tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8096269532297058242.post6959025729385938072..comments2024-03-24T13:11:48.274+02:00Comments on Cognitive Systems: Sherry Turkle: Evocative ObjectsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00264017426433186755noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8096269532297058242.post-2602762957241409752012-05-03T01:15:32.272+03:002012-05-03T01:15:32.272+03:00Thanks for your ideas and links, Timo:-)Thanks for your ideas and links, Timo:-)Ruth Vilmihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14006158848859547856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8096269532297058242.post-21744663575438391462012-04-21T00:07:04.742+03:002012-04-21T00:07:04.742+03:00Jonathan, thank you for you comment and sorry for ...Jonathan, thank you for you comment and sorry for the huge delay in replying. You are right that making meaning with object is an old thing. Turkle seems to warn us that we shouldn't think too easily that even our modern AI technologies would be conscious or have emotions. I tend to agree with her but with the important addition that machines can perform such behaviors that can cause significant causes in us - even if we know that it is just a machine. One good example is Sparx, a game that is designed to treat depression: http://www.bmj.com/press-releases/2012/04/19/effectiveness-sparx-computerised-self-help-intervention-adolescents-seekinAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00264017426433186755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8096269532297058242.post-28448757494993110622007-03-26T13:18:00.000+03:002007-03-26T13:18:00.000+03:00This sounds fascinating; I wish I could have been ...This sounds fascinating; I wish I could have been there. Does Turkle, to your knowledge, distinguish the uniqueness of "modern" technology in any way? Making meaning with objects is certainly an old phenomenon, right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com