Comment on Comment on Visual Artefact by dyeats

This is very interesting Charles. I think I can draw a connection here to some ideas around posthumanism but not sure if I ‘d be on the right track for what you intended.
Anyway, here goes: The opening slide has the steering wheel of a vintage car. The car in a sense is the ultimate symbol of the cyborg/tranhuman. Even moreso than any fictional android type creatures.

From there I guess each card symbolises another aspect of Cyber Cultures that we discussed in the last block. I think there is an element of the tranhuman in each figure’s ornate clothing, something that augments the human. Indeed, a kind of technology which gives each figure a new kind of being.

Not sure if I’m on the right track but would appreciate your thoughts too.

from
Comments for Charles’s EDC lifestream

Comment on Visual Artefact – Education and technology in 2028 by dyeats

Great artefact Thomas!
I couldn’t get the link to the artefact to work so I downloaded the version you linked at the bottom and I think I somehow got a link to your work in progress on the final digital essay or at least your brain-stormed notes on the Course? : https://www.mindmeister.com/de/1405065893?t=NH43XZxed1#

Anyway, it’s very engaging either way, and a very effective way of collecting and connecting themes. Your answers to the questions raised focus very much on the dystopian view of the future of education. I think the biggest questions are around control of curriculum, but hasn’t that always been a flashpoint in education? The conflict between private and public education, the social and the personalised, have been points of conflict long before great profit and power could be derived from EdTech.

Does Tech greatly amplify these concerns in the same way that algorithms amplify human bias?

from
Comments for Thomas Reinhardt’s EDC lifestream https://ift.tt/38hZLbI

Comment on Comment on Visual Artifact (block 1) by dyeats

Powerful video and great question at the end. Also a great conversation thread in here too. It made me think of the “Humanistic AI” movement and the challenging questions that raises around what we consider to be human. Who are the humans who get to be included in this humanistic vision of AI?

I’ve asked this question of some proponents of Humanistic AI and found their answers simply insist that no-one is excluded. However, that disregards the history of humanism as an exclusionary movement.

https://en.unesco.org/artificial-intelligence/principles-ai-towards-humanistic-approach/programme

https://www.newworldai.com/humanistic-artificial-intelligence/

I believe the idea of the cyborg as a physical being is still very much alive in the Transhumanist community: https://www.transhumanism.com.au/ ; albeit perhaps not openly referred to as cyborg.

There is also the growth of the virtual human: https://vimeo.com/227862693

Well done on the video!

from
Comments for Iryna’s lifestream blog

Comment on Visual Artifact (block 1) by dyeats

Comment on Visual artefact by dyeats

This video is like the archeology of being human. The traces that humans would leave behind if they all suddenly evaporated.

‘showing humans’ by not ‘showing humans’ actually shows more about humans than showing humans would… if you get my drift? although I’m not sure I get my own drift?

What does it mean for education if it ceases to be a project about defining humans? Can it ever cease to define humans even if the explicit intention is take away? If we just say education is only about getting a job, that doesn’t make it less about defining the human.

from
Comments for Susanne MacLeod’s EDC lifestream

Comment on Visual artefact by dyeats

These are mega meta questions. Do we need to decide what human is? What makes that classification so important? Is it too late to do away with it?

And no your tweets are not you nor me and Twitter is not the ‘real’ world, unless you or I are bots in which case it is our entire universe!

from
Comments for Susanne MacLeod’s EDC lifestream

Comment on Visual artifact: warm and loving technology – the blurred boundary between human and technology by dyeats

Wonderful idea Jiyoung!

One thing we often think of lats in education, is the importance of good food and the relationships that come out of eating together!

That is something that gets under-emphasised in so many educational settings.

When I was a teacher, my students’ favourite lesson was one where we all cooked together, I had forgotten that until seeing your artefact, so thank you for reminding me!

The idea of all that ‘unseen’ technology going into a meal is so important, just like all the unseen work that goes into a good lesson. To all the electronic tech in your meal, I would also add the crockery, cutlery, tables etc. and even all the different types of ceremonies that go along with a meal as ‘technologies’ in the broader sense.

from
Comments for Jiyoung Kwon’s EDC lifestream https://ift.tt/378JiVB

Comment on Visual artefact – week 3 by dyeats

Love the simple grungy story of the transhuman that emerges from this. At first I didn’t quite get what I was watching and that was part of the fun of it. It really works well though

You’ve picked out a very popular theme in the creation of transhumans, that of a medical procedure after an accident that transforms the ‘old you’ dramatically.

Also picking up on what you said about tech evangelists and tech skeptics in education, there is a parallel here with the medical industry. Medical procedures to restore what was lost or enhance what is there are common.

Tech such as medical implant devices (for a broad range of issues) have been adopted readily by the industry and have also been fairly unregulated or even untested. Some doctors refuse to use them and others put them into everyone they see. Just as some teachers want nothing to do with new tech while others try everything they come across.

I would classify policy and pedagogy as kinds of technology in here as well.

from
Comments for Jon Jack’s EDC lifestream https://ift.tt/3bndXC3