A concept does not have to change its original form in order for it to take on multiple interpretations. While a common idea may remain constant, it is the unique application of the individual that will vary and allow that idea to develop into multiple forms. Johnson demonstrates this idea in his piece while describing the story of Alan Turing and his colleague, Claude Shannon. While they both worked on the creation of a thinking machine that would be used to recognize patterns, Turing “had imagined his thinking machine primarily in terms of logical possibilities” while “Shannon pushed him to think of the machine as something closer to an actual human brain” (Johnson 202). These two very different scientists use their own varying perspectives to interpret the meaning of one common machine. This machine does not change its purpose, the functions that its meant to carry out remains the same, however its structure is viewed in multiple ways because of the unique outlooks each individual is able to contribute. Davidson also displays this idea of a common machine being used in many ways through the structure of her iPod experiment. Davidson told the students of Duke University to develop their own apps that would transform the use of the iPod to fit their own unique education. This prompt encourages music students to “upload compositions to their iPods so their fellow music students could listen and critique” and med students to create “an auto library with all the possible arrhythmias” (Davidson 53). Even students from the School of the Environment were able to “upload the day's interviews to a course website, and (allow) any other student (to) download and comment” (Davidson 52). The common concept of the iPod was interpreted in many different ways depending on the student, on that students need and requirements of his or her education. The structure of the iPod remained constant, however, the purpose varied by the individual. Similar to many common concepts, the individual is able to take this iPod and find multiple functions suitable to his or her own needs. There is no need to alter the original function of this device, but simply develop its capabilities into those more specific to the individual.
My peer editor encouraged me to include more analysis and explanation of my own ideas and also more connection between texts.
Revised Paragraph:
A concept does not have to change its original form in order for it to take on multiple interpretations. The purpose of common ideas is that they are developed collectively and stay consistent in its structure according to all people. However, while the structure of a common idea may remain constant, it is the unique application an individual puts on it that varies and allows that idea to develop into multiple forms. Depending on his or her own perspective, an individual may apply a particular function to a common concept that no other individual would. Johnson demonstrates this idea in his piece while describing the story of Alan Turing and his colleague, Claude Shannon. While they both worked on the creation of a thinking machine that would be used to recognize patterns, Turing “had imagined his thinking machine primarily in terms of logical possibilities” while “Shannon pushed him to think of the machine as something closer to an actual human brain” (Johnson 202). These two very different scientists use their own varying perspectives to interpret the meaning of one common machine. This machine does not change its purpose, the functions that its meant to carry out remains the same, however its structure is viewed in multiple ways because of the unique outlooks each individual is able to contribute. Through the collective intelligence of both scientists, they are able to develop a common concept for the thinking machine, however, the creators are abe to individually interpret how they will think of the machine. Davidson also displays this idea of a common machine being used in many ways through the structure of her iPod experiment. Davidson told the students of Duke University to develop their own apps that would transform the use of the iPod to fit their own unique education. This prompts music students to “upload compositions to their iPods so their fellow music students could listen and critique” and med students to create “an auto library with all the possible arrhythmias” (Davidson 53). Even students from the School of the Environment were able to “upload the day's interviews to a course website, and (allow) any other student (to) download and comment” (Davidson 52). The common concept of the iPod was interpreted in many different ways depending on the student, on the needs of that student and requirements of his or her education. The structure of the iPod, just like Turing's thinking machine, remains constant, however, the purpose given to the iPod varies by the individual. Similar to many common concepts, the individual is able to take this iPod and find multiple functions suitable to his or her own needs. Johnson and Davidson both demonstrate how machines are able to assist in particular needs and act in certain ways according to the perspective of the agent. There is no need to alter the original function of this device, but simply develop its capabilities into those more specific to the individual.
Here, I elaborate more on the ideas I introduce and assure that the paragraph of the topic is clearly demonstrated throughout. I also make sure that I connect the common ends of the two texts.
No comments:
Post a Comment