Orison Presentation

HURRAY!

I have finally found an online source which has allowed me to upload the video recording of our presentation - thank you MySpace!

The video itself does not contain the entire presentation. One of the fatal flaws of this technology has been illustrated quite clearly, we ran out of tape before the presentation ended.

Voice Control

In preparing for our presentation I decided to look at another method of interacting with our technologies which is a more natural and organic experience, Voice Control.

Mobile Phones, Mercedes Cars and even our Homes can all be controlled simply by issuing voice commands.

Mobile phones have for a while offered voice activated dialing, whereby we simply issue a command containing the phonebook entry name of the person we wish to call and the phone dials the stored number.

Mercedes Benz offers a feature called Linguatronic which at the flick of a switch allows the driver [or passengers] to have access to a series of other features. The built-in mobile phone system, audio components and GPS navigation systems can all be accessed and operated through voice control.

In our homes, more and more technologies are being designed to incorporate voice activated controls.

One such example is Microsofts Media Center 2005 which can be operated by using an additional software package called Media Center Communicator. This allows a user to operate all of the functionality of a Media Center PC in their lounge through voice commands alone. TV, DVD, Pictures, Audio and Email can all be accessed vocally.

These technologies already seem fairly primitive when compared to the various proposals that are offered to us for the uses of voice control in our homes. The main difficulty seems to become apparent when more complex tasks are attempted. Controlling devices in the same room as the user can be done through a series of microphones, or a user-worn bluetooth headset, yet controlling devices in other rooms - or even from remote locations proves to be far more complicated.

The proposed solution to this is Spoken Dialogue Technology, as discussed here by David Milward of Linguamatics. This development in voice control incorporates a form of feedback from the controlling system.

Users undergo a dialogue with the system in order to ascertain more of the specifics about what devices are to be used and how. This means that the user could theoretically call the system from an external location [using their voice activated phone!] and instruct the system to turn on the heating or air conditioning in the house.

Computer Protocols

Throughout my research, I have always considered that we are robots when using technologies based on the fact that we must submit to following specific protocols to undertake specific actions. This being the case, I decided to look into the various different protocols computers themselves use to undertake certain tasks.

The folowing protocols are used by each of us when using a network connected PC:

TCP / IP - Transmission Control Protocol / Internet Protocol is used to send and receive information across a network.

When sending information, TCP is used to first of all break the information down into a series of packets, each of which could potentially be sent ot its destination via a completely different route. Once the packets have been sent the TCP protocol on the destination network node analyses each packet recieved, reconstructs them in the correct order and ensures that no packets have been lost en route. If one has been lost then TCP requests for it to be sent again.

Internet Protocol is used to identify each node on the network by assigning each individual node with an IP Address [i.e. - 127.0.0.1]. Each packet sent via TCP contains a number of IP addresses defining where it has come from and where it is heading, these addresses are read by each node that the packets travel through to get to their destination.

Further to TCP / IP [which can be seen to be a collective name for a suite of protocols] is User Datagram Protocol [UDP] which is similar to TCP but doesnt perform error-recovery checks when being recompiled on the destination node. It is usually used for sending small amounts of information as the lack of extra checks ensures that less system resources are used.

Internet Control Message Protocol [ICMP] is also used to communicate across networks, although it is mainly used to perform system administration and diagnostic tasks such as PING or TRACERT.

When using the internet are systems need to use a combination of the following protocols:

HTTP - HyperText Transfer Protocol is used to transmit webpages across the internet. When using a web browser [which is an HTTP client] we use HTTP to request and display HTML [HyperText Markup Language] pages. The actual protocol itself operates on top of the TCP/ IP protocols.

FTP - File Transfer Protocol is used when uploading or downloading files to a web server. This protocol is used to download the actual files, rather than to display them [as is the case with HTTP].

When we are accessing our email we are likely to be using a system which incorporates the following protocols:

SMTP - Simple Mail Transfer Protocol is used to both send and recieve email. It is however limtied in its capabilities for receiving mail. It is therefore used mainly to send mail and is used in conjunction with either POP3 or IMAP which would be used to handle the receiving of new mail.

POP 3 - Post Office Protocol [Version 3] is commonly used by applications such as Thunderbird or Outllook to handle the receiving of email. Those of you who use an email client to read your email will know that both SMTP and POP3 servers need to be declared in order for that email account to funciton.

Each of us will have used all of these protocols in our daily lives. Although we do not actually have to know the ins and outs of each of them we must follow certain protocols in order for them to funciton properly. When surfing hte internet for example, we must enter a valid URL [i.e. - http://www.hud.ac.uk] in order to allow TCP/ IP & HTTP to know which server we wish to access, in order to send an email we need to specify an email address [i.e. myname@myserver.com] and of course there is all of the protocols that are to be followed in order to use the system with which we wish to undertake these simple tasks.

In my opinion these protocols are not going to get simpler, if anything they will do the opposite and get more complicated. But that shouldn't bother us, we humans don't need to use TCP/ IP in order to speak with one another face to face, nor do we need to know them in order to access all types of data across various networks. We do however still need to follow certain rules in order to utilise the protocols functionality. If anything, I believe that the interfaces that we must use are going to become more organic and natural [such as BrainGate - see previous post].

That being said though, I have to admit that the systems that I have to submit to in order to use all of the above protocols seem so natural now. Will robot like interfaces and protocols be adopted into a part of future human nature?

One of the chapters in Cloud Atlas shows a race that uses a range of technologies that are magical in comparison with the technologies [or lack there of] of the more primative cultures that they deal with. I wonder how people from a more primative up bringing may view the technologies that currently sit on my desk. A laptop, digital camera, MP3 players a mobile phone and a printer. Surely my use of these must seem completely robotic compared to anything they may use in day to day life. But then would they make that comparison if they didn't know what a robot was?

It seems that as technology is advancing, so are we. Even without technological enhancements humans are becoming more and more adept to using various complex technology driven devices. I am begining to think that as the future unfolds we may still appear to be as 'robot-like' as we are now - simply because as the technolgy has developed, we have developed to interface with it. Evolving like 2 interconnected species, human need technolgy in order to keep up with and achieve the ideas we are having and technology needs human research and development to allow it to expand and grow.

I wonder what Darwin would have to say about all of this?

Brain - Computer Interfaces [BCI]

Whilst reading The Guardian on Saturday, I came across this article.

The article begins by reffering to research currently being undertaken by scientists in the US have successfully managed to 'steer' sharks through a tank of water by stimulating sensors in the olfactory part of their brains using a series of implanted electrodes. The electrodes emit a signals which cause the sharks to believe that they can smell something, they then follow this scent.

When asked if this research could be used to create 'remote-controlled human killing machines' [the project is funded by the US Military!] Richard Apps, a Neurophysiologist from Bristol University said no, stating that guiding fish through water was a far simpler task than getting a person to commit a series of complicated tasks against their will.

Human BCI is not totally science-fiction though. Mathew Nagle, a 25 year old stabbing victim, is a quadriplegic. He is paralysed from the neck down - yet he beat Richard Martin, writer for Wired magazine, at a number of games of Pong. How? By using an array of 96 electrodes implanted onto the portion of the brain that deals with arm and hand movement.

Through his thoughts, Nagle can control a TV. He can turn it on and off, change the channels and also adjust the volume. The researchers involved in the clinical trials of this technology, BrainGate, are working with Nagle to ascertain the capabilities of both Nagle and the BrainGate interface. The projects future goals are to return the use of limbs to those like Nagle who have lost the use of them through injury or disease.

This work seems to be fairly similar, in terms of its goals, to the of Prof. Warwick. Another instance of a human adding a computer chip into their body in order to use the mind/nerves to control external applications. Both projects could be seen to be a simulation of telepathy, which itself could surely be seen to be one of the most organic forms of interaction?

So do these projects mean that in order to become less robot-like when we interface with our technologies, we must become more robotic in the physical sense. This would mean that interfacing that had previously seemed robot-like in terms of the protocols that had to be followed, would seem natural as we would all have chips or devices implanted in ourselves which would do this interfacing for us, but which would be controlled through more natural and organic stimulations such as brainwaves or nerve reflexes.

The more I research interfaces such as these, the more and more it becomes apparent that the only way to not be like robots, is to actually be robots. Will we ever reach the stage where technology as complicated as we have now, can be used through simple protocols? I personally don't think this will be the case. Certainly not in my lifetime.

So there it is, a challenge to the scientific communities of the globe. Prove me wrong!

Email to Professor Warwick

Hello Prof. Warwick,

My name is Paul Coffield and I am a second year Multimedia Design student at the University of Huddersfield.

I came across your work as part of my research for a current brief I am working on. The project has had me looking at a technology named Orison [from the book Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell] in relation to a quote from Marshall McLuhans' War & Peace in the Global Village - "We are all robots when uncritically involved with our technologies".

My research has followed 2 different paths:

• How we must become robot-like in order to properly use most technologies, we must follow certain protocols to interact with them
• The ways in which people, such as yourself, have started to allow themselves to become more robot-like but in a literal sense - by adding capabilities that humans are yet to be capable of.

I am of the belief that we humans ultimately aim to become more robotic in order to enhance our lives, and our strengths whilst limiting our weaknesses.

I see this as man taking the torch from nature in the process of evolution. No longer are we letting nature control which defects stay with us and which are killed off. We have decided what we want our bodies to be capable of and we are now looking at how we can achieve these goals through a synthesis of various technologies.

With this being the case, it seems that the opposite is true when looking at the developments of interactions with technologies. We seem to be aiming to make them more organic and less robotic.

I appreciate that you may well be busy at this time of the academic year but if you have any comments regarding my views, or even better if you have any other views on this situation that you would be kind enough to share, I would be very glad to hear them.

I would also like to seek permission to incorporate some of the images form your website for inclusion on my blog [http://orison-tech.blogspot.com/] which has I have set up as a place to host my research finding for this project.

Thank you for your time, I hope to hear from you in the near future.

Paul Coffield

Kick Ass Kung-Fu

Whilst considering different forms of interaction we have with our technologys, I remembered experiencing 'Kick Ass Kung-Fu' at the Media Centre.

This is basically a beat-em up game like Mortal Kombat or Strretfighter but with a difference. In order to fight your opponents, you actually need to punch and kick them! Players stand on a series of mats with the backdrop of a giant blue screen.



A camera records the players movement and this is fed into some custom software. This software in turn generates a replica of the player inside the game footage [which is displayed on large screens at either end of the mats].



As the player traverses the mats punching, kicking and jumping their on-screen representation mimics them. When on-screen contact is made between the replica and the opponents damage is inflicted just as in similar games.

This method of interaction is far superior to that involved when playing Mortal Kombat or Streetfighter. Players are given the chance to physically fight their opponents as they might do so in real life [although without the excessive pain].

When I played this, my session lasted for about 30 minutes. The next morning, the 'realness' of this interaction was felt in most of the muscles in my arms and legs!

I think that this is one of the most organic forms of interaction available, and it is certainly the most organic that I have personally experienced. I can't think of many other applications that allow the user to perform an action as they would do so in daily life, which would then also create a computer based version of the same action.

I feel that although a serious amount of technologies is used with this game, the sheer fact that if I want to kick my opponent, I kick. there is no need to relenquish instinct and force my body to press 'x'.

What presentation?

Paul and I are to present 1 week form today. This fact only sank in yesterday afternoon [thanks Anneke!].

As far as I can see my research has taken 2 different directions, each of which aims to find an answer for a different question.


Each question considers McLuhans' quote but from two different aspects.

Firstly - How we must become 'robots' in order to use and interact with our technologies. As well as looking at current/future developments in interaction which aim to create a more organic experience - which is how I believe the inerface with the Orison to be. I can't recollect any case where the user needs to make any obvious signs of interaction with the Orison, it always just appears to do as it is required to.

Secondly - How we are literally becoming robots - cybernetics. I have been looking at the efforts of scientists to either add extra, or to recover lost functionality. This train of thought also ties in with the awareness and realisation that Sonmi ~451 develops as her senses are introduced to masses of new information. Harnessing the power of extra sensations is one of the goals that is apparent in the field of Cyberenetics.

As for the presentation itself I am not 100% sure about how to 'style it' although paul and I agree that a minimal, yet futuristic design with references to the interface used in Minority Report would be suitable. I had hoped to experiment with the actual functionality of the presentation in order to try and create a more organic navigation scheme. I now however think that this wont be possible with the timescale I have left myself with.

I am still unclear about what to attempt as a multimedia piece to support the point of view offered by the presentation.

War & Peace in the Global Village

I have yet to fully read this book, and to take on McLuhans' point of view. I have however just searched the internet for other peoples opinions of the book and found this quote, from Amazon.com, to be quite interesting:

"If McLuhan hadn't been dead for almost twenty years, he could have written this book yesterday. He speaks to this moment in time. "We are all robots when uncritically involved with our technologies." He makes the point that we have met the enemy and they is us.

He asserts that man has evolved beyond Darwin's limited concept of biological evolution, and we have evolved ourselves with our technology. The computer being an extension of our nervous system, which now senses the whole world.

The pain of modern existence is to be found in the strain of this evolution, and therefor, to be for-warned is to be for-armed. "Unlike the animals, man has no nature but his own history. Electronically, this total history is now potentially present in a kind of simultaneous transparency that carries us into a world of what Joyce calls 'heliotropic noughttime.'

We have been rapt in 'the artifice of eternity' by placing our nervous system around the entire globe." Tired of wondering why you think life sucks? There is some healing balm hear to be found."

I had heard that evolution was a fairly big part of McLuhans' theory, but have as yet to come across exactly how he reaches this conclusion.

Although the above quote has some incorrect grammar, I feel that it is a good point of view to take when considering how "We are all robots when uncritically involved with our technologies". Paul and I had already considered that we must become robot-like when interacting with certain technologies. But I now think that we design those technologies to be like that to further enhance our capabilities, allowing us to see further, hear more, remember everything etc.

Advances in technology have made these enhancements possible, so do we now want to enhance things even further?

Professor Kevin Warwick of the University of Reading, is one person who has undertaken one such further enhancement.

In August 1998, Warwick had a silicon chip implanted into his forearm. This chip was used to track his movement throughout the halls and offices of Reading University's Dept. of Cybernetics. The chip also allowed Warwick to control/operate lights, doors, heaters and other machines.

In March 2002, Warwick had another chip implanted into his arm. This time, the chip contained an array of electrodes which where connected to his median nerve fibres. The chip has since been used to record electric pulses sent through these nerves during specific tasks. These signals have since been used to control an electric wheelchair and an intelligent artificial hand.

One of the goals of these experiments, as reported here on CNN.com, was to improve the lives of those who have suffered spinal damage. The theory is that once the signals being sent by the nerves have been studied, they could be replicated by a machine and fed to the nerves to stimulate movement in the patients body. Although it is currently thought that re-achieving complex movements may be unrealistic, who knows what the future may bring?

We are all robots when uncritically involved with our technologies, but is that because that's how we want to be?

I plan to email Professor Warwick and seek his views on the McLuhan quote. Once I have constructed a good enough request, I shall post it here.

MyLifeBits - The start of the real Orison?

Whilst discussing this project with Paul Chambers, I remembered reading this article in the Guardian over the christmas vacation.

It looks at a project currently being undertaken by Microsoft, entitled MyLifeBits. This project was itself based on the Memex, a project conceived by Vannevar Bush, an American Engineer & Science Administrator, in his 1945 paper As We May Think.



The Memex was a system which allowed the user to establish links between a pair of microfilms, each of which would contain hi-res data - This is said to have been one of the inspirations behind hyperlinks.

Users of the Memex would also be able to add their own information to the microfilm either via photographs or a touch-sensitive translucent screen - an idea which is deemed to be one of the first attempts at a personal computer.

MyLifeBits on the other hand is a basically a multimedia database system.

The project allows one researcher, Gordon Bell, to record almost every aspect of his daily life. From storing his emails and recording conversations to capturing video footage and photographic stills of his experiences.



Each piece of information is stored centrally in a huge database running on Microsoft SQL servers. The information is all tagged with MetaData which creates specific links to each individual nugget, but also allows for hyperlinks to be dynamically generated for every new inclusion.

For instance, a photograph of some friends or family members instantly generates name based metadata regarding the poepl in the composition. This information is then automatically linked to Contact Information, Birthday details, emails, other photos etc.The project seems to allow for a persons life to become entity similar to the internet in size and searchability.

An article in New Scientist considers how in the future of the project, it may be used as a research tool to analyse the lives of our ancestors. This is similar to how the Orison is used in Cloud Atlas.

I believe that the Microsoft project has attempted to make parts of the information gathering stage a more organic experience. GPS, cameras, mouse trackers - these are just some of the tools that are used to input information into the database. Although these technologies are by no means organic technically, they do allow a user to record data using methods that they are already accustomed to, there is no need to follow yet another set of complex instructions in order for the data capturing process to work. The technology seeks to become ubiquitous, and therefore less obtrussive to the user.

What can the Orison do?

This project has somehow managed to almost cease.

I have managed to spend the last 2 weeks distracting myself with other projects, work or general laziness. Today however, I have managed to have a good chat with Paul regarding the Orison, its capabilities and I have given him my copy of Cloud Atlas and told him which chapters he needs to read to get the gist of it all.

Whilst discussinf the Orison with him I remembered a project by Microsoft which aims to do a similar kind of thing to the Orison [maybe someone there read Cloud Atlas?] so I am going to research this project further.

As for our quote "We are all robots when uncritically involved with our technologies" I had not considered it until today.

My initial thoughts are derived from part of my conceptual thinking for my studio project which is starting to look at communications & surveillance.

Basically my starting point was a statement from Iman. He stated that computers follow a very specific set of protocols for every single method of communicating with other computers and peripherals - making mis-communication difficult, if not impossible.

So despite the fact that computers and other machines are created by humans, we must also follow certain protocols in order to use them to their fullest potential. Surely this could be reffered to as being robot-like? The interfaces that we are presented with require to use them only in one or two ways [or maybe 00110001 or 00110010 ways? - binary joke].

I think that, althought the Orison is the starting point, different methods of interfacing with technology will become a large part of our research/presentation.