Society and Information Technology in Second Life

Wednesdays, August 29 - December 12 , 2007, 4-6, SLT/PT, 7-9 pm ET on Berkman island in Second Life

Course homepage - http://socinfotech.pbwiki.com

 

Instructor: Scott MacLeod (not on Harvard's faculty) = Aphilo Aarde (in Second Life)

http://scottmacleod.com/papers.htm

 

 

Soc and Info Tech course in SL Sep 12 2007

 

 

[16:00]  Boston Hutchinson: Hi Aphilo!

[16:00]  You: Hello Boston!

[16:00]  You: How are you?

[16:00]  Boston Hutchinson: Fine thanks, and you?

[16:00]  Morrhys Graysmark is Offline

[16:00]  You: Nice to see you!

[16:00]  You: Fine, also, thanks.

[16:01]  You: I'm still waiting to hear from some other folks their thoughts about your questions.

[16:01]  Boston Hutchinson: Thanks for all the info you sent me. I didn't get very far with it yet, because I was trying to get through the readings.

[16:01]  Boston Hutchinson: I think my questions were a bit naive! I'm learning fast, though.

[16:01]  You: Ok

[16:02]  You: Your questions are interesting, and I think they help focus attention to possibilities

[16:02]  You: What plays out vis-a-vis Linden Lab is perhaps one sticking issue.

[16:03]  You: They have a business model, and have seen what works, and what doesn't.

[16:03]  Tatiana Igaly is Offline

[16:03]  Boston Hutchinson: Well, I recognize the need to fund all this and make money. I don't see them blocking innovation very much.

[16:04]  Annette Paster is Offline

[16:04]  You: And while SL is very rich with potential, I think some businesses and groups have come in, and then left because they couldn't realize their plans.

[16:05]  You: SL is like a palette for painting, as well as an emerging society.

[16:05]  You: Technological and social questions define its parameters and possibilities.

[16:05]  Boston Hutchinson: I'm sure if you have enough capital, you can create your own virtual world, but this one provides a lot of opportunity to those not focused on big capital projects.

[16:06]  You: This is one of the most visual rich, and easily interactive, and it already has a fairly large user base, which will be what makes any virtual world.

[16:06]  Olga Beck is Online

[16:07]  Boston Hutchinson: Yes.

[16:07]  You: But a metaverse is taking shape, of a variety of virtual worlds, and we'll see how they interact.

[16:07]  Boston Hutchinson: And they're pretty open with the viewer source and all.

[16:07]  You: I think it's interesting to observe which technologies catch on, and which don't.

[16:07]  Boston Hutchinson: Yes. It will be interesting to see whether any standards can develop

[16:08]  You: Why don't you think video conferencing has taken off. It's free if you have a computer, and highly social.

[16:08]  Whitelight Christiansen is Online

[16:08]  Boston Hutchinson: My guess is that they will, and LL knows that, and interoperability with systems like Google Earth will be essential in the long term.

[16:09]  Parriah Janus is Offline

[16:09]  You: There are so many possibilities for convergence, and LL is a fairly small company, compared with Google.

[16:09]  Boston Hutchinson: Well, videoconferencing is used a lot for business. Even conference phones are weak, though.

[16:09]  You: Google could potential start their own virtual world, or possbily buy closely held SL, and SL would change a lot.

[16:09]  Boston Hutchinson: It's often hard to hear everyone inthe room.

[16:09]  Emuishere Boa is Offline

[16:10]  You: Yes.

[16:10]  Boston Hutchinson: Google must be considering the purchase.

[16:11]  Boston Hutchinson: But there are many issues. This place is not PG.

[16:11]  You: One interesting aspect of the digital revolution is that it has been so unplanned, and innovations cluster, and then build on one another.

[16:11]  Emuishere Boa is Online

[16:11]  You: Although there is a teen grid.

[16:11]  Boston Hutchinson: I wonder if Google wants to manage such a chaotic environment.

[16:12]  Boston Hutchinson: O. I'll have to look into the teen grid. Sarah is interested!

[16:12]  You: I think SL is both interested in making money, as well as keeping it a place for wish fulfillment, which is what Phil Rosedale, the president, has said.

[16:12]  You: Great.

[16:12]  Boston Hutchinson: I don't know much about LL, but from what I've seen, they seem fairly benevolent.

[16:13]  You: Google 'manages' a search engine, and has defined the field of search, in a way - search is also chaotic.

[16:13]  Boston Hutchinson: Yes, but it's a bit like telephones. or halfway in between. They don't need to control the content.

[16:14]  You: Although a number of people mentioned google at the SEcond Life Conference in Chicago, I think SL is defining virtual worlds, in the same way google defined search.

[16:14]  You: I think managing a very attractive software program.

[16:14]  Boston Hutchinson: I dont think we can distinguish completeley between the virtual and the real.

[16:14]  You: ... can be an unsteady ride.

[16:14]  Olga Beck is Offline

[16:15]  Boston Hutchinson: google's field of search is also virtual.

[16:15]  Boston Hutchinson: Google earth, of course, is real.

[16:15]  Boston Hutchinson: And microsoft and others are trying to beat them at that game.

[16:16]  You: Virtuality and real life are do have representation in common, and in virtual worlds, there is often one more step of mediation in the communication process, a kind of mask

[16:16]  Boston Hutchinson: I'm intrigued by the idea of virtual presence in the real world

[16:17]  Juria Yoshikawa is Offline

[16:17]  You: There's a long history of decisions in the computer revolution which highlighted the benefits of convergence, vis control.

[16:17]  You: Google Earth is a representation too

[16:17]  You: Baudrillard, the French social theorist, has shaped interesting arguments about representation.

[16:18]  Boston Hutchinson: I think sociologically, the mask part is very interesting. Technologically, it' just an impediment or a way station on the road to full virtualization.

[16:18]  You: For example - virtual presence in the real world? the internet?

[16:18]  You: Or even just symbols?

[16:19]  Boston Hutchinson: Yes, but I was thinking of street level. Imagine teleconferencing literally on the street.

[16:19]  You: We talked about this a little last week, but Packer and Jordan

[16:20]  Boston Hutchinson: Packer and Jordan?

[16:20]  You: suggest

[16:20]  You: in "Multimedia: from Wagner to Virtual Reality"

[16:20]  Olga Beck is Online

[16:20]  You: that virtual reality has 5 aspects

[16:21]  You: INTEGRATION, INTERACTIVITY, HYPERMEDIA, IMMERSION AND NARRATIVITY

[16:21]  You: These are what differentiate multimedia from other forms of text.

[16:22]  You: Integration refers to “the combining of artistic forms and technology into a hybrid form of expression”

[16:22]  Boston Hutchinson: I'd also point out that visual interfaces take advantage of our human neuroanatomy.

[16:22]  You: so sound with video with cartoons in multiple ways

[16:23]  Olga Beck is Offline

[16:23]  You: So the experience of virtual reality is also in the mind.

[16:23]  Boston Hutchinson: There are 1.5 million fibers in the optic nerve (if they haven't found more since i was in school).

[16:23]  Annette Paster is Online

[16:23]  Boston Hutchinson: There are only a very small fraction of that in the auditory nerve if I remember correctly.

[16:24]  You: Yes, and one that's unique about the mind is ability to envision our world in a kind of holographic complexity.

[16:24]  Miranda Tibbett is Offline

[16:24]  You: Interactivity refers to “the ability of the user to manipulate and affect [his and] her experience of media directly, and to communicate with others through media”

[16:24]  Boston Hutchinson: Similarly, the visual cortex is much larger than the auditory one, and language is layered on top of audition.

[16:25]  Miranda Tibbett is Online

[16:25]  You: I think Wagner in the design of the Festspielhaus in Bayreuth in the late 1800s

[16:25]  Boston Hutchinson: I often wonder what it would be like to see with the same sese that we talk with, as ddolphins and whales do.

[16:26]  Boston Hutchinson: Festspielhaus? I haven't seen it...

[16:27]  You: created an early forerunner to a virtually real experience, highlighting a kind of surrounding immersion, which affected aspects of people's minds

[16:27]  Boston Hutchinson: i just googled it

[16:27]  You: in new ways in terms of their neuroanatomy.

[16:27]  You: Hypermedia refers to “the linking of separate media elements to one another to create a trail of personal association”

[16:28]  Miranda Tibbett is Offline

[16:28]  You: so we can navigate in potentially infinitely new ways, as a consequence of hyperlinks

[16:28]  You: Immersion refers to “the experience of entering into the simulation of a three-dimensional environment”

[16:28]  Miranda Tibbett is Online

[16:29]  Miranda Tibbett is Offline

[16:29]  You: This is perhaps where virtual reality will excel as chips and transfer rates get faster.

[16:29]  You: Narrativity refers to “aesthetic and formal strategies that derive from the above concepts, and which result in nonlinear story forms and media presentation”

[16:30]  Boston Hutchinson: I worry that our physical limitations are going to remain a problem.

[16:30]  You: And narrativity is partly how we engage multimedia and virtual reality.

[16:30]  Miranda Tibbett is Online

[16:30]  Boston Hutchinson: We will need to plug in more directly to get "immersion"

[16:31]  Parriah Janus is Online

[16:31]  You: Always, - very old bodyminds, and new technologies, with lots of opportunities to experiment.

[16:31]  You: I agree . . . and that may still be some distance in the future.

[16:31]  Boston Hutchinson: Yes.

[16:32]  You: Shall we talk a little about the PC, telecommunications, and then the Internet, vis-a-vis the information technology revolution?

[16:33]  Boston Hutchinson: I'm not familiar with the "technical" use of some of the terminology, but it seems to me that the narrative flows a lot better in a passive entertainment (like a movie) than in an interactive one like SL or a videogame.

[16:33]  You: But before we do, what have you seen at MIT, for example, that has fascinated you about virtual reality?

[16:34]  Boston Hutchinson: sure, sorry, I'm typing off in a different direction....

[16:34]  You: I think some are experimenting with new forms of novels, and literary works, in SL.

[16:35]  Boston Hutchinson: Well, I haven't been around MIT for a long time, since 1979!

[16:35]  You: Not at all - but I found, for example, an amazingly rich and enjoyable exchange made possible in new ways, particularly in a Harvard class here in the fall of 2006, by group type chat

[16:35]  Boston Hutchinson: Interesting, about novels in SL.

[16:36]  You: a very enjoyable form of narrative, as a direct consequence of this new technology - everybody coudl type at once - a new social dynamic -

[16:36]  Boston Hutchinson: The readings brought back a lot of memories from the earlier computing and network days!

[16:36]  You: and develop multiple lines of reasoning, particularly, actually, in office hours which Becca Nesson facilitated last fall.

[16:36]  Boston Hutchinson: Yes, it's almost like we're having two conversations at once.

[16:37]  You: I see . . . that is one of the reasons I have continued to pursue courses in SL.

[16:37]  You: The pace is different, slower, and noone in a larger group need feel left out.

[16:38]  You: It changes the social psychology of discussion, I found - an interest consequence of a this curious medium.

[16:38]  You: And all brought about, initially by the personal computer, in a sense.

[16:38]  You: virtual reality is fascinating, so let's come back to it often.

[16:39]  You: One line of reasoning Lawrence Lessig, a former Harvard Law faculty member, now at Stanford - is that Code is Law.

[16:39]  Boston Hutchinson: Kind of like physics

[16:40]  Boston Hutchinson: You can't violate the law of gravity.

[16:40]  Boston Hutchinson: Nor in SL can you break outside of the coded limitations.

[16:40]  You: This offers rich grounds for comparing the US legal system with what code makes possible in SL, for example.

[16:40]  You: Yes.

[16:41]  Boston Hutchinson: Yes. And the consequences of having programmers instead of lawyers could be interesting.

[16:41]  You: And also perhaps examining the role of US Law in comparison with SL terms of service.

[16:41]  You: Both shape a kind of reality.

[16:41]  Jagger Valeeva is Online

[16:42]  Boston Hutchinson: Fortunately, the kind of programmers attracted to this work and smart enough to run it tend to be idealistic.

[16:42]  You: and SL's is very rich and unique, and heightens the significance of the conversation.

[16:42]  You: And young . . .

[16:42]  Boston Hutchinson: But that may not last. Bill Gates was idealistic. He may still be, but Microsoft is not.

[16:43]  You: Bill Gates was a fairly driven business man even in the 1970s.

[16:43]  Miranda Tibbett is Offline

[16:43]  You: After Apple had invented the first mass market personal computer

[16:43]  Olga Beck is Online

[16:43]  Boston Hutchinson: Sure, he figured out how to create a monopoly, and probably thought it was best for the industry. That could be debated.

[16:44]  You: Bill Gates saw the significance of operating systems.

[16:44]  You: But he didn't own one.

[16:44]  Boston Hutchinson: Yes, There are some stories...

[16:44]  You: Yes . . . Gates did so in a very unique way.

[16:44]  Miranda Tibbett is Online

[16:45]  You: IBM had decided to enter the PC market in 1981.

[16:45]  You: And they also didn't have an operating system.

[16:45]  Boston Hutchinson: So they called Gary Kildahl...

[16:45]  Boston Hutchinson: who was out driving around in his new Ferrari...

[16:46]  You: In entering the PC market, they departed significantly from IBM's way of doing business, which was very staid when it came to making decisions.

[16:46]  Boston Hutchinson: so the story goes

[16:46]  Olga Beck is Offline

[16:46]  You: Did you know Kildall?

[16:46]  Boston Hutchinson: Well IBM was an open source company, if I remember correctly. S/W was free.

[16:46]  You: (And they ended up out of the PC business not too long later, partly thanks to Bill Gates)>

[16:46]  Boston Hutchinson: All you had to do was buy the 360.

[16:47]  Boston Hutchinson: no, didn't know him. just the story, which may not be true

[16:47]  You: IBM checked with Kildall, but Gates who had an early system based on Basic, sold IBM a bill of goods, saying that he had an operating system, when he didn't!

[16:48]  You: Gates persuaded IBM to chose his nonexistent operating system, over Kildall's CPM

[16:48]  Whitelight Christiansen is Offline

[16:49]  You: And on top of that, Gates and Ballmer and Allen made an agreement with IBM to license this nonexistent operating system to them, as well as to other PC makers.

[16:49]  You: Gates and Ballmer, who had just moved to Seatlle, then had to find an operating system!

[16:50]  Boston Hutchinson: That's the way software has been sold ever since--I build it for you, you pay for it, but I own it and you have restrictions on your use of it.

[16:50]  You: So they contacted a programmer in Seattle, named Tim Patterson, I think, who had a kernel - QDOS, offered him $50,000, and then had their operating system.

[16:51]  You: True, but it was this kind of salesmanship and directedness that led to Microsoft's success.

[16:51]  You: Hello James Sheldon!

[16:51]  Boston Hutchinson: Hi JamesSheldon

[16:51]  You: We're talking about the developent of the PC, and later well look at

[16:51]  JamesSheldon Whitfield squeeks!

[16:52]  JamesSheldon Whitfield: ok, thank you

[16:52]  You: telecommunications and then the history of the internet.

[16:52]  JamesSheldon Whitfield: Hello sirs

[16:52]  JamesSheldon Whitfield: Is this a lecture?

[16:52]  You: http://socinfotech.pbwiki.com

[16:52]  JamesSheldon Whitfield: oh yes

[16:52]  JamesSheldon Whitfield: kk

[16:52]  Jagger Valeeva is Offline

[16:53]  You: It's a discussion for an open course on the information technology revolution vis-a-vis Manuel Castyells' research.

[16:53]  JamesSheldon Whitfield: Thank you Aphilo

[16:53]  You: He's a long time Berkeley professor who has characterized the Network Society.

[16:53]  JamesSheldon Whitfield: Sorry to interrupt your train of thought while speaking

[16:54]  You: So IBM which got into PC because they seemed to offer insurmountable opportunity is no longer in the PC business, partly due to Bill Gates' shrewd business sense.

[16:55]  You: IBM basically hadn't done their homework when looking around for first operating system, and as a consequence, lost a huge opportunity.

[16:55]  You: Huge!

[16:55]  You: IBM is now a services company, and Microsoft is still a software company.

[16:56]  You: So, in 1981, when IBM entered the PC market, they pursued a genius strategy to ensure maximum technological development. T

[16:57]  You: PCs could be cloned.

[16:57]  You: Apple had made their hardware and software proprietary from the beginning.

[16:57]  Miranda Tibbett is Offline

[16:57]  Parriah Janus is Offline

[16:57]  You: So from here on it was Apple against the world.

[16:58]  You: Remember the 1984 advertisement for the Macintosh?

[16:58]  Bromo Ivory is Online

[16:58]  You: The athlete throws a hammer into the screen of Big Brother, over the heads of drone workers.

[16:58]  Miranda Tibbett is Online

[16:58]  JamesSheldon Whitfield: Yes, a good friend of mine was manager for the Lisa project from Apple then

[16:58]  Champler Snook is Offline

[16:58]  JamesSheldon Whitfield: short lived

[16:58]  You: That person on the screen was supposed to represent the head of IBM, Watson.

[16:59]  You: That's interesting, JamesSheldon.

[16:59]  You: Please don't hesitate to add your insights!

[16:59]  Bromo Ivory is Offline

[16:59]  JamesSheldon Whitfield: Well, the only one that comes to mind

[16:59]  JamesSheldon Whitfield: is that Apple is convinced to the bones then

[16:59]  You: But apple, in a sense, misplaced their hammer throw.

[17:00]  JamesSheldon Whitfield: that their technology would be earth shattering

[17:00]  JamesSheldon Whitfield: but it was over priced

[17:00]  You: True . . . and true

[17:00]  JamesSheldon Whitfield: the hadn't figured out the business end

[17:00]  Bruce Flyer is Online

[17:00]  JamesSheldon Whitfield: but the technology was, itself, significant

[17:00]  You: IN the mid 1980s Microsoft still didn't really have any killer apps.

[17:01]  You: They had ownership over the operating system, which all PC makers were making clones for

[17:01]  You: Hi Bruce!

[17:01]  Bruce Flyer: Hi Aphillo! Hi James!

[17:01]  Boston Hutchinson: Hi Bruce

[17:01]  JamesSheldon Whitfield: Hello Bruce

[17:01]  You: and in the 1980s they were playing around with a spread sheet, which they thought would be a killer app.

[17:01]  Bruce Flyer: sorry, Boston, Idid not see you at first

[17:02]  You: So Apple made / commissioned their software, and PCs didn't really even have any software in the mid 1980s.

[17:02]  JamesSheldon Whitfield: in those days

[17:02]  JamesSheldon Whitfield: it was commong t buy a pc and type in long lines of program code

[17:03]  JamesSheldon Whitfield: which we did

[17:03]  JamesSheldon Whitfield: to create utility

[17:03]  You: Until Harvard dropout Gates, and his high school friend Paul Allen, who were Hackers, and also Ballmer, developed their operating system and this spread sheet.

[17:03]  Boston Hutchinson: yes, and then get nothing back but more lines of text

[17:03]  JamesSheldon Whitfield: run time errors, ha ha

[17:03]  You: (Dan Bricklin in the early 1970s at MIT, had already started to develop a spreadsheet

[17:04]  You: Yes, JamesSheldon.

[17:05]  You: So Gates and Ballmer succeeded at their key strategy - to sell an operating system they didn't have to the biggest player, which was IBM

[17:05]  You: So IBM got mahcine royalties, and Microsoft got software royalties.

[17:06]  You: So PCs started in the context of this kinds of competition, basically out of a garage, shaped by two kid inventors - Wozniak and Jobs, and before them Ed Roberts, with Altair.

[17:07]  You: TELECOMMUNICATIONS

[17:08]  You: So, in addition to microelectronics, and computers, the third key aspect of this inforamtion revolution has

[17:08]  You: been Telecommunications.

[17:08]  You: And this changed dramatically in the 1960s.

[17:08]  You: Two main kind of telecommunication technologies:

[17:09]  You: 1) Node Technologies - switchers & routers, and

[17:09]  You: 2)

[17:09]  Gayle Cabaret is Offline

[17:09]  You: transmissions technologies - cable, then later coaxial and digital, and later still - fiber optic.

[17:10]  You: B the 1903s, the beginnings of switchers and routers existed.

[17:10]  You: And people were the switchers in the early telephone systems.

[17:11]  You: By the mid-1970s - digital switchers completely replaced people.

[17:11]  You: In 1956, the first transatlantic cable was laid.

[17:11]  Gayle Cabaret is Online

[17:11]  You: There were about 36 circuits, and it was held down with buoys.

[17:12]  Bruce Flyer: but don't all node technologies depdend upon transmission technology? Cables without nodes would be cable everywhere(?))

[17:12]  You: The number of circuits soon increased to 48

[17:12]  You: And in 1985, a transatlantic cable had 85,000 circuits.

[17:12]  You: Yes they are interdependent . . .

[17:13]  You: And in the 1990s, satellite communciations became very important.

[17:13]  Boston Hutchinson: There was a battle over local network architecture

[17:13]  You: Were you involved in that , Boston?

[17:14]  Krysss Galatea is Online

[17:14]  Boston Hutchinson: With switches versus token ring versus bus technologies

[17:14]  You: In 1998, for comparison's sake, staellite transmission technoloiges was 50,000 times greater than in 1978 -

[17:14]  Boston Hutchinson: just a little. I was up against IBM at one point

[17:15]  You: again a dramatic change - the pace and scale of change in the IT revolution is unparalled compared with previous industrial revolutions.

[17:15]  Boston Hutchinson: i fought for switches versus their token rings

[17:15]  You: I see . . .

[17:16]  You: The cellular technological reovlution started a long time ago - but it was only when chips

[17:16]  You: could be placed in phones, that it really took off.

[17:16]  You: Now a billion cell phones a year are sold.

[17:17]  You: So, to sum up, - with the convergence of microelectronics with computers, and telecommuncations, represented by the Internet

[17:17]  You: we now have a global system of networks.

[17:18]  You: And the entire world is a modular system!

[17:18]  Bruce Flyer: is the shortage of IP addresses really a problem?

[17:18]  You: And this was designed in 1969, originally, with ARPA

[17:19]  You: Advanced REsearch Projects Agency, funded by the military, but run by academics

[17:19]  You: I think new digits, Bruce, can be added to IP addresses

[17:19]  You: It was basically scientists in major reserach industries, and not military research.

[17:20]  You: It was the work of computer scientists.

[17:20]  You: In 1972, ARPA net become operational.

[17:20]  You: And in 1995, the Internet was privatized.

[17:20]  You: Up to 1995, the early internet was a public entity.

[17:21]  You: Briefly, here's another angle: GENETIC ENGINEERING.

[17:21]  You: It's also a significant part of the Information TEchnology revolution.

[17:22]  Bruce Flyer: programs that improve by mutation and "competition?"

[17:22]  You: In 1953, at Cambridge Univ. Crick and Watson discovered the structure of DNA - the code of all lving matter.

[17:23]  You: Comparison of technological devleopment with evolution of life forms can be exciting, but don't make for extensive fruitful comparison.

[17:23]  You: in my experience . . .

[17:24]  Bruce Flyer: so how does genetic engineering relate to telecommunications, etc?

[17:24]  You: In 1973, scientists became able to manipulate the code of living matter . . .

[17:24]  Boston Hutchinson: I think Bruce is refering to genetic algorithms, which are widely used in manufacturing scheduling, air traffic control, etc.

[17:24]  You: Microelectronics, computers, telecommunications, and the genetic revolution

[17:25]  You: are are key aspects of teh information technology revolution, where convergence plays a key role in their development.

[17:25]  You: I see . . . that could well be, and I'm not that familiar with those

[17:26]  Boston Hutchinson: I think genetic engineering isn't going to have as much effect as networks for a few decades

[17:26]  JamesSheldon Whitfield: Thank you Aphilo, and thank you Boston and Bruce..... I must leave for another engagement. Nice!

[17:26]  Xirconnia Morphett is Online

[17:27]  Boston Hutchinson: Bye JamesSheldon

[17:27]  You: So, when Paul Burke at Stanford, and Boyer and Cohen at UCSF found recombinant DNA, and performed gene splicing, they laid the ground work for mapping the human genome, and licensing life!

[17:28]  Eon Berkman is Online

[17:28]  You: And the Human Genome was decodes

[17:28]  Bruce Flyer: I am looking for the tie. I see that DNA is info. Eon is here!

[17:28]  You: decoded 2 years earlier than anticipated

[17:29]  You: (I only will touch on genetic information rev briefly, but it does articulate nicely with the rest of IT rev).

[17:29]  You: The reason for this speedy development in the Human Genome, was due to a convergence with computing.

[17:29]  Bruce Flyer: maybe another evening you might make that tie more extensively. I would like to understand.

[17:30]  You: Comptures allowed researchers to go 50% faster than anticipated.

[17:30]  You: Certainly.

[17:30]  Bruce Flyer: tks

[17:30]  Boston Hutchinson: Ray Kurzweil has a lot to say about the connection...and the impact on society, which he thinks will happen very soon.

[17:30]  You: We're now able to reprogram stem cells.

[17:31]  Miranda Tibbett is Offline

[17:31]  You: And we have the ability to regenerate new blood vessles to repari damaged blood vessels, like the heart, the liver, the kidney.

[17:31]  Bruce Flyer: I have trouble taking Kurzweil seriously. He says so may things something has to come to pass.

[17:32]  Miranda Tibbett is Online

[17:32]  You: So it's already possible to use genetic material in the body

[17:32]  Bruce Flyer: so humans will soon engineer primiative lifeforms. is that good?

[17:32]  Boston Hutchinson: I think he's a little extreem in his view, especially of the time frame, but the basic theories are interesting.

[17:32]  Bruce Flyer: immortality would be a real problem from a social policy perspective

[17:33]  You: So there is a double development here - microelectronic and genetic are converging through the ability to use biological and microelectronics in living matter - a conversgence between two fields.

[17:33]  You: Yes, Bruce, cloning is an example of that.

[17:33]  Boston Hutchinson: It isn't going to happen in his (my) generation.

[17:33]  Bruce Flyer: cockroaches that spy for the military?

[17:33]  You: I don't know Kruzweil's work very well.

[17:33]  Boston Hutchinson: that might happen

[17:34]  Bruce Flyer: visions of the movie about robots with emotions

[17:34]  Bruce Flyer: movie AI

[17:35]  Jagger Valeeva is Online

[17:35]  You: So, we've now entered a wolrd processing occurs constantly . . .

[17:35]  Bruce Flyer: so is it that space travel is not working out and we are now searching for these other ultimate frontiers?

[17:35]  Boston Hutchinson: Kurzweil predits the merging of human and machine minds through various innovations.

[17:35]  Bruce Flyer: I would like to be able to experience SL as a holodeck

[17:35]  You: where multiple sensors like everywher - inside the body, too - with everywhere.

[17:36]  Bruce Flyer: a little scarry

[17:36]  You: So information technology is now an inside, around,

[17:36]  Bruce Flyer: the program runs in the world, not in the box?

[17:36]  You: interconnected networking system powered by the Internet

[17:36]  Patrio Graysmark is Online

[17:36]  You: We'll next look at where this occurs, ow, and by whom in relation to the Internet.

[17:37]  Boston Hutchinson: Kurzweil takes it further to downloading our minds into machines, and eventual society where the distinction between different classes of beings is not so important.

[17:37]  You: Humans continue this search in so many ways, Bruce.

[17:37]  You: I wonder when our faces will become animated

[17:37]  Bruce Flyer: I think NASA realizes that "Mars and beyond" may not make sense

[17:38]  You: And Boston is interested in exploring making avatars robots, that might pass a simple Turing test.

[17:38]  Bruce Flyer: so the journey becomes into worlds of the imagination

[17:38]  You: The social visions of technology prognosticators is fascinating.

[17:39]  Boston Hutchinson: I hope we aren't going to give up Mars, but it may be a long time....

[17:39]  You: which moves from the text, and the novel, to multimedia.

[17:39]  Bruce Flyer: but it is the real world that sustains our bodies, which are required for our minds to be able to imagine

[17:39]  Boston Hutchinson: SL will merge with RL before people live on Mars

[17:40]  Bruce Flyer: can you describe that merger? what will I be able to do in SL that we are not doing now?

[17:40]  You: I'll post this transcript, Bruce, - above we looked at one view of what makes Multimedia and virtual reality unique - vis-a-vis Packer adn Jordan'sbook "Multimedia: From Wagner to Virutal Reality"

[17:40]  You: The more fronts of exploration, the more possibilities for convergence, and cross-fertilization.

[17:40]  Emuishere Boa is Offline

[17:41]  You: Do you htink we'l live to see that, Boston?

[17:41]  Boston Hutchinson: Well, yes, to some extent.

[17:41]  Bruce Flyer: shall we walk over and say hello the Eon?

[17:41]  You: Yes, and our bodyminds and societies will continue

[17:42]  Boston Hutchinson: I think virtual presences in real spaces will get a lot more real and ubiquitous than jteleconferencing is now

[17:42]  You: into the indefinite future, with lots of ongoing research and exploration.

[17:42]  Bruce Flyer: can you describe a virtual presence in reality? sounds a bit like ghostly

[17:42]  You: Perhaps, Boston . . .and in what ways?

[17:43]  You: I'd like to say hi to Eon. Shall we look at the history of the Internet next week?

[17:43]  Bruce Flyer: yes

[17:43]  Boston Hutchinson: well, if you are wearing a heads up display or VR glasses, you could see people travelling nearby in Google earth

[17:44]  Boston Hutchinson: Looking a few years forward from now...

[17:44]  Miranda Tibbett is Offline

[17:44]  You: Eon, Boston, is Charlie Nesson, the long time Harvard Law professor, whose vision ahs helped to shape the Berkman Center, as well as Berkman Island.

[17:44]  Boston Hutchinson: O

[17:44]  You: Yes, that offers rich potential.

[17:44]  Bruce Flyer: Eon, it is good to see you here. Aphilo has been teaching a class just now.

[17:44]  You: Come meet him . . . He's great . . .

[17:44]  Boston Hutchinson: OK. great

[17:45]  You: Hello, Eon

[17:45]  Froukje Hoorenbeek is Offline

[17:45]  You: I didn't see you here.

[17:45]  Bruce Flyer: he may not see us

[17:45]  You: This is Boston.

[17:45]  Boston Hutchinson: Hi Eon

[17:46]  You: I know Boston from Cuttyhunk.

[17:46]  Bruce Flyer: Eon taught a wonderful class here a while back

[17:46]  Bruce Flyer: with his daughter Rebecca

[17:46]  Boston Hutchinson: I'm enjoying Aphilo's course

[17:46]  You: Yes, in the fall of 2006.

[17:46]  You: We also talked about that earlier in this class this evening.

[17:46]  Bruce Flyer: there are some artifacts of it on YouTube under CyberOne

[17:46]  Eon Berkman: hello

[17:47]  Eon Berkman: i'm in the midst of a class

[17:47]  You: Sorry to interrupt

[17:47]  Boston Hutchinson: O. Sorry

[17:47]  Eon Berkman: not at all

[17:47]  Bruce Flyer: can we visit your class?

[17:47]  Eon Berkman: i want to bring my class into second life

[17:48]  You: Do you need this space on Wednesday evenings?

[17:48]  Eon Berkman: it's a seminar that i am not videoing

[17:48]  You: I see

[17:48]  Eon Berkman: but we will be doing trials in second life

[17:48]  You: Becca mentioned that.

[17:49]  You: Boston, Bruce, whall we talk a little more about the IT revolution, to wrap up?

[17:49]  Eon Berkman: maybe a course on superheroes carrying on a project from last spring

[17:49]  Boston Hutchinson: OK

[17:49]  You: :)

[17:49]  Bruce Flyer: i better get some rest. next Wed?

[17:49]  Eon Berkman: the marvel comic world come to harvard

[17:49]  Eon Berkman: marvard

[17:49]  You: :)

[17:50]  You: marvelous

[17:50]  You: http://socinfotech.pbwiki.com

[17:50]  Eon Berkman: https://courses.law.harvard.edu/fall_06/nesson_cyberone/jkrop/assignments.html

[17:50]  You: Thanks . . .

[17:50]  You: Eon

[17:50]  Miranda Tibbett is Online

[17:51]  You: So to conclude

[17:51]  You: The Information technology revolution originated in one area

[17:51]  You: - The SF Bay Area

[17:52]  You: The institutions, innovators, and businesses diffused it around the world

[17:52]  You: But it diffuses differentially.

[17:52]  Miranda Tibbett is Offline

[17:53]  You: It empoweres places that are early adopters, and disadvantages those that did not adopt it.

[17:53]  You: In this revolution, the initial clustering became interactive as a system in teh 1970s.

[17:53]  You: The microprocessor in 1971 facilitated this.

[17:53]  You: Digital switches developed in thte early 1970ss

[17:54]  You: The Internet in 1969 and 1971.

[17:54]  You: Fiber optics in the mid 1970s

[17:54]  Miranda Tibbett is Online

[17:54]  You: The personal computer in the mid 1970s.

[17:54]  You: And genetic recombinants from 1973-75

[17:55]  You: Technology breakthroughs affect each other in this new information technology paradigm, and they bcome a system.

[17:55]  You: The SF Bay Area gave rise to the Personal Comptuer.

[17:56]  You: Electronics developed in Silicon Valley, and also in Texas, at Texas Instruments, as well as at MIT in Boston in the 197s.

[17:56]  You: How and why they developed has considerable implications.

[17:56]  You: And we can look at some of these next week.

[17:57]  Bruce Flyer: thank you Aphilo!

[17:57]  You: Thanks you for coming, and sharing in this conversation!

[17:57]  Boston Hutchinson: Thanks, Aphilo.

[17:57]  Bruce Flyer: good evening, gentlemen

[17:57]  You: Good night, Bruce!

[17:57]  Boston Hutchinson: good evening, Bruce

[17:58]  Bruce Flyer is Offline

[17:58]  Boston Hutchinson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil

[17:58]  Boston Hutchinson: You might find "the age of Spiritual Machines" interesting

[17:58]  You: Yes, I've looked at that - it's a well written entry, and seemingly comprehensive.

[17:59]  You: I'll find a copy.

[17:59]  You: Thanks.

[17:59]  Boston Hutchinson: The Singularity is Near is even stranger. But it takes seriously the theoretical limits of the information revolution

[18:00]  You: Which are?

[18:00]  Miranda Tibbett is Offline

[18:01]  Jagger Valeeva is Offline

[18:01]  Sean18 McCarey is Online

[18:01]  Boston Hutchinson: well, starting with Claude Shannon, information has had a theoretical definition and measurement system, some math...

[18:01]  Miranda Tibbett is Online

[18:02]  You: Yes

[18:02]  Miranda Tibbett is Offline

[18:02]  Krysss Galatea is Offline

[18:02]  Boston Hutchinson: Kurzweil takes it from there to counting the number of Qbits, quantum mechanical states, in the universe, and suggesting that they will be organize to maximize the information processing capacity of the universe

[18:03]  Miranda Tibbett is Online

[18:03]  Boston Hutchinson: its an extreem, perhaps insane idea, but it's the limit of this inforamtion society, the theoretical limit.

[18:03]  Miranda Tibbett is Offline

[18:04]  You: Are you familiar with David Deutsch's "Theory of Everything Theory"?

[18:04]  Miranda Tibbett is Online

[18:04]  Boston Hutchinson: He even proposes that this information revolution will eventually start to propogate outward at approximately the speed of light.

[18:04]  Boston Hutchinson: No.

[18:04]  You: He identifies computing and information theory as one aspect of 4 main prcesses

[18:04]  Boston Hutchinson: Interesting

[18:04]  You: in the universe

[18:05]  Eon Berkman is Offline

[18:05]  You: And I can see how Kurzweil's theoretical limit would articulater with this.

[18:05]  Miranda Tibbett is Offline

[18:06]  Boston Hutchinson: I see he's an Oxford physicist...

[18:06]  You: Why doesn't a molecular explanation suffice?

[18:06]  Sean18 McCarey is Offline

[18:06]  Miranda Tibbett is Online

[18:07]  Boston Hutchinson: as opposed to quantum states of subatomic particles?

[18:07]  You: Yes . . .

[18:08]  Boston Hutchinson: Well, where's the limit to technology and the evolution of life forms and information processing? That's his question.

[18:09]  Boston Hutchinson: Nanotechnology is going beyond the molecular level already in the lab. Not in real world manufacturing of computers yet...

[18:09]  You: What explains how technology develops, in his view?

[18:09]  You: Are these quantum states in constant activity?

[18:10]  Boston Hutchinson: Well, he tends to rely on the mathematics of exponential growth to suggest timetables and theoretical limits, or lack thereof.

[18:10]  You: Seems sensible, theoretically

[18:10]  Miranda Tibbett is Offline

[18:11]  Boston Hutchinson: He starts with Moore's Law, and examines similar growth in many fields of technology. Then he speculates about what happens when they merge.

[18:11]  Boston Hutchinson: I don't understand the quantum states argument very well, but quantum computing, using quantum states is being done on a very small scale in the lab.

[18:11]  You: Some evolutionary epistemologists suggest that just as mutation is the mode of change in evolution, discovery is, in science.

[18:12]  Meryl Villota is Online

[18:12]  Miranda Tibbett is Online

[18:12]  You: Would you suggest that Kurzweil's theory is a kind of discovery, if theories could be viewed this way.

[18:13]  You: Boston, I need to leave from where I am now.

[18:13]  Boston Hutchinson: Right. Evolution is turning into something else. It's tempting to speculate about the relationship between DNA and technology, as if technology were pre-programmed, as if life inevitably takes this leap.

[18:14]  Boston Hutchinson: OK. Thanks. It's been interesting.

[18:14]  You: Yes . . . let's talk about this more later . . . likewise.

[18:14]  You: Warm greetings to S!

Home - http://socinfotech.pbwiki.com/