“As has been said in various ways, men are noisy, narrow-band devices, but their nervous systems have very many parallel and simultaneously active channels. Relative to men, computing machines are very fast and very accurate, but they are constrained to perform only one or a few elementary operations at a time. Men are flexible, capable of “programming themselves contingently” on the basis of newly received information. Computing machines are single-minded, constrained by their ” pre-programming.” Men naturally speak redundant languages organized around unitary objects and coherent actions and employing 20 to 60 elementary symbols. Computers “naturally” speak nonredundant languages, usually with only two elementary symbols and no inherent appreciation either of unitary objects or of coherent actions.” – J.C.R Licklinder
I chose this nugget for this assignment because to me it seemed to sum up the core elements that this article was trying to portray. In the article it stated that it’s dangerous to say that all machinery are considered to be called “computers”, but for our purposes we will call the rivaling class of technology that dares to challenge or become symbiotic with humanity’s thinking, computers. As stated in the nugget chosen above, humans think much slower than computers, but humans make up for that slower thinking by providing highly profound quality of thinking. Brookerobinson illustrates this vital point more by using the languages and barriers that come with them between humans and computers. Computers provide the quantity (thinking) at speeds humans can never hope reach and humans provide the quality (thinking) that actually propels not only us but computers forward too. And as braxtondn vividly explained the many difference that were attributed between man and computer over time. But there is no question to which is more vital to society, the humans obviously win this one by a long shot and if you don’t believe me take this into consideration. Have you ever seen a computer invent anything the first of its kind, not likely right. Computer thinking is constrained to preprogramming as said in the quote above, which by the way is made by humans. While human thinking is limitless and seems to always break records every century or so, which granted is a very long time but amazing things do occur. In a way computers can’t rule the world like they do in movies these days, they wouldn’t know what to do with themselves if they do. And although this may true Max indeed does show us of what might be an alternative reality, in which computers in fact may have the capacity to cooperate with one another and may have the potential to essentially rule the world. In situations like these its always good to have an open mind and consider all the possibilities, so that the future can be taken in the best possible way. The quality versus quantity scenario itself serves as the symbiosis between humans and computers, that’s why when you do research you let the computer do all the work and then you step in with that big brain of yours and filter out the junk that it gathered and form your own amazing thoughts that in a way have never been conjured up before. And mcandersonaj explains of just how far computers have come over the years to lead up to such events occurring at a regular basis now. This concept can be related to genetic makeup that each of us are made of, no two humans are identically the same but computers are. I believe that this article is geared towards finding more of a way to increase the strength of our symbiosis with computers but all the while realizing that it could never become true symbiosis. True Symbiosis is where the “organisms” become completely and perfectly in sync with one another like the example in the article of the bugs and the tree that are found living in the wild. But mjminutoli gives us a different prediction of what would really become of humans if they really did have a true symbiosis, an interesting perspective with relation to mine.