Dr. Celine Latulipe - Exploring the Design Space in Technology-Augmented Dance

Reference Information
Exploring the Design Space in Technology-Augmented Dance
 - Celine Latulipe, David Wilson, Sybil Huskey, Melissa Word, Arthur Carroll, Erin Carroll, Berto Gonzalez, Vikash Singh, Mike Wirth, and Danielle Lottridge
 - CHI 2010, Atlanta, Georgia

Summary
This paper discusses the latest presentation of the Dance.Draw project.  But first, it gives some background on the history of the project and the work leading up to its current state.

The Dance.Draw pilot performance. The dancers can be seen
holding the mice in their hands.

Dance.Draw started at UNC in January of 2008.  Its purpose is to coordinate the movements of dancers with visualizations.  These visualizations are projected onto a screen directly behind the dancers.  The first method for capturing the motion was with wireless Logitech Air mice that the dancers held during their performance.  Having to hold the capture devices hindered the options of the dancers, so they worked on finding a more convenient method.

Next, they used wired 3D accelerometers that were worn by the dancers.  Because of the wired nature of the system, they decided to use a pre-recorded visualization from the dancers in rehearsal.  This did, however, pave the way for the next iteration of the system.  This next iteration used a wireless sensing unit containing an accelerometer, as well as the option to use wireless gyroscopic mice.  The mice in this instance did not need to be held by the performers though.  They wanted to make the Dance.Draw software open to as many user inputs as possible, so this last configuration is a great start to reaching that goal.

The Bodies/Antibodies performance.

Discussion
I’ve always thoroughly enjoyed visualizations based on music, so this is a really neat idea.  Not that keeping dance and performance the same as it’s always been is bad, but I think it’s about time modern technology is added to mix things up a little.  It seems weird to me to be so surprised at technology like this, but this kind of goes for most things.  We have all grown up in a technical world, but it still feels like its full acceptance is being held back by the general populace.  If something is too foreign, there still seems to be too many who are happy with keeping things the way they are instead of trying something new.  It’s that same crowd that never thinks new things can trump the old tried and true things.

Another shot of the Bodies/Antibodies performance.

Hopefully you can understand what I mean, because I’m not sure if I’ve been clear enough.  I think this feeling will fade as our generation begins to replace the current ones that are in power.  Essentially, I view Dance.Draw as something that should be more prevalent.  It’s the kind of experimentation in creative mediums that should be embraced, if it is not already.  They have videos on the site of each performance, and I highly recommend checking them out if you’re curious.

On Computers

Comments
Jacob Lillard
Michael Atkinson

Reference Information
The Complete Works of Aristotle – On Plants
 - Aristotle
 - Edited by Jonathan Barnes, Princeton University Press

Summary
Aristotle begins by posing the question of whether or not plants have a soul.  Instead of comparing plants to humans, he compares them to other animals.  He points out many similarities between animals and plants, such as the need for food and nourishment.  A key factor that is missing in plants is the motivation of desire for things.  He states “that plants have neither sensation nor desire.”  His conclusion then becomes that plants only possess a partial soul, and not a soul like animals.  The bulk of the rest of his writing delves into plants themselves and all of the immense variety of plants.  He goes into a thorough discussion of the different climates plants live in, types of plants, manners in bearing fruit, the nature of the fruit, and so on.  And from time to time, he relates plant characteristics back to similar ones in animals.

Discussion
The amount of research or observations Aristotle did to write the bulk of his writing is really impressive.  I certainly did not expect a philosophy selection to have so many diverse details about plant life like this.  But anyway, plants having souls is definitely a different way of looking at them.  While they don’t have the mobility or personalities of animals, which we can agree do have souls, they might have somewhat of a soul depending on how you view what a soul is.

A person’s personality to me is the visual depiction of a person’s soul.  The soul contains the person’s views, motivations, and attitudes, as well as everything else that makes them up as a person.  Each person has a certain distinctiveness to his/her actions, which is why you can agree or disagree with a rumor involving this person.  Based on how this person has behaved, you can roughly judge how this hypothetical situation would pan out.  In the same way a person’s behavior makes impressions of his/her soul on others, this can also be true of the person’s computer.

Some semblance of order does exist.  I assure you.

Your computer is your own, and you have icons, programs, and settings configured just the way you like them.  Everything is arranged in a specific way to tailor to how your mind works and organizes things.  Some prefer to have little to no icons cluttering the desktop, while others make it look like the internet vomited all over it.  Neither is better than the other, because what one person views as madness can be completely sensible to another mind.  But either way, it is organized to reflect you, and therefore your personality and soul I feel.  I don’t feel an inanimate computer has a soul, but such a personable device could be an extension or even reflection of your soul.

The Chinese Room

Comments
Aaron Kirkes
Miguel Alex Cardenas

Reference Information
Minds, Brains, and Programs
 - John R. Searle
 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences (1980)
Chinese Room on Wikipedia

Summary
The Chinese Room is an idea Searle thought up dealing with him responding to cards with Chinese characters being slid under a door to him.  He does not understand Chinese and instead uses a specific method for responding to someone else who does understand Chinese.  Searle presented various axioms which then aided in reinforcing the conclusions he wanted to reach.

A program is bound by syntax and cannot use semantics to truly understand why the syntax needs to fit together the way that it does.  A mind, on the other hand, does understand the reasoning behind actions instead of merely doing or not doing things.  No amount of complex syntactical simulation can be a substitute for reason and a true understanding of actions.  And so, actions can be done to simulate what a real person could be doing, but copying actions should not imply an understanding of said actions.  From this, Searle concludes that programs cannot be a replacement for a mind.

Look at you, hacker. A pathetic creature of meat and bone,
panting and sweating as you run through my corridors.
How can you challenge a perfect, immortal machine?
- SHODAN -

Searle states that brains are able to cause minds using what he calls “causal powers.”  So if anything else was capable of causing a mind, it would require some “equivalent causal powers.”  An artificial brain would then need to possess these “equivalent causal powers.”  But since programs are not capable of producing a mind and therefore lack any variant of the required “causal powers” of a brain, a brain doesn’t use some sort of program to produce the mind.

Discussion
What I essentially got from Searle is that programs are incapable of actually being a brain and can only simulate a brain.  Regardless of whether or not people agree with what he said, he prompted a great deal of discussion and for that alone he was successful in my eyes.

One of the first ideas that popped into my head while reading about the Chinese Room was rogue AI.  For anyone who played the System Shock games, especially System Shock 2, you know this situation can present interesting dilemmas when stranded on a ship in space.  An equivalent scenario is the Terminator movies where Skynet becomes self-aware and decides the humans are a major threat.  As technology has advanced, the thought of Skynet or SHODAN becoming a reality has been in the back of many of our minds, even if not in a completely serious manner.  But from what Searle has presented here, I drew the conclusion that at least by today’s standards, this is not possible.  If becoming self-aware requires a mind to have real thoughts that could lead to hostile intent, then no program designed by man is capable of dooming man.  At least not in the rogue AI sense of things.

While this is comforting on many levels, I still do not doubt the capability of humans to further develop technology.  If we ever truly figure out what makes a mind a mind and find a way to synthesize it, we might require the help of Arnold in the future.  But would this synthesized material ever be considered a program?  What if programs are almost biological beings performing operations at this point?  Who said you could eat my cookies?  I suppose Searle’s argument would still be valid, but these technologies could certainly raise some questions to supplant it.