Tennis Racket Mishap

I’ve had a passion for tennis since I was a little girl. I remember the first game I ever watched on television featured Anna Kournikova as the odds on favorite. Her beautiful strokes and powerful serve made her my favorite tennis player. To me, it didn’t matter if she won her matches or not because I simply enjoyed watching the intensity she played with. I could tell she played with heart, and she gave it her all on the court. I couldn’t wait to learn and be a “star” just like Anna!

Unfortunately, I was only a seventh grader and my middle school didn’t offer tennis as an intramural sport. I would go to the park and play with my brother every once in a while, but he didn’t really know how to teach me since tennis was a sport that came naturally to him, so we eventually stopped going.

After two years of anxiously waiting, it finally came: my first day of high school! I asked around and found the athletic director, who led me to the tennis coach, Branny. She said tennis try-outs didn’t start until the winter, so I had a few months to hang tight. More waiting?! I couldn’t take it anymore! However, I managed to keep my sanity until January. Much to my surprise, I made the team, but only as an alternate. Since I could only play when I was needed, my parents refused to buy me a racket of my own and I had to settle for an older racket provided by the school. Needless to say, my first season did not go well. I only won half of my games and I was convinced that had I not played with such an outdated racket, I would have been fabulous. As soon as the season ended, I trained with members of the Varsity team year-round so I could obtain that coveted position on Varsity.

The next year at try-outs, I made it! I was number six on the team ladder, just barely making Varsity! But I didn’t care! I was ecstatic! I shared the good news with my parents and they agreed that it was time for me to buy my own racket. I couldn’t wait! Much to my dismay, I only had $30 saved up and good tennis rackets didn’t come cheap. I searched the store with disappointment in my heart. The prices read $80, $100, $150… nothing within my price range. I was at the point of giving up when I saw a sign that made my heart skip: sale. SALE?! A Prince racket that was originally $60 was put on clearance for $30! It was as if the heavens had opened up and sent an answer to my prayers! I handed the money to the cashier and just like that, it was mine! I couldn’t wait to try it out! I felt invincible.

The next day at practice, things weren’t going well. I was losing my ladder match which would drop me down to the JV team and I had come dangerously close to twisting my ankle after a particularly tiring rally. What was going on? Shouldn’t this brand new racket have solved all of my problems? I had become so frustrated that I smashed my racket to the floor, and the unthinkable happened. My shiny Prince caved in and broke into two pieces! I was devastated! Not only did I eventually lose the match, but I also had a lot of explaining to do when I got home. I had no doubt as to why I had gotten such a good deal on the racket of my dreams.

Week 8 Blog Reviews

Ashley- In your post “Breastmilk Just for Babies? Not Anymore,” I thought your opening paragraph was a great way to introduce the rest of your paper! It was definitely a catchy opening that caught my attention right off the bat! With the nature of the prompt, I know it was hard to include your own ideas but I would have liked to read a little more about what you thought on the subject. Overall, your post was very well written, just make sure to put the titles of the essays you cited in quotation marks.

I had a lot of trouble answering the prompt for this assignment, but in your post “Don’t Compare Yourself to Others… Even Animals,” you were able to use the text very well to support your argument in favor of human homosexuality as compared to animals, and you also brought up excellent points to those who might be skeptical of your comparison. I could tell that you really understood the essay and chose the quotes you cited carefully. You have a real strength for backing up your points-of-view with solid evidence. Great job on this post! I hope your essay writing went well!

Susan- I thought you did a wonderful job on your post “More Than Just Reproduction.” You really emphasized the point that not every relationship is the same, so it is unfair to say that love is mainly a scientific attraction. I think the author (as well as some of us in the class) failed to see that, so you did a great job of working that into your essay and using the text, even though it contradicted with much of what you were saying, to your advantage. This would’ve been a strong topic for an essay!

For your post “What’s Natural Nowadays,” your first two paragraphs were very strong. In your final paragraph however, I felt that you kind of went off on a tangent trying to prove your point of what is and is not natural. Overall though, I really enjoyed what you had to write about. You have a creative way of presenting your view on things that I really enjoyed reading this week. My only suggestion is to remember to always include the author’s name in your in-text citations. There were a few times in both posts that you forgot to so this. I hope your essay turned out well!

It's a Natural Attraction (Mother Nature Wouldn't Make a Mistake)

Directed Freewrite p. 340

For many years now, scientists have been in constant argument with religious organizations over how the world came to be. Many who attend church believe that God created the earth, as stated in the first two chapters of Genesis in the Holy Bible. Others believe in the big bang theory; there was a “bang” and BOOM, here we are. Yet others claim we evolved from primates. Whichever theory you choose to accept, most people will agree that humans and animals share similar traits, specifically in terms of sex, coupling, and mating. Could there be a correlation between how animals are attracted to members of the same sex and why men and women become homosexual? To observe this connection, “we must gaze back into our evolutionary past—a past that has grooved and scored our minds as much as our bodies, our strategies for mating as much as our strategies for survival” (Buss 263).

In the animal kingdom, more than 1 million varying classes of species exist (Kluger 338). Of that 1 million, Bruce Bagemihl, a linguist and cognitive scientist, “found same-sex pairings documented in more than 450 different species” (Kluger 338). If you compare 450 to 1 million, it may seem like a useless ratio to support homosexuality in animals, but “as few as 2,000 species” have actually been viewed closely enough to scrutinize their mating patterns (Kluger 338). In relation, while some men and woman are actively public about their sexual orientation, many prefer to remain “inside in the closet,” keeping their private lives secret from co-workers, family, and friends. In this sense, only a small portion of animals and humans allow outside spectators to see them for who they truly are.

Those opposing all forms of homosexuality might argue that for animals, “sex serves many nonsexual purposes, including establishing alliances and appeasing enemies,” attempting to dispute the parallel that we have previously established (Kluger 339). This could be attributed to the notion that humans are living, breathing, and thinkingmachines with a wide range of emotions. Animals, while intelligent, lack the sophisticated degree of thought possessed by humans. If an animal has an instinct to do something, it acts upon it. The same statement could be applied to humans, the difference being that the instinct could come from a psychological aspect as well as a gut feeling or a number of other reasons that are unable to be explained even by scientists. Furthermore, Bagemihl argues that “if homosexuality comes naturally to other creatures, perhaps it’s time to quit getting into such a lather over the fact that it comes naturally to humans too” (Kluger 338).

My Chemical Romance

Biochemistry Unit Writing Assignment #1

According to the Bible, Adam and Eve were the first humans ever to roam on the face of the planet. In order to progress, they were commanded to “multiply and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:28 King James Version). In order to ensure that our genes carry on into the next generation, procreation is a must. However, scientists believe that “we are not just programmed for reproduction: The capacity for loving emotions is also written into our biochemistry” (Brownlee 295). If we view the way we care for others with a strictly scientific point-of-view, what does that mean for those seemingly unexplainable matters of the heart such as falling in love and physical attraction? Can that old saying of "having chemistry" with someone actually be true?

Love has baffled scientists for many years. Currently, they are increasing their efforts to perform research experiments to study how our brain and bodies work together. They have found that “oxytocin, a chemical that fosters the bond between mothers and children, probably helps fuel romantic love as well” (Brownlee 295). In addition, “brain chemicals that blunt pain and induce feelings of euphoria may also make people feel good in the company of lovers” (Brownlee 295). Have we been wrong all these years to suppose that falling in love is just a natural occurrence? We’ve seen movies and read books of men and women going to a witch or wizard in the hopes of obtaining a “love potion” that is specifically targeted for their object of affection. According to the information above, if we are able to bottle such chemicals as oxytocin, we could also produce the same results as any love potion.

We all know that boys are girls are different. We’ve been able to observe these dissimilarities since we were in grade school. Boys prefer the color blue; girls are more inclined to pink. Boys like to play tag and wrestle; girls would rather skip rope and have tea parties. Similarly, men and women also have contrasting views when it comes to relationships. A chemical called vasopressin could explain why forbidden sex is more appealing to more men than women by examining prairie voles. If the rodent is producing stress hormones, it impedes with the oxytocin entering the brain, “keeping a female vole from bonding, and perhaps preventing most women from finding danger sexually exciting. Vasopressin, in contrast, appears to work better in the presence of certain stress hormones, possibly making danger an aphrodisiac for many males” (Brownlee 297). While science can’t provide all of the answers to our burning romantic questions, we are certainly getting closer with every passing day.

Week 7 Blog Reviews

Ashley: I, as I’m sure many of the other girls in the class, could relate to your post “Are You Listening to Me?” on a personal level because I too have been in a long distance relationship. The situations you described between you and your boyfriend were well supported with quotes from the text. I thought you made an interesting point in your concluding paragraph, something I had failed to realize. The essay really is biased because it’s from the point of view of a female. I really hadn’t thought that the perspective from which it was written made a difference because the research and the statistics should be the same, but the way it was used by Tannen skewed it to support a woman’s outlook. Thanks for pointing that out!

Your title of, “Leaving Marriage Alone,” went really well with your post. I was blown away by your writing for this assignment Ashley! You were able to keep an evolutionary perspective as was required and you were also able to use the ideas stated in both essays to support your writing extremely well. Again, your concluding paragraph was the icing on the cake, especially your last sentence. What a great way to end a thought-provoking piece. I think you should DEFINITELY consider this post as the basis for your next essay!

Susan: For your “Directed Freewrite” post, I thought the conflict you chose to write about illustrated well the idea that men and women have different ways of seeing the same situation. Not to be a Negative Nelly, but the prompt asked us to “discuss how your application of some of Tannen’s ideas might have helped to resolve, or at least explain, the conflict” (Tannen 246). You stated in your final paragraph that after reading her essay, you were able to see some of the things that happened in a different light. If you could pinpoint the exact words that made you realize that, and include them in your essay, you can make this post stronger by backing it up with evidence! :)

I thought your title of “Team Monogamy!” was really cute! It sounds like you got the idea from the whole “Team Edward vs. Team Jacob” Twilight craze and I thought you used it in a clever way! This was by far the strongest post I’ve read of yours. I agree with Ashley, you should considering using this piece for your essay. You chose the right quotes that worked with what you were writing about and your own ideas to support those quotes enhanced the piece well. Other than a few quotation errors (the one Ashley pointed out and one on the final paragraph that should be: wholly unreasonable” (Wright 280).) I thought this post was excellent! Keep it up!

Evolution of Relationships

According to divorcestatistics.org, 45 to 50 percent of first marriages end in divorce, and there is a “30 to 50 percent incidence of extramarital affairs” (Buss 262). What could possibly be the cause for such a high rate of changing hearts and infidelity? Charles Darwin offers his explanation that “members of the same sex compete with each other, and the outcome of their contest gives the winner greater sexual access to members of the opposite sex” (Buss 263). The victor must have had outstanding qualities such as brute strength, physical attractiveness, or cunning intellect to win the competition, thus allowing him to find his mate and carry his/her genes on to the next generation. However, procreation between two people is not enough to make a marriage last. Men are “more inclined toward the casual fling… and are less finicky about their sex partners” opting for whoever might come along (in some cases) regardless of their commitment to someone else (Wright 282). Women tend to cheat “around ovulation, when they are most likely to get pregnant” suggesting that if their spouse is infertile, they will find other means to ensure they are able to develop their role as a mother (Wright 283). There is a vast contrast between the genetic makeup of men and women that could offer even more accounts as to why men and women cheat.

From a young age, boys and girls no doubt come across and watch movies such as Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and Hercules. Such movies romanticize the idea of finding your one true love, your eternal soul mate. Nevertheless, a monogamous relationship isn’t for everyone. In some cases “one mate may defect because of the failure of the other to fulfill his or her needs and wants or upon the arrival of someone fresher, more compelling, or more beautiful” (Buss 270). Again, the idea of “survival of the fittest” comes in to play. If a person is unhappy with his or her partner, s/he begins to look around the corner for the next best thing. On the contrary, many people enjoy being steady with just one person and go to great lengths to ensure that both partners are happy. If an outside force, say, another person, tries to break the bonds of that happiness, Buss explains that a “psychological strategy that evolved to combat infidelity was jealousy” (Buss 270).

Now more than ever, it is acceptable for a couple to mate regardless of their ethnic background, culture, or skin color. Who we marry and what their background is can implicate how long a marriage might last. For example, "some cultures have mating systems that are polygynous, allowing men to take multiple wives. Other cultures are polyandrous, allowing women to take multiple husbands. Still others are monogamous, restricting both sexes to one marriage at a time. And others are promiscuous, with a high rate of mate switching" (Buss 274). If we seek a lasting marriage, we would want to attach ourselves with someone who believes in monogamous relationships. However, if we are just looking for someone to have a good time with, we should also look for someone that is looking for someone temporary who won't have to commit.

Are You Just Hearing?

At one point in our lives, I’m sure we have all experienced some of the scenarios involving the opposite sex that are mentioned in Deborah Tannen’s essay, “Sex, Lies, and Conversation.” A frequently occurring incident between my ex-boyfriend and I was that any time we talked, I would dominate most of the conversation and he rarely put any effort into our talks. To make matters worse, I would ask him, “Are you listening to me?” and he would quickly respond with an affirmative yes, but when I asked him to recall what I had just said, he could hardly ever manage to capture even the main idea of what I had been discussing with him. His argument was that he was listening, but he preferred to let me finish my story before making any remarks. Furthermore, since I was putting him on the spot, he had a hard time recollecting what I had just said. I made the dispute that that he could hear what I was telling him, but he just wasn’t listening.

Linguist Lynette Hirschman provided an explanation as to why Andrew seemed like he wasn’t listening when he really might have been. She said, “Women make more listener-noises, such as ‘mhm,’ ‘uhuh,’ and ‘yeah,’ to show ‘I’m with you.’ Men… more often give silent attention” (Tannen 243). Perhaps his way of giving me his undivided attention was by making as minimal noise as possible so I wouldn’t get the impression that he was carrying out other tasks instead of focusing all of his attention on our conversation. In addition, although most women make “listener-noises,” men are expecting them to reciprocate the silence they had previously demonstrated as a sign of respect, and feel that those “mhm’s” and “uhuh’s” are indications of “overreaction or impatience” (Tannen 243).

Another reason for our constant quarrels could’ve had a lot to do with my non-stop chatter to the point where he couldn’t get a word in edgewise. When I finally stopped talking about my current problem with school or with a friend, he would always offer his point-of-view on the matter, which usually differed from the way I saw things. In my mind, he was just trying be difficult by contradicting my thoughts instead of agreeing with me because I was his girlfriend. Tannen believes that, “When most women talk to each other, they assume a conversationalist’s job is to express agreement and support. But many men see their conversational duty as pointing out the other side of an argument” (Tannen 243). If I had had prior knowledge as to how men and women differ in the role of conversationalist, I would’ve been able to understand that it was just in his nature to offer an opposing position, not because he was trying to pick a fight, but to help me understand that my way wasn’t necessarily the right way.

Week 6 Blog Reviews

Ashley: I thought you did a great job on your post “On the Road Again.” The ideas you expressed correlated very well with the essay in the book. You gave excellent examples as to how the three main characters in “Crossroads” related to “real wild women” and how their adventure was similar to that of Thelma and Louise. I noticed on two of your citations when you used (IMDb) that you placed the comma before the citation. I just wanted to remind you that it’s supposed to be after. :)

I found your post “The Disappearing Family” very interesting. I like the connections you made between the family unit and American capitalism. It really is sad to think that the advanced technology we enjoy so much is actually ripping families apart because it creates a barrier of communication and occupies our time, time that could be better spent with our parents and siblings. I really enjoyed reading your posts and I’m so excited to work with you for this unit!

Susan: I enjoyed your post “Wild Men.” The movie/novel you described seems to portray the idea of wild men (in this case boys) extremely well. You did a great job of summarizing the plot and characters, because although I have never even heard of “The Outsiders,” I feel that I have a good sense of what it’s about by the paragraphs that you wrote. In the first paragraph, you mention that the story is told by Ponyboy. It would be more clear if you added something about his “point-of-view” or “perspective.”

Your “Technology Changes the American family” post was very well thought out. My only suggestion is to make sure you put quotes around the essay title and to make it three paragraphs in length.

As a side note, I just wanted to tell you that I am really looking forward to being in your group for this unit, especially since we are both Speech and Hearing Sciences sophomores! I look forward to reading more of your posts!

Heterosexual Idealism

If you compare the ideals of today’s society to the ones held by Americans half a century ago, you would be able to realize just how drastic of a change we have experienced. In the 1950’s, women were expected to be the perfect housewives: a stay-at-home mom that spent her day cleaning and had a flawless meal waiting for her husband and children when they arrived home. The man was the bread winner who cared for and provided for his family. A couple was seen as a union between a man and a woman. Individuals that were attracted to members of the same sex where shunned from society and thought to have a serious psychological disease. Flash forward if you will to the year 2009. Homosexuality has long since been removed from the psychiatric profession’s list of mental illnesses (D’Emilio 226). About six states in the U.S. have legalized same-sex marriages and many other states are pushing for a reform in their legislature. Men and women who choose to lead a life style that doesn’t comply with the standard heterosexual view are better accepted by their peers.

It is evident that “there are more [people who are homosexual] than one hundred years ago, more… than forty years ago” (D’Emilio 234). The expansion of the lesbian/gay/transsexual/bisexual community can be greatly attributed to the influence of the media. Ellen DeGeneres is an outspoken lesbian who has her own talk show. Television shows such as “Will and Grace,” “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” and “Queer Folk” have broken the barrier that used to be held up against them because the ideas they expressed were taboo. Pop icons Sir Elton John, Lance Bass and Lady Gaga have led the way for others, celebrity and non-celebrity alike, to come out of the closet and be comfortable with their true sexual identity.

The advancement of technology in modern medicine has allowed for people who are unhappy with their sex to undergo a surgical procedure and easily change that. Women begin the process by taking androgens (male hormone) and men are given estrogen and progesterone (female hormone). Afterwards, surgery is required to make the change final and complete. The procedure is fairly simple and allows the individual who wants the transformation to be done to lead the life that s/he desires. As a result, we can see that more and more people are going through with the surgery. Decades ago, such a radical alteration was only thought about, but never actually thought to be possible.

The Men in Glee

This assignment was somewhat difficult for me accomplish because I am not much of a movie watcher. I’ve been racking my brain throughout the day trying to think of a film I have seen that portrays characters that present “Real Wild Women” or “Real Wild Men.” Unfortunately, I was unable to recall any. As a substitute, I will examine some of the characters in the television comedy “Glee” as they relate to the essay “Masculinity and Marginality in Rob Ray and Braveheart.”

“Glee” is a show about a group of high school “misfits” that belong to the glee club at McKinley High School. Although the club was once the pride and joy of the school, it is now an object of ridicule for the ever popular jocks and “cheerios” (cheerleaders). William Schuester, a former member of the glee club when it was at its prime, is a Spanish teacher at the high school who has decided to take on the heavy task of restoring the club to its old glory days. One of the club’s members is Kurt Hummel, a well-dressed soprano that is always getting thrown in the garbage can by the football team for his affiliation with Glee and his sexual orientation.

Mr. Schuester is the kind of man ever woman dreams of marrying. He is hard-working, faithful, talented, and dedicated to accomplishing whatever he sets his sights on. However, he is constantly being brought down by his wife who completely takes him for granted. In his essay, James R. Keller writes, “What entitles a man to be a leader of men is his willingness and capacity to satisfy a woman” (Keller 221). Everything Will does is ultimately for the happiness of his wife. When she finds out that she is pregnant, Will is willing to sacrifice the job that he loves to become an accountant and provide a better income for his family. He wants his wife to have her dream home but is unable to afford it, so he gets a second job where he is paid minimum wage to be able to meet the expense of the mortgage. Just as William Wallace in the movie Braveheart, Will has his share of romantic moments with his wife and is also disposed to fight for her honor at any cost (Keller 221).

Kurt’s character is depicted as the stereotypical gay high school student. He refuses to come “out of the closet” even though everyone knows his true sexual orientation. His mother dies when he was very young leaving his father to care for him. After joining the football team to please his dad, Kurt realizes that he can be whoever he wants to be: Glee soprano extraordinaire or high school football kicker and it gives him the push to tell his dad that he is gay. Although he always secretly knew, he was glad that Kurt was able to come clean. "The contest between brawn and effeminacy is settled in favor of brawn" because although his dad excepts Kurt and still loves him, he would still prefer him to be straight rather than gay (Keller 219).

Week 4 Blog Reviews

Jade: You did a really great job summarizing Wright’s essay! If I hadn’t read the article beforehand, your summary would’ve given me a better indication of what it was about! My only suggestion would be to shorten the length of your post just a little. You went into a lot of detail (which was really well written!) but since it was a summary, you could’ve just gone through the main ideas :)

Your Frida Kahlo post was great! The picture you decided to write about was intriguing. I liked how you could relate to the painting because it made you think of how you like to reflect on a number of things while you’re relaxing. I too would like to know more about the background behind the painting. Awesome writing!

Kayla: I really enjoyed reading your summary! The points you chose to talk about truly captured the essence of what the article was about. Your concluding paragraph was really well-written. It left me thinking, which is always one of an author’s goals: to leave the reader with something to ponder over.

I’m not sure if you did this on purpose or not, but I thought it was a great idea to leave out the portrait of Frida Kahlo’s that you wrote about. As you were describing the images within the painting, I could clearly picture everything in my head, and I was able to appreciate your explanation much more than if I was actually able to see the drawing for myself. The last statement you wrote was powerful. Amazing posts this week Kayla!

Erin did not have any posts for me to comment on.

The Two Fridas

In this self-portrait, we see that Frida herself is the main focus of the picture. Interestingly enough, she has painted herself not once but twice. The Frida on the right depicts her Mexican side; she is wearing a traditional Tejuana outfit. On the left, she is wearing a European influenced dress with a high collar. The two Fridas are holding hands and there is an opening in each of their chests, exposing their hearts. The Frida on the right’s heart is complete while the Frida on the left’s heart appears to be incomplete. Both hearts are connected by a vein that begins at the Frida on the right’s hand and ends with the Frida on the left’s hand, being cut by a pair of scissors. In the background, dark storm clouds are present.

This portrait was created not long after Frida’s divorce from Diego Rivera. The hearts that are being revealed show Kahlo’s vulnerability, as one is usually weakened in a relationship when they put themselves out there. The Frida’s heart on the right remains intact, most likely symbolizing the woman she was when she and Diego were first married. The Frida’s heart on the left is brokem—this is the modernized Frida that Diego left for her younger sister, Christina. One end of the vein is connected to a small picture of Diego, which is where Frida’s heart lies; the heart that was once whole and is now shattered. Kahlo is trying to cut the vein, hoping that this will end all ties to Diego and stop the pain. The clouds in the backdrop no doubt represent her tortured soul after learning of her husband’s affair.

After reading the description for this painting, I automatically felt a connection with Kahlo. While I have never been married, I have felt the angst of being cheated on. I really cared for and admired this person, just as I’m sure Frida loved and esteemed her husband. I also felt that the best way to get rid of my misery was to cut every connection I had to this person. It was tremendously difficult to tell my family what had happened, so I often felt that I was all alone in the world, with no one to stand beside me but myself. I can truly appreciate how Kahlo must have felt and respect her for the amazing artist she is.

“The Two Fridas.” Frida Kahlo Fans. Web. 17 Sept. 2009.

http://www.fridakahlofans.com/c0290.htm

So... Can They?

In his essay, “Can Machines Think? Maybe So, As Deep Blue’s Chess Prowess Suggests,” Robert Wright explores the idea that the more potent machines become in dominating tasks that used to be completed solely by human beings, the closer we come as a society to be regarded as “soulless machines.” Furthermore, Wright suggests that the more in-depth researchers investigate the competence of computers, the greater mystery consciousness becomes, which brings us to the question: “Can machines think?”

One method that was created to measure a computer’s ability to “think” was the Turing test. In this test, a person is asked to communicate via keyboard with others. For the purpose of this scenario, we will refer to this person as Bob. The catch, however, is that there might not necessarily be a human on the other side of the keyboard—it could either be a person or a computer. It is Bob’s task to successfully determine if he is conversing with a fellow homo sapien or a machine. If Bob is stumped, then we can safely assume that the computer was able to come up with adequate dialogue to pass as a human, or can we? Wright notes that in those rare cases when a computer was able to trick the human performing the interrogation, the discussion that resulted was less than stimulating (Wright 141). This goes to show that while it may be possible for a computer to “think,” it lacks a critical human characteristic: common sense.

Wright also brings up the ever burning question, “The lights are on, but is anyone home?” Early on in his essay, Wright relates the story of Garry Kasparov and his chess match against IBM computer, Deep Blue. Kasparov managed to slip by Deep Blue’s intellect to be crowned the victor; notice the words “slip by.” Kasparov lost the first game (Wright 142). Can you imagine the flood of emotions that he must have felt and the thoughts that must have crossed his mind? I can envision his sullen face looking troubled. He must have been thinking, “If only I had made a different move, then I would have won! Now, I’m one step closer to defeat. How could I have let this happen?” Deep Blue, on the other hand, could not have had the same experience as Kasparov, because it does not have the capability of feeling things. Once the first game had been won, there was no celebrating for Deep Blue. The “lights are on,” but Deep Blue (or any other computer for that matter) isn’t really home, because it isn’t conscious of what it’s like to feel emotions.

So, can machines think? In a sense, I believe they can. They can “think” enough to trick a person into believing that they are having a conversation with another human being, and they can also almost beat a human being at a game of chess. But although they can accomplish these feats, without the ability of truly knowing for themselves what they are doing, this triumph is an empty victory.

Week 3 Blog Reviews

Jade: First off, I thought your post title: “Screwdriver, hard drive…….. brain?” went really well with the topic that was being discussed. As I’ve said before, I love the witty titles you come up with! I am also nineteen years old and I can remember long ago in the 90’s when simple computers that ran Windows 95 were seen as the next big thing, and now look at how far we’ve come! It is simply amazing! You brought up an excellent point when you mentioned that although an artificial brain can be made to closely resemble a human brain, it still has the risk of malfunctioning, this making humans superior. I hadn’t thought of it that way! Superb writing!

Kayla: I too think that we share similar views on most of the prompts that we have had to write about, which is always exciting for me because I look forward to what you have to say on the matter! I completely agree with you that Minsky just barley graced the surface on what consciousness really is. It is so much more than just being able to store vast amounts of information with the click of a button! Great post!

Amisha had mentioned citations in her blog post yesterday, and I was noticing that your citations are just a little bit off, so I hope you don’t mind if I help you correct them! When citing an author’s work, just make sure that the period is outside of the parenthesis. I’ll take an example from your post on the 10^th: “Consciousness is being aware of what is happening in the world and in one’s mind” (Minsky). Other than that, keep up the great writing!

Erin did not have any posts for me to comment on.

Artificial Intelligence is NOT the New Human

“I Process Therefore I Am” -Clive Davidson

Class Discussion #3

Marvin Minsky, the director of the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in Massachusetts, has devoted his life’s work to creating an imitation of “human intelligence by programming computers to process information by manipulating symbols that [represent] knowledge and rules” (Davidson 116). It is his belief that in order to successfully create a machine that can “think” for itself, researchers should concentrate less on mimicking models of the human brain. His studies in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) has progressed immensely, so much so that Minsky actually believes such machines programmed with AI will one day have the capacity to outshine the inner workings of the human mind by having a greater ability to be conscious of everything its ever done. “‘A machine could be vastly more conscious than a person because we didn’t evolve for that’” (Davidson 120).

However, this doesn’t mean that Minsky feels as though a machine’s aptitude for retaining information will make it smarter than the human population. On the contrary, he knows that “‘…it would be easy [for a machine] to be extremely conscious—but that doesn’t mean [the machine] would know what to do with it’”” (Davidson 120). What purpose does it serve then, if it is able to recall hundreds of records and information at the click of a mouse, but that data is not being put to good use? In addition, although a machine would have higher levels of consciousness that we as human beings cannot even begin to fathom, it would still lack other areas that are critical to intellect, such as an imagination. A machine would never be able to come up with ideas of its very own, a trait that is unique to humans.

I don’t agree with Mr. Minsky’s idea that machines can be more conscious than a genuine person. His definition of consciousness is “‘being aware of what is happening in the world and in one’s mind’” (Davidson 120). While a machine might be aware of what is going on in the world and what has been processed in its “mind,” it is only because someone, an actual being, placed that information within the machine. Perhaps at some point in the history of technological advances, machines containing AI will be able to “replace” humans. But let’s not forget that a human was the one that built the machine in the first place.

What IS Consciousness?

"The Great Unknown" -Robert M. Hazen

Class Discussion #2

Is the study of consciousness scientific? To a certain extent, I believe it is. The author, Robert Hazen, argues that “For a question to be scientific, it must be answerable through a reproducible process of observation, experiment, and theory” (Hazen 94). Scientists are able, by means of an fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) machine, to study brain activity. For example, when asked to speak, a color change in the fMRI scans would be present mainly in the frontal lobe of the brain, because that is where voluntary motor functions and speech are located. If it is already possible to study brain activity, I believe it is only a matter of time before scientists are able to better understand consciousness by means of equipment such as an fMRI machine. Then, it will be no problem to observe a patient, conduct experiments, and develop new theories.

On the other hand, there are certain aspects of consciousness I don’t believe science will ever be able to explain; emotions, for instance. Imagine if you will a young teenage couple named Jack and Jill. The duo is head-over-heels in love with each other. However, as the weeks begin to pass, Jack realizes that he no longer feels the same way about Jill, and decides to end their relationship. After he works up enough courage and tells Jill the truth, her emotions vary from feeling sheer bliss, to being completely incredulous, to utterly devastated, to untamed rage, all within a few short minutes of each other. What triggered all of those sentiments to pass through her mind so quickly? Was it a nerve that sparked and sent the message to her brain? If so, then why does her heart ache? There is certainly a correlation between our emotions and what we feel in our hearts, and I don’t think it’s something scientists will ever be able to clarify.

According to Dictionary.com, a reductionist is someone that believes“every complex phenomenon, especially in biology or psychology, can be explained by analyzing the simplest, most basic physical mechanisms that are in operation during the phenomenon.” A skeptic is one “who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.” While there are valid arguments for each side, I fall somewhere in between the reductionist and the skeptic camp. I know that there must be a way to measure consciousness scientifically, but I also admit that there are things science just can’t explain. In addition, “…Scholars cannot even agree on what exactly [the term ‘consciousness’] means” (Hazen 95). Philosophers have been debating the same issue for centuries. Until a comprehensible definition is set, who’s to say what consciousness really is.

Week 2 Blog Reviews

Jade: In your “Strangers on the Other Side of the Computer Screen” post, I found it quite amusing that you and I both wrote in regards to that "one person in class who might be extremely shy but we would never know it unless s/he told us.” It’s almost as if we wrote that part of our blogs together :) I guess great minds really DO think alike!

Your argument of how changing the environment around you can change how others see you is intriguing. I had never thought of it that way! I agree that you are who you are no matter WHERE you are, but it hadn’t crossed my mind that putting yourself in a different setting can affect how you are perceived by others. It definitely made me wonder how others think of me in this class, and if I am making inaccurate assumptions about some of my classmates.

I really enjoyed reading your post “A World In Perfect Order.. or Not?” The quality of your writing reflects the effort that you no doubt put into it. You clearly defended your case that we CAN be good without good with examples from the text and your personal experiences. I look forward to reading more of your posts! You certainly have a way with words!

As a side note: Can I just say, I love the title of your blog and blog posts! They’re so clever!

Kayla: In your post “Online Interaction,” I also feel that meeting someone through their blog and their blog posts gives off an entirely different impression of them than if we had met through a traditional classroom setting. I’ve never taken an online class before and to be truthful, I’m a little disappointed that I decided to take THIS particular class online because there are so many girls who share my major. Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE the format of this class, but it would’ve been nice to interact with these girls and share insights about our classes, why we chose our major, etc.

After reading “Do You Need God to Be Good,” I noticed that we have a lot of the same beliefs when it comes to religion and crime. I agree that it is not our ideas that matter, it is our actions. If we don’t act on what we say we believe in, then the words we speak cannot be necessarily trusted. Indeed, we are all human and subject to fault, but not if we are consciously saying something and acting in opposition to what we said.

Overall, I really enjoy your writing! You have a clear way of expressing yourself, and I look forward to seeing you develop your voice throughout the rest of the class!

Erin didn't have any posts for me to comment on :'(

Yes, We Can!

I have been brought up in a devout Latter Day Saint household. From the tender age of four until my most recent age of nineteen, I cannot remember a time I ever saw my parents drink alcohol or smoke a cigarette. As a family, we attend church every Sunday and hold active callings. We provide service in our community and basically strive to be the best we can be. To think that there might be a correlation between religion and crime is definitely a radical concept that honestly through me for a loop. I’ve always made the assumption that those who attend church regularly are generally “good,” while those who do not are more susceptible to leading “bad” lives. However, Lisa Conyers and Philip Harvey had this to say on the matter: “Surprisingly, recent research suggests that a religious person is more likely to commit a crime than a non-religious person. One can even argue that the more religious the society, the more likely it is to have high crime rates” (Conyers, Harvey 63).

Can we be good without God? That all depends on what your definition of “good” is. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the word “good” as having “a favorable character or tendency.” Can a person that has a tendency to tell a few little white lies from time to time still be considered “good,” even though that tendency is not constructive? Even without a clear way of classifying what is necessarily “good,” I believe that the human population can in fact be good if no God existed. God is a great source that many people turn to in times of need and hardship, but those people can just as easily seek the council of a trusted family member or friend. If someone wants to turn his/her life around for the better, s/he doesn’t need God to do it. All s/he needs is the desire to be good and the perseverance to follow through with that desire.

"Religion alone, many researchers agree, does not determine personal moral behavior” (Conyers, Harvey 63). There are many other factors besides religion that contribute to a person’s ethics, such as their economic background, childhood upbringing, and class standing in society. Any one of these reasons, in addition to religion, could be the cause of crime in our world, but they are never mentioned. Can we be good without God? Yes, we can!

My "Self"

The anecdote written at the beginning of Chapter Two was something I experienced today with one of my former co-workers, Jon. He works at the New Student Orientation office, and one of his many duties is to answer the telephone and assist the person on the other line with whatever questions or doubts they might have about enrolling at ASU. Our conversation was light and giddy, as we were discussing the upcoming premiere of the new season of “Glee” which we have been eagerly anticipating all summer. In the middle of one of our laughing fits, the phone rang, and it didn’t take Jon more than two seconds to stand up straight and tall and change the tone of his voice to have a more professional quality.

I don’t believe that we can ever truly know each other if we have never met at least once in person. In the scenario above with Jon, the person speaking to him on the phone might have an idea of who he is because of the way he answered the phone, but if that person ever MET him, s/he might be surprised to find that his voice sounds exceptionally different in person than it does through the telephone. In addition, we can develop our own voice and style by the way we write in our blogs, but it’s one thing to imagine a person’s voice as you read about him/her and another thing entirely to actually HEAR them speak. When I meet someone for the first time, I am generally timid and soft-spoken. However, when I am writing, I like to use exclamation marks and emoticons to better express myself. To some I might come across as extroverted, when in reality, I am usually shy around those I have just met.

In “The Presentation of Self,” Erving Goffman had this to say: “The expressiveness of the individual (and therefore his capacity to give impressions) appears to involve two radically different kinds of sign activity: the expression that he gives, and the expression that he gives off” (Goffman 43). To be able to know someone, it is just as important to be aware of the verbal cues (expression one gives) as it is to be aware of the nonverbal cues (expression one gives off). I could be talking to any one of you face to face, and although your voice might be calm and steady, by paying attention to your wandering eyes and crossed arms, I might be able to guess that something is bothering you.

This doesn’t mean that I believe after sixteen weeks of commenting on each other’s blog posts and revising/ editing each other’s papers that we are complete strangers. I just think that to really know each other, our relationships have to be more than virtual ones.

Just Jess :D

Hello my fellow bloggers!

As I said before, my name is Jess! I am a sophomore majoring in Speech and Hearing Sciences, and I am considering a minor in either Dance or Family and Human Development.

I love being a Sun Devil! I used to attend classes at the West Campus but now I am strictly a Tempe student. This past summer, I worked as a Student Orientation Leader (SOL) and had the opportunity to help run orientation programs at each of ASU’s four campuses. It was a great job that allowed me to connect with incoming freshmen, make long-lasting friends, and show off my Sun Devil pride, not to mention: HAVING TONS OF FUN!!

I LOVE to travel! Last Christmas, I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to take a one week trip to London! It was AMAZING! I was able to ride inside the London Eye, climb to the very top of St. Paul’s Cathedral, and walk where some of the world’s greatest tennis players have left their blood, sweat, and tears on Centre Court in the hope of winning one of the year’s Grand Slam Tournaments: WIMBLEDON!! For all of you avid tennis fans out there, I’m sure you can appreciate how big that was for me!!! =D

My family is a HUGE part of my life! I have 3 brothers and 2 sisters, so I like to think of us as the Hispanic version of the Brady Bunch! :) I ADORE my nieces and nephews! They are the little brothers and sisters I never had! When I have down time, I'm usually hanging out with them at Peter Piper Pizza or planning a karaoke tournament for us at my house!!

"La tribu" (the tribe) getting ready for an Easter egg hunt from oldest to youngest (minus my six month old niece).