Critical Thinking blog #8: Final Course Reflection- Thinking about science and the humanities.

As we finish the semester, my thinking about science and humanities has changed. Especially, because I am better informed about these "two cultures" that are different from each other, yet they are connected in various ways. Furthermore, I have realized that science and technology are the future of our world, as they are fields that are rapidly advancing. After taking this course, I noticed the many connections between the humanities and sciences, both disciplines are essential to our advancement as a species and as a society. The humanities place an emphasis on human thinking and achievements while Science is the means by which we can thrive as humans and continue to make progress. It was interesting to learn about Darwinism, Global warming, techno-romanticism, e-waste, human cloning, robots, and the first World’s fair. I think my favorite topic was our discussion on the long-term effects of new scientific breakthroughs such as bioengineering, as well as Kurzweil’s approach on nanotechnology and robotics.

Overall, I was able to get a profound understanding on the promises and perils of science and technology. Moreover, how it is important that as a society we get more involved and become more aware and educated in terms of the governmental policies in place that influence the scientific research in today’s world. 

Scientist's Life and Work: Rosalind Franklin

In my opinion, one of the most notable scientists in history is Rosalind Franklin. Her story caught my attention for various reasons, not only because she was the woman who made significant discoveries pertaining the understanding of the DNA structure, but also because she was not credited for her contributions in the field of Science. Rosalind was a tenacious, dedicated, and intellectual woman; many people describe her as being a genius who was passionate and committed to her work. Despite the many obstacles, she faced, since she was female in a male dominated field she was able to remain true to herself and remain consistent and disciplined with her work. After reading her story, I was inspired by her because I am sure it must have been difficult for her endure constant discrimination in her workplace and yet be able to remain ethical and professional. Especially after Watson and Crick received credit for their model, which was her stolen work. It demonstrates that she was a serious researcher, as she believed in proving theories with empirical evidence, maybe that is why she did not publish her findings before Watson and Crick had the opportunity to steal her work. Moreover, her story is moving because she dedicated her life to her work and research, which was arduous and demanding, to the extent that it has been said that her extensive exposure to x-rays during her research contributed to her cancer and unfortunate death. Rosalind Franklin did deserve the Nobel Prize and many other prizes of the same category because her work and discoveries were extraordinary and fantastic. It would be just if she were to be recognized for her work and receive a prize even after her death, because if it had not been for her many advances in bioengineering, genetics, and medicine would not have been made. Her story is a story of scientific espionage, which gives us a sense of suspense as well as a more profound insight on the complexity of human nature. 

blog #6: sharing and reflecting on two research sources about human cloning

The topic for my research paper is the perils and promises of human cloning in the film Never Let Me Go, based on the novel by Kazuo Ishiguro. In present time, human cloning is a controversial issue due to the ethical and moral implications that surround it, however it is the imminent and unavoidable future of Science. My argument is based on the fact that this fictional film has painted a clearer picture of some of the potential perils that may result from this technology. Therefore, I consider the perils of human cloning to far outweigh the promises of this future method of asexual reproduction. Moreover, two sources that support my argument are “Psychological aspects of human cloning and genetic manipulation: the identity and uniqueness of human beings” by Nestor Micheli Morales and “The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology” by Ray Kurzweil.

In the book The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, Ray Kurzweil takes an optimistic approach to human cloning as he discusses the potential benefits of this future technology. However, he does mention that his opinion on the ethics of the issue at hand is not based on notions solely surrounding the manipulation of life itself. Instead, the basis of his viewpoint is founded upon realistic and factual evidence that corroborates that the methods being put into practice have yielded undependable results such as genetic deficiencies, “the current technique of fusing a cell and nucleus from a donor to an egg cell using an electric spark simply causes a high level of genetic errors. This is the primary reason that most fetuses created by this method do not make it to term…the majority of cloned animals produced thus far have had unpredictable health problems”( Kurzweil 208). Nevertheless, the current shortcomings of this science will not prevent the unpreventable to take place due to the science field’s continuous evolution, however as Kurzweil mentions “but until technology is demonstrably safe, it would be unethical to create a human life with such a high likelihood of severe health problems” (Kurzweil 208-209). In present time, cloning is a controversial subject; however, when the methods being used are refined many of the moral and ethical policies against it, which inhibit its current growth and progress, will be more tolerant, especially if it is used in a manner where its results are beneficial for humans and other animals alike. Therefore, it is a subject that as a society we should not detract from and instead prepare for, thus more factual information should be available, since fictional accounts that include novels and films such as Never Let Me Go, paint only the perils of new technologies but not the entire picture, which overall involves other issues as well. Furthermore, Kurzweil takes an appealing standpoint on issues surrounding cloning as he discusses the promises of this future technology such as, the ability to create babies, the ability to reduce the statistical number of endangered species, therapeutic human cloning except he shines a different light on the topic in comparison to the novel, and human somatic-cell engineering. In addition, he also makes a compelling argument on how genetic engineering can help cure the world from the unfortunate defect of world hunger. Furthermore, Kurzweil touches the subject of individuality and personality, which is a major theme in the film he argues, “There’s no issue of philosophical identity with genetic cloning, since such clones would be different people, even more so than conventional twins today” (Kurzweil 212). As one can see, one of the perils depicted in the novel is that of identity and individuality, which is suggested in the film that the clones are made to believe that they do not fully possess either one. This notion can be observed, as Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy believe that finding more about their “originals”, will help them acquire a deeper insight on who they themselves are as individuals.

As I had previously mentioned, in the present day human cloning is a contentious subject, however it is a method of reproduction that will eventually prevail in the future, therefore it is an event that society as a whole needs to prepare for. In the essay “Psychological aspects of human cloning and genetic manipulation: the identity and uniqueness of human beings” by Nestor Micheli Morales, he discusses a principal concern that arises in the debate of human cloning, which is the subject of uniqueness and individuality in human clones. Micheli argues that “an individual created through the application of human cloning techniques or other similar techniques or any other type of genetic manipulation will not show the donor’s characteristics to the extent of compromising uniqueness” (Morales 44). However, the possibility of a society that perceives cloned individuals as having a lack of these essential human qualities, due to the nature of their conception may not be farfetched, as it is portrayed in the film. The reason for this, as Morales discusses is that there are political, religious and social forces that may contribute to the general societal sentiment that clones do not possess an autonomous sense of self completely dependent from their genetic parent. In addition, Morales discusses other reasons as to why critics hypothesize psychological disorders in cloned children, but at the same time, he explicates the various reasons as to why society should not fear these concerns. Furthermore, he discusses the concepts of individuality, intelligence, abilities, and personality in relationship to twin studies, and makes comparisons between the relationships of identical twins to that of cloned individuals, since both are genetically similar.

In conclusion, I believe both sources are relevant to my research paper, since both discuss the potential perils of human cloning. Furthermore, even though both authors take an optimistic approach when discussing the subject at hand, they do not fail to bring up the realistic negative outcomes of this future technology, which over all is the topic of my essay. 

Blog #5: The Promise and Peril of Robots in Film, TV and Real Life: Friends or Foes?

In science fiction movies and television shows, the role of robots has been depicted in both a positive and negative way. As a result, the word “robot” has become synonym for a machine made to resemble a human being, and one, which is able to simulate human functions in a mechanical and automatic manner. Nevertheless, Hollywood’s portrayal of robots is often misleading and erroneous in the sense that they are often portrayed as a threat to humanity, when in reality as Ray Kurzweil mentioned in his book The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, this innovative technology may not be a peril but rather a promise that humans can benefit from.

In the YouTube clips about the company Bionic Touch, it can be noted how the use of robotics is put into practice for the replacement of arms and other enhancements for the human body. Furthermore, in this way robots are not humanity’s adversaries as it is portrayed in movies like I, Robot and the show Battle Star Galactica. Instead, these “bionic” limbs have proved to be an advantage, as they have facilitated these handicapped people perform every day functions, which otherwise would be strenuous, difficult, and in some circumstances impossible for these people to carry out.

Furthermore, in this case robots are our friends, which is the reality of our world rather than a fiction story fabricated by Hollywood. As one can see, the field of medicine has been able to benefit from robots, as I am sure many other fields do so as well. I think as long as humans put androids and machines into good use in the end the results will be rewarding. There is no need to feel threatened by technology, because ultimately it is all around us everywhere we go, thus we should keep an open mind and learn how to adapt to a world where the technology is constantly evolving and growing. Robotics is the inevitable future of the world, while being fully aware; we are experiencing a constant revolution of technology in the present, except in one way or another we have become desensitized to it. 

Blog #4: Robots and Artificial Intelligence

Judging from the graphic novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” by Philip K. Dick and non-fiction text “The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology” by Ray Kurzweil,  I agree that Rachel Eldon was an intelligent being, moreover I also believe that androids will one day surpass humans in intelligence. However, I do not agree with the notion that these artificial beings will be able to possess emotions alike natural and biological humans.

                  In the graphic novel, Rachel Eldon is an android who takes the “Voigt-Kampff Test” which is a fictional representation of the Turing Test, in order to determine if she is an android or a human. The test seeks to examine the individual’s emotions and reactions, particularly the individual’s ability to be empathic. Furthermore, Rachel would have successfully completed the test if it had not been for the last question, which she was unable to answer in a timely and appropriately enough manner that would have defined her as a human. Given the fact, that she nearly passed the test, suggests that her intelligence is not only outstanding and advanced, but is similar to that of a human being’s due to her ability to answer all the other questions asked correctly. Furthermore, the artificial intelligence that was bestowed upon her, allowed her to simulate human functions in an accurate and efficient way. Moreover, the graphics throughout the novel suggest that Rachel is an extraordinary replica of a human being, not only physically but also psychologically, as it can be noted that many of her cognitive skills, such as problem solving and reasoning are fairly advanced, to the extent that it was not evident that she was a robot at the beginning of the novel.

                  Alike Philip K. Dick, Ray Kurzweil takes an optimistic stance in his non-fiction text “The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology”, as he mentions that it is possible to create robots that have a strong AI or a real consciousness like biological human beings. He further discusses nanotechnology, a field which he believes will help further develop the field of robotics and vice versa, “The N revolution will enable us to redesign and rebuild molecule by molecule our bodies and brains and the world with which we interact, going far beyond the limitation of biology”(Kurzweil 203). A statement, which in my opinion suggests that future advances in both fields will eventually yield technology and knowledge that, will allow technology and science to simulate our molecules artificially. Furthermore, the end result of such a scientific breakthrough could potentially be the capacity to produce an exact artificial replica of a functioning human brain, along with its complexities and skills, but with a heightened ability to process and function material faster than that of a human being’s.

                  As previously mentioned, it can be perceived throughout the novel that Rachel Eldon has remarkable human-like characteristics, despite the fact that she is a robot. Such human-like qualities include her coquettish demeanor, her personality, her aggressiveness and self-assurance, as well as her facial expressions, which may ultimately be the result of her ability to perceive what is taking place in her environment. Thus, I do not believe that she had emotions alike human beings, as it was mentioned in the graphic novel that she was programmed with an advanced form of the Nexus-6 program, in addition she was given false memories in order to organize and live her life on the notion that she was an actual human being. Those two significant features allowed her to better simulate human emotions and characteristics in comparison to past android models, to the extent that even her autonomic nervous system which is involuntary, and it also controls the motion of her pupils among other physical reactions, operated on a level alike that of a human's. As David Galernter mentioned in his text “Dream-Logic, The Internet and Artificial Thought”, “Computers grow more powerful all the time. Today programs that are guided not just by calculations but also by good guesses are important throughout the software landscape. They are examples of applied artificial intelligence…and the ultimate goal of artificial intelligence is to build a mind out of software, a thinking computer…a machine with human-like (or super-human) intelligence” (Galernter 259). I believe this notion directly applies to Rachel as she possesses a mind out of a software which allows her to imitate human functions, reactions, and emotions in accordance to societal expectations as well as what would be potentially asked during the Voigt-Kampff Test. It is due to her specific and outstanding programming, that I believe she does not possess a real consciousness, furthermore, the reason why she ultimately failed the test. Since the last question was random, unexpected and absolutely related to empathy, her programming was most likely not prepared or updated for such a task, which contributed to her having to use her other logical skills in order to “solve the problem”, like any other calculation, which then further delayed her output. 

Critical Thinking Blog #3: Tentative research topic: The Promise and Peril of Human Cloning in Kazuo Ishiguro's "Never Let Me Go"

A possible topic for my research paper is the field of genetics and human cloning; I am interested in this topic because Science is a field of study that bases its principles on experiments, research, and evidence rather than the technicalities that involve religious or humanistic beliefs. However, in my personal opinion such theological and philosophical ideas should not be disregarded, when considering the moral and ethical issues that encircle the notion of producing an exact human replica, due to the fact that creating a being whether it may be done in a natural or unnatural manner, would still implicate concepts which we humans as an advanced species have still not been able to completely explicate or understand. Furthermore, I believe that the human brain and its complexities are one of the world’s most intricate mysteries, therefore the artificial creation of one, should not be simply be regarded as any other experiment. Thus, it would implicate concepts that are mystifying such as the existence of the self, the spirit, the conscious, and the concept of emotions in a human clone alike those in an original human being. Moreover, after watching the film Never Let Me Go, based on Kazuo Ishiguro’s novel I agree that the moral and ethical perils of therapeutic human cloning outweigh the promise of curing diseases through this future technology. My standpoint in this subject is based on the idea that if a genetic copy of the anatomy and physiology of a human can be produced; in particular that of the human brain, then the same neurological and chemical reactions from neurotransmitters that play a role in the psychological and the emotional aspects of a human would play a role in a human clone as well. Therefore, it would be immoral and unethical to regard a clone, as one would deem a microorganism in a petri dish, for the reason that the clone itself is in fact a living and breathing organism with the same capabilities for emotion and thought processing as that of a human being.

Furthermore, in the case of human cloning for the purpose of organ donations, as it is portrayed in the film, entails the question of what exactly differentiates a human clone from an actual human being? Nonetheless what are the necessary qualities or qualifications that define a life to be worthy? Let alone, what would make the life of a clone donor any less valuable than the life of the human recipient? That is to say, there are many questions that should be answered as well as theories and ideas that must be explored before considering such an incomparable leap in scientific research.

Moreover, in the film it is suggested in various instances that these human clones are just like human beings, not only physically but emotionally and psychologically as well. They are capable of different states of emotions, such as empathy, happiness, shame, fear, love, hope, sadness, anger and desperation,  hence it is their ability to feel on a subconscious level that makes the film poignant and at the same time disturbing to know that their lives will be inevitably terminated after they have completed their purpose.

In conclusion, I am looking forward to learning more about this particular topic while conducting research for my paper. Human cloning is a subject that is controversial for various reasons, thus I am interested in reading about different standpoints and opinions pertaining the perils and promises of the foreseeable possibility of such scientific breakthrough.

Critical Thinking Post #2 :Does "Popular Science" Today Awe Us, Inspire Us or Threaten Us?

The first episode of the new Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey show, delves into the history of the planet earth, its beginnings, its recent discoveries, and a glimpse of its future from a scientific perspective. Although, it is a show based on scientific breakthroughs and theories, in my opinion the general “tone” pertaining humanistic values in terms of finding that our place in the universe is so small is surprisingly optimistic. Moreover, in my opinion it depends how you look at it, because to some it may give the impression that there is a notion of humanistic devaluation, nevertheless I perceived that the message that the show is trying to convey is that as humans we need to dig deeper into ourselves in order to understand our place in the cosmos and in that way obtain a realistic view of our species in comparison to our vast universe, in order to further our knowledge and expand our minds. As it was illustrated in the episode, throughout history various religious and political institutions have oppressed and persecuted people who dared to think outside the box such as Giordano Bruno, a man who had no tangible evidence that there was more to explore beyond our planet earth yet he was still inclined to defy traditional beliefs in search of the truth. As it was stated in the show, he was not a scientist or a scholar but he had the natural human drive and desire to want to learn more about the world he lived in, and was a able to form a theory which was later on proved to be correct. His martyrdom and commitment to his beliefs is an example of the human potential, hunger, and passion that is instinctual in humanity as well as a basis of humanism, which places an emphasis on human attributes and qualities. Therefore, I do not support the notion that the show is “antagonizing humanistic values”, but instead it is rather appreciating the merits of both, as well as trying to inspire the viewers to ascertain a realistic perspective of the world around us by employing our highly developed aptitude and skills.

Furthermore, I do not agree with Edward Rothstein’s view that “the insignificance of human existence is one of the fearsome lessons of modern science” (Rothstein, emphasis added), because science should not be depicted as an enemy but instead be used as a tool and a way to explore further into the significance of the existence of humanity since after all it is a field that strives to understand the origins of the human race but just from a different standpoint. After all, science is a discipline that strives to understand the world based on speculation, research, and evidence, therefore any scientific exhibition is going to reflect its perceptible and definite approach to any matter at hand, moreover it is up to the individual to absorb, interpret and use the scientific information acquired and implement it on a personal level, in order to further explore within one’s own self, rather than be judgmental, pessimistic and dismissive about it. Moreover, after watching this Cosmos episode, I was amazed by the universe’s extensive history as well as the series of momentous events that had to take place in order for the human race to thrive, what was even more intriguing was the way in which it was portrayed in accordance to our current yearly calendar. Furthermore, I was inspired to investigate as well as learn more about the local group and the Virgo super cluster two topics that were mentioned briefly discussed but I had never heard of before, and are worth learning about because not only are they full of wonder and beauty but also because the planet earth is part of this larger network of heavenly existence.