Cyberculture: Ongoing and Future Implications for Human/Machine Hybrids
Part of Greg Niemeyer's podcast focuses on the relationship between the technical and the social, where the performance of race and gender is most affected because it can now be constructed and fabricated, especially with the aid of a screen persona, which could serve as an actual identity or an alternate identity. For instance, when one creates a "profile" of the self, and advertises it (and by default, their self) on a public space, such as Myspace, or Match.com, one must wonder what goes into the creation of that persona: actual identity, desired identity, perceived identity, or even a completely fake identity - one used either for manipulative means or for a way to test out the experience of an alternate, or an other, identity.
A distinction between the divine origin of gendered identity and the human ability to control what/who one is occurs with this "profile" capability. Instead of one being defined by an outside source (especially by the divinely inspired origin of male (Adam) and female (Eve)), one has the ability to define who they are (or, more importantly, who they want to be). Defining oneself corresponds to Niemeyer's point that the word "cyber" means control. Combining cyber with the word culture (which Niemeyer says is the act of telling stories) forms a cyberculture: a way to control the stories one tells about self and other. How does one illustrate who they are with this cyber "mask"? Is the mask deceptive or more revealing?
In his class, Niemeyer poses an assignment for his students where they must figure out how to decipher human consciousness versus a computational consciousness. He notes that chatbots have the ability to arouse emotion, particularly negative emotion, in actual humans. In this way, Niemeyer illustrates that the line between the human and computational consciousness may be blurring.
This blurred line may beget or signfiy the "cyborg" - a human being that is part analog and part digital.
How can communication exist between the two forms of existence (previously thought as completely separate in nature) if the digital is (traditionally) considered inanimate, objective, and ultimately, programmed?
(My answer is that humans animate the inanimate all the time - personification of non-persons is an inevitable consequence to living with only a human perception. Another answer for consideration might be that the digital mirrors an uncomfortable reality: that we are programmed/programmable; thus, we are able to connect with a programmed machine...).
Which is more authentic: a digital voice or an analog voice? Which would you prefer to have and why?
