Blog #8
Oliver Sacks' TED talk was very interesting. He spoke about the Charles Bonnet syndrome and what hallucinations really mean. He spoke kindly and heartfelt about his patients and explained that they are not crazy or going mad like society today would easily think. I thought his talk was interesting because the Charles Bonnet syndrome is a syndrome that causes people with blindness or impaired vision to hallucinate things like faces, landscapes, cartoons and things like movies. He also said that the hearing impaired can hallucinate music.
I found this subject interesting to think about. Beethoven was completely deaf by his 20's, so was his beautiful music due to the absence of his actual hearing? I think this should be a significant marker of human behavior because it shows the reality of human capability. The absence of something we once knew altogether can be replaced by a better or equal element. In hearing there is a definite example of Beethoven and his music, as well as the woman who has Charles Bonnet that Oliver talks about.
Now maybe hallucinations should be viewed as the absence of an element that our minds desire, rather than going crazy (well if it fits certain circumstances). But what happens when you relate this concept to education? Well, an absolute contradiction. No school could mean better kids for the future? That doesn't work. I personally don't think it could work, but theoretically speaking maybe the absence of education could push students to do better than the social norms. Maybe an absence of lacking of education could spark a overflowing amount of creativity that could accommodate for a Conceptual Age that our class and Daniel Pink has pondered for so long. So could less and less education mean a step up in quality it is lacking today because of the overbearing amount of modern education? I don't think this concept would pass in any education system, but yes is something very captivating to think about. Although, I don't think this concept could work, could a smaller amount of education push students to realize its importance; therefore pushing them to work harder in its absence. Interesting, isn't it?
This is my last TED talk post and I would like to take to time to say that every TED talk I have watched with curiosity and intent. I respect every speaker and the difference they are making in the world. I find it absolutely astonishing. I think TED is a great program and I hope that people continue to share What Matters? to the world and them. I enjoyed this opportunity to reflect on these talks and the opportunity our class gets to share what matters to us. I hope everyone in this broad world gets to reflect on what matters to them.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Saving Faces
Blog #7
Iain Hutchison's TED talk was different from any other I have watched thus far. Just a warning, if you watch this talk it has some gruesome pictures of disfigured and badly injured faces. He is a facial surgeon. Yes, like plastic surgery, but no it is not as materialistic as you may originally think. Hutchinson talked about how a face transplant could mean a quality of life transplant. Transplants could not only change what they do in life because of their physical appearance, but change their health. Today facial reconstruction surgeons save many lives from horrible punishment by society or even death because of a tragic injury or disease. Iain talks about beauty as well as the technology they need to create healthier lives for people who need these surgeries.
Facial surgeons can replace the underlying skeletal system that is destroyed due to injuries or disease, but they can not replace the skin. Yes, they use skin from the back or other areas of the body to replace it. You might say, yeah, what's wrong with that? Well thats what I thought too and the answer to that question surprised me. The skin being replaced will result in necessary drugs depressing their immune system, which in turn will give them an increased risk of infection and malignancy. That is where they are failing. Facial transplants is what his dream is. That patients would be able to receive a facial transplant from donors who have passed away, which would be very controversial.
Yes, that took a long time to introduce, but it is interesting to go beyond the certain importance of looks in our culture and look at why that would be controversial. It is controversial because appearance is held at such a high level in our society. Judgement and first impressions are really based off of appearance. What is beauty? Well, scientifically speaking it is the symmetry of said person which humans find aesthetically pleasing. Aren't all humans symmetrical due to their mere human qualities? Yes, but the golden rule also has something to do with all this mumbojumbo. The thing that really confuses me, is why does it matter? Did society become so sexually driven that our instincts lead us to accepting attractive humans easier? Did society just become used to the idea that beauty is better? I have no idea, but it is a topic that interests me.
For example, Iain says that we only see the reflection of ourselves as well as fractions of seconds caught with a camera. Those things barely reflect what we actually look like to other people. Its interesting to think about because much like death it is something society will never really figure out. There are giant industries solely based of off appearance and yet something close to 1 percent of the world looks like what we see in magazines. Personally, I do not love or hate things such as the modeling industry. Actually, I really respect the modeling industry because I see it as an art captured with a camera lens. I just find it interesting that such a huge amount of people are captivated or obsessed with beauty. When we don't even have a sustainable definition of beauty. It is purely a perspective of humans. One human could be stunning to someone and absolutely repulsive to another. That example absolutely intrigues me. Well, all I can say is; everything comes down to perspective, everything.
Now that I have ranted about beauty and what any of it means, I would like to say that Iain beautifully presented his talk and captured my attention fully. His cause was framed nicely and it made me think about many different things. It was different from any TED talk I have watched because it was controversial rather than widely accepted by society, which I think is an important risk to take. Overall, it was a very intriguing talk and made me think.
Iain Hutchison's TED talk was different from any other I have watched thus far. Just a warning, if you watch this talk it has some gruesome pictures of disfigured and badly injured faces. He is a facial surgeon. Yes, like plastic surgery, but no it is not as materialistic as you may originally think. Hutchinson talked about how a face transplant could mean a quality of life transplant. Transplants could not only change what they do in life because of their physical appearance, but change their health. Today facial reconstruction surgeons save many lives from horrible punishment by society or even death because of a tragic injury or disease. Iain talks about beauty as well as the technology they need to create healthier lives for people who need these surgeries.
Facial surgeons can replace the underlying skeletal system that is destroyed due to injuries or disease, but they can not replace the skin. Yes, they use skin from the back or other areas of the body to replace it. You might say, yeah, what's wrong with that? Well thats what I thought too and the answer to that question surprised me. The skin being replaced will result in necessary drugs depressing their immune system, which in turn will give them an increased risk of infection and malignancy. That is where they are failing. Facial transplants is what his dream is. That patients would be able to receive a facial transplant from donors who have passed away, which would be very controversial.
Yes, that took a long time to introduce, but it is interesting to go beyond the certain importance of looks in our culture and look at why that would be controversial. It is controversial because appearance is held at such a high level in our society. Judgement and first impressions are really based off of appearance. What is beauty? Well, scientifically speaking it is the symmetry of said person which humans find aesthetically pleasing. Aren't all humans symmetrical due to their mere human qualities? Yes, but the golden rule also has something to do with all this mumbojumbo. The thing that really confuses me, is why does it matter? Did society become so sexually driven that our instincts lead us to accepting attractive humans easier? Did society just become used to the idea that beauty is better? I have no idea, but it is a topic that interests me.
For example, Iain says that we only see the reflection of ourselves as well as fractions of seconds caught with a camera. Those things barely reflect what we actually look like to other people. Its interesting to think about because much like death it is something society will never really figure out. There are giant industries solely based of off appearance and yet something close to 1 percent of the world looks like what we see in magazines. Personally, I do not love or hate things such as the modeling industry. Actually, I really respect the modeling industry because I see it as an art captured with a camera lens. I just find it interesting that such a huge amount of people are captivated or obsessed with beauty. When we don't even have a sustainable definition of beauty. It is purely a perspective of humans. One human could be stunning to someone and absolutely repulsive to another. That example absolutely intrigues me. Well, all I can say is; everything comes down to perspective, everything.
Now that I have ranted about beauty and what any of it means, I would like to say that Iain beautifully presented his talk and captured my attention fully. His cause was framed nicely and it made me think about many different things. It was different from any TED talk I have watched because it was controversial rather than widely accepted by society, which I think is an important risk to take. Overall, it was a very intriguing talk and made me think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)