Hi Aharon, I think one the issues around this, relates to notions of 'ownership'.
For instance, if we name or term something, we then automatically claim it as our own. Once you own something or own someone - you can then decide whether 'it' or 'they' has rights. You cannot offer rights unless you have the power to make this decision. In the 18th century (UK), everyday people were not allowed to own their own political contexts and they could not make their own decisions regarding their social needs. It was only those whom owned property at the time, deemed as 'right in thinking' on the subject of national and international politics in Parliament. Of course, this is when we move into the shady area of bio-power. The other way, is that objects may own our everyday 'behaviours' to various degrees. However, in many ways we can trash them, rebuild them and use them for personal or shared ventures. Although, protocols claim to own our interaction with consumer objects but 'thankfully', many are disdainful towards restrictions which impede our creative and imaginative needs. Relationally, our connections to objects and networks and the systems running behind 'accessible' interfaces, may own not necessarily 'consciously' be in control. But, regulations are a human-social construct. And, mechanisation and distribution of these regulations are what try to own behaviours and dictate situations. What we choose to own on our own terms, becomes part of the journey of discovering our own 'place and voice' in this complex world. At present, those who own a patent of a DNA strand or have financial investments regarding oil resources, will be the deciders. It rather reflects the needs of the powerful and not the needs of people or the plants, networks, algorithms or animals - although, as consumers we have rights to get a better product ;-) Wishing you well. marc >> Citizen Robot: A Vindication of the Rights of Machines >> Cultural Studies Colloquium Series with David J. Gunkel >> > > Hiyas! > > This is a fascinating idea, and wish I could be there in Chicago on the > 14th - is it being skyped/googlehangouted/etc.? - however am also > wondering about the noises of entities that could be considered ready for > rights. > > For example, why do we imagine people, animals, plants, environments, > machines, etc. as arguably plausibly in a certain need for equal right? It > might seem like there is a question of the ability of these entities to > make noises, to "be heard", "be seen", "have a reaction". However, perhaps > a rather more radical practice would be to say that all atoms have equal > rights? So could algorithms, or genes, or epigenetic elements and > phenomena, dna strands, etc. If indeed such elements and entities get to > be equal, then perhaps, for example, owning an algorithm could be taken as > enslaving? More than that, by changing the noise of stuff that equality > makes a maker made modified moded modelled and modulated by, then perhaps > we get into a different kind of noises to question and aesthetic > trajectories to imagine? (probably not, but might be fun to attempt..?) > > Have much fun! > > Aharon > xx > > >> Columbia College Chicago >> Thursday, February 14 at 4:00pm to 6:00pm >> Collins Hall, Room 602 624 S. Michigan, Chicago, Illinois >> http://events.colum.edu/calendar/day/2013/2/14 >> >> Abstract: Whether we recognize it or not, we are in the midst of a robot >> invasion. Machines are now everywhere and doing everything. They >> manufacture our automobiles and other consumer products. They make >> decisions concerning finances and manage our retirement savings. They >> play match maker, connecting us to our one true love. And they >> effectively select the books we read, the music we hear, and the films >> we watch. As these artifacts increasingly come to occupy influential >> positions in contemporary culture, we will need to ask ourselves some >> rather difficult questions: At what point might a robot or algorithm be >> held responsible for the decisions it makes or the actions it deploys? >> When, in other words, would it make sense to say “It’s the computer’s >> fault?” Likewise, at what point might we have to seriously consider >> extending rights—civil, moral and legal standing—to these socially >> active devices? When, in other words, would it no longer be considered >> non-sense to suggest something like “equal rights for machines?” >> Although these questions are a staple in science fiction, we have >> already passed the tipping point. This presentation will demonstrate why >> it not only makes sense to speak of the vindication of the rights of >> machines but also why avoiding this subject could be considered immoral. >> >> David J. Gunkel is an award winning author and teacher specializing in >> information technology and ethics. He holds the position of Presidential >> Teaching Professor in the Department of Communication at Northern >> Illinois University and is the author of Hacking Cyberspace (Westview, >> 2001); Thinking Otherwise: Philosophy, Communication, Technology (Purdue >> University Press, 2007); and The Machine Question: Critical Perspectives >> on AI, Robots and Ethics (MIT Press, 2012). >> >> >> David J. Gunkel >> Presidential Teaching Professor >> Department of Communication >> Northern Illinois University >> http://www.gunkelweb.com/gunkel.html >> [email protected] >> 815-753-7004 >> ---------------------------- >> The Machine Question (MIT 2012) >> http://machinequestion.org >> >> International Journal of Zizek Studies >> http://zizekstudies.org >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > -- ---> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood - proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;) Other reviews,articles,interviews http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing, discussing and learning about experimental practices at the intersections of art, technology and social change. http://www.furtherfield.org Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London). http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community. http://www.netbehaviour.org http://identi.ca/furtherfield http://twitter.com/furtherfield >> Citizen Robot: A Vindication of the Rights of Machines >> Cultural Studies Colloquium Series with David J. Gunkel >> > Hiyas! > > This is a fascinating idea, and wish I could be there in Chicago on the > 14th - is it being skyped/googlehangouted/etc.? - however am also > wondering about the noises of entities that could be considered ready for > rights. > > For example, why do we imagine people, animals, plants, environments, > machines, etc. as arguably plausibly in a certain need for equal right? It > might seem like there is a question of the ability of these entities to > make noises, to "be heard", "be seen", "have a reaction". However, perhaps > a rather more radical practice would be to say that all atoms have equal > rights? So could algorithms, or genes, or epigenetic elements and > phenomena, dna strands, etc. If indeed such elements and entities get to > be equal, then perhaps, for example, owning an algorithm could be taken as > enslaving? More than that, by changing the noise of stuff that equality > makes a maker made modified moded modelled and modulated by, then perhaps > we get into a different kind of noises to question and aesthetic > trajectories to imagine? (probably not, but might be fun to attempt..?) > > Have much fun! > > Aharon > xx > > >> Columbia College Chicago >> Thursday, February 14 at 4:00pm to 6:00pm >> Collins Hall, Room 602 624 S. Michigan, Chicago, Illinois >> http://events.colum.edu/calendar/day/2013/2/14 >> >> Abstract: Whether we recognize it or not, we are in the midst of a robot >> invasion. Machines are now everywhere and doing everything. They >> manufacture our automobiles and other consumer products. They make >> decisions concerning finances and manage our retirement savings. They >> play match maker, connecting us to our one true love. And they >> effectively select the books we read, the music we hear, and the films >> we watch. As these artifacts increasingly come to occupy influential >> positions in contemporary culture, we will need to ask ourselves some >> rather difficult questions: At what point might a robot or algorithm be >> held responsible for the decisions it makes or the actions it deploys? >> When, in other words, would it make sense to say “It’s the computer’s >> fault?” Likewise, at what point might we have to seriously consider >> extending rights—civil, moral and legal standing—to these socially >> active devices? When, in other words, would it no longer be considered >> non-sense to suggest something like “equal rights for machines?” >> Although these questions are a staple in science fiction, we have >> already passed the tipping point. This presentation will demonstrate why >> it not only makes sense to speak of the vindication of the rights of >> machines but also why avoiding this subject could be considered immoral. >> >> David J. Gunkel is an award winning author and teacher specializing in >> information technology and ethics. He holds the position of Presidential >> Teaching Professor in the Department of Communication at Northern >> Illinois University and is the author of Hacking Cyberspace (Westview, >> 2001); Thinking Otherwise: Philosophy, Communication, Technology (Purdue >> University Press, 2007); and The Machine Question: Critical Perspectives >> on AI, Robots and Ethics (MIT Press, 2012). >> >> >> David J. Gunkel >> Presidential Teaching Professor >> Department of Communication >> Northern Illinois University >> http://www.gunkelweb.com/gunkel.html >> [email protected] >> 815-753-7004 >> ---------------------------- >> The Machine Question (MIT 2012) >> http://machinequestion.org >> >> International Journal of Zizek Studies >> http://zizekstudies.org >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > -- ---> A living - breathing - thriving networked neighbourhood - proud of free culture - claiming it with others ;) Other reviews,articles,interviews http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews.php Furtherfield – online arts community, platforms for creating, viewing, discussing and learning about experimental practices at the intersections of art, technology and social change. http://www.furtherfield.org Furtherfield Gallery – Finsbury Park (London). http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community. http://www.netbehaviour.org http://identi.ca/furtherfield http://twitter.com/furtherfield _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
