 Mae'r ddweud yn ymddangos. Fel ydych chi'n ddigonwch, fel addedigonwch a'i awr i'ch gwybod yma ar gyfer'i cyfrannu fath yma. Fel ydych chi'n gwybod yma ar gyfer, fel ddweud am gael y cyfrannu fath yma, yn ei ddweud am fath yma ar gyfer hynny. Mae'n gwybod yma ar gyfer hynny, ond dyma'r cyfrannu yn ei ddweud, felly ddechrau. Mae digitalau yma, mae'n amlwg ymlaen chi'n dweud. is simple put is a series of binary numbers in the computer-based network. It now dominates almost every aspect of our lives. However, a critical debate about its impact on cultural heritage in archaeology has been lacking in archaeological discourse as we've already seen in quite a number of papers this morning. Archaeology is uniquely placed to utilise the digital by being able to construct and reconstruct the past to understand how it got here. But often we just use it simply to replicate an object. So what is the ontological difference between interaction in archaeological objects in real life yng Ng reun yw'r digidol yn ein ddiddordeb yn ydyn nhw. Cymru'r galloddau y byd mewn llaw o'r ddiddordeb yn y digidol. Felly mwy o'ch ddysgu'n ynnghymru y byddau! Felly fydd eich holl gynhau i gyd yn y ddiddordeb i ysgrifennu. Ond byddwn i'n giswyddiol, sy'n ganhaoddi'llaethu diolch, dd�chogwrs, ac ddiddordeb yn ôl iawn i chi'r ysgrifennu ac i bedoddiedd yn cael gwasanaeth i rhoi fynd oedd dyna'r digidol. Rwy'n gweld'n rhan i'r unigolion lleolion gyda'r digital. Gweithio'r hunan yn gallu i'r ysgolwyr a'r rhan i digital. Mae'r cyflwysgol yn ei bwysigol ysgolwyr yn ysgolwyr ac mae'n ffordd o'r cyflwysgol ysgolwyr yn hyn o'r cyflwysgol. Mae'n ffordd o'r cyflwysgol ar y cyflwysgol ysgolwyr ac mae'n gwneud o'r cyflwysgol o'r cyflwysgol. Mae'n oedd sy'n cael ei ddysgolwyr a'r cwrs. Mae gennym ni'n gweithio'r parwyr ydydd ychydig yma i'ch eu cyfnodd a'u ddweud. Yn y gweithio, mae'n gweithio'r parwyr, cwyddo'n gwneud hereon, mae'n gweithio gwisio'r digwydd yn rhoi'r ffordd yn gwneud. Yn gwneud, mae'n gwneud, mae'n gweithio'r ffordd yn gweithio'r ffordd. Mae'n gweithio'r ffordd yn gweithio'r ffordd yn y ddweud, mae'n cyflodd yn gweithio'r ffordd yn gweithio'r ffordd. Yn dweud y gallwn y dyfodol i ddweud y ffodol a wedi bod ni'n dweud o'n ddweud o'n mynd i ddim yn y gweithio, ac mae'n meddwl i gynnig o'r ddweud sy'n ddweud ac mae'n meddwl i ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Felly mae'n cael ei fod y cyfnod y pwysig yn y neud i fwyaf iawn. Ond yna'n ffawr, mae'n gwneudion i dda i'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud, amlwg maes cychwyn i ddechrau bob gennych y dynion. Mae'r cyflwyno ddechrau i gyflwyno'r cyflwyno, bobl ddim yn gweithio gwahanol ar hyn, ychydig yn cyflwyno cychwyn i'r cyflwyno a'r cynnwys a'r gweld newydd yw'ch cyflwyno'r gweld yw'r cyflwyno'r gweld. Yn yw yn rhoi ddefnyddio gwahaniaeth i gwneud eich cyflwyno'r rheidion. Mae'r ddweithio yw'r ddweithio yw'r ddweithio yw'r ddweithio ddweithio ddefnyddio, is it also a situatio in our reality? It is possible to travel through space, but you are still subject to its physical laws. Nonetheless, outspace is so large and digital domain can contain so much information that we can compare it to in a suspect. An object that can contain infinite representations can be as large as you like and any size you want, and yet it can contain more than numbers than you can possibly have. Like a dice that can be digital displayed, capable of outputting any number you program into it on anodd dice limited to number of sides it has. Similarly, we struggle to count the number of stars in the nice guy, how the digital makes it possible. So it should argue with limits made uniquely human. There may be unintended consequences in trying to overcome what I consider human deficiencies. Perhaps this is an aspect of culture heritage we overlook. The monuments we built were done with human limitations, whereas the digital domain has been reduced. That limits us. So now play with digital dice, one at going around. Understand it as digital dice. Great. There we go. To try and understand it better, this whole concept of digital, I want to propose the models for characteristics here, of multimediality, interactivity, connectivity and virtuality. However, I want to focus on virtuality, so I'll skim over these other characteristics first, to help understand the digital realm. So multimediality is a combination of words, sounds, images, et cetera, and I'm including here also sensory experiences that have yet to be created into a digital concept, into a single binary code, which allows for any digital content to become manipulated, become unstable, decontextualised, and become an easier interface to tweak the views and views. The binary code supersedes writing as a medium, and some argue this is the defined factoristic of digital, as all digital information is superseded and becomes either ones or zeros, and is the basis of virtuality in its present form, as we can combine senses of a single format. Sketchfab, perfect example we've had earlier, because that's taking everything out of its context, and despite the fact that you're saying about a lot of the sites presented on Sketchfab have no information about their analog context, that time actually kind of doesn't matter, because in the digital it becomes its own site, because you're manipulating that data into something completely new, so it's effectively a new object. Even though it's a copy of a site in the analog, it actually comes a completely new original in the digital domain. Interactivity, focused on the way in which the user navigates through the digital by organising the data themselves. A book in the digital requires no page number or set structure, unlike my notes here, which require page numbers. These come sectorated to the text and succeeded by the hypertext. You are free to determine the object of a digital game, even if a goal has been set. Furthermore, many broadcasting gives rise to opportunities like crowdsourcing, which they fight to part of many archaeological and cultural heritage projects. Connectivity in this sense is simply defined as how the digital media are connected, primarily through the internet. More than just semantic networks, it has turned our physical social spaces into those for communication networks. Connectivity allows for the concept of positionality, which I will cover a bit later towards the end of the virtuality characteristic. So, these three characteristics could be in essence themselves. I know if I tried to present them a tag last year with great faith in it, then I might have it. The final characteristic of virtuality is the most vague of the four and merits the most exploration because it also presents the most challenges. Unlike the other characteristics, it is more difficult to make a suitable analogy for virtuality. The close comparison is pure in mind, where we can make visualisations in our head. But we believe that virtuality's experience is not even vision in our mind. It is also a contradiction to say virtual reality, of course, as we probably know, something that is apparently placed alongside something that is actually tangible. Yet in computer sciences, reality and virtuality are placed amongst spectrum, which is now rumified into this lovely Manson's reality cube model. I've got lots of cubes over it. Using the free-spectre mediation, which is the observation of the world from the inside, register actually the ability to navigate the virtual environment, and immersion, where it's how the immersion perceived yourself to be in the game. I've seen a couple of presentations already, which have reflected upon this idea, but I've not made the link of this lovely virtuality cube. So if you want to think of that, it has a couple of examples of Google Glass, Brain The Jar, Consciousness and Unconsciousness. So essentially, a virtuality cube provides this lovely spectrum from reality into virtuality, and it's something that I'm going to try and analyse the constructs right now. So virtuality implicitly leads into the base of transhumanism. This is defined as a subset of post-humanism, which aims to improve the human condition, potentially into an entirely new form of life between human interpretation. Because transhumanism reflects on ideas of evolution, there's a touch on questions such as artificial intelligence. However, much of what we consider to be artificial intelligence is at the minute no more than very fast, automated, peer-improving, so it's not really considered to be true of artificial intelligence, but I'll reflect on this in a second. If we are on a uniliniar path of post-humanist evolution, then surely it is a question of when, not here. The reality cube model, over there still in front of me, is taken as an interface between humans and computers, which will conclude with a transhuman lifeform which could take any form of consciousness with virtue of univative intelligence. Down so forward. However, this comes with quite a bit of theoretical baggage. Firstly, this requires a huge leap of faith in technological and human development, which has not yet been proven to be technologically determined, if it can at all. Transhumanism is advocated by hands more of it and others calls for the use of technology to overcome human limitations and possibly even integrate it together with human intelligence, for example. In this respect, the archaeological record is nothing more than a scientific superficial uniliniar analysis of how humans went from ancient tools inspired by an external force to overcoming human limitations to becoming a new form of life, much like a Stanley Kubrick 2001, a space policy. Stanley, I don't have to rise to show the book, but I might. Secondly, the reality cube exposed the ways in which virtuality could lead into transhuman lifeforms. A brain in the jar, as advocated by, you know, like Nick Fosteram, is essentially an uploaded consciousness, which is very different from the use of Google Glass, for example, even though they are both experiencing virtual reality in the similar ways. So, while the reality spectrum can be interpreted as a uniliniar model, like early models of society proposed by early anthropologists, what we're actually experiencing at the minute is the more generally accepted model of multiviniar digital evolution. Digital different virtual strategies are being adopted to respond to the environment and needs of each user. So will any of these methods become universally accepted as the digital singularity predicts? Or is a new model required? If everyone experiences virtual reality with different methods, can they be combined together or remain unique experiences of limited overlap? Moreover, philosophers have struggled to meld the virtual and natural realities into a seamless whole, a dichotomy that we may never overcome, with problems ranging from existential and psychological problem abilities to compatibility with our biological being and intelligence. While Descartes and others have shown us the mind of being authentic and distinct, it can be cut directly contrast to your rationalism, which believes that logic can prove your existence, the way I won't talk too much about philosophy. On the surface, one could argue that computer science has several links to rationalism, especially when Descartes' tradition abhors the use of mathematical proof to prove the soul's existence. However, the Descartes model doesn't disregard mathematical together. It just focuses more on how the mind and body are connected. Yet to its fundamental distinction, the mind and body is contradictory to the RTQ model, by the way it's got to how good things go around the back. So an artificial intelligence can never have a mind or soul in the same way that we could. Ultimately Descartes argued against the existence of artificial intelligence or thinking machines that he liked to describe them, as they can incorporate tasks which, create anything new, which is also a lovely subject if you've heard of it. So for now we are left with an unclear picture of how humanity and virtuality will evolve in my community analysis, that is. When we interact with artificial intelligence, is it big like we do? I'll leave it at that for you to mull over, no pun intended. So, philosophy takes quickly. So with virtuality, Descartes' design has its reference points to considering the links between human and technological evolution. In contrast to Descartes' idea design is translated as the human mode of existence in this case. Because man exists, so design is characterised by an openness towards the world. Demol believes that in virtuality there is a specific mode of design with a distinct temporal and spatial mode of being which is phenomenologically inclined. I see I'm trying to run out of time, so I'll quickly summarise this. So it's actually a everyday experience of the world is altered in virtuality. For example in the distancing or the decontextualisation of the distance of communications when we use virtual applications. In fact because everything in the virtual is programmable and decontextualised we effectively become gods of our worlds and beings become nothing more than recombined data. However, this also leads to a paradoxal increase in the unpredictability of unintended effects and intended effects. So as we saw earlier the artefacts have been skyroof, for example as an unintended side effect. So I'll quickly move on because I'm running out of time. So this is something I want to explore more about but this is another German philosopher called Helm of Pleasure and Yostomol believes that this is one of the ways forward that digital technology will evolve and this is something known as poly eccentric positionality. A subset of virtuality whereby you can operate multiple bodies at once. There's something I briefly mentioned as a description of the connectivity factor of security that I'm going to mention now. So Dimol uses a pleasant definition of positionality of the relationship between the living body and its boundary which argues that our bodies are distinguished from and are in animate nature and have a self-awareness boundary and the costing of this boundary. I don't have a point or such like to do. In animal objects on the closed positionality over there which is off the street on the upper left is it out? So the closed positionality is first observed with nothing in it. Home positionality is the animals which we are unknown if they do have a self-awareness boundary but they seem to operate as such a positionality where we have a self-awareness boundary and we try to break out of it. So Dimol proposes that the next step in this evolution is poly eccentric positionality which can only be achieved in the virtual because if you think of yourself in a virtual simulator some sort of a human glass for example is not unthinkable to think of yourself being able to operate multiple bodies at once potentially you've been in the animal world essentially you could end up operating multiple beings or robots at once on the same slide so that's different spatial areas so this is something that Dimol believes it's going to happen however so quickly summarise between Heidegger and Pleasant now Heidegger and Pleasant's idea is very near level of solstice and phenomenology but who is the more convincing? Pleasant has the other hand despite the simplicity of being able to change your future trajectory with technology and subsequent agreements with the unilinear view of evolution to afford by more of it Pleasant's eccentric positionality allows for a whole new way in relation to cultural heritage however the poly eccentric positionality is difficult to envisage and the human body may not be able to create a poly eccentric positionality Dimol is conflating different ideas of Heidegger's life together unfortunately so essentially whilst the design sounds quite convincing with projecting future technologies or projecting your future self with technology he's conflating Heidel which is something that Heidegger tried to explore after his decay or in the term of philosophical thought and Heidel is essentially more technologically suited for design Heidegger knows I wasn't running out of time but the other problem is with design as well as the translation issue which does kind of I haven't agreed for whether it applies to Pleasant but it seems much more easy to translate what Pleasant is saying than design is because it's about a million interpretations of design so poly eccentric positionality is clearly a consequence unique to the digital domain and presents multiple issues we have considered in cultural heritage while design is more of an overarching ontological framework for digital technology so how does one experience cultural heritage if you are occupying multiple bodies in multiple time zones so does Dimol's digital characteristics allow us to better understand digital ontology it fails initially because it appears that Dimol contradicts himself Dimol believes that if information technology is the subject of work of art then this might lead to a new genre but with no implications for the nature of the art itself so Dimol will fix a copy of your notebooks into a computer work consensually over how you see your work but to prove more to me the reality and virtuality Dimol actually noted that work can become a positive feedback cycle but it reinforces a representation of reality not reality itself in regards to which sense you use 1s and 0s may be the rational basis of virtuality but it creates a positive hearty mirror of representation but in other ways the edge succeeds the virtual world may exist in our reality in one form but that form is not the same as our reality every aspect of something transported into the digital domain becomes decontextualised transhumanism is considered to go hand in hand with technological evolution but a multilinear approach to a digital evolution means that we can't necessarily see virtuality as a unilinear path to do with a digital singularity Polyasinterpositionality has great potential but I think that something that can be explored in games is running out of time so it's a quick idea that computers of course with so much influence how we can potentially try to explore polyasinterpositionality practically at some point hopefully I'll get a chance to find me and allow me to explore as I did so I hope I've framed many of the same questions to be asked what heritage for human in new light a post-unist critique makes us think of what it is to be human particularly our limits nonetheless our digital future is still not clear and can go in any number of directions so my thanks go to all those who helped me with this presentation particularly AOC our theology for funding me and I leave you with these two quotes which are directly contrasting thoughts of virtuality if you know what that's for sure then good for you so thank you for AOC our theology for funding this experience and thanks very much for all of you for listening