Singularity as of Now

Singularity

On the idea of artificial intelligence I have many different opinions and stand points. If I were to explain all of them I would be on a night long tangent. The article on the singularity, is in an apparent view of a singularist, it never mentions the negative affects of such views and continuously talks about what happens once you begin to read into it. “Once you decide to take the Singularity seriously, you will find that you have become part of a small but intense and globally distributed hive of like-minded thinkers” (Lev Grossman3). So pros and cons do not meet.

It is true technology is advancing, but because its all speculation, there are various possibilities, which branch off from the main idea in to quite literally hundreds of other options for the course of future to take, if those who create them are right in the first place. We know the future is going, we just don't know where. Who is to say if we will require the assistance or tech in our bodies, or if they will take over in general. No one will ever know the future so why try and forecast it?

The idea of Humans merging with technology verses Technology completely taking over and being fully conscious, the merge is more possible as well as supported, “using computers to extend our intellectual abilities the same way that cars and planes extend our physical abilities.”(Lev Grossman1).

In the cartoon show, The Teen Titans, Cyborg (Picture above) was in an Accident and was fused with technology to keep his body working. He later upgraded his tech to include access to data base so his intellect was increase so that he was able to help him team when ever they needed it. If that's the case, then technology of such caliber is a good idea as well as beneficial. It's when technology has the ability to think that it becomes a bad thing, although the possibility of something like that is much to complex until the distant future.

The term Authentically, means real and to have a generally excepted meaning of 'Real Human' is impossible, we all have different definitions of what being human is. How can humans become less human? Well we can lose our sense of humanity, but technology never had it to begin with, so if we merge, what happens? If technology progresses and we continue to alter ourselves so we aren't left behind, its possible that little pieces of ourselves will fall off and fade into nothingness. In Brave New World Bernard sees that at the rapid rate of 'progression' we are tampering with not just humans, but human nature as well. In his worlds People are losing their humanity with ever 'scientific' discovery with which the try to form humans to be at the same level as machines.

 So is there any reason to be afraid?

Yes and No. Humans have become vastly depended on technology, too much, so now at this point we feel inadequate with out it, in it's 'most inadequate' state. Our world's scientist spend their time expanding technology's abilities as their greatest goal. Though If with every discovering we humans make, we find more questions than answers, and in our pursuit of knowledge we never stop finding and making goals for us to reach. There fore we are always expanding ourselves. But like I said Our scientist discover more about technology than anything else currently, so in that aspect, its the computers that are always being updated. Perhaps we are evenly matched, at least for now, is there hope that this will stay that way for ever?

I believe only the future knows

The Ring and Biblical story Analyst

Here is the Link

Rhetorical Analyst

In dealing with novels or books anyone can see any reference to anything else if they try hard enough. Especially with those of Religious views. Many people speculate the connection to the Bible in world renown stories. In some cases those connections were total coincidentally and it was the reader's through dissection that brought about the original idea. The same can be said for the child's story The Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien. Many arguments and speculations have been made about his stories and the similarities to tales in the Bible. In the article 'Temptation and the Ring in J.R.R. Tolkien's The Fellowship of the Ring' by Kathleen E Gilligan, she addresses this connection. Although it appears that she isn't arguing for a certain view or point, she merely lays out the evidence and stays unbiased for the reader to make the decision for them selves.

I believe the soul purpose of her article is intended for those who wish to see the evidence from an unbiased opinion, but that is just my interpretation. As a piece of evidence it's fine I suppose, but as thesis essay, it lacks. There is no thesis, the author doesn't have a point to prove. He paper in general is conversational but she not trying to convince her audience to believe the point she does, she has none, or at least not one that she states openly. Her quotes and evidence have little to nothing to prove. The majority of the essay is her explaining the quotes, but their isn't anything in her quotes that she's explaining. Evidence is important to an argument but depending on the quote, she just summarizes its back story.

Her idea arrangement is in a list of Examples of the positive connections between The Ring and Biblical stories. Her introduction starts off by asking what drew people to certain stories, and then why they want to read Tolkien's story. The paragraphs themselves seem a bit hazardous, much of the content is just repetition and explanation. In a few of her body paragraphs there are portions which have no real purpose, they are like fillers. Her transitions are adequate. The topic of Each paragraph flows quiet well into the next. Her tone seemed formal, though her writing style is not. If she wanted to be unbiased, there was a lack of professionalism. The language used was comprehensible for an average level. There were no metaphors or similes, she did compare. Though that is nothing too uncommon, the whole purpose of the article is to compare similarities. I wouldn't consider her an expert on this particular subject. There is no position of the speaker, it lacks Ethos. Its singularly states the examples and explains them.

I have critiqued before, by for Art and not writing. Doing this has made me think of how others will see my writing. I know now, what other things to consider while writing to be sure that my point comes across they way I want it to. My expectations have on literature writing hasn't changed. Though many of the rules students learn in Freshmen and Sophomore year are thrown out the window. The formula we are taught to follow grind ceaselessly against the widely accepted free write style in a war for dominance. One style contradicts the other