I want to be an android

I was also thinking about Tony's question, "What planet would you live on, Earth or Mars?" I think I'd like to live on Earth as an escaped android, preferably as a gorgeously seductive female (to entice all of those evil bounty hunters). Performing slave labor on Mars doesn't sound so appealing, but illegally escaping to Earth and killing humans who are in my way sounds relatively better. Additionally, I'd be armed with a highly intelligent mind. And because I wouldn't be able to feel empathy, I'd be able to indulge in my own selfishness and revel in my own independence. I think being on Earth as an escaped android would allow me to see the Earth as a museum, a place where I can continue to be baffled and amazed by the human race. The human race and planet would fulfill my curiosity. For example, I'd be able to discover whether spiders can run on four legs or not. The downside is that my life will be considerably shorter and that I will always be hunted by bounty hunters. However, I think that being an android on Earth will allow me to fully taste the flavors of life, even if I will be programmed to feel sad if I eventually will want to become human.

I wonder if androids age. Probably not since they live only about four years. I wonder if they make baby androids. or teenage boys. And I wonder if they bleed.

Chickens go cluck cluck, cows go moo...

...piggys go oink oink, how about you?

So I was thinking about Tony's question, "Which planet would you rather live on?" a bit more after class. Like some other people, I first thought neither planet had much to offer. But then again, earth doesn't seem so bad if I were an animal. Then I'd be prized so highly, those silly humans that could not afford me would make artificial versions! Considering that I'm still human, though, those animal thought seem pretty absurd. Why is artificial animal life valued so high when artificial human life is so disposable? Perhaps, originally, the humans felt guilty for destroying the earth and causing the scarcity of animal life. Now that most earth inhabitants have immigrated to mars, though, isn't human life rare too? The few humans introduced in the book seem detached from one another, directing their compassion for one another towards animals and sharing their experiences with Mercer rather than with each other. Androids, on the other hand, seem to value human life more than the humans, but show no respect for animal life. Pris tortures the spider and Rachael kills the goat. Why? I’m not quite sure, but my theory is that it has something to do with the fact that the androids are the closest things to humans, but animals are treated with more worth. The motivation behind the creation of the androids also befuddles me. If robots were meant to act as slaves, why make them so human like? Why does the Rosen association continue to produce humanoids if they cannot integrate into society? As humans become more like androids and androids become more like humans, at what point will the roles switch? Well, like I said, I’d want to be an animal. Then I could be content with thinking, “Humans are strange.”

Meanings, meanings....

Going back to the title of the novel... do androids really dream of electric sheep? It is a curious quesiton that Phillip Dick raises, one that doesn't seem to be resolved even at the very end of the novel. But the fundamental question to be asked is not if one is human, but if one has life. What counts as life? At what point does the line of separation between real and artificial become blurred? After all, the Nexus-6 androids in the story seemed at times to exhibit far more of what are considered human qualities than the actual human beings in the story. They had warmth, bonding, and a drive to live life. What is it to live if not to appreciate it to its fullest extent? Like the old, if not somewhat corny saying goes, we have but one life to live; make the best of it. Honestly, machine or not, the ability to grasp the value of the time we have on earth might seem to be the most human/real thing of all. If you think about it, what true difference would there be between the perceived image of a cold, intelligent android and a human being that is just going through the motions without any desires or aspirations in life; it can be construed that the human is acting exactly like a machine: on automatic, without true awareness of his or her actions. In my personal opinion, the androids had a point when they said that the only thing that truly distinguished humans from androids was the ability to empathize and if Mercer proved to be false, there was nothing that authenticated this empathy except by the words of humans. What is there to say that it is not just another form of dominance and establishment of superiority? Life should never be labeled and categorized but just be. Whether compsed of organic compounds or manufactured circuitry, it is what you make of your conscious time that counts.

Empathy, really?

This may end up being less thought out than my previous posts since I too have a lot due tomorrow. However, what struck me in the book as peculiar was how empathy is valued. I can see how valuing a communal, collective setting would be fitting given the sort of post-apocalyptic world earth that remains. However, if I’m not wrong, isn’t it actually altruism that lies at the root of man’s (and other species’) collective efforts? Not to mention, how exactly are they able to empathize with animals anyways? From what I’m aware of, though sympathy is easy, it is already fairly difficult to truly empathize with other humans given that empathy requires that an individual to actually experience the emotions of another in emotional resonance. Yet, they can seemingly comprehend and emotionally resonate with the emotions of a cat? Furthermore, to be able to stand in the metaphorical shoes of a cat somehow has become defining as the prominent human trait? I mean, momentarily disregarding the absurdity of it all, what then does that mean for people with antisocial personality disorder or those who just don’t like animals? Does that make them any less human? If that were the case, then a large portion of the boys I grew up with in elementary school would be classified as androids based on these standards. Given that many roasted ants with magnifying glasses, “played” with insects and dissected worms on a regular basis without ever being taught to, shouldn’t that then be an aspect of human nature in one of its most natural forms? Oddly enough, in the Androids world, the human sense o f “empathy” seems to be a social construct more so than anything else. It’s used in order to differentiate those whom differ from the norm in terms of valuing animals as androids, or the post-contemporary day witches.

emotions

So I'm concurrently taking a psych class for my major, "Human Emotion." We're discussing what is an emotion, what it's purpose/function is, etc etc. The theory is, that emotions serve some kind of adaptive, evolutionary purpose in solving problems, as a way of socially mediating, deprioritizes self interests in order to work toward a collective, to get the individual to engage with others through emotions, etc etc...

The point is, I think that the Penfield mood/emotion regulation box kind of throws off the whole natural process of emotion, not just because it activates certain neurotransmitters (which in fact, over time, can't really happen. If you fire off feel-good neurotransmitters on a regular basis, it stops having an effect. Take meth addicts for example.). But also because it the box takes out the whole "interaction" part of emotions. We feel emotions because something, but usually SOMEONE causes them. So we're left with spontaneous mood swings without having an actual person to tie them to.

Weird? Is it possible to actually experience some emotion without having a person connected to them?

But then again, culture also shapes your emotions. For example, the way we experience embarrassment isn't the same way that the Japanese experience it. So in the Android's world, where the culture is shaped by horrible, deathly dust, master-killing robot slaves, and worship of live animals... maybe this whole emotion thing doesn't need a person to ground those feelings in?

I dunno. Aiight off to Bear's Lair!

I dream of electric sheep

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is a pretty amazing book, especially after Frankenstein, which makes the reader suffer as much as its tortured characters. (I'll never be able to resist cheap shots at Frankenstein.) Dick's style is accessible and fast-flowing, but his content is hella deep. It goes down smooth but stays in your system, like sake. And like sake, it's delicious hot or cold. OK, I'll stop. That last one didn't even make sense. Like reading Frankenstein voluntarily.

But in all seriousness, Androids works on so many levels that it's ludicrous. It plays with its own themes. The human characters are robotic, either because of mental deficiency or chronic ennui. The robots are likable, reasonable, and clever. Buster Friendly, the most powerful android in human space, is humankind's favorite celebrity. Mercer, the emblem of all that's uniquely human, is an alien life form, a hoax or both. And to access his magical empathy adventure, you have to use a machine. There's way too much going on in the book for a 300-word blog post—there may even be enough for a 6 to 8-page paper. Maybe.

Even the title is a joke that can't be fully understood without reading the book. In the future, most humans have never even seen an organic sheep—why shouldn't they dream of the mechanical variety? Do androids dream at all? The questions are endless, and mostly unanswerable. But that doesn't mean they're not fun to think about. It's all dead serious and completely absurd. It's surrealist yet totally believable. Everything is what it seems but nothing is what you expect. If I can revive the author for a second, it's not hard to see why the book is so brain-meltingly multifarious. Dick was a Gnostic tweaker and a Berkeley dropout. He was, in other words, a pretty awesome guy. If I saw him sitting on a milk crate outside Asian Ghetto, I'd totally give him a dollar. And I never give money to guys sitting on milk crates. That's how awesome PKD is.

It's fun not to have a prompt this week. I think we should just do away with prompts—if we can write 5–6 pages without a prompt, surely we can write 300 words. Yes? Prompts are just so...limiting. And worse, they force us into the uncomfortable, poorly defined limbo between academic writing (where words like "thus" aren't obnoxious) and the informal, idiosyncratic, anything-goes style of blogging (where "lol"s run wild). I say bring on the lolage, lol.

Random Thoughts

Ok, so I'm going to be brief tonight cause i i have to finish up another paper that is due tomorrow.

I really like this book. Its a little weird but i like the idea that nothing is what it seems. I guess what i really wanted to say was that this book reminds me alot of another book that i read my freshman year in R1A. The book was called Feed. The charcters in that book had a computer built into their head. Their thoughts could access the internet. Yet i remember a part in Feed where the characters where to lazy to use their feeds,the computer inside their head, when all you had to do was think. Its the same in this book, well at least in the beginning, where Rick's wife is to lazy to dial up her emotions. Its interesting to think that the more technologically advanced we get the lazier we get. Just an observation
Heather Stuart

Do andriods eat?

As I read the book, when I try and visualize the androids, its tempting to think of them as blatantly obvious robots, like c3p0 and r2d2 from star wars. But if people can't distinguish them, then they must look and feel just like humans. I guess instead of bones they have metal inside, yet their flesh is just like human flesh. I can't imagine looking at a person and wondering if they were artificially created. Nothing but electronics, plastic, and metal. The creators must have done a really good job to imitate the physical appearances. But if they were created to be identical to humans on the outside, what about the inside? I wonder if they have a digestive system. Do they eat? Did the makers go so far as to imitate the intimate details as well? If so, why? Is it that necessary to have androids to be just like humans to do the deeds that they were created for? Were they created with the sense as well? Can they smell, taste, touch? If they do have all the senses as humans, does it make them more human?