May 3, 2011 Leave a comment
Entitled ‘Neosentience: Sensitivity, Persistence, and Insight’
SeamanFinalPaper < — PDF, 1.1MB
a new paradigm of computation
April 27, 2011 Leave a comment
Click here to see large PDF: _alexandriaJarvis-mirror-as-Neosentient
As technology becomes an extension of daily life the human body develops a new phenomenology through which it senses and interprets the world. Each technologically mediated experience enables the human an altered or enhanced set of rules and functions.
As a technology and it’s scenario of use is imparted or discovered within a community, a new social order develops around it as it becomes accessible and acceptable. In the new social order, this new way of being begins to govern or even subsume daily habits and interactions. The shift ushers in a reliance on technology in which community members experience a fragmented reality. Ironically, this fragmentation occurs both while these individuals are united to and separated from this relationship.
This new phenomenology, created by playing off of our old is thought to be the key to recreating a kind of intelligence which will exceed our own. Whether it is artificial, ambient, near or far one can only imagine it would develop it’s own phenomenology. How will we relate to this new sentient being? How will it “see” and understand the world? What will it do with what it “see’s” and senses? Lastly, when this neo-sentient is no longer just a tool, offering the human a new phenomenology, what would happen when we realize it has it’s own phenomenology?
In a short exploration “Neosentient as a Mirror” I chose the most overt visualizations and alterations I could relate to the notion of an altered sense of the world and self: alterations of the representative body. Also, I was interested in the experience and affordances of communication through technology which led me to consider issues of self awareness through technology. After thinking about our relationship to ourselves, technology, and others I chose my agent: a mirror, to house the neosentient-human relationship. The mirror is a simple technology which we have built up both an expectation and mythical mystery about. The scenario I filmed is an exploration of the moment in which a human stumbles upon a neosentient which has recently discovered self-awareness. It’s alterations to the human form are minimal and subtle at best. However, beyond this scenario one could imagine it’s interventions being both expansive, bold, information rich, and applied to a specific context of use. The motivation of the neosentient in this scene is undetermined, but could be explored in further iterations. The schema of interaction could also be explored but in this case the mirror lends us to consideration of the analogy of the neosentient as mirror. Also, the communication between the neosentient and the human is at best strained in this scenario, but one could you imagine a willing and curious observer? All in all, this study has lead me to come into a critical awareness and imagination of my relationship to technology. And from this exploration, I find I am once again delighted by my “old” phenomenology and perhaps less miffed (or more thankful) of the new one I have gained!
March 31, 2011 Leave a comment
Many advances in the realm of artificial intelligence are now occurring. A new and related branch of investigation building upon these studies is the robotic paradigm of neosentience, or an intelligent, embodied, multimodal sensing and computational robotic system (Seaman and Rossler 2008). With the ability to learn, intelligently navigate, interact through natural language, generate simulations of behavior, create, display mirror competence, and gain contextual knowledge through multimodal sensing, the neosentient exhibits the mechanistic triumphs of the human body. The human, however, is rapidly shifting in how it interacts with the external environment. Organic, compartmentalized, and discrete interactions are being replaced with inorganic, nebulous, and gradation-based relationships. With rapid changes occurring in the way the humans relate to their environment, the neosentient, and its potential for multimodal sensing and intelligent interaction with other entities, may be defined both spatially and temporally.
There have been numerous models proposed to define an entity as living or non-living. An integral portion of many of these theories is defining the boundary between the external environment and the actual living organism. The traditional and biological view of living things takes root in compartmentalization. A discrete boundary exists between the organism of interest and the environment. Amongst program, improvisation, energy, regeneration, adaptability, and seclusion, Koshland has classified compartmentalization as a key component of a living entity (Koshland 2002). This requirement of sequestering functional parts has been defined as crucial for organisms on the terrestrial (McKay 2004) as well as extraterrestrial level (Ricardo 2009). Additionally, life has been strongly classified as being based in organic materials. The atoms of oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, and carbon have been identified as the fundamental building blocks for life. With the exception of a few metal ions, organic molecules have predominantly been associated with living systems (Shapiro 2007).
With recent advances in the fields of biomedical engineering, neuroscience, materials science, and computer science, these traditional definitions of life are being challenged. In particular, there has been a significant progress made expanding the interface of the external environment and the organism. New theories of what defines a part of a living organism are trending away from absolute boundaries and compartmentalization. In the realm of human health, numerous advances in prosthetics for damaged body parts are already being implemented. Cochlear implants, mechanical devices implanted within the inner ear, are being utilized to augment hearing and provide sensation back to those who have damaged their sensory organs. Artificial limbs and prosthetics, far more functional than ever before, are being given to patients for amputated appendages. These devices often restore not only the ability to engage in normal daily activities, but also provide them with the skill and prestige to participate in sports—displays of heightened and refined physical ability. Additionally, transplants for organs from donors of not singularly human origin, are being performed daily. The completion of the Human Biome Project has closely linked the microflora of the intestinal tract to human health. It has now become clear that there is an intricate and intimate linkage between the human genome and intestinal microbiome. Collectively, microorganisms and the human make up the human metagenome, revolutionizing medical intervention and care (Hattori and Taylor 2009). The boundary between the living and the environment is becoming increasingly nebulous.
Furthermore, researchers are looking into the use of inorganic and other “new” macromolecules. These new collections of atoms could be used to synthesize life and recreate the formation of the first cells. Silicon in particular has showed promise. The element has the same valence electron pattern as carbon, the “backbone” of most life on earth and has the potential to show similar bonding properties. Many physicians are looking towards utilizing artificial parts for transplantation. Widespread use of xenogenic transplantation utilization, fetal brain cell transplantation, and transplantation of isolated cells proved wrong. Research for the twenty first century mostly likely will consist of hybrid and entirely artificial, implantable devices (Rowinski 2007).
From these changing dynamics, I will argue that we must view the body in both space and time. This new view will have important implications subsequently for the neosentient. In reflecting upon the importance of spatial location for the neosentient, I will draw upon the embryological model of sequential induction. To further emphasize that the environment is only not influential at an infinitely large distance away, I will draw upon the physics theories of gravitational and electrical potential energy. In examining the role of time and the environment in relation to the neosentient, I will examine aging and degradation of mechanical and chemical elements.
I will next look at the implications of this new viewing of the human and neosentient form for the established definition of the neosentient. Sensing and application potentials, interactions with other neosentients and humans, senescence, and senility for the neosentient will all be explored. Subsequently, I will reflect upon how our own definitions of sentience and senility may change. Senescence and aging may trend towards having an inorganic rather than organic basis. Products of material science research are being implemented for sports health and medicine. Health and the process of aging may be limited more by materials than by biological elements.
From this analysis, I will reflect upon the important questions this new definition of boundary will address. In particular, the value of aging and death for the neosentient is worth exploring as the boundary between living and non-living is blurred.
March 31, 2011 Leave a comment
Technology as an extension…
Technology becomes an extension by which we experience the world. A plane allows a pilot to experience flight, though he himself is not flying. A telescope gives a sailor a magnified vision of the shore, something which is imperceptible at our current vantage point. A camera allows a person to “see” a loved one through video chat and suddenly they become telepresent. We experience the world through our body, but more and more we rely on technology which transforms it into an extension of our body. In the example of the video chat, the camera physically exists within the space in the place of our eyes. The camera becomes our eyes. The technology detects that experience in some ways but does not have the same level of sentience as we do. The camera technology is detecting particular variables of that reality, such as image and audio, and relaying a representation to us. I am interested in creating an experience in which people come into a critical awareness of this phenomenon of extended experience through technology with by altering the representations which they expect to have.
In relation to Neo-sentience….
When thinking about technology as extensions Bill Seaman asked the question, if that technological object had a phenomenology in the way that we do, what would that be like? The neo-sentient is that the technology might have not only aspects of the sentience we have but also new aspects of perception and understanding about the environment.
It is interesting to think about this idea of the phenomenology of a neosentient in reference to the diagram above. The neosentient would not just be detecting and relaying a representation to us but also is aware of their own representation and perception of reality. It could detect one thing and relay something else. (We often feel this way with humans.) It could relay a representation that was endowed with additional pertinent information.
In review of all these things here are some questions:
What if the technology could be sentient of the experience it is relaying to us? If it could have an enhanced way of experiencing that moment more similar to the way we experience how could that change our relationship with both technology and the represented reality? What could be the phenomenology of that camera, telescope, or plane which is the intermediary actually creating the vision, clarity, or flight.
Representations of self // Developing the final project….
A mirror is a simple kind of technology which yields a representation of ourselves and has a high degree of expectation from previous interactions. It lends nicely to a comparison of the way in which we create digital representations of ourselves. It is also an object which represents self-consciousness and self-image.
I would like to create a mirror which replaces or alters the reflection you expect to see.
I am using the mirror as a way to think about issues of how we create and rely on digital representations of ourselves and others through digital technology and the internet.
However what if this reflection/representation was partly altered or replaced.
Stories of process….
Previously I was interested in looking at tangible interactions and embodied experience as a way to contrast with the cognitive and disembodied experiences of technology. I was still interested in experience and digital versions of ourselves, making sense of the world through extensions of technology. I was a little confused as to how to think about this relationship and was having problems approaching it through this way of focusing on the differences between the embodied experience I have in the physical world and disembodied experience I have when I am engaging with technology, such as the computer.
Ranulf Glanville suggested I reflect on situations in which I was having an extended experience through technology but instead of feeling disembodied perhaps I it felt as if it was embodied or as if it was transcendent of embodiment. I identified and actually noticed two particular experiences which happened during skype chats with a loved one. This lead me to think about technology as an extension of the body as well as technology relaying representations of ourselves and another person to us.
Below are personal notations of these experiences…
March 24, 2011 Leave a comment
March 23, 2011 Leave a comment