Weaver's essay discusses the implications of communication, and the problems that arise from the transmitter to the receiver. In fact, there are three main levels of communication problems: technical, semantic, and effectiveness. These all play into the accuracy of the transmission, from the validity of the message itself, to the intended meaning, as well as the desired conduct of the receiver. This makes us question the meaning of computer and human interaction: many factors will affect a conversation with a friend, such as sarcasm, facial expression, body language and knowledge and memories of the other person. When communicating with a computer, such machines do not have any of those components, so how does this differ the intended result? What are the implications of a computer responding to sarcasm (most likely confusion) or recalling an inside joke?
If we remove all types of noise and communication problems, would our conversations become less authentic due to the fact that we would be directly repeating information with no possibility of error? The human factor of making mistakes and allowing interpretation is more important than we think: the absence of noise would result in a communication pattern just like a computer, with a set of rules and precise agenda to go through. Would that create a more intelligent and highly functioning society or a more robotic, emotionless machine like human presence? Is it worth trading our authenticity and freedom of interpretation for valid information 100% of the time? What should be valued more?
No comments:
Post a Comment