R&L Thread 7: Heidegger
Post in this thread by Tuesday for participation credit for this week.
Post 3 is due Monday by midnight.
Read Natural Born Cyborg: The Introduction, and Chapter 1 and 3 for Tuesday. Read the rest of the book (especially chapters 4 and 5) for Thursday.
- Why does Heidgger spend so much time talking about causality?
- Give some examples of a poetic perspective.
- Is science dangerous? Is technology dangerous? Is Gehlen correct to describe science/technology as a way to “force nature open”? How does this relate to Heidegger’s discussion of ‘neutrality’?
- Does Heidegger do a good job of describing the instrumental relationship?
- Give some examples of the dangers Heidegger describes.
- Heidegger says one danger is that “man always and everywhere sees only himself,” and that this is ultimately a human delusion. Can this delusion butress a critique of the design objection to artificial intelligence?
- Does our technology replace God? Can we build a room of requirement?
16 Responses to 'R&L Thread 7: Heidegger'
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
What can I say, I’m a reader: I don’t think that it’s possible to build a Room of Requirement quite as good as the one in Harry Potter, but we could come close.
For Daniel’s sake: the Room of Requirement can be accessed by any magical person who paces in front of a certain wall on the seventh floor three times, thinking clearly about whatever he is looking for from the room. The door will appear, allowing the person in to obtain whatever he needs. It has been used as a bathroom, a quiet place to recover from a hangover, a defense practice room, etc. As the students learn more about it, they are able to make very specific requests to meet their needs most precisely. For example, when hiding from a particular enemy, the students are able to ask the room to open in a different corridor away from that person. They can tell the room not to admit that person. The room varies in size and shape depending upon its requester’s needs.
Technological problems here are mainly space issues. The room would have to have a maximum size within the building. Perhaps robots could rearrange things within the room for a requester, but they can’t cause things to appear out of thin air.
Perhaps a more possible example is the replicator on Star Trek (what can I say, I’ve watched it with my dad since I was a kid). It’s a device that takes matter and rearranges it to make something else, usually food or drinks, which is limited only by its programming and the stock pile of starting matter. While this is clearly far beyond our current technology, it seems much more plausible. It certainly has some magical aspects of technology that a Room of Requirement has without having the space issues.
Rebecca Spizzirri
2 Nov 08 at 12:38 pm
I started a reply to this, and then I realized it was a pretty long response. So I turned it into my post. Yay unintentional inspiration! however this means my comment needs to be on something else.
Something that caught my eye was the question: is science dangerous / is technology dangerous? Clearly they can be used dangerously, in the form of a gun or technology like that. But they don’t have to be dangerous. We can use science to make a bullet proof vest. The danger lies all in how we use our technology. So I guess the question would be is human-kind dangerous? and then we should ask, are man and technology one and the same? Seems like that question has come up a lot lately.
Brad Thompson
3 Nov 08 at 3:24 am
Your argument that technology itself is not dangerous is very valid. However, I think I can argue that indeed it is: only in the past century or two has technology really caused a lot of damage to mankind and nature. Yet technology has been growing and changing for years before this. Each new development - buckets for water, then horses/donkeys to carry the water and plow the fields, then mills with horses to turn the wheel - has not really been harmful in and of itself. Yet each time it leads closer and closer to the Industrial Age we find ourselves in today, an age absolutely detrimental on very large scales to our race and every other on earth, including plants. Technology’s mere existence leads to destruction, because the older forms needed wood or or animals for creation and use, and today we need metals carved out of mountains and trees, etc etc. We don’t even have to use technology, we only have to create it for it to be destructive. Yet as humans it does seem we are inherently tied to technology and cannot live without it. Our only choice is to use our brains to change the essence of technology itself, so that it costs little or nothing to the surrounding environment.
Elena Solomon
3 Nov 08 at 12:46 pm
“We don’t even have to use technology, we only have to create it for it to be destructive. Yet as humans it does seem we are inherently tied to technology and cannot live without it.”
While many technologies require non-renewable resources, modern engineering results are geared to take resource use into account. We also have several examples of technology helping nature out - solar panels and wind turbines are excellent examples. It’s the scale that we have to worry about. Obviously, if every human on earth made a simple wooden weapon, it would lead to massive deforestation. More advanced technologies tend to require more advanced materials, but even something like a space shuttle doesn’t have close to the impact of billions of toothpicks if only one is made.
Luke Kaiser
3 Nov 08 at 2:23 pm
Is science/technology dangerous?
Maybe. It doesn’t seem like it would be right to say that it is inherently dangerous, or not inherently not. It probably changes from case to case.
How does this relate to Heidegger’s discussion of ‘neutrality’?
I think technology does change perspective, and so it can’t be entirely neutral. Still, I think technology can only have so much sway over a person. Like I said in my blog, technology generally doesn’t change our deepest values. It is probably only dangerous if humans let it be dangerous, I agree with Brad there. Human-kind is what seems to make technology dangerous. Knives have great uses other than killing people; you can cut ropes, paper (if you lost your scissors), etc. I just think it is being misused when you kill people with it. That’s where the “human danger” factor comes in.
Is Gehlen correct to describe science/technology as a way to “force nature open”?
I think Gehlen’s correct mostly. Obviously there are some cases where that is not the case (windmill). But it seems that most of recent technology is forcing nature open (factory).
Gautam Srikishan
3 Nov 08 at 3:45 pm
In response to the “human delusion” question, I would say that because we are human, we can have no understanding of other beings, so as far we know it is natural for any being to think of the world in terms of itself. Because that’s all we know. We apply what we know to the world around us. One can view this as potentially harmful arrogance or as an innocuous fact of the status quo.
I don’t know how a “delusion” could buttress any critique, if it is indeed a delusion.
Calli Leventis
3 Nov 08 at 4:19 pm
I would say god has been replaced by technology in a sense. Because of Tech., we now know that god isn’t upset at us when a hurricane happens. As for whether we can build a room of requirement…time will tell. Maybe not quite in the Harry Potter sense, but something similar. I say this because when the guys from Boingboing.net were here, they talked about a 3D printer. That was something I had never heard of and it sounded very amazing. The fact that you could make a 3D replica of something from designs baffles me. Of course, I think it isn’t very durable, it serves only as a model for how to make something on a bigger scale. But who knows what the future will hold. Maybe we will be able to produce food from a machine. It seems unlikely, but one never knows. But then again, you cannot get food from the Room of Requirement. is the first of the five Principal Exceptions to Gamp’s Law of Elemental Transfiguration. Hehe gotta love the HP geekyness
Jason Blumstein
3 Nov 08 at 5:13 pm
I agree that in some ways, technology has replaced God, because we no longer need mystical explanations for the weather, etc. However, I don’t think that is the only reason we need God. For example, many people turn to religion for a sense of purpose, and if anything, I think technology has robbed us of our sense of purpose, because machines can be used to do so many things that previously required labor by humans.
Katherine Anderson
3 Nov 08 at 5:35 pm
I wouldn’t say that machines have robbed us of our sense of purpose at all, if anything they have helped to explain our purpose here. Machines make us innovative and really make us improve upon ourselves to make things more efficient. I think until we have everything that we do, think, say, see, hear, or experience explained to us there will be not only the idea of religion, but a need for it.
Austin Maske
3 Nov 08 at 6:04 pm
I don’t really want to say that technology replaces God but alas to an extent that seems rather accurate for describing some cases. Some people care more about their material things than God and religion. People worship technology is a way. They praise it when it works but become frustrated and frightened when it doesn’t work. If my computer were to crash while I was typing this comment and not turn back on, I am sure that I would freak out. I have lots of information on this machine that I need to be able to access. If all the sudden that is all taken from me I would be incredibly angry. In contrast to Katherine’s comment I would have to say that technology has not taken our sense of purpose but rather increased the expectations of the things humans are to accomplish. Technology is the aid that allows humans to better reach humans purpose of life. The problem to me seems to be that whether or not we notice it, sometimes technology and our purpose in life seems to consume us. We need to bear in mind the fact that we are all mortal and not everything is under our control (as some people like to believe).
JD
3 Nov 08 at 6:37 pm
I don’t think the question is, does technology replace God, in the biblical sense. God is more of god, in this context. Technology has become a god. It is separate from religion, at least idealogically (at least for the present). We are not literally worshipping technology. But it is something to believe in, something big enough to retain one’s interest and something mystical enough to be incomprehensible but still approachable. Technology has a lot of the same features as God does, except that people generally don’t give up on technology and become Amish (Atheist). So in this sense, one could even argue that technology is more pervasive in human thought than God is. Assuming that God doesn’t exist, one could eradicate the concept of God from one’s mind, but with technology, this is impossible, whether or not one believes in its existence. Interesting…
Calli Leventis
3 Nov 08 at 8:56 pm
To respond to whether or not technology replaces G-d, I’d say it does. At this point, technological advancements have taken over our lives. We can’t live without technology, and this is evident due to the times that technology fails. Rather than blaming G-d for Katrina, we blame the levies and government for what happened. In previous time periods, one would surely blame G-d. Replying to what Calli said, the fact that technology is mystical, incomprehensible, and approachable places it on equal levels with G-d. Only a handful of people actually understand how technology works. In today’s society, faith (as in religious faith) isn’t essential to one’s life as it was years ago. As long as technology works in our favor…we can just place full faith in that. The pessimistic view is that technology can fail miserably just as G-d has so often :O)
Lihy E.
4 Nov 08 at 12:05 am
Technology cannot replace God. We rely on technology and science to solve our problems and answer our questions, but there are some things that still can’t be satisfied by science and technology. This is where God comes into the picture. Before modern day health care people would pray to God if someone was sick with something that could be cured today by simple antibiotics. God plays a higher role than technology. What technology cannot fix we pray to God to fix. This has been happening over the course of human history.
Dan Pierson
4 Nov 08 at 12:34 pm
I wouldn’t go as far as to say that technology and science are dangerous, because it isn’t absolute. In some instances they are, and in others, they aren’t. I would agree with Gehlen when he makes the claim that technology forces nature open. He’s not saying that it is the only way, so one example should be good enough to answer the question. In the famous cathode-ray tube experiment, J.J. Thompson discovered that when a high voltage was applied to the tube a ray was produced, and since it was produced at the negative electrode and repelled by the negative pole, he deducted that the ray was composed of negatively charged particles, or electrons (this being an instance where technology was used to have a better understanding of the make up of nature).
Roy Bell
4 Nov 08 at 1:38 pm
Man always and everywhere sees himself, but come now, this is no delusion. The places on earth untouched by man are far outnumbered by those wrought by our hands. This is not to say that nature is not all around us: it is true as Gehlen said that technology is a method of forcing nature open. We use technology to discover things about the earth, but also to enjoy it. We could say that our use of technology destroys the world, but in a sense we use what technology we have to expand our abilities to enjoy what nature is left.
Joel Ferm
4 Nov 08 at 1:42 pm
crap… my attempted post was lost… (thanks uiucnet!)
I’ll try to recreate it quickly…
Basically, unlike ever before, I’m going to argue a definite answer to the question of whether or not technology is dangerous. The answer: utmostly yes, definitely, and without a doubt.
A thing is dangerous if its use results in not only the desired outcome, but also unintentional side effects. These side effects are always capable of inflicting some ‘harm’ on the whole system.
In skimming the comments above, I found Luke made reference to solar panels, so I will continue with this example:
Basically PV (Photovoltaic) cells are extremely energy intensive to create, and will only return a slighly greater ammount of captured solar energy back into the system. This means that we are playing a convergent infinite sum game with said technology (this is because PV cells slowly degenerate over time by the same process which converts light into electricity). This kind of effect is seen with all kinds of technology as I see them (as said earlier, a means to redistribute the enthalpy of the universe to lower small scale entropy) however, the process of redistributing this enthalpy requires a general addition to background energy, or latent heat, thus increasing the enthalpy of the system. This slow and steady increase happens as I use anything ‘technological.’ This slow change is subtle, but it is almost sinister in nature, as such, it is something we must be wary of, and I ask, if you must be wary of something, is it not then dangerous?
Colin Dodson
4 Nov 08 at 2:03 pm