The concept of “the end” was discussed in Professor Dalke’s section today. We talked about whether or not something can officially end, or if a person or event carries on once the literal end has come and gone. I believe that by carrying on the feelings, beliefs, customs, and ideas of those who have passed we help to keep that person from “ending.” I think there is no end to an individual if he or she has made an impact, even on just one person. If this one person is able to incorporate what he or she has learned from interacting with the deceased individual, then that person will live on. Based on this interpretation, there is not a definite “end” to a person after their death.

I was reading an interview with German filmmaker, Werner Herzog, in the most recent issue of GQ and Herzog said something that made me think about our discussion of the “efficiency of communication” we had on Monday. Herzog said, “I think psychology and self-reflection is one of the major catastrophes of the twentieth century. A major, major mistake…explaining and scrutinizing the human soul, into all its niches and crooks and abysses and dark corners, is not doing good to humans. We have to have our dark corners and the unexplained.

As we discussed the relation of Tron to our class, I was struck by the intersections between Tron and GIST. However, I also realized a significant difference. (I’d like to mention here that I do realize/appreciate how the film relates to/complements the themes of the course, I just saw an interesting contrast as well…) In this class, we have done our best to break down boundaries and binaries, searching for the “spectrum” of gray rather than individual shades. I have really appreciated this because I think it’s important to understand how these boundaries work/don’t work and the purposes they attempt to serve.

In continuing our discussion Chorost and new technologies Professor Dalke brought up Paul Grobstein and his discussion of language: we need an ambiguous transaction in order to get a response.

Mirella questioned if efficiency is getting rid of ambiguity? Can efficient communication still have an inaccuracy?

Sadie pointed out that we presume that efficient forms of communication (sending a text) can be more accurate when in fact it could be more ambiguous. (what did that text really mean)

The line between literature and science has definitely blurred for me after this class, and I may go so far as to say it has disappeared. I think that, as Laura said, “boxing and compartmentalizing” aspects of academia and the world can sometimes just hinder us. Literature and science are just two ways of telling stories about the world. Some people had trouble with the idea that science is a “story”, but I think that is only problematic if we assume stories are all lies. We have this notion that there is more truth in science, when stories contain truth about the human condition. Emotions people experience, life experiences, the sense of past and future—these are all things that we can account for, that we know exist because we have felt them. Just because