The ramifications for education in this ocean of data are complex and potentially paradigm changing.  Our current educational models frequently reward students for feats of memory and recall rather than actual knowledge or information processing.  In a world of constant, ubiquitous recording and massive online data sets, memory is becoming less of a concern.  The skills most prized by industry (if not yet by the academy), are those of assimilating and digesting data in order to extract salient information and knowledge.  Perhaps tools like the lifestream can help to raise awareness of this issue.

Given the informal nature of blogging, I have employed the simple notation “(lifestream dd/mm/yyyy)” followed by an index number where there are more than one lifestream entries on a given day.   Where possible I have also hyperlinked the reference to an individual post on the corresponding remote site.  My thanks to the staff and students of #ededc for what has been a fascinating and rewarding experience!

I am still very much interested in the themes of post humans and distributed consciousness and I have spent some time considering these ideas in greater detail this week (lifestream 27.11.2011 #1 and 01.12.2011 #7, #9, #11, #12).  I’ve also spent a little time revisiting the ideas of Artificial Intelligence and human computer interaction (lifestream 03.12.2011 #2, #3) and this has lead me to think about how humans and groups of humans interact with computer systems (lifestream 03.12.2011 #1).  It’s fascinating to think about how groups might become empowered beyond the now well recognised notion of emergent collective group intelligence, through interaction with computer systems (lifestream 04.12.2011 #3 to #10).  If groups can be extended and enhanced through the use of artificially intelligent agents and expert systems, then this must of course have profound consequences for teaching and learning.

So having finally selected a topic for the assignment, it’s time to settle down properly into a single research area.  My lifesteam is already beginning to reflect this, with the range of topics and ideas narrowing daily and moving I hope, towards a focal point.  It must be interesting to watch this process from the outside and to see how I have refined my ideas as I progress.  I now see clearly what a perfect lens the lifestream is to document this journey.

Although philosophical idealists will argue that there is no such thing as a common reality, in everyday practice we have chosen to believe in one. Through our senses and communications, we live in a shared reality that we refer to as the real world, but by degrees, this shared reality is being extended, enhanced and personalised through the use of tools that allow for a richer interpretation of what is considered to be “real”.  Such tools exist in many forms, from cognitive frameworks right through to actual physical devices that extend the senses and create “new forms of human presence, half-real, half-virtual” (Ascott, 2003, quoted in Bayne, 2010).  Perhaps the most conspicuous of these is the growing use of augmented reality as an layer of information on top of the physical world.  “Augmented reality (AR) refers to the addition of a computer-assisted contextual layer of information over the real world, creating a reality that is enhanced or augmented”, (Horizon Report, 2011).  When one first uses augmented reality to view the world, the experience is uncanny in the extreme.  The physical world is suddenly extended to include a rich layer of multimedia that the viewer can interact with to better understand their environment.  High end augmented reality systems can be very complex and may include many subsystems, such as head mounted displays, data gloves or global positioning systems; but for the average consumer (and therefore the average student), something as simple as a smart phone application can achieve a similar result.  An excellent example of such an app is Streetmusuem:Londinium.

Streetmusuem:Londinium is an iPhone app, developed in collaboration between the Museum of London and the History Channel, which recreates portions of London city as it might have appeared during the Ancient Roman era.  Layers of video and text, maps and 3D models of ancient architecture can be viewed on top of the real world.  As the user moves about their environment the scene changes in real-time.  These layers of reality combine within the consciousness mind of the learner. “From two, one—something different, new, and tasty”, (Carpenter, 2009).

“One of the most promising aspects of augmented reality is that it can be used for visual and highly interactive forms of learning, allowing the overlay of data onto the real world as easily as it simulates dynamic processes”, (Horizon Report, 2011).  When a person interacts with these layers of media, they are essentially engaging in a constructivist and exploratory learning session within a new reality.  Because such media layers are fluid and may change based on user input, this new reality is individual and uniquely distinctive both for each learner and for each learning session.  When we connect augmented reality systems with other networks, the potential of new layers of reality grows exponentially, as does our capacity to create new realities for ourselves, or to share them with others.  One might argue that when we augment our reality, we simultaneously augment our own consciousness, and when we share our reality, we likewise  share our conscious state with others. “Just as the brain needs the body to create conscious activity, so the body needs the environment to create conscious activity”, (Pepperell, 2010).

Conclusion

The interface to an augmented reality system is a tool that allows the user to modify their own reality, extending it in directions never before imagined.  Graphical user interfaces allow us to visualise complex data sets but when those data sets correspond directory to our immediate physical environment, we suddenly gain the ability to understand that environment and our place within in it, in profound new ways.  Through the use of symbolic languages and well designed semiotic icons, we allow humanity to communicate without regional linguistic variation, achieving precision of expression and clarity in the transfer of meaning that is simply impossible in the “natural” world.

Augmented Reality Examples

MovableScreen at Allard Pierson Museum in Amsterdam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UODkvUTnAU

Streetmusuem:Londinium.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/innovation/07/29/roman.london.app/index.html

35 Awesome Augmented Reality Examples

http://www.bannerblog.com.au/news/2009/06/35_awesome_augmented_reality_examples.php

References

Bayne, S. (2010).  Academetron, automaton, phantom: uncanny digital pedagogies.

Carpenter, R (2009). Boundary Negotiations: Electronic Environments as Interface.

Pepperell, R. (2009). ‘Art and the fractured unity of consciousness’ in New Realities: Being Syncretic Consciousness Reframed.

The Horizon Report, 2011.  Two to Three Years: Augmented Reality

Such tools certainly give us greater powers and abilities but does that make us more than human, or are humans actually defined by their ability to adapt and improve themselves?  Carol and I have have had an interesting running discussion on Twitter over the course of the week on the subject of human evolution and whether the prefix ‘post’ in posthuman is redundant, given that all life is in a state of constant evolution (lifestream: 17.11.2011 #3) and that humanity has always been defined by its adaptability.  One interesting idea emerging from this discussion has been the notion that the evolutionary process is itself undergoing a change, and whether humanity’s integration with technology might be viewed as a type of natural development (lifestream: 19.11.2011 #1).  Overall its been a very stimulating week; and so now begins the preparation for the posthuman pedagogy task and getting a concrete topic for my essay.  Much to consider, as always.

Instead the contemporary cyborg is usually an attempt at repairing a damaged human, rather than an enhancement.   Fictional cyborgs, and most likely real cyborgs in the very near future, are much more than this.  Such cyborgs are truly more than human and achieve this status with the addition of prosthesis that give them abilities mere organic humans could never manage.  These cyborgs are most definitely posthuman, but posthumans need not be cyborgs.  I’ve argued (Sumamry: Week 8)  that we are all in fact already posthuman, and that we have always been so since the invention of tools and social groups that modified our thought processes enough to make us more than individual entities.  For me, the posthuman is a combination of the organic human and a set of external factors, tools or stimuli which endow us with powers and abilities we could never achieve in isolation.  Certainly there is a closer coupling between the cyborg and its parts, but the posthuman is unbounded and free to match the appropriate tool to the task.

Much of the remainder of this week as been spent ploughing though the readings and cyborg concepts.  I’ve added some new feeds to my lifestream and watched it fill out considerably.  The readings this week are challenging and I am still coming to terms with much of the material.  More to come on this in another post.

The structure that De Rosney describes is not controlled but has in fact evolved out of the (sub)systems that we have created.  De Rosney does warn us that such a system requires guidance and boundaries to its growth, but I  find his solutions  to be somewhat aspirational.  Whilst I do not consider myself as a pessimist, I am fearful that such a system can more easily be used to control the population rather than liberate it.

If one thing has become clear in the history of technology it is that humanity strives to better itself.  In this time of instant gratification and power hungry superstates, the limits of the human body can already be extended… and if they can be, we can be sure that they will be.  Indeed the traditional concept of cyborgs can already be seen walking amongst us with all manor of prosthesis, from artificial limbs to implanted RFID chips.  This process has already begun and can only result in a deeper connection between human and machine.

As heavily implanted cyborgs living inside, and as a part of a system like De Rosnays macro organism, humanity risks losing itself and losing its way if we do not see the larger picture.  Through our bodily modifications we are giving up true control for the illusion of power.  Super strength is nothing when the system controls how you use it.  A modified consciousness is a sham when software rules sanction its use or determine what is an acceptable thought.  Such fears may appear as hysterical and overly dramatic but we are already writing the rules that determine how the subsystems of the macro organism will operate.  Unfortunately we are allowing commerce to dictate these rules rather than any legal body.  In the words of Lawrence Lessig, the code is the law.  If we are to become one with technology, we need to make sure that the code controlling our bodies is enlightened in its purpose and open sourced in its implantation.

I’ve spent allot of time thinking about issues relating to civil and technological liberties as well as the future implication of where we go from here.  One excellent discover this week has been BrainPrivacy’s collection of delicious stacks (lifestream 29.10.11, #2), which has produced much food for thought.  I’ve also been examining social networks in general and how they relate to this subject.  Facebook’s new Timeline feature (lifestream 29.10.11, #3) looks like a great way to share information, but still suffers from the same problems of data ownership and poor privacy inherent to the platform (lifestream 01.11.11, #3).  A telling example of this problem is the policy change put in place by the Ning network some years ago.  At its inception, Ning offered a free social networking service which could be branded and tailored as the user saw fit.  This popular service was the platform of choice for many small online groups however Ning changed its policy to include an ownership charge, thereby locking out many users  (including my local MargaretStreetMassive group (lifestream 01.11.11, #2)) and thus preventing them from being able to retrieve their data.

The rest of the week was devoted collating literature for the ethnographic study as well as commenting on other students work.  There have been some really interesting studies across a wide range of subjects, offering much to think about.  In short, a great week!

Diaspora is a distributed social network running on a collection of open source personal webservers across the Internet.  Diaspora is a community of passionate users who control their own data, control who sees it and who can harvest it. Diaspora is a project that I have been observing from a distance since the announcement by four NYU college students in 2010 that they wanted to to build a Freedom Box and make a step towards changing how we use social networks.  Diaspora used crowdsourced funding via KickStarter to raise over $200,000 which allowed the developers the financial stability to dedicate themselves to the project.  Diaspora is free (“as in freedom”).

In this brief ethnographic study of the Diaspora community, I have employed a combination of participant observation and direct interaction with users in order to better understand the community and its members.  I have posted questions to the community and received a considerable volume of responses given my status as a new (and consequently unconnected) member.  I have attempted to define what it means to be a Diaspora member and what it is that drives people to join the community.

Ethical Issues

Given that Diaspora provides the potential to limit who sees the information that you choose to share, I  have avoided using any user posts or data that came from private sources and have opted instead to publish only data that is specifically marked as being public.  Data produced with digital publishing tools simplifies any ethical decisions for an ethnographer but does not remove the responsibility to always consider any possible, wider implications of material that is published.  With this in mind I have chosen to anonymize any users data and avoid direct quotation where possible.  Any user names or avatars that appear in graphics have been blurred to further protect the identities of those involved.

Background

In researching the nascent Diaspora community prior to joining, I became aware of a strong sense that the development team considers this project to be something of a social movement rather than a mere social network.  Co-founding developer Daniel Grippi uses the phrase “a spark to start a fire” in the second video below.  This language sounds highly politicized and obviously hopeful for great things to come.  Since joining I have frequently noticed this same sentiment from Diaspora members themselves and must confess that I hold similar views and aspirations for the success of such a movement.  Hine tells us that “ethnography is appealing for its depth of description and its lack of reliance on apriori hypotheses”, (Hine C. 2000. “The virtual objects of ethnography”).   My sentiments therefore have caused me some difficulty in remaining fully objective in my research, and it is something that I have been continually conscious of and careful to avoid.  That said, the initial motivation for the development of Diaspora is indeed based on a politicized view that users have rights and are not just a product to be sold to marketing companies.  Diaspora adheres to the Computers, Freedom, and Privacy’s Social Network Users’ Bill of Rights.  Its very beginnings are inspired by Columbia University law professor Eben Moglens now famous lecture “Freedom in The Cloud’, first presented at NYU in early 2010 in which he describes centralized social networks as offering “spying for free” (from Wikipedia).  The projects main tenants of Choice, Ownership and Simplicity (see home page on https://joindiaspora.com/) serve to empower its users in a manor unheard of amongst profit driven social networks.  The following videos are what I believe to be key points in the emergence of Diaspora and what I hope will be a new movement for user empowerment online.

• Eben Moglen’s “Freedom in The Cloud’ presentation at NYU Feb 5 2010.  In this lecture Moglen introduces his concept of the Freedom Box, a device like a personal webserver that allows the consumption of network services without the traditional dangers.  This lecture has a profound affect on the Diaspora founding members.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOEMv0S8AcA

• Diapora founding members report to the Internet Society’s New York Chapter on their work inspired by Moglen’s ideas.  NYU Apr 22 2010.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRTzRAtDujU

• Diapora pre-release promotional video showing the growth of the project and some cool features.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SehPS5J1lQA

Arrival Story

Taking the title of the introduction to Gatson and Zweerinks paper “Ethnography online: ‘natives’ practicing and inscribing community” to heart, i.e. that there there is “no such thing as non-participant observation”, I decided that the best approach would be to create a new account and dive right into the community as any newcomer would.  I posted the Diasporian equivalent of “Hello World” to my stream and announced ‘Hi, I’m #newhere’.  The use of this hashtag is something of a debut for new members, an announcement that they are ready to participate, meet and interact with others and begin to the form bonds that will connect them to the community.  I’ve speculated during this course that because of the ease involved in joining a virtual community, the traditional ethnographic arrival is less meaningful until the active creation of “connections” (ie friendships, followings or any one of the many terms used by social networking sites) occurs.  The following Flickr set shows this process as a series of steps.  It is in a sense my own arrival into the community and the beginnings of my real membership.  In the spirit of the community, these images are released under a Creative Commons, Attribution license.  The wordpress instance on which this blog post is written does not allow the insertion of iframe or embed code, but you can see a slide show of the set here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielgriffinnet/sets/72157628030760816/show/

Or a direct link (useful for viewing annotations and commenting) here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielgriffinnet/sets/72157628030760816

What is a community?  Is Diaspora a Community?

During the course of the last two weeks we have been discussing the notion of community and how it relates to groups of people whose primary method of communication is digital.  Indeed we have questioned whether such groups are indeed communities at all or whether they are simply loose collectives of people gathering around a common focus.

In his book The Virtual Community, Howard Rheingold references graduate student Marc A Smiths work on the concept of collective goods as a useful tool to determine whether a particular group constitutes a community.  “Every cooperative group of people exists in the face of a competitive world because that group of people recognizes there is something valuable that they can gain only by banding together. Looking for a group’s collective goods is a way of looking for the elements that bind isolated individuals into a community”, (Rheingold, 1993).  Smith proposes that the collective goods which create a community are social network capital, knowledge capital, and communion.  When I first read this quote I became very excited because although I have only recently become a Diaspora member, I have already encountered or observed these phenomena at work.  From its very inception, Diaspora has been a group based not around some minor theme or activity (not to say that such groups cannot themselves be considered communities), but rather focuses on a momentousness and potentially paradigm shifting goal, to empower the user and move control of the network away from traditional structures.  In this sense it is a textbook example of a gemeinschaft community.  Its members are generally technologically savvy and seem to be willing to help or offer advice readily to new members.  In my “#newhere” introduction, I asked the community what it is that interests them most about Diaspora.  Obviously the reach of such a question is fairly limited given my new arrival and the very small number of connections that I had, however the question did produce several interesting responses from other members.  Almost every answer that I received focused to some degree on the facts stated in Diaspora member David McCauly’s now widely circulated Dozen Reasons to Switch to Diaspora.  The typical user (in my experience) is well informed and interested in subjects related to the Free Libre Open Source Software development movement.  They have found a place online which cherishes and strictly upholds these values.  In their fellow members they may see many traits that they recognize within themselves, and from this there quickly grows a sense of connection, or the emergence of a shared communal identity.  One user response to my post was particularly succinct, giving the following reasons paraphrased here: it is non-commercial, open source, protects privacy and has some pretty interesting people.

Conclusion

Given my personal interest in the subject matter, I have attempted to remain as unbiased as possible during the course of this study; however my findings do indeed appear to echo my preconceptions.  The Diaspora community is composed of many unique individuals, all of whom are connected through their passion for social freedom and personal empowerment.  They are for the most part highly technically literate and vocal on subjects relating to the use and misuse of technology.  As a group, they represent and share the ideological viewpoint that it is not only possible, but essential that we “provide privacy in normal life, and safe communications for people seeking to preserve their freedom in oppressive regimes”, (http://www.freedomboxfoundation.org/).  Again I am reminded that an ethnographer should attempt to ignore any preconceived notions and to remain as objective as possible, however I must admit to identifying strongly with these statements and to holding very similar views myself; perhaps I too have found a new home online…

References

Diaspora Foundation Homepage http://diasporafoundation.org/

Hine, C. (2000)  The virtual objects of ethnography.

Rheingold, H. (1993)  The Virtual Community.  (online, retrieved 01.11.11)
http://www.rheingold.com/vc/book/intro.html

Gatson, S and Zweerink, A. (2004) Ethnography online: ‘natives’ practising and inscribing community.

Wikipedia Diaspora page, (retrieved 01.11.2011) 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_%28software%29