Nugget Post – Almahmouda

“Devices” which variously store, retrieve, or manipulate information in the form of messages embedded in a medium have been in existence for thousands of years. People use them to communicate ideas and feelings both to others and back to themselves. Although thinking goes on in one’s head, external media serve to materialize thoughts and, through feedback, to augment the actual paths the thinking follows. Methods discovered in one medium provide metaphors which contribute new ways to think about notions in other media.

Hadrons are Baryons and Mesons.
A carboxylic acid functional group is -COOH.
The pH of 1M HCL is 0, a pure acid.

I memorize very few facts that I do not use daily or week. For the facts that I use daily and weekly, I do not try to memorize them, and yet, I remember them with ease.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/29/opinion/la-oe-bar-memory-20110529

Moshe Bar’s article, Human memory: What did you do last Sunday?, successfully illustrates the extent of the human memory;

We use our experiences, as captured in memory, to anticipate and prepare for upcoming events and encounters.

Why then, should we use our memories for anything else? Would memorizing anything that does not prepare us for the future truly behoove us? What about familial memories, like that time you were a child, picking apples on Carter Mountain with your grandparents?

Externalizing our memories, through diaries, blogs, or publishings, offers an extension to the mind, relieving pressure to memorize every fact. Imagine having to memorize everything about the Battle of Manassas. Outside of very few moments, memorizing those facts is utterly useless! However, if one were to want to learn more about the Battle of Manassas, one can search the thousands of online databases, articles, and websites solely dedicated to supplying information to the individual.

Yet, can we, in all of our power, externalize the power of emotional memories? How powerful is a holocaust story that someone has reblogged for the hundredth time compared to recalling it first hand from the survivor himself or herself? I am not criticizing external memory; I am a huge advocate. I believe, however, that only certain memories and ideas can be extended through devices while being able to sustain their emotional prowess.

The mind is like the ocean; we can try and bottle individual waters to remember them, but they radiate even greatly when they’re a part of the whole.

Nugget Post #4 – Almahmouda EVEN MORE MEANINGFUL

“Any nitwit can understand computers, and many do. Unfortunately, due to ridiculous historical circumstances, computers have been made a mystery to most of the world. And this situation does not seem to be improving. You hear more and more about computers, but to most people it’s just one big blur. The people who know about computers often seem unwilling to explain things or answer your questions. Stereotyped notions develop about computers operating in fixed ways—and so confusion increases. The chasm between laymen and computer people widens fast and dangerously.”

Pretentious.
Ostentatious.
Showy.
Grandiose.
Highfalutin!
Or are they?
I believe in capitalism, but I am a strong proponent of sharing information. If someone goes out of their way to learn code, should he or she be responsible to answer questions, or “explain things?” After reading Ted Nelson, I left with my brain contorted; although the chasm between laymen and computer people widens fast and dangerously, which group should really be in the wrong for such a gap? Is there a wrong?

I have come to the conclusion that both groups are in the wrong, yet there are individuals within each group who attempt to ameliorate the widening wound.

The laymen: the common man, whose design is no design, must make an effort to learn more about the technological craze that has been sweeping the nation for the last half-century. Furthermore, he must realize that the jobs that do not require technological skill, especially pertaining to computers, are beginning to minimize in quantity.

The computer people:  a group of individuals who are skilled in the realms of computation and technology must try their best to integrate computational technology into the markets where there is a large group of laborers, should they seek to make a profit. They do not have an obligation to educate every laymen they encounter, and yet they do; the expenditure of energy, time, and other resources on an another individual may seem altruistic, but it can operate out of self-interest! Should the newly-informed individual utilize more computational technology, the “computer people” will be able to sell more product.

However, should the gap between the laymen and computer people be bridged? As critical thinkers and scholars, we must undertake the responsibility to really think about this question. Perhaps specialization is a must in the field of technology; we should not view it as a reserve of power to a group of people, but a sort of symbiotic relationship between the laymen and computer people! The laymen could acquire the parts, and meld them into the required shape, and the computer people can assemble and use the computers!

What do you guys think? Did you like the poem? What about the duties of the laymen and the computer people? Also, if the picture offends any individual, I will take it down at a second’s notice. It made me chuckle.

Nugget Post #4 – almahmouda

“Any nitwit can understand computers, and many do. Unfortunately, due to ridiculous historical circumstances, computers have been made a mystery to most of the world. And this situation does not seem to be improving. You hear more and more about computers, but to most people it’s just one big blur. The people who know about computers often seem unwilling to explain things or answer your questions. Stereotyped notions develop about computers operating in fixed ways—and so confusion increases. The chasm between laymen and computer people widens fast and dangerously.”

Pretentious.
Ostentatious.
Showy.
Grandiose.
Highfalutin!
Or are they?
I believe in capitalism, but I am a strong proponent of sharing information. If someone goes out of their way to learn code, should he or she be responsible to answer questions, or “explain things?” After reading Ted Nelson, I left with my brain contorted; although the chasm between laymen and computer people widens fast and dangerously, which group should really be in the wrong for such a gap? Is there a wrong?

I have come to the conclusion that both groups are in the wrong, yet there are individuals within each group who attempt to ameliorate the widening wound.

The laymen: the common man, whose design is no design, must make an effort to learn more about the technological craze that has been sweeping the nation for the last half-century. Furthermore, he must realize that the jobs that do not require technological skill, especially pertaining to computers, are beginning to minimize in quantity.

The computer people:  a group of individuals who are skilled in the realms of computation and technology must try their best to integrate computational technology into the markets where there is a large group of laborers, should they seek to make a profit. They do not have an obligation to educate every laymen they encounter, and yet they do; the expenditure of energy, time, and other resources on an another individual may seem altruistic, but it can operate out of self-interest! Should the newly-informed individual utilize more computational technology, the “computer people” will be able to sell more product.http://www.glashole.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/tumblr_mo6w8rGSmh1sr8ltxo1_500.jpg

What do you guys think? Did you like the poem? What about the duties of the laymen and the computer people? Also, if the picture offends any individual, I will take it down at a second’s notice. It made me chuckle.

Nugget #3 – Almahmouda

The individual does not use this information and this processing to grapple directly with the sort of complex situation in which we seek to give him help. He uses his innate capabilities in a rather more indirect fashion, since the situation is generally too complex to yield directly to his motor actions, and always too complex to yield comprehensions and solutions from direct sensory inspection and use of basic cognitive capabilities. For instance, an aborigine who possesses all of our basic sensory-mental-motor capabilities, but does not possess our background of indirect knowledge and procedure, cannot organize the proper direct actions necessary to drive a car through traffic, request a book from the library, call a committee meeting to discuss a tentative plan, call someone on the telephone, or compose a letter on the typewriter.

Douglas C. Engelbert’s does an exquisite job describing the necessity of augmenting human intellect, yet section II A, to me, truly displays the need for augmenting human intellect. Englebert’s discussion of the human mind, and its lack of certain experiences, is indicative of the need to enhance background of indirect knowledge and procedure. Yet, the experiences that influence our background of indirect knowledge also influences our personality and development. Basic sensory-mental-motor capabilities can also be improved, if the individual analyzes faults within his or her respective capabilities. Truly, there is so much room for humanity to improve, especially in areas of human intellect! Our contributions to medicine, technology, mathematics, and the humanities will increase tenfold.
Critical listening, comprehension, and analysis are key to developing a truly insightful mind. Human intellect, shaped by conscious and unconscious processing, is the key to progression on fields that will, in turn, better critical listening, comprehension, and analysis. Yes, the relationships between human intellect, sensory-mental-motor capabilities, and background of indirect knowledge and procedure are so intricately and delicately related; Engelbert does a magnificent job of discussing possible ways of developing the entity which makes everything up.

Nugget Post 2 – Almahmoud (NEWER)

“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.”


I find the dichotomous natures of man and computer to be very interesting. In the dimensions of calculations, computers seem to have an advantage, generating solutions to mathematical problems within seconds. Yet, as advanced as these computers may be, they can only perform tasks which we program them to do. Furthermore, although we are able to program a machine capable of solving perplexing questions, we are not able to perform the task faster.

Furthermore, a dilemma, that arises with the increasing  dependance on technology, terrorizes my mind; if we are to grow increasingly dependent  on technology, we limit ourselves to other symbiotic relationships. As Khoorivcu states in his nugget,

“The association between human and computer is so strong that human has to use computer to do every single thing. “

The idea, in and of itself, that our association with technology is so tightly bound that we have to “use to computer do every single thing,” indicates how dependent we are on computers. Truly, Crookech sums up a part of my ThoughtVector:

“The approach of Man-Computer Symbiosis seem to me to be that society today moves to fast for us to realize how quickly we are falling into a technology dependent era.”

Melikazand also helps capture my point in her quote,

The rise of technology has influenced our lives more greatly than we will ever know, and recognizing when our society could completely fall under the reigns of technology will be vital.

There is a danger in not realizing how quickly we are falling into a technology dependent era; many people lose their jobs, confidence, and purpose due to personal problems with technology. However, similar to virtually everything in life, technology, symbiotic relationships with computers, and situations are all subjective. Within the negative, an individual can see the positive. Where someone loses a job to machinery, the same individual can realize that they have a passion for something else. Just as I see a few more negatives in the technological issue, Jawadabdi illustrates how we would be able to load our consciousness into a hologram, (the idea itself can be good and bad!). Nirali successfully, and concisely, shares my perspective in saying,

Technology does have its negative sides however it does have its positive sides as well.

 

Nugget Assignment 2 – Almahmoud

“It seems reasonable to envision, for a time 10 or 15 years hence, a “thinking center” that will incorporate the functions of present-day libraries together with anticipated advances in information storage and retrieval and the symbiotic functions suggested earlier in this paper. The picture readily enlarges itself into a network of such centers, connected to one another by wide-band communication lines and to individual users by leased-wire services. In such a system, the speed of the computers would be balanced, and the cost of the gigantic memories and the sophisticated programs would be divided by the number of users.”

Imagine stepping out of a taxi; briefcase in hand, you check your pocket for your neuromechanical USB. Entering the building, you proceed to find an open computer to enter your credentials, and within a few moments, you begin to synchronize your information requests with the powerful processor of the i-3000 THINKER mega-computer. To your sides, you have individuals performing the same task, and while you believe that your task is the most important, revolutionary event to strike the chords of human history, you realize that it is somewhat insignificant in the long run.

But I do not want to deviate from the reality of J.C.R Licklider’s future. In the aforementioned passage, Licklider describes a symbiotic relationship between man and computer. In his technological prose, I grew entranced by the the promise that the potential of the human brain could be furthered.

Though, I also felt similar to Thoreau as I delved deeper into the article; a quote that adequately expresses my perspective came from Thoreau himself!

“We do not ride on the railroad; it rides upon us.”

A problem which could arise with the affiliation between supercomputers and the human brain could be the lack of living.  Some children, teenagers, and adults who are engrossed in their devices often grow enamored with the promises of technology, yet they fail to live in the moment. I have been victim to this idea, too, as I remember countless moments where I am on a train, and I watch videos about amazing social experiments, and posts from HONY, and yet I fail to say hi to the person next to me, who is also engrossed on their phone.

To those who have gotten this far in my ThoughtVector, I will stop evading the reality of the situation; the growing affiliation of technology into our lives, for better or worse, yields a possibility that our relationship with computers can turn us into slaves, mindlessly accomplishing a goal after another. However, this possibility can be small if we manage our relationship correctly. If we balance our relationship with technology, with the idea of living and experiencing life, (who is to say they should be separated; Maybe I’m wrong) we can avoid becoming cyborgs.

As We May Think – Almahmouda

“When data of any sort are placed in storage, they are filed alphabetically or numerically, and information is found (when it is) by tracing it down from subclass to subclass. It can be in only one place, unless duplicates are used; one has to have rules as to which path will locate it, and the rules are cumbersome. Having found one item, moreover, one has to emerge from the system and re-enter on a new path”

Vannevar Bush, a man of extraordinary vision and intelligence, predicted the future… of the 1970s.
My fellow general Engineering classmate posted,

“Every field requires specialization and for success and progress you have to be specialized in your field, otherwise there would not be any progress.”

The progress we have made is reflective of growing international specialization, and very few humans, let alone scientists, could have foreseen such an exponential growth in development. Dr. Bush evokes the idea of data storage having to abide by a cumbersome set of rules. As cumbersome as these rules may be, however, it is important to foster a perspective that our means of categorizing data is a means to avoid chaos. Information is the plethora of butterfly, attempting to escape the confines of the web of the internet. We must contain the butterfly, or abide by and alter our cumbersome set of rules, or all hell breaks loose! Simply put, humanity, as a species, has technologically and informatively progressed at such a rapid rate that we must either abide by or change these sets of rules.

#ThoughtVectors #ThoughtVector