NT5.5

• Compare the out-of-character narratives you wrote. In what ways does the real-life experience change?
• In what ways does a published account have to be different from a letter?
• Does the "you" described in each differ?

When I was talking to my mom, I decided to not say exactly what was said by Greg. I also gave more details about my job and how certain things work. When I was talking to my friend Chris I told him everything that was said. I also left out all the details about what certain work terminology means. I did this because he also works at Bob Evan’s Restaurant.

It needs to be more formal than if you are talking to someone that knows you. You also need to add in any details about yourself that people that know you don’t need to be told. In the case of this letter, it was the fact that I am a pretty mellow individual. You also need to keep in any details about the situation that may be unclear to people that don’t know you or the job that you do.

I don’t think the “you” in my case changes. I tell the story more or less the same way with my mother as I would with a friend.

NT4.2

The Wizard of Oz is about a young girl, Dorothy, who is caught in a tornado and somehow transported to another place. She tries to get to the Emerald City to have the wizard help her get home. Along the way she meets a scarecrow, a tin man, and a lion. They all decide to travel to the Emerald City together. Along the way they run into the Wicked Witch of the West. They end up defeating her, and they find out the Wizard is a fraud. In the end Dorothy finds out it was all a dream.

I think you could fit a lot of modern biographies into the outline of The Wizard of Oz. At least I think you could fit it into the parts while she is in Oz. If you try to tie in her travel to Oz and waking up from a dream, then it doesn’t really apply. I don’t think that The Wizard of Oz tells us what our life stories should be like, if we are “good” like Dorothy. I think what the movie is saying is that if you stay strong you will find that you often have the solution to your problem right in front of you, or you could say within you. What I mean is the whole time she had the slippers, the solution to her problem. So what the story as a metaphor for life is saying is that there is a solution to our problems. We just have to try to find it. We can’t give up.

I think going to the movies is like going to the land of Oz. For a short period of time, you are in another place. You oblivious to what is going on in the real world for those 2 hours you are in the theater. One thing being said about being a good viewer is that you can get out at anytime. Everyone has the power to stop watching just by getting up and leaving, just as Dorothy could leave Oz by clicking her heels together.

NT2.2

I think we are less threatened by robots than the people of Earth, in Asimov’s Caves of Steel. Within this novel the technological knowledge of robots is a reality that the people of 2006 have not yet witnessed. At this point in time people are more concerned with losing jobs to outsourcing or immigrants than to robotic humanoids. I do believe, however, that these concerns are a foil to those that Asimov is describing in Caves of Steel. He wants readers to not see robots just as they are, mechanical beings created to perform tasks, but as whatever relates to our lives. They take the form of whatever threatens us, but I think Asimov wants the reader to leave the novel with a feeling of hope. There is hope for us. We do not need to feel threatened but, rather we should embrace these things that are new to us, which causes us to feel threatened. This example can be seen in the change in Baley. He goes from an anti-robot activist, in the beginning of the novel, to someone that is trying to talk a Medievalist into embracing the robots.

One point I think that is important is that just because something has attributes of a human that doesn’t mean it is human. The only real way that a machine can be human is in the physical sense. No matter how perfect the robot looks it is still a machine. A robot can never be fully embraced as having all the characteristics of a human. This is because, for it to be possible to create a robot, it must be built on a rigid code structure. Baley brings up this point when he is talking to Clousarr. He says, “A robot’s brain must be finite or it can’t be built. It must be calculated to the final decimal place so that it has an end. Jehoshaphat, what are you afraid of? A robot can look like Daneel, he can look like a god, and be no more human than a lump of wood is. Can’t you see that?”(221) The only reason robots really seem to be brought up as a problem is because of their resemblance to human beings. If they looked like what they were designed to do then there wouldn’t be a problem. A robot specially designed to do printing jobs wouldn’t cause as big of a fuss if it just looked like a printer. Dr. Gerrigel brings up this point when Baley is asking him why robots must be humanoid. “You mean, why shouldn’t they be built functionally, like any other machine? The decision was made on the basis of economics… the human form is the most successful generalized form in all nature…Besides that, our entire technology is based on the human form…It is easier to have robots imitate the human shape than to redesign radically the very philosophy of our tools.’ (171-172)” So it comes to mind that if everyone would just look at robots for what they are, machines meant to help make human life easier by doing menial tasks, then there would not be as many problems with people feeling inferior to robots and wanting to do away with them.

NT2.1

I believe when robots are designed and created the creator has to have a very good understanding of what it means to be human. The reason the creator must have a good grasps on human qualities is because robots are meant to be human. They are meant to make human’s lives easier, which requires them to be able to handle human tasks and actions. In some cases, robots must be able to think and reason through certain situations so that humans do not have to.

I don’t think that we as humans can communicate without indications of emotion or intention. Even if we are sending an email or an instant message there is emotion and intention. It doesn’t have to be a smiley face or anything like that. We, as humans, demonstrate a lot of our emotion just through our language, which is one that full of rich emotion filled words.

Tank ties both of these ideas together. He is a robot programmed to do the tasks of a human. He is programmed to know remember certain things that a human with a receptionist job would have to do. He is also programmed to respond positively to people, by smiling and cracking jokes, something a human receptionist would also do.

I would think it would be much easier to work side by side with R. Daneel Olivaw if I didn’t know that he was a robot. This is not because a robot would scare me or bother me but rather because of how humanistic Olivaw is. It would just be very creepy and surreal to work with someone that on the outside seems completely human and normal, but to know that one the inside there is little difference between him and a coffee maker.