, when writing a school paper, it is important to write as if you were writing for that particular field so that it stays true to the arguments that you are making. A serious and argumentative tone is appropriate. It is not correct for someone to be writing academically to us a casual tone. The jargon of the field you are writing for is important, for instance if you are writing a literary analysis, you will need to use jargon specific to the field of literary study, as opposed to, for example, the jargon specific to a medical field. 

[alanaghunter]

Learning to Brainstorm

This week introduced many useful and interesting readings. I thoroughly enjoyed each of them, especially the poems on Prometheus from the end of the week. However, a reading I found especially useful was “Taking Flight: Connecting Inner & Outer Realities During Invention.” This is because I have always had trouble confronting writing, whether it be personal or school-related. The anxiety that comes with beginning a writing assignment or project can sometimes be too overwhelming for me to face. I often would leave the assignments for a day or two before the due date, which made me even more frustrated with myself. However, in reading this section, I learned that there are many useful methods to confront this issue. The advice which was the most useful for me had to be the idea of deciding to have fun with your writing. Making brainstorming and writing a more enjoyable situation as a way to combat writing anxiety has changed my perspective entirely. I also found the advice on procrastination in writing helpful. Instead of punishing yourself for leaving the writing assignment for later, make sure you have enough time to actually complete the assignment when the day comes. This shifted my perspective, allowing me to be much less hard on myself when it comes to procrastination. Overall this reading was incredibly insightful and I will be using the advice given in the section for possibly the rest of my career.

[alanaghunter]

Remixes and Interpretations of Frankenstein in Popular Kids Media

The story Frankenstein and his monster is one that has been used and applied in many forms of pop culture, whether that be cartoons, movies, books, or even television advertisements and cereal. Most of these depictions have to do with the monster, which has caused the general public who have not read the original novel written by Mary Shelley to believe that Frankenstein was the monster. I must admit that prior to reading Frankenstein in the eighth grade, I was a victim of this popular belief. Prior to reading the novel, I had been exposed to the idea of Frankenstein’s monster through popular culture. However, I cannot seem to remember my first encounter with the idea of Frankenstein. The character has been so pervasive throughout popular culture that it was introduced to me through mediums that I cannot clearly recall. With much reflection, I can only assume my first encounter with the idea of Frankenstein to be from childhood cartoons. One I can especially recall is through the episodes of Scooby-Doo. The show introduced many monsters, which causes me to believe that it must have been from there. Along with Scooby-Doo, I also recall a movie that uses this idea of bringing a dead person back to life. It is the 2008 animated movie named “Igor.” I do not remember anything about the movie other than the scene in which he reenacts the iconic scene in which the mad scientist uses lightning to reanimate a deceased person.

Any time the idea of reanimating life comes into the narrative of a show or movie, it reminded me of Victor Frankenstein and his monster. I have not seen Frankenstein used rhetorically much, the only one I can recall is genetically modified foods being called Franken-foods. The concept being that scientists are tampering with the natural aspects of life, causing them to be seen as these kinds of Victor Frankenstein-Esque mad scientists. From this interpretation, I would imagine things like cloning and other genetic-engineering scientific finds have been dubbed in a similar way. Any time that science has gone beyond what we generally believe to be ethical seems to result in people equating it to Victor Frankenstein and his creature.