I, Curtis

4th Annual UNC Charlotte Philosophy Conference

All of the materials for the 4th Annual UNC Charlotte Philosophy Conference have been released. This will be my first presentation at an academic conference. It is somewhat exciting to see my name and my paper title appear in the schedule for the event. I am also very nervous and unsure of myself. It helps that I know that I will be presenting in front of faculty and students that I am at least somewhat familiar with. I have been wrestling with myself over how to make the topic of my paper to an audience of philosophers, and I’m still not convinced that I have come up with the right answer, but they did select me, so there must be something relevant to them.

I am generally not comfortable speaking in public, and especially not on topics that are involved in my paper, but I have been allowing myself to be more expressive in classes recently, so I’m hoping that will result in me managing to figure out how to present my topic in an approachable way. I think my biggest fear is that I will finish my presentation in the time allocated (20-30 minutes) and then no one will have any questions and I will be standing there feeling like I have failed in presenting my paper in an accessible way.

Visualizing Fall 2012

I accept that WGST 6800 is a guaranteed course on my schedule, as I have opted in to it (and am becoming the guinea pig for the directed readings course).

Now, that leaves me with 9 hours to select. I can pick 3 courses from the blue and red groups.

Fall 2012 Registration

Next Monday I am due to register for classes, and I have idea what I want to take. The image above is my current planning guide as it appears in GITI. There are several classes that meet requirements in the Cognitive Science program, such as Linguistics, Intelligent Systems, Cognition and Philosophy of Mind. There are other courses that don’t apply to anything, such as Clinical Exercise Nutrition and Sex|Death|Religion, but would likely be fun to take. So far I have held myself to a policy of taking 9 hours that apply to something, and then giving myself the last 3 hours to play with. This year those last 3 hours were spent on undergrad courses, but for next year it seems like those will more likely be put toward hybrid classes.

For Cognitive Science I am pretty sure I want to take Philosophy of Mind, but am a lot less certain between Linguistics, Intelligent Systems and Cognition. I think that Linguistics might be interesting, but perhaps a bit difficult. Cognition may also be interesting, but I’m not sure that I would enjoy it. The material seems a little dull and the instructor is not someone I have had positive experience with (but have never had a course with her before). Intelligent Systems is the odd-ball. I’m sure it would be fun, but I don’t know the instructor and I don’t really know what to expect or how deep the material would be. Between those classes, I just don’t know, and I have less than a week to figure it out.

I have only one course left in the WGST program, but I do not know exactly how I plan to meet that requirement yet. I could fill the space in with Language, Gender and Power this fall, but I am not sure that I wish to take 3 courses in the program with the same instructor. I am currently considering taking a course with a different instructor in the department next spring to meet the requirement.

The Directed Reading course has become more certain at this point. Dr. James has agreed to do a project on Subculture Masculinities with me during the fall. I am very excited about the potential for that project and really want it to go well. Ironically, I will be the first person to ever take a directed readings course in my department. The concept of the course is so foreign that presently I am waiting for my graduate coordinator and department chair to decide what forms and process will be utilized for authorizing the course (required before a registration permit will be issued for it).

I am not confident in my schedule for Monday, and I don’t presently know exactly what courses I will put on my initial schedule. As a grad student I have very little competition for courses, so there is a good chance that I will get into whatever courses I select.

Busy Week

Just like last spring I have a busy week coming up again. I have tons of stuff I have procrastinated on a little, and as a result I have to catch up on a lot for this week.

Monday – work with my group to build a poster for my Human-Computer Interaction class. Due Monday at 6:30pm.
Wednesday – complete work on my paper abstract and annotated bibliography for Queer Theory. In addition I have to prepare myself for a presentation of an interpretation of the work of Judith Butler for the class.
Thursday – three quizzes due for Cognitive Science
Weekend – Cognitive Science mid-term

At some point between now and the 30th of March I have to prepare a presentation based on my paper from Theoretical Approaches to Sexuality for the UNC Charlotte Philosophy Conference.

Written out my tasks do not seem to be that massive, but with all of them floating around in my head they feel like they are weighing me down heavily. Tomorrow morning I need to dive in to work on the poster, and then after that I MUST get to work on Butler for Queer Theory, and then Tuesday in my free time I need to work on my paper stuff. My paper components do not have to be great, just showing my progress on my paper.

Queer Theory Paper Proposal

I have written my proposal for my paper in Queer Theory. Does this seem doable or am I going to make myself crazy going in theoretical circles trying to prove something that is just nuts?

Thesis: Social categories define behaviors and self-concept for individuals who are placed into those categories by social forces, regardless of personal desires or inconsistent components of personality.

Individuals in Western society function with individual identities, compared to more collective identity systems embraced by some Eastern cultures. One of the important characteristics of being an individual is taking on categories in which one fits. Many disciplines utilize categories as a fundamental structure of their discourse. A prime example of this is sociology, which has gone so far as to categorize their categories, into ascribed and achieved categories. The duality is defined with the expectation that every type of category fit into one and exactly one status. Typically race, sex and age are considered to be ascribed characteristics, whereas gender, socioeconomic status and an assortment of other surface-level characteristics are determined to be achieved. Sexual orientation differs in its placement based on which theorist you ask.

These categories define the individual in their social context. There are social expectations that an individual place themselves into a pre-existing category and assimilate fully with the traits of that category. These categories do not allow for a person to exist in multiple roles at the same time in a single category. An individual is restricted from existing simultaneously as male and female. When disparities with the rules of the categories exist, often a new label with be created. A person existing as both male and female would be labeled intersex, which carries a negative connotation in society and is generally regarded as an undesirable role in the system of sex. When there is social adaptation to allow for the inclusion of a previously excluded individual or group of individuals, there is typically a new label created, which is as restrictive as the previous set of labels.

The pathologoization of same-sex desire allowed the heterosexuality and homosexuality binary to be created. When these identity categories were created, they provided a place for individuals who conformed to standards of opposite-sexed desire, and for same-sexed desire. An individual who exhibits desires for both sexes would have initially found themselves in a space between identities due to the binary thought process in Western society. In more recent times this identity space seems to be constructed as heterosexual and the Other in the eyes of dominant cultural groups. Gradually discourse has evolved to be more inclusive to difference, but labels and categories are still an integral part of identity formation.

The confinement of labels inside of categories for traits that are as individual as gender expression and sexuality limit the ability of a person to express individuality or to develop a personality that is not restricted to conforming to an existing set of behaviors. For example, to be a gay male is to exist in a general category that is further defined as top, bottom or versatile. This indicates a refinement of identity based on the role and desired involvement in anal intercourse. In some cases, this is also used to define the gay male’s relationship to masculinity. This categorization does not leave open the possibility of a gay male identity that does not embrace anal intercourse as a standard way of sexual expression. By the social standards that exist clinically as well as in the gay subculture itself, a male who has same-sex attraction, but not a desire for penetrative intercourse does not fit into the category of being homosexual; however, the masculinity role of “fag” (Pascoe) may be met. In the same line of reasoning, the individual in question would also not meet the criteria for a heterosexual identity. Considering the structures in place in Western society, such an individual is only left with the category of asexual, which still does not seem to fit as there is still same-sex attraction.

In my paper I would like to explore from a multitude of social perspectives the impact of categorical labeling on individuals who do not explicitly meet the criteria for inclusion into specific categories. My initial category of exploration is that of biological males that have same-sex attraction, but who do not participate in traditional methods of sexual expression. I would like to explore this type of non-conformity in relation to gender-perception, gender-expression and social involvement. If adequate resources are available I intend to expand my efforts beyond the scope of my initial inquiry and into a more general approach to the experiences of an undefined or in-between social category.

Can computers think?

Can computers think? It seems like a simple question to answer, obviously they cannot, right? The question I pose in response to this is, can humans think? It seems obvious as well, humans are conscious and make decisions, therefore, humans think?

Where do humans become special and distinct from the capabilities of computers? Human brains and computers have been compared to each other since the beginning of the notion of cognitive science for many purposes. In the beginning the idea was to make the comparison to make a more human computer, but now the comparison is more often used to simplify the understanding of the human brain by using the computer as an analogy. The real question here though is, how far off is the analogy? Are we discussing things that are really that dissimilar, or are we discussing essentially different implementations (organic vs. electronic) of the same system?

When considered at the most basic level computers and the human brain have the same essential structures. Individual neurons are no sophisticated or interesting than a core of a processor, or a decision making circuit. There is no component of the human brain that is uniquely human. For the purposes of my analysis I will provide the following criteria that are considered to be components of human cognition that are “special”: self-awareness (often qualifier for sentience), emotion, adaptation, intentionality, and free will/sapience.

Self-awareness: humans are self-aware because we have the capacity to recognize that we exist and that certain tasks we take have an impact on our environment, or as a more common test, we see that what appears in a mirror is ourselves. Many robots have been programmed to pass this very test, and can recognize themselves with a great level of accuracy. More traditional computer-based intelligences can probably tell you all about themselves.
Emotion: Emotion is a really interesting concept for artificial intelligence because it is difficult to prove that it is real. Humans have universal emotional states that are somewhat determined by biology, but only the most basic emotions. This “innate” emotional state does not specify what stimuli triggers those responses outside of basic physical stimuli. Physical stimuli are unavoidable because of the fact that they are part of the design of the system, there is nothing special or magical about experiencing pain, as there is a sequence of electrical impulses and chemical reactions which generate that response as being pain. This stimuli is part of the system itself, and therefore is not a uniquely human property. It is possible to give a computer a simulated skin, and when the correct pressure inputs occur, or links are severed, the computer experiences a sensation which it can call “pain”. Other emotions, such as happiness, sadness, closeness, loss and others exist as social constructions. If we did not know that a guy getting kicked in his testicles was a humorous thing to watch based on social learning, we would not laugh. On the other hand, the guy being kicked responds to the occurrence as pain because of the fact that he experiences physical signals to cause that state of alert in the body. All experiences of emotion are either by something that has been socially learned and conditioned, or through a physical stimulus. All of these things can be trained through programming on a computer. The problem at this point is that no electronic system has enough sensors or enough algorithms to approximate the entirety of human experience.
Adaptation: Humans adapt. Humans adapt due to certain aspects of biology. Adaptation is partially taught through example, and is partially a factor of evolution. If you cannot adapt, then you cannot survive, it is as simple as that. At this stage in computing, computers are like children, they run into obstacles and thus need assistance from a human. Ironically, it is mostly obstacles resulting from human involvement that limit the ability for computers to not function by themselves. Programmers make mistakes, users do things that are invalid. A cleanly written piece of software that is trained with adaptation skills through complex problem solving algorithms could adapt as well as or better than a human. The only problem is that first we need a better human. It is all about problem schemas and how easy it is to template a situation.
Intentionality: Intention can be related to purpose. Computers are perhaps better than this than humans. Computers are task oriented and are always moving toward a goal, whether it is a calculation or simply trying to interpret data. Computers need humans as a reason for their intentionality, which is in itself a limitation. Why do you do what you do? What drives you? The flaw for computers is that they lack a sense of accomplishment or any type of self-motivation. It is all a matter of programming. The modern human without the context of other humans would likely find themselves wandering aimlessly for something to do.
Free Will: The ability to decide what to do and when is an essential part of being human. Do computers do it? Not really, computers do what is prescribed by their programming. Humans are controlled by certain programming as well, mostly their priorities. Computers don’t have free will because they do not independently decide what to do or when. There is a question of determinism here most likely, but that’s a whole field of philosophy by itself. I think that it is possible to give a computer free will, and perhaps there is already the ability somewhat when it comes to computers intelligently making decisions, but that is still in the service of humans, not its own interests.
Creativity: What is creativity? This one is perhaps the hardest of the aspects to work toward because of the abstract nature and lack of understanding of the concept. Creativity is often an occurrence in the course of creating something. Ideas come from previous concepts, and inspirations that come from other places. Does anything truly original ever exist though, or are we all imitating each other, imitating the nature around us?

The limitation to the computer as an intelligence at this point is that most of the research is focused on building machines to solve problems, or machines to handle specific tasks that humans do. There is very little work towards an artificial intelligence that is only an intelligence and not trying to solve something else too. There is no AI for the sake of a new intelligence.

I would like to thank my friend Oscar for asking this question, which in turn allowed me to finally articulate my recent internal inquiry about the nature of computer consciousness.

My Next Academic Year

Above is my schedule for the next academic year as it stands (as of this morning). Fall 2012 has 15 hours assigned to it at the moment, but that will have to change to become a sane schedule (less than 12 hours). These schedules are currently reflective only of my presently enrolled programs (WGST and CogSci). The reason this post comes about is because this morning I learned of Dr. Croy planning to offer Philosophy of Mind in the Fall, and noticing when I added it that the list looked a little lengthy.

Upon close examination of the schedule I find that first of all, Language, Gender and Power is likely to go away, since it no longer conforms to my planned course sequence for the WGST certificate. Next, Social Context of Mental Health may go away if I’m not admitted to sociology and my interest set changes at all (or I find a pet research interest for the semester). That leaves me with Intelligent Systems, Philosophy of Mind and Cognition, all of which apply to my certificate in Cognitive Science. Still, this is a pretty full semester, and if I am admitted to a Masters program, at least one of those courses will have to move.

Spring 2013 is a little easier. If I’m admitted to sociology, Issues in Social Research is already on the schedule where it needs to be, but if not, it is still an interesting class I would like to take. Sexual Orientation Diversity in Clinical Practice is an odd course that I can only justify under the WGST certificate unless I’m eventually admitted to counseling. At the moment it is on the schedule as a space filler, but it is an area I am very interested in. If I’m ever involved in counseling or any type of social research involving mental health, I will want that class in my curriculum. Theoretical Approaches to Gender is a course that fulfills a major requirement (the final major requirement for me) for the WGST program, so I will likely hang on to that course.

At the end of Spring 2013, my current enrolled programs will be complete, but I intend to by that point be enrolled in at least one masters level program.

No Summer 2012 Course Schedule

A few days ago it occurred to me that I have no logical reason to take summer courses. I am not rushing toward graduating, there are no courses of special interest to me and really no compelling reason to seek out courses to take this summer.

So, with the logic of the decision to not seek out summer classes, this brings me to a interesting question: What the fuck am I going to do from May until August?

I’m not sure if anyone has noticed, but lately my blog has moved more and more toward focusing on my academic work, less on hobbies and less on me doing anything resembling having a life. The problem is, I have been in full on academic mindset since last January when I started my last semester of my undergraduate career. From there I was focused on graduating, then I was focused on getting a solid start on graduate school. Now I am faced with the prospect of 3 months with no formal plans.

Because I am a graduate student I cannot fully escape academics, its just not allowed, so I will likely spend some time working on some ideas for a thesis, or something along those lines, but that is not something to be used as the foundation of summer plans. I suppose the problem comes about from the fact that this is the first summer since 2006 that I haven’t taken summer classes and as such I have fallen out of practice with not having academics as a summer activity. That being said, my current feelings on the topic (with the outside temp being about 40 degrees currently), are that I’m looking forward to going back to the free and loose feeling that I enjoyed during the summer breaks in high school. I can’t say that I ever did much with them, but the time to relax and do nothing was always quite enjoyable.

The odd thing about this occurrence is that I suspect it will become normal for me to have breaks during the summer while in graduate school, except when I am working toward completing my thesis or dissertations. Change is a good thing in this case, but the adaptation to that change is going to be difficult, especially if I am going to make productive use of my time.

Some of the ideas I have had for this summer are to spend some time focusing on ceramics, maintaining a garden and perhaps spend a good amount of time swimming or some other traditionally summer outdoor activity.

My past summers:

2004: Art Appreciation, General Anthropology, Sociology of the Family

2005: JAVA Programming

2006: {Academic Break}

2007: Creative Writing I

2008: Digital Photography, Personal Health and Wellness

2009: Introduction to Biopsychology, Statistics for Psychology

2010: Behavior Modification

2011: Advanced Composition, Sociology of Gender, Greek History and Culture

Spring 2012 Paper Topics

Queer Theory: Effect of Social Labels on Behavior and Self-Esteem

This topic is a little abstract and doesn’t apply to queer theory as strongly as it probably should, but I feel like I can do a lot with it. Queer theory is focused ‘queering’ everything, from identity labels to the concept of gender itself. Through using outside literature as well as cultural artifacts I will create an elaborate example of the difficulties faced by a “non-queer” world, and perhaps give some clarity and a solid representation of the potential real world impact of queer theory, at least in its more moderate and reasonable forms (not that the concept of fucking with gender just to make the conservatives squirm isn’t fun).

Cognitive Science: Literature Review of Cognitive Categorization

After a brief discussion with my Cognitive Science instructor I discovered that I was overthinking my topic ideas. I don’t need to go as theoretical or philosophical as I was going. I merely need to construct a basic “term paper” that is a literature review. It isn’t a major research paper where I have to prove something or put forth a theory, I just have to select the topic and present existing research about the topic. I have selected cognitive categorization because it is something that has been puzzling me lately. There seems to be a natural human need to categorize things, the same is true for how we have designed computers and other electronic systems, everything has a category or label where it fits. At the very least it will be an interesting concept to read about while preparing the paper.

Instructor Trouble

I am not accustomed to feeling like there is no point for me to be in a classroom, and am even less accustomed to feeling like I cannot talk to the instructor that has created the issue about my concerns. In the class in question there is a general encouragement for graduate students to not speak or become involved in discussions until the undergraduates have had a chance to discuss. While I can understand the policy for the first week or two, until the undergrads have gotten a chance to become comfortable with discussion, I feel like this semester-long policy is a bit much. In addition, this evening in class the instructor had the undergrads break into groups, and as such left the graduate students with nothing to do. While a little break is nice, this was annoying, since after a point there was no reason for us to be in the room. We were ignored and priority given to the undergraduate students. This is the basis of my current “factual” problems with the course.

There are ideological issues which seem to be coming up as well. This particular instructor, who has a habit of speaking for a large majority of the class time, but will directly state that she does not like to lecture. She spends a lot of time explaining things, especially her pet areas of theory. This instructor has also decided that since students are not interrupting her lecture to speak up and create discussion, then she is going to instead create in-class presentation assignments to encourage speaking. I’m not sure if she is aware that she is doing these things, but they are becoming difficult to handle and are quickly turning most of the students against her and the course.

The really sucky thing is that the instructor is one that I respect a lot, she scares everyone else and as such, if she is to be approached about the problems in the course, then I am the most likely candidate to do it.