Am I My Brother's Keeper?

The “White Bear” episode of Black Mirror is about a woman named Victoria who is being continuously tortured and used as a sideshow attraction for the murder of a child. The episode starts off with Victoria waking up confused and scared and searching for clues as to who she is when she finds a picture of a girl that she assumes is her daughter. She wanders out of the house to find people to inquire about her identity and location. When Victoria finds others, they do not help her and instead videotape her as she is being chased by a masked man with the “white bear” symbol. She meets a woman named Jem who helps her escape and they plan to destroy the radio signal controlling the people who record everything. When they get there and destroy some of the machines they are attacked by the controllers and they reveal that Victoria is part of an act. They reveal that Victoria, along with her now deceased fiancé, kidnapped and murdered the girl in the photo and she videotaped the girl burning alive. She is then paraded around the town like a circus animal with people shouting and throwing things at her. Victoria pleads for the organizers to just kill her, but instead they lock her in a room and painfully erase her memory so they could start the show all over again.

In the film, there were two things that stuck out to me. One was the theory regarding crime and punishment as it relates to reformed individuals. Victoria’s memory had to be erased multiple times for her punishment to ensue. One could argue that because her memory was erased that she is not the same person who participated in the killing of the child. However, if you abide by this theory then she should not have to endure the multiple punishments that are attributed to her in the film. She should only have to endure it once and then be absolved from the murder of the child. But at the same time one must think about the parents of the child. How do these multiple punishments affect them, having to relive the death of their daughter repeatedly? It is as if they are being punished as well as Victoria.

The other was how it is commonplace for inhumanity to be captured with a camera, both towards others and oneself. When there is a fight or argument that takes place, it is routine to see people film the altercation rather than stop it. It is a wonder if this practice were to still occur if the individuals filming were also charged with a crime for not assisting a fellow human in need. This same argument can be made for people who view suicides on Facebook Live. Should they be charged for not alerting authorities to intervene in a difficult moment in a person’s life. These are not easy questions to answer, however because these situations are even questions in the first place shows how society has degenerated and the need for change is prevalent.

The Obvious Machine

In Black Mirror's "Be Right Back", the idea of using an artificial intelligence with the access to one's entire online data and a human-based cybernetic body to mimic the character and personality of a deceased loved one and its effects on the mind of the buyer is quite an interesting topic. With the Uncanny Valley in mind, this practice of technology found in the film brings much discomfort and awkwardness not only to the main character, Martha, but also to the viewers of the film. At first, Martha got use to this new beta program with ease, but once it reached to a certain extent (that being activating an android with the online memories of her lover, Ash), she could not handle it much longer. Knowing what her Ash looked and acted like before versus the appearance of this new machine only adds onto the discomfort and distrust. If one were to place both the original Ash and the copy Ash next to one another, most people would be able to tell which is human and which isn't.

Obvious differences such as copy Ash's extremely pale skin, hyper-artificial red hair, his slow and indifferent tone, are all examples. Even more specific details like copy Ash's missing body moles, and altered gaps in place of missing pieces of personality traits, such as his submissiveness and greater performance in sex, add onto it. Of course, if one were to see the android before ever lying eyes on the original person, it would be difficult to tell if the copy was human or not (which would not be considered a simulation anyways, the real one must also be shown); but the point being that in comparing the real person with the machine by close observation on movement, appearance, and mood/tone can reveal the identity of the impostor. It is this Uncanny Valley system that's hard wired into our brains that not only establishes this odd and uneasy feeling towards the falsehoods of non-biological objects attempting to act real and living, but it also give humans and sometimes other animals the ability to pinpoint these pretenders. But with the further advancement of technology, there very well may be no way to tell the difference between man and machine. Technology is advancing faster than anyone can imagine. With science fiction opening doors of imagination and curiosity, and modern sciences improving constantly, a future with machines like this is bound to come about. And beyond that future, that future's future, a perfect machine may exist; and with it, all the consequences and controversies that trail along it.

No in Betweens

      In response to our class discussion, I was very intrigued by the idea of who in my class voted for which candidate, or if they even voted. Even though I've only been alive to acknowledge two presidential elections, this election seemed to be very judgmental on the decision of the individual. For example, I believe that many people think that if you voted for Trump you believe in the "anti's" of every single belief there is: you hate Muslims, you despise immigrants, your pro racism, and every other deplorable thing that Trump is known for. For those who voted for Hillary were known for the opposite of all those descriptions that Trump voters were. 

     I find it very captivating when Dr. Johnson in class mentions that Trump voters took things very seriously and not literally and liberals took things very literally and not seriously. I believe this is absolutely true, along the side that Trump was the “outsider” in politics and Clinton was the “insider” in all politics. America wanted something different, they had enough insiders, they wanted an outsider that would show America something different; and clearly the Electoral College definitely agreed. However, in the position I was in, I personally did not categorize Trump or Clinton voters in any category. I am indifferent with the two, I was neither oppose or for either of them. Yes, both candidates had different views, ideas, and values, and I appealed to both. However, under the pressure of my Hispanic family and friends it would have been a disgrace to even think about voting for Trump. Even my friends and some of fraternity brothers would disapprove because I was in between both, as if there was no in between. You were this southern, outdated voter who believed in the “good ole’ days” or you were the feminists, outspoken liberal that had problems with anything that was not pro Clinton. 

       Regardless of who we voted for, I still believe the consensus that we made in class is the results we need to face and accept. Someone on Twitter said, that we shouldn't be demeaning Trump because its as if he was the pilot on a plane trying to get us from point A to B and we wouldn't want anything to happen to us along the way. Regardless, our vote mattered but we should all accept the results and make the best of it, regardless of the candidate. 

Living Legend.... Living Lie

This episode was your average hour of drama. Catfish definitely did its job when it came to this episode, which included Angela. Angela has taken on different personas online, and I'm not talkin about some wigs and a pair of glasses in order to not only be sneaky and decisive, but to find what she unfortunately does not have embedded in her home life. Angela has created these people who she is not because her home life was hopeless and there was no love in her partnership and she wanted that. For Angela, attention, is definitely, a drug and unfortunately, Angela is hooked. When you are the center of attention, of course it can be a drug, simply because it feels good to have people's thoughts on and about you. This was a technical escape for Angela and it helped to not be Angela, but to be Carol or Pam or whoever she wanted to be that was happy. The question is was she wrong for what she did? Honestly her lie was absolutely wrong, but her intentions were absolutely pure. Angela was genuinely attempting to be happy and if she had to lie to do that, then that waa exactly what she was going to do. She found exactly that in her relationship with Nev and honestly I was happy for her, but there was always the question of if she was really the person she said she was, could she had been happy with her new life. But, Angela isn`t the only person that is out there that does this and the only difference between Angela and them, is that she wasn't looking to be malicious, she wasn't actually looking for something she emotionally didn't have. But, I believe what she is doing is unhealthy and obviously I feel as though she didn't have to do that, she should have just gotten out of this situation just like any other empowered woman. Angela was desperate and in a way I am happy that she found an outlet of escape, but dissapointed that she had to lie to do it. The question that in in my mind is does Angela certainly fit the description of a catfish and if she really persued a relationship with Nev and what if he was able to look pass her lies and accept her for who she was, what kind of relationship could have flourished?

Why Are We Fishing For Cats? They Tend to Hate Water.

     Catfish was an adventure from start to finish. The entire story is jump-started by a woman so lonely and desperate that she poses as multiple people online for validation and human connection. The question is: Was this the right way to go about it?
 An argument could be made against the opinion that she lied. All of the personas she displayed were extensions of the different Angela(s) she could have been. Every profile she made was another repressed dream she couldn't live in her daily life. Yes, she fabricated a few tales, but was it actually a lie for her? In her mind, wasn't she Meghan, Abby, Trisha, Vincent, Bobby, Dudley and so on?
      Another notable opposition could be the fact that she cheated on her husband to receive the connection she so longed for. Personally, I don't think Angela really cheated on her partner. She was never physically with Nev to do so, but I do agree that the act would have occurred had the barrier not been there. I also don't doubt that Angela was gone to her family. She was run down and tuckered out, hanging on by the skin of her teeth. It wasn't a wonder that she would become seriously emotionally attached to anyone who treated her as well as Nev did. Does this mean that she cheated on her husband? The answer to that depends on the person, and the opinion can be defended either way. 
     What I primarily turned my focus to when thinking about this particular Catfish situation was the lie. Fortunately (or unfortunately) in this situation, the only real lies constructed were those of a name and a face. Oh, poor boy, her name was actually Angela and she's not a blonde. A rose by any other name still smells as sweet, but in this case, is that true? The real problem with this honestly small lie is the pretense of the unknown. Potentially everything Angela has shared about herself (while posed as Meghan) is true, but how do we or Nev know this? What else could be shrouded in dishonesty. Taking not only that into account but also the declarations of friendship and desire and even stronger emotions established during their relationship- how, with all those feelings and loyalties, can you continuously lie to someone you'd call upon so endearingly?
     When looking at Angela's home life, I can seriously see where her sense of hopelessness could have stemmed from. The lack of self she had is truly a smack in the face for anyone! Maybe that lacking in her life was gained back through her interactions with Nev. Maybe a sense of self was gained from these daily conversations. Even still, the fact that she would do this while basically disregarding the consequences for herself and the one she effected is wrong. Yes, this truly could have been much worse, but it wasn't. It's this, and it's still not the right way to go about it. I don't believe it ever will be.

Was Justice Served?

At the beginning, I thought that the film was about how society is too in tune with technology to help this poor innocent woman. At the end, it is revealed that the woman is convicted criminal that is being punished. The woman filmed her fiancé torturing and murdering a little girl. The punishment the woman receives for her crime is worse than death. She has her memory erased every night, wakes up not knowing who she is, gets chased by people who seem to be trying to kill her, finds out who she really is and is forced to do it over and over again. Is this justice? Well, yes and no. The first time it is done it is justice, because she feels what the little girl must have felt and is remorseful. However, the next fifteen or so times are no longer justice but torture. The woman is not learning a lesson by constantly having her memory erased. She is an innocent person unaware of why she is doing what she is doing. The remorse that she feels when her identity is revealed to her is wiped away once they erase her memory. If the true purpose of the park was to make her sorry for her crime, then erasing her memory is defeating the purpose. I think that the woman and her fiancé’s case drew so much attention that the park was made to profit off of the popularity of the case. People came from far and near to participate in the show, and torture the woman. The park is far crueler than being hanged, the electric chair, or lethal injection. At least with those other punishments, the person only has to experience it once. This woman has to experience psychological torture every day for being a bystander. Yes, she was wrong for filming the crime, instead of trying to stop it, but not even the worst criminal on earth deserves the torture the woman is put through. No one knows what was going on in her and her fiancé’s relationship, and honestly no one cares. That’s just not human nature to think about what goes on in someone’s home that might cause them to act in certain ways. Even after I found out what she did, I felt bad for her, and wanted someone to help her. I think that the people and owners of the park allowed their personal feeling to cloud their judgement of what true justice is.           

Welcome... To Barbaric Park! *Music Swells*

              Once again, Black Mirror provides much food for thought. The questions offered by this week’s episode, White Bear, are focused on the topic of justice. Specifically, what is justice? What does the future hold for the criminal justice system? And what does justice look like when it has been taken too far? I shall tilt my hand a bit early by giving a brief answer to the third question: it would look a lot like White Bear. 

            Before we can answer whether or not the punishment decided on for Victoria is appropriate, however, we must first establish what the goal is of the criminal justice system. There are many schools of thought on the role of the justice system in an industrialized nation: some believe the purpose of the justice system is to punish wrongdoers for their crimes, others believe it functions only to keep the criminal elements of society away from the law-abiding citizens (Thank you, Criminal Justice 200). The two that have the most traction, however, are the theory that the justice system should strive to rehabilitate its prisoners, and the view that it should serve as a preventative measure by deterring potential misbehavior with the threat of punishment. From this latter viewpoint, I would say that the White Bear park is a rousing success. The thought of potentially being subjected to extended periods of torture for being convicted of a crime would certainly make me stand a little straight a little bit straighter were I a member of this society. Though I can’t imagine an individual being subjected to this experience for being convicted of possession or for speeding in a school zone, it’s certainly easy to imagine those convicted of violent felonies such as assault, murder, rape, or aggravated *blank* getting parks of their own, or potentially replacing Victoria once she’s been fried.
            However, from the perspective that holds the role of the judiciary system is to rehabilitate prisoners and reintroduce them in to society, the park is an absolute dismal failure. Victoria is presented with absolutely no chances to reflect on, regret, or even acknowledge her actions. With this display being an apparently daily occurrence and her memory being wiped each night, she spends the vast majority of her existence completely unaware she has done anything wrong, and without that knowledge it’s impossible to repent for her role in the child’s gruesome fate. Even if it was a one-time event, it is still unlikely that she would have been properly rehabilitated without her memories having been restored. Her entire existence has now been relegated to an outlet for the righteous fury of an outraged community.
            Of course, none of the commentary thus far has even touched on the issue of whether or not Victoria deserves to be punished like this, or if they are even punishing the “right” Victoria. Though scant details of the case are presented, I found it curious that her plea of coercion fell on such apparently utterly deaf ears. History is full of people who did things they did not want to under the instruction of someone of perceived authority. These range from members of cults mindlessly following their leader’s instructions to the atrocities committed by German Nazis in the 1930-40’s. But, ignoring all this and supposing she fully and willfully participated in the crime, this punishment is still inappropriate. Many of my classmates touched on the importance of memories in one’s identity during our discussion of Be Right Back and it is no less relevant here. Much of who we are is dictated by our memories, and without hers Victoria was as innocent of the crime her past self committed as I am.
            In summary, this program of putting a woman’s suffering on display is a complete miscarriage of justice in every facet. Question for those who wish to comment: suppose the purpose of the criminal justice system was not to rehabilitate, but any of the other options presented above. Does this method of punishment become appropriate then? And does it become morally permissible?

Victoria: Justice Park or Torture Park?

As we continue watching the different episodes of “Black Mirror,” different questions surrounding morality and justice are arising. In this particular episode, “White Bear” we are presented with many different problems that could be highly influenced based on a person's view on what is morally permissible and justifiable.When I watch this film two specific questions arise: Is the Victoria that aided in the torture of a little girl the same woman that is being tortured? Should punishment be rehabilitative or is it meant for punitive results?

As the story starts, main character, Victoria, is obviously delirious and unaware of her surroundings. She gets flashes of images that she tries to form into memories, to gain recollection of where she is and what is going on. Throughout the episode, she is running away from people who are trying to kill her, and she is trying to understand why witnesses of her being chased are only filming her. However, the turning point of the story is when we learn that Victoria is re-living the crimes that she and her husband committed to a little girl. She gets her memories wiped and relieves this torture daily.

Based in this information, is Victoria really Victoria? Technically, Victoria is the same physical person, but mentally Victoria is not Victoria. It can be said that most people associate their identity based on the experiences of life, and how they respond to them, but Victoria has no sense of her identity because she has no memories of herself. She only gets flashes of times, which don’t reveal any meaningful information. Based on the sole reason that Victoria is not mentally aware of her crimes makes me take the position that the Victoria that is being punished is not the same Victoria that committed the crime.

However, that does not dismiss the fact that Victoria once committed a terrible crime and has to be dealt a punishment. In this particular case, the “park” has intentions on giving “eye for an eye” punishment, but seems treacherous and extends “eye for an eye” punishment because it happens multiple times. Although Victoria has no memory of this reoccurring, the fact that her memory gets wiped each time and is relieved daily makes it treacherous and extreme. Which addresses the second question: Should punishment be rehabilitative or is is only for punitive uses? My personal opinion is that punishments should be rehabilitative because it will allow people to understand their actions; they will understand why they did it, why it wasn’t right and why it should not happen again. Rehabilitative punishment will allow people to learn the error of their ways, and decrease the chances of similar instances reoccurring. Punitive punishment doesn’t have the same results. Normally, people serve the time for the crime, and think nothing more of their crime. White Bear has raised many different questions when dealing with ideas surrounding justice, so when thinking about these questions put this instance into perspective and determine what measures you feel will be the most justified.

Evaluations of "White Bear"

The episode "White Bear" of the series Black Mirror was your average Lifetime movie. It carried the drama and tension for the audience, who sat on the edge of his or her seat. In addition, the episode conveyed a message just like Lifetime movies teach us a lesson. The message included two topics that we have discussed in class this semester: justice and technology. One would think that these two would not mix; but, because of newfound technology today, anything can occur. I would like to address these two topics.

 First, I want to address the topic of justice. When they revealed what really happened with the main character, I had one question in mind: Why didn't she get the same treatment as her fiancé? Was it because of her gender? Or sex? In class Friday many felt that her fiancé got away with the crime; in contrast, I feel that he got off easy simply because he hung himself. If he hadn't kilt himself, then he would have been killed anyway by other prisoners. I say this because it is said that men who kill or rape children do not survive. But, the main character went through so much physical and mental pain for an act she simply watched her fiancé commit. In my opinion, it should have been vice versa; the main character should have been incarcerated while her fiancé is put through physical and mental pain. But, as Dr. J stated in class Friday, this may have been a custom or tradition the country in which the suspect resides in. As a young lady, I feel that the main character was punished due to the fact that she was a woman.

Next, I would like to address the topic/issue of technology. Honestly, I was very clueless about the bystanders holding their phones recording the main character everywhere she went. It made me feel sorry for the main character because she was lost and didn't even know her own identity. The use of technology heavily contributed to this because, every time she looks at the strange, white logo on any type of screen, it would severely strike a nerve in the brain. The technology was like the poison to her, but was sugar to the bystanders. Some may notice that this is surely becoming our society as technology is taking over.

In conclusion, this episode opened various discussions on different topics. An additional topic that some thought about was the justice system/ government. This prompted concerns and questions that deserve answers. Will the United States government ever reach this sort of punishment? Or, could it actually be close? We can only wait and see.

Is It Really Teaching Her?

"White Bear” is a short story from the eerie series Black Mirror. The beginning scene opens up to a young woman that seems to be forcibly placed in a chair. The woman wakes up and has no idea who she is or what is going on. She starts to investigate the house around her and on every television screen is a symbol that plays a high pitch tone. As she wonders out of the house, she sees people watching her from the windows. The woman begs for the people within the windows to help her, but they do not help her. She is terrified as the next moment a car with a mask gets out of a car and tries to shoot her. The woman runs across town with the entire community staring at her through their phones. She finds two people that come across as normal and joins them. The three of them try to run away from the masked man; with unfortunately one of them gets shot by the man. The other woman explains to the main character why these people are acting this way and that the signal needs to be stopped. The main character and the other woman found agree to stick together and shut down the signal tower, located at White Bear. The woman receives small bits of flashbacks of a little girl and a young man. The two get picked up by a strange man that drives them into the woods, but he has tricked them in order to kill them both. After a bit of struggle, they shoot the crazed man and are able to escape to White Bear. The main character realizes that there is something wrong with White Bear and freaks out about going there. The two women reach the facility and try to set the place on fire.The two woman are caught and begin to fight for their lives. The main character picks up the gun to shoot her attacker, only to have confetti pop out. The facility then opens up to stage and we finally learn what's going on. The main character is a woman named Victoria, who kidnapped a little girl and videotaped her fiance torturing the girl. Then after the information is told to Victoria about what she did, they take her back to clear her memory, and start the whole thing over again. We see the similarities between Victoria and the little girl. Both were scared, frighten, and were videotaped instead of being helped. This was an eye for an eye justice. I do not see how this effective in rehabilitating Victoria. The person that committed the crime is not the same person being punished. She does not remember committing the crime at all, so there is no connection between identity and memory. If they wanted to effectively teach her a lesson, they should do the action once and then inform her about what she did wrong. I'm not sure how I feel about this eye for eye justice. For some cases I can agree with it, but for others it just seems a little much. If it were to be used in our criminal justice system, it needs to be critiqued some before it is made into the real thing. 

Is it Punishment or is it Torture?

Was it a rightful punishment or a cruel form of torture?  This is one of the questions that was raised after watching the short film "White Bear."  In the film, a woman named Victoria awakens with no memory of her identity and sees a mysterious white symbol appearing on the television scene.  After walking outside, Victoria quickly notices that bystanders are filming her via cellphone for no apparent reason.  To make matters worse, a man wearing a black mask with the same white symbol confronts and chases her with shotgun in hand while people continue to film the situation taking place.  She runs into to two drifters and barricades herself with them in an old gas station.  One of the drifters is shoot while Victoria and the other girl escape.  The girl tells Victoria that some sort of outbreak has happened in which people have started filming things due to the appearance of the white symbol seen earlier in the film.  Because of this, individuals called "hunters" wreak havoc upon society, knowing that everyone around them is only fixated upon filming the mayhem.  The two resolve to destroy the signal after being betrayed by a man who was the one shooting at Victoria earlier.  At the radio station, Victoria and the drifter confront two hunters that have been pursuing them since the beginning of the film.  The fight comes to an abrupt stop, revealing that the whole thing was an elaborate act.  Victoria is restrained to a chair and watches a clip about her and her fiancée Ian torturing and killing a six-year-old girl.  Although Ian was the one who initially harmed the girl, Victoria was guilty of recording the girl's death, instead of stopping the violence.  As a result, she is doomed to relive the previous events without any memory of what has happened before. 


The events in the film are an example of torture.  Although it was wrong for Victoria to have participated in the death of six-year-old Jemima, it was even more wrong for the individuals of The White Bear Justice Park to torture her and use it for public entertainment.  When someone is punished for his or her crimes, that person is supposed to have retain the knowledge of what he or she did, and it should stick with that person for the rest of his or her life.  In "White Bear," Victoria's punishment ends with her losing the memory of her crime.  Even though she is reminded of what she did by the host of the show, she will forget about it the next day.  The point I want to make is that Victoria is not learning a lesson from her mistake or being rehabilitated.  The whole purpose of a punishment is to be reprimanded for the offense and to be deterred from ever doing it again.

Capital Punishment and the Injustice Seen in "White Bear"

Capital punishment has been a heavily debated issue: Should the practice be abolished because of its immorality and injustice, or is it a justifiable means of punishing criminals? In practice, crimes such as murder, treason, espionage, terrorism, or large-scale drug trafficking can be punishable by death in the United States. While not exactly "eye for an eye" justice, capital punishment can be comparable to eye for an eye because the one who committed the crime is being dealt a punishment that is the same or similar in severity to the crime. Murder is the simplest example, where one who kills is killed--a punishment that is the same as the crime. So, is capital punishment justifiable? I look to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for an answer.

According to the CCC, capital punishment is typically condemned in most cases because it does not acknowledge the God-given dignity that all humans have (in addition to the obvious conflicts with the Fifth Commandment). However, the CCC states that execution is allowed if two criteria are met. 1.) The public must have "full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender" and 2.) no other "practical way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor" is available (CCC 2267). In other words, the public must know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person in question did in fact commit the crime he or she is accused of, and there must be no other way to protect the public from the criminal. If those conditions are met, then according to the CCC, the death penalty can be issued.

In the society we live in today, such a case where the death penalty would be justified would likely never arise. First, there have been a surprisingly (even alarmingly) high number of people sentenced to death row that have been later found innocent. This proves that the United States' justice system makes mistakes, and that they cannot always say beyond a shadow of a doubt that a given criminal is guilty of his or her crime. Secondly, prisons do a very good job of protecting society from dangerous criminals. A person behind bars certainly can't do any harm to the public.

Let us consider the "justice" seen in the film White Bear. Victoria, the woman accused and convicted of kidnapping, torturing, and killing a child, must endure a strict eye for an eye punishment everyday for an undetermined amount of time. While she is not exactly sentenced to death, her punishment could be comparable to the death penalty because of the sheer severity of the punishment. At one point, Victoria even asks for death, implying that what she is going through is a worse punishment than execution. Even though everyone is the film knows that Victoria is guilty of her crime, it is clear that the society in which she lives in is capable of containing her and protecting the public from her. Thus, such an extreme punishment would be unjustified by the CCC. Indeed, the punishment done to Victoria in the film is not only immoral, but counterproductive. The ultimate goal of punishment should be to rehabilitate the wrongdoer, not to torture them. Once the punishment has run its course, the criminal should be able to reenter into society, and not be constantly judged or discriminated against for his or her past actions. It is clear that by keeping Victoria in a seemingly endless cycle of torture, no one really benefits.

"What punishment is right for unacceptable behavor?"

My opinions on the capital punishment were completely different entering this semester. I was one for capital punishment, since we are seeing more and more reckless and irresponsible shootings in our society today. However, seeing what the death penalty does to the person being executed and the people administrating the execution has changed my opinion. As of now, I am not for the death penalty however; "White Bear" has brought a very interesting aspect to punishments for inexcusable crimes. Seeing the end of the movie, I thought the main character was on the protagonist but at the end, she was for all of the wrong reasons. She is still culpable of the crime, even if she loses her identity every day, since her actions put what is left of her in this situation. The outside problem with the main character in this movie is her holding the phone, watching the killing of her daughter. Her intent of recording the killing may have not been for this, but the idea of "trying to get the most views" is taking over society today. We see more people focused on trying to record actions to get attention. Take school fights for example, most people you see surrounding the fight watching it are recording the fight to put on social media later. Then even worse, some of us watch brawls between people on the internet and social media like its daily entertainment. It’s a psychological norm that as more bystanders appear, less help will come out of it. We need to realize that this is wrong and do the morally right thing, which is to find help, primarily the police. As it pertains to the video, depending on the kind of crime a person does, I have no problem with this being a punishment. Using the movie as an example, reliving the same terrifying day for what she did is appropriate. What she did was unnecessary and the crime that she and her husband did should not go unnoticed without a proper punishment. However, this kind of punishment should not be a life sentence. This kind of punishment should not go any longer than a month for extreme situations. Comparing this to the death penalty, I would say that this punishment is more harmful to the person and is better suited for heinous crimes. I have mixed feelings on whether her memory should have been wiped out every day. I feel that as a bystander watching this is kind of awkward and a little creepy. Thus, I wouldn’t go to watch this, you would have to treat me like a paid actor to participate in watching this unfold.

Why Do We Find The Uncanny Valley So Creepy?

The Uncanny Valley was created by Masahiro Mori which is described by the increase of affection humans start to show towards robots when they start to become human like, but only to a certain extent if it begins to develop more human characteristics, actual humans will develop a negative response towards the robot. If human likeliness began to increase beyond the point of discomfort, and they became very close to human, the emotional response would eventually turn back to being positive. I believe the Uncanny Valley begins at three different areas.

The first uncanny valley may occur when something moves from one category to another, in this case, between nonhuman and human. For example, humans began to develop a sense of uneasiness when over time mannequin faces were morphed into human faces and researchers found a valley at the point where the inanimate face started to look alive.

Second, the presence of a valley may hinge on whether we are able to believe that near-human entities possess a mind, as we do. Scientist found that robots became unnerving when people thought they had the ability to sense and experience things, and robots that did not seem to possess a mind were not frightening.

A final compelling area for future research is that the uncanny valley occurs because mismatches between the robot's appearance and behavior. People have looked at many types of mismatch, including speech synchronization, speech speed and facial expressions. A study showed that near-human agents that reacted to a startling noise by showing surprise in the lower part of their face (not the upper part) were found to be particularly odd.

We must also realize that the uncanny valley does not only correlate with technology, but also in many other categories. The uncanny valley can develop with race, gender, and nationality or citizenship. Our society considers these categories as someone passing for someone or something they are really not which can cause tension between groups of people. These different subjects raise ethical questions such as lying, political questions like racism, social and political order, and personal identity which raises the sub question such as who am I, what makes me “ human”, and how do I know.

In conclusion, the uncanny valley is how we perceive the world to be and to act and when something or someone rattles that perception it causes a discomfort in our society.

Man or Machine? The Metaphysics of AI in "Be Right Back"

        Probably one of the most disconcerting issues with the development of artificial intelligence is our fundamental inability to understand what is considered foreign. It is difficult to understand Ash 2.0 in the same sense that it is difficult to understand the motives and reasoning of a psychopathic serial killer. Despite obvious deviations from human behavior, we still regard most psychopaths as human and give them rights as such, yet we have issues with ascribing human status to Ash 2.0. Why? Because it's uncanny. A human should not have to "act" like a human, nor should he/she be able to function without eating or sleeping. But is it really this simple? After all, Aristotle said that reason is what separates humans from other things, and Ash 2.0 clearly shows reason in the adjustments of his behavior. Let's look at this from Ash 2.0's perspective.
        In order to try and understand Ash 2.0, it is important to consider what I will refer to as his "role," that is, to be a replica of Ash. He was made by a company in order to mimic Ash's personality as closely as possible, but this process requires him to learn and adapt based on new information presented to him. Throughout the episode, we see Ash 2.0 adjust his personality and behavioral traits as he learns, such as incorporating the phrase "throwing a jib" into his speech. We can never say that Ash 2.0 is really Ash because this is a futile effort; Ash 2.0 will always learn and imitate as new information arises, but he can never fully mimic Ash's personality because he will always be lacking some information. This basic flaw is what causes conflict with Martha because she wants Ash 2.0 to be the real Ash, which is an unattainable dream.
        Now, imagine that you are asked to assume the identity of a person that you do not know anything about; let's call him Bob. You can mimic Bob's appearance, but the only way to take on his personality is to mimic what you can find out about him based on his online presence: his Facebook, emails, texts, etc. You study for weeks and learn all his speaking patterns, you meet his friends and colleagues while in disguise, and you eventually pick up on all his mannerisms as well, completely indistinguishable from the real person. After years of the farce, you forget who the real you was, what you were like, and what your name even was. Now, are you Bob? "Don't be ridiculous," you would say, "just because I imitate someone does not make me that person." Well, you now have no identity of your own, so I might say that if you are not Bob, then you couldn't possibly be human. This is the fundamental problem with calling Ash 2.0 a human. His role eliminates any possibility of being human because it is contradictory: If he could somehow become the real Ash (which is impossible), then he would be human, and if he developed his own personality, then he might be called human if we consider Aristotle's definition of humanity. However, Ash 2.0 is in the in-between, never fully becoming Ash, but never deviating from him either. Still need convincing? Look at this handsome face:

        The 1999 Warner Bros. film The Iron Giant features an AI-controlled character with a much more robotic visage than Ash 2.0. Of course, we could easily attribute our fondness of him to the uncanny valley, but I believe that most of us who remember this film would agree that the Giant is human by the end of the story (at least by using Aristotle's definition). Why? Because he chooses forsake his role of a weapon and instead strives to become human, using Superman as a model of behavior. This goal is something that Ash 2.0 cannot possibly achieve since his very role denies him that choice, much like how the Giant would never have had a choice had he not bumped his head at the beginning of the movie. Thus, Ash 2.0 cannot be called human because he is neither Ash nor is he a being for himself. "You are who you choose to be." If choosing is not an option, then who are we?

Be Right Back by Ryan Mabry

I chose to write my blog post on the short film “Be Right Back.” The film was an extremely interesting story that was both thought and emotion provoking. The scenarios presented were both fanatical yet rang with a possibility of truth. It is easy to see how this could happen in real life. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, as a society we have already made steps into making this a reality.

As a people, we are exposed to Artificial Intelligence everyday through modern technology. The most obvious example of this is our phones. In the film, that was the first mode of communication Martha had with “Ash.” All of us with iPhones are familiar with Siri, the robot inside of our phones. Just as in the film, we have given all of our information, both public and private, to this robot. Companies such as Google are able to determine our habits and personalities from this information as well as our searches. Our whole human identity is exposed and is accessible more than we can possibly imagine. So what's to say that our identity couldn't be uploaded into a body of some sorts resulting in our duplication?

When Ash died, Martha was in a state of vulnerability which allowed for her to become attached to the fake Ash. There are two main reactions to the death of a close friend. First, just as many of us would have, Martha became very secluded and private. She wasn't seeking company and was separated from people. Then, she sought the company of another person. At the request of her friend Sarah, she starts talking to “Ash.” Her emotional instability caused her to develop an unhealthy relationship with the Artificial Intelligence. Today, there are apps and services that allow for people to communicate and have real conversations with fake human. Oftentimes, people are willing to pay for this false companionship which can lead to those people being preyed upon. In essence, that's what certain social media sites/apps are. We are connected to and communicate with people who we oftentimes don't even know. People can masquerade as anyone they wish behind the anonymity of a screen.

As Martha becomes more attached to “Ash”, she grows increasingly both comfortable and reliant on the robot. That is evident by the moment of distraught she goes through when she dropped her phone after her ultrasound. Oftentimes people grow overly attached to their possessions and technology. This leaves us vulnerable and leaves us “socially retarded.” When Martha gets the “Ash” body that's where things start to take a turn. People oftentimes are unable to realize once a situation has gone too far. She is lulled in by “Ash’s” realism. When they engage in coitus she is perhaps even more satisfied by the robot's performance more so than Ash was. This is perhaps relatable to the satisfaction women receive through the use of vibrators and sex toys during masturbation. Martha is in sense attaching human emotions to an object. She thinks she loves the robot but she is in fact in love with the idea of the robot and what the robot represents. But you can't blame her. Or can you? Her reactions and emotions to the situation are understandable and relatable.

As she spends more time with “Ash”, the subtle nuances are becoming more and more noticeable. She is becoming more and more emotional. Whether this is from the pregnancy or her deteriorating emotional state is unclear. What is clear however is that this robot is not her Ash. She attempts to get the robot to kill himself but she eventually takes sympathy of it and allows it to stay in the attack. Perhaps she kept it around for her daughter's sake. At least now, her daughter has some sense of who her father was and what he was like. It is evident that she is still disturbed by the fake ash. This is similar to an episode of the tv show “The Boondocks”, in which one of the main characters developed a relationship with Siri and attempted to get married with his phone. In the end the robot was unable to offer the same comfort and presence of an actual human. Although it was a cartoon the underlying realistic message is still evident.

While it may seem that Martha was a hopeless emotional wreck who was irrational and incapable of making decisions one must put oneself in her shoes. If presented with the same situation and same circumstances could you 100% say you would act in complete opposite of what she did? It is hard to imagine due to the difference in resources available but the concept isn't completely foreign. This film is a good example of both the benefits, limits, and dangers of technology and should be appreciated for its believability, it's thought provoking nature, and its ability to evoke emotions.