Adding resources

I wanted to post you something about a book I had to read for my Argumentation Theory and Logic (I left the link, but I’m afraid it’s only in Spanish)…it was written by Jose Luis Molinuevo and it’s entitled Humanismo y nuevas tecnologías.. I really recommend it because it’s very easy to understand and I’ve remembered it since we started this #edcmooc course.

Molinuevo uses lots of sci-fi films to make the reader wonder about what means to be a human and how new paths of though are driving us to a transhumanism experience. Their arguments are very near to this course so I’m sure you’ll enjoy it if you have the chance to read it.

But. This morning I’ve heard something interesting in BBC News that I want to share with you…not only because it will be easier to the most of you because it’s in English but also because it could be very useful for the last task of the course: our artifacts. It’s a sort of contest which has been the participation of six artists, who were asked about their visions of future. I hope you could find inspiration in these ideas. Good luck!

Anuncios

Are we sillier but technological??

It is said that “when the philosopher points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger”.

This sentence always makes me think about this 5512246334_stupid20google20pew_answer_1_xlarge

and, after this week, it would make me think about Carr’s article. (Week 4, resources, #edcmooc)

I’m not sure if any of you have suffer what Carr tells in his article, but I did and I can tell that it’s very ominous. I always have been a voracious reader and I could remember all the stories, all the books I read, all details of those novels…and now I suffer this lack of concentration, not specially in reading task but in remember the plots or even the things I say or do everyday…sometimes my nearest people tell me something which they have already told me and I feel that it’s the first time I hear that.

After thinking over this article I can contemplate  a little hope. I’m not becoming silly, I’m just restructuring my way of thinking. Well…I don’t think it was better. I liked my memory and I wish to recover it. No one knows that you’re in risk of loosing memory when you get use to surf the Internet. Of course skim lots of web pages for information in the shortest time is useful, but what price are we paying? Do we prefer to sacrifice our memory in order to reduce the time we work or study? Does it mean that we prefer a mechanic activity (e.g. skim) as if we were robots instead of a human feature like memory?

So my conclusion is that sometimes we can’t choose if we prefer humanism to transhumanism, because as in this case, the most times imposed technology varies our mental structures without our permission and make us more efficent but less human.

We have to look for the limit and try to use the best of every side. Midpoint is the key.

‘Man thinks because he has hands’ (Anaxágoras)

Here we are!! Fresh reflexions about this week materials in #edcmooc

First of all I want to tell you about The Human Touch. I think this article is a stronger way of saing that technology should follow pedagogy but I agree with Monke when the importance of develop our sense in childhood is said. Firsthand experiences are necessary to develop our senses and muscles (and our knowledge about our surroundings). Anaxágoras said ‘Man thinks because he has hands’ underlining the relation brain-hand who is the main one to learn.

It could be a revision of Fuller’s humanistic projects, leaving how to using tech knowledge to the correct time in a student life, when he or she really needs to use this tools. Of course we shouldn’t discriminate any way of education, we have to preserve the old ones who really make people develop their senses and knowledge and then, as an additional knowledge, teach them how to use tech to increase their knowledge.

According to The Human Element, I think that the main assumption is that traditional education is more human because it’s not mediated by technology. This is true and false depending on the meaning of ‘human’. It’s false because text is a human production too and it shouldn’t matter if you see or don’t see the person who is talking to you…but we are use to trust only a person we are seing. Why? Because it’s more reliable to read the body language plus the words…and that’s human too: think globally, words, signs, expressions…

Personally, it’s easier to apprehend ideas which you are feeling as human ideas, for example with Steve Fuller’s  lecture this week that reading a text you’re not able who is speaking.

I personally loved the lecture. We are constructed by society including all our democratic ideas, so we are, in part, designed by society…and education has to build ourselves in order to be res cogitans (as Descartes said) not only a material or physical person who could be manipulated, but also real humans who were able to think, analyze, and choose the best political, cultural, ideological…etc…

E-humans, a new dystopian vision

As I wrote in my last post,  this new way to learn has a lot of pros and a bit of cons. 

This week resources made me think about the ways we can use in the future and what they would suppose to the traditional materials we are used to. We are, without doubts, determined by technology…and, instead of the benefits, I don’t think it could be the best idea. As I’ve said before it’s beautiful that we can share ideas like in this MOOC’s, but we have to still using our senses as humans.

robot1

With technology we have sounds, images, keys in our fingers…but we can’t taste or smell…in a future in which communications were as we have seen in this week’ videos, people don’t use this senses most time because they’re typing or sending files with their fingers or whatever. This the new form of future…it’ won’t be necessary that robots rebel themselves because we are about to become ourselves as robots, using only technology and not our techniques (that have been developed since homo habilis). Even some film robots (as Wall-E in the photo) seem more human that in this dystopian vision I’m talking about; they could be ‘more human that humans‘ as in Tyrell’ replicants.

We are determined, but not damned! We have to take advantage of technology but not making it our life form because it has cons too…It depends on the side from where we’re watching.

‘Opening education’=knowledge?

Sometimes a bit difficult to understand but perfectly threaded with Eliot’s verses we have the Campbell lecture (material #edcmooc week 2).  And we are asked to share our thoughts about the meaning of ‘opening education’.

As he said, ‘open’ is a very uncommon world to talk about education because we have reify education as it was a box where we can put whatever we want. And that means that we can full it with useful things and with things are not so good.

As I’ve already said in the discussion board, the fact that you can learn from a massive course in which people of a lot of cultures participate, enrich our learning experience by sharing our ideas…but we lose the human factor in most cases. This new information we are able to get could be knowledge but it not has to be ‘educational’. I thinks that is the main cause that some teachers are against this ‘open’ way to learn. The professor is relegated to a series of advises you must do not only for passing the course, but also for assure you what you will have to make your final project about, and that’s a different way to learn from the traditional one.

I don’t think it wasn’t a good way to learn new things because the education is a right and this new form allows people from over the world to get free access to it. But of course, we have to think, analyze and pick out what is information for us and what we can use to improve our knowledge. It’s our task to select and deepen in the themes we think are most important, so that’s why I think this kind of courses are so great!

Dystopian story example

We were asked to share some thoughts about a utopian or dystopian film and that’s why I’m here today 🙂

The last one I read was Nineteen Eighty Four (George Orwell).

1984-george-orwell

 

This novel was written in the late 40’s and relates a dystopian world in which technology is so developed that it is used to control humans. They can’t even think what they want because some thought are considered against law (thoughtcrimes in the novel) so humans are pursued by a police who control this kind of thoughts.

Wherever they were, they are watched by a screen or a policeman or a recording camera, so they live in a totalitarism regime in which they are as slaves. The main figure of this government is the Big Brother, whom all people have to respect and love. And if you are caught with thoughtcrimes or if you form part of any kind of resistance, they make you disappear or re-educate you with the features of a model citizen who loves the Big Brother.

This kind of dystopian story shows a world in which develop of technology has created a totalitarism in which the powerful sector of society (who controls tech tools) dominate the rest of people…dominating or dominated humans are below the power of technologies.