I didn't get a chance to mention it in discussion today, but I was wondering what everyone else thought about the existence of calli and the implied future creation of other possible neural blocks to perform similar tasks (blocking out tones within voices and blocking out the recognition of facial expressions).
My viewpoint on the theoretical creation of these blocks is that it would take away what truly makes us human. For example, by blocking out facial expressions there would no longer be any unspoken conversation. By blocking out tones within voices, emotions would be lost as would sarcasm and persuasion.
These agnosias are justified against advertising and political speeches after the discovery of modification during the last speech given against calli, but would have wide uses across the board.
However, by turning off the perception of beauty, the ability to read facial expressions, and the ability to discern the meaning behind varying tones of voice, wouldn't humans descend to the level of reality of robots (I, Robot kind of robots) where there is only formal thought and cognition? Robots within I, Robot are humanized and tried to be taught choices and emotions, as well as body language and tonal differences, in order to be more human.
I just think the implication of possible neural blocks would take less away from humanity than the positive uses of the agnosias.
Did anyone else have a similar (or opposing) thought?
Ashley, I agree with your viewpoint on the use of calli and future neural blocks in the sense that they would take from humanity what truly makes us human. Without the ability to fully see a person, you are only being exposed to half of what makes them a full person. For example, in class we talked about attractiveness being used to advance people in the workplace as a negative concept. But is it really a bad thing? An employer can tell a lot by a person that attempts to present themselves well and appears put -together. On the other hand, a person wanting to advance in the workplace that appears less presentable and not put- together shows an employer that perhaps they are unorganized or not as dedicated to the position as the person who tries to present their best self. Therefore, if calli were turned on in the workplace, an employer would not be able to decide who best deserves the position because they would be missing obvious physical signs that could represent the person's work ethic and dedication to the position.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I agree that calli would almost make us robotic, and the future neural blocks would no doubt take away our humanity. Neural blocks in essence make us blind to truly seeing people, and in my opinion that takes away our individuality. If you perceive everyone the same way from the physical perspective, that takes away our individuality as physical beings. The idea that it helps humans not to judge or care about the outside appearance is a good idea in theory, but would it really change the way people viewed others? If humans couldn't judge based on appearance, what would stop them from judging based on personality? And then as a result, neural blocks would have to be made for personality as well as appearance, taking away every part of humanity, and therefore making us equivalent to robots.
I also agree, though in a different way. I think that saying that these technologies could only lead to others may be a bit hasty and comes frighteningly close to the slippery slope fallacy. That being said, I feel like almost all human traits are either inherited or taught in such a way that we have only minimal control over them. If you're raised in a family that places super-value on intelligence, then you're extremely likely to grow up matching that, just like attractive parents would have attractive children.
ReplyDeleteI feel like many of these traits are kind of arbitrarily valued anyway, and that calli is just picking on people who happened to have one specific trait that they have no control over.
I think it would depend on how it's used. As discussed in class, and in the book, maybe these agnosias would be necessary in some cases, and could be turned off when not needed. The story mentions that there are technologies used by advertisers to make products appealing to people beyond what people can perceive. Yes, making goods attractive is a time honored method, but manipulating model's looks or voices to do so, when people can't block them out, seems slightly underhanded to me. In addition, people with these technologies could also use them to manipulate their audience in areas that arguably matter more (like politics). Having the ability to resist these methods of persuasion by "turning off" certain triggers while watching ads or debates, and then turning them back on for everyday life, could allow people to make better choices without necessarily turning people into robots.
ReplyDelete