Woman in a Man's Role?

The film Mr. and Mrs. Smith starring Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie perfectly portrays the breaking of a woman's gender role while also holding on to important aspects of a woman's identity. John and Jane Smith are married, but are both secret assassins. Neither knows about each other's secret second life, until they are assigned to kill each other. In the end, they much choose which is more important: their personal life or their secret career.

Jane Smith seems like the typical housewife when she gets home from the office every day. She cooks dinner for her husband John, sets the table, and cleans up the mess afterward. She is always perfectly put together, makeup and all, and never hesitates to be nice to the neighbors. Her home is beautifully decorated and in pristine condition. She seems far from the "female road outlaw," but her seperate identity is truly one of crime and murder (Boozer 209).

When she leaves for the "office" every morning, her entire indentity changes. She is an undercover assassin who is the best in her firm, and is definitely not scared to shoot a gun. A whole different person comes out when she is at work: an aggressive, hostile woman who does not care who gets in the way of her mission. This is until her husband gets in the way. Jane must decide what is more important to her, and in the end she realizes that John is the one who she should pick. The Smith's end up working together to accomplish the mission they were both sent out on before they were assigned to kill each other. Jane Smith is much like the character in Sleeping With the Enemy because she is not scared to take on a more masculine role and kill others (Boozer 212).

Mr. and Mrs. Smith is a film that takes away from the female stereotype of being the perfect housewife. It proves that women can be as forceful and intelligent as men can, and since it was such a box office hit, millions of people got the opportunity to see this point of view, which is important for every woman to see.

Week 4 Blog Reviews

Krista:
Artifical Intelligence
You wrote a great summary of the artifical intelligence article. It was very informative without throwing in your opinion, which is very important while summarizing someone else's work. It was great to point out that Wright "unbiasedly" discussed Chalmers' and Dennet's points of view. While it is important that you do not throw in your opinion, it is also important that the author does the same thing because that can easily take away from the opinions of the people that are being discussed. You did a great job of mentioning the examples that the author used, and this was overall a very well-crafted summary.

Frida Kahlo
I very much enjoyed reading about Frida Kahol's painting. You did a wonderful job explaining the meaning behind the painting, and you mentioned things that I would not think of when first looking at it, showing that you took a lot of time on this post. The beginning was very informative and showed different aspects of the painting that led into your personal evaluation of the piece. Talking about not only the person in the paiting, but also the background really gave good insight into what was happening and how she was feeling since it was a personal portrait. This was a great post!


Lauren Angulo:
Can Machines Think?
This was a very interesting blog post to read. I enjoyed how you asked questions about artificial intelligence then answered them with references from the text. This gave the questions that you asked a lot of credibililty and showed that you put a lot of thought into the blog post. I think that it was good that you brought up the point of consciousness and how machinces cannot have consciousness unless we create a new species of life, and how this starts to travel into the philosophical world.

Frida Kahlo
The painting that you described was a very good one to pick because there were so many different ways to describe it. When I first looked at it, I did not realize that Frida was standing in the middle of the two countries, and you did a great job explaining the artwork and the meaning behind it. The descriptive part was very informational, and it was good that you explained why you chose this article beacause there was clearly thought behind choosing this specific one. You also did a great job at explaining the difference between the two sides and pointing out that Frida liked Mexico better because she was holding the Mexican flag.

Kim Kida had no blog posts.

Torrent. "Paintings and Sketches by Frida Kahlo." Torrent Corp.

www.torrentreactor.net. Wednesday 16 Sep. 2009.

http://www.torrentreactor.net/torrents/920246/paintings-and-sketches-by-frida-kahlo.html

The "Portrait of a Woman in White" was painted in 1930 by Frida Kahlo. It is a painting of a woman in a white wedding dress with a very somber look on her face. She is looking away from the artist, with her hair pinned up and a small pink flower in her hair. There is light makeup on her face, and the makeup brings out her facial features. Her neck is draped with a small gold necklace which follows the cut of her dress. She is wearing long white gloves with her hands folded in her lap, holding something white. The woman is sitting in front of a window with burgundy curtains that are tied back with gold ties. There is a banner above her head that has no words inside of it, almost seems unfinished.

The woman in the portrait truly does not seem happy about something, maybe the wedding that is about to occur. She does not have a smile on her face, and her arms are neatly folded in her lap, showing calm compsure and patience. It seems that she is sitting, which would show even more composure. Her wedding dress is very modest, with thick straps and a higher neckline. It is apparent that she is a nice woman due to her facial expression, body language, and clothing choices. The background seems to reveal that she is in a nice house or church, with royal colored curtains and brass railings. Because of this, it seems like she is either marrying into wealth or she is wealthy herself.

I think that this picture depicts a confused woman. Although she may seem peaceful, I still think that she does not know what to think about the future marriage. It seems as though she is going along with something that may have been arranged, and she had no choice. Since the painting was not finished (there is nothing in the banner above her head), there may be something that could have been explained that was supposed to go in the banner.

Will Machines Have Consciousness Like Humans?

When Robert Wright began his essay, he introduced his topic with a story about a man playing chess against a computer to try to "help defend our dignity" (Wright 140). He went on to explain how he believes that the smarter computers get, the more soulless we may get as humans.

Philosophers are considering more than ever what consciousness is and where it comes from. With the debate about if computers will surpass the human race a big topic, philosophers are having to try to figure the strange phenomenon and explain why consciousness is such a basis to mankind. Consciousness is a foundation for common sense, something that computers may never have. Wright points out that "the hardest thing for computers is the 'simple stuff'" (Wright 141). Computers do not have common sense and cannot recognize a face or a joke.

A major aspect of human beings that computers do not have is emotion. Emotions are what make people, well, people, and computers lack this integral part of humans. Wright addresses this issue in a great way: "The lights are on, but is anyone home?" (Wright 142). The thought processes may be present for a computer, but the emotion and consciousness are greatly lacking.

Although philosophers, including Colin McGinn and David Chalmers, agree that computers will not ever top human consciousness, they still do not totally understand what consciousness is. Although they may use robots such as the robot "Cog" to try to help explain consciousness from basic human movements, this does not explain the human consciousness that includes "a feeling of heat and pain, subjective experience, consciousness" (Wright 143). There are different aspects of consciousness that may never be explained, and because of this, machines will never be able to possess these types of consciousness; that is, "everything they do will be explicable in strictly physical terms" (Wright 144).

Although Chalmers believes that there is an answer to the basis of human consciousness and McGinn does not think that this puzzle will ever be solved, they both agree on one thing: consciousness is a mystery that will take much work to figure out. Machines will not have the abilities humans have, and to create one that would have equal consciousness as a human would "exercise powers reserved for God" (Wright 146).

Week 3 Blog Reviews

Krista:
Your first blog about Ideas and Thoughts being somewhat intertwined was a very good way to look at it. Although thoughts and ideas are not exactly the same, they do have similar bases and this was a good thing to point out. I also enjoyed reading about the conscious and subconscious aspects of ideas and thoughts. Your whole post was very well thought out and written with great thought.

Your second blog about computers being smarter than humans was also very well thought out. It was great to mention what computers were like not even 20 years ago and what they have turned into now. This perspective really made me think about technological advancements over the years and what technology will turn into in the future. I agree with you that machines will never advance over humans. Emotions are a huge part of human beings, and since computers will never have emotions, they will not be able to advance us.

Lauren Angulo:
Your blog about what thoughts and ideas are had great references to the text in it. I agree that thoughts include both philosophy and science, but I do think that you can define what a thought is and what an idea is. It may be difficult to come to a definite definition of what a thought and an idea are, but in my opinion, it is possible. I do completely agree with you that the ability to think is one of the greatest elements that make us human. Our ability to think is what makes us individual and unique, and therefore makes us all different.

The way you addressed both sides of the argument about if computers will surpass humans was a great way to show your thoughts on the issue. Explaining different views really shows knowledge about the subject, and therefore helps enforce your opinion. I completely agree with you that computers will not ever have the capabilities that humans have, and because of this, will never advance human beings. You were very descriptive in your post and this made you seem very knowledgeable about the subject. I really enjoyed reading it!

Kim Kida had no posts.

According to Minsky, there are a few different ways that a computer can surpass the human brain. He points out that "a computer can be programmed to keep a record of all its internal states and then trace back to these" (Beedles 120). This means that a computer would be able to go back to any event and respond the same way it did at the time. It is not possible for a human to go back to a specific event at any time in their life and remember what happened, or even respond the same way.



Since these computers are so advanced and are able to do a lot more than the human brain, Minsky claims that they are smarter than human beings. Although this has caused much controversy, Minsky has stood by his claim and does not mind the opposing view. His view on artificial intelligence is not very popular among his collegues, however, he continues to research and support his stance on artificial intelligence. He has done much research about artificial intelligence, and from all the work he has done for this research, his stance is not going to change.



Even though Minsky may bring up a good point that comptuers can do more functions than the human brain, I do not believe that a computer will ever be smarter than the human brain. It seems impossible that a computer will ever have emotions like humans do, and since emotions lead to so many different actions, I do not think that a computer will ever be able to top a human. Computers may know more than a human and may be able to trace back to certain moments better than a human ever could, but that does not mean that a computer is necessarily "smarter" than a human.

Week 2 Blog Reviews

I really enjoyed reading Krista's blog. I did not consider that you can tweak a first impression online so much. I did realize that you craft a first impression into whatever you would like it to be, but I did not consider that you can change this impression before submitting it if you do not like how it turns out. I also did not consider that there are so many different types of first impressions when meeting in person. This was a very good point to bring up, and I think it was great to point out that first impressions really do come down to each and every student. When talking about if people can be good without God, I think it is a personal opinion, no matter what studies may say. They may prove that people who believe in God act differently than people who do not, but I think it depends on a personal definition of what "good" is and what kind of impact God has on your life.

I completely agree with Lauren Angulo's discussions about being able to get to know each other even through an online class. Although it may be harder to get to know someone becasue we may never know if they are really telling the honest truth about who they are, there are some aspects that may allow us to get to know a person better. For example, someone may be able to express their feelings in writing better than they would in person, and an online class allows this writing to occur. I completely agree that morals are made beyond just religious beliefs, but I don't completely agree that someone can be good without God. They may have excellent morals and live a fulfilling life, but I do think that it is necessary to have God in your life to be "good."

Kim does not have any posts from Week 2.

Any Ideas?

What is an idea? According to Webster, an idea is "a transcendent entity that is a real pattern of which existing things are imperfect representations" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/). When someone comes up with an idea, no matter what it may be for, there is a personal pride to it. Whether it be for a business concept or personal development, an idea can either help or hurt a situation. Personal morals can affect an idea and drastically change the way a problem is looked at. A variety of different things can be built off of an idea, and can morph into a dramatic change of events.



Webster defines a thought as "serious consideration" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/). I believe that a thought is built off of an idea. A thought is a person's feelings about a situation, and can be expressed through a variety of ways, including verbally, physcially, or emotionally. Verbally, a person will say their feelings and build off an idea. If someone is upset about something for example, they may walk away, showing their thoughts about the situation. Some thoughts may lead to a person start to cry or even laugh, showing their emotion due to the thought. After condsidering a situation, thoughts arise and lead to an action.



Ideas and thoughts come from a person's beliefs and morals. Someone who believes in God may have completely different thoughts and ideas about a situation than someone who does not. There may not be a solid answer as to where thoughts and ideas arise from due to the fact that so many outside sources can influence them, but it is definite that thoughts and ideas are expressed from an inidividual and can drastically change the way someone lives.

Who is God? And can we be good without Him?

People may have many different opinions about God and if He even exists. Especially these days, there are many views about God. People are encouraged to believe what they want, and this can cause much debate between groups of people. To answer the question if we can be good without God, a person must first answer another question. How do you define God? Is He the Creator, the Savior, just some object, or something that doesn't even exist?

If your belief is that God is the Savior and Creator, then the good inside you reflects your relationship with God. You want to do things that the Bible commands, and when you do those and choose to live a life according to Biblical principles, you are good as long as God is an active part of your life.

If your belief is that God is some object or even something that doesn't exist, your definition of good may be everything that pleases your personally, which could include money, objects, etc. This is not to say that these things are not good more most people, but they be more pleasing to a person that doesn't believe that God exists rather than a person who has total and complete faith in God.

Personally, I believe that it is impossible to be good without God. Being raised in a Christian home gave me the Biblical foundation that I try to make a part of my everyday life. Since I was raised learning these principles, I believe that you must have God in your life to be "good," and because of this, I try to live with God as an active part of my life.

Expressing Ourselves Through Writing

The overall concept of being enrolled in an online class has both its pros and cons. Although an online class fits anyone's schedule better because it can be completed at any time, it may be harder because students may never get the opportunity to meet their classmates or the professor. Erving Goffman described first impressions as being incredibly important. "When the interaction that is initiated by 'first impressions' is itself merely the initial interaction in an extended series of interactions involving the same participants, we speak of 'getting off on the right foot' and feel that it is crucial to do so," he says (Goffman 47). First impressions greatly shape how students and professors view each other, and although this is an online class, first impressions are still quite strong and greatly shape how the rest of the semester will go in this course.

I believe that it is possible to get to know classmates through an online class as long as everyone is honest about their feelings through the blog posts. It could very easily occur that someone may put up a different persona since there are no actual face-to-face meetings. A person could make up any personality they want and use it throughout the semester. However, as long as everyone is honest about who they are and true to their personality, I think it is very possible to get to know a complete stranger through an online class. As Goffman says, "Information about the individual helps shape the situation, enabling others to know in advance what he will expect of them and what they may expect of him" (Goffman 42). The information we choose to post is what people will get to know us by, whether it is our true selves or not.

Since this is a writing class, we may get to know each other even better than we would in a traditional in-person class. I know that I express my feelings much better through writing than I do speaking, and since I don't know anyone in the class, I feel like I will express myself even more than I would if I did know someone. We may be strangers on the street due to never being formally introduced, but I believe that we will be no strangers in this course. We may even get to know a different side of each other that no one else knows!