Mind-Body Extension
Okay, so here we go. Clark says that we are embodied on the internet because we have control in places we otherwise wouldn’t. Then in class today we got off more on a moral tangent of when it’s appropriate to break up over IM, phone, or face to face. To this argument I’d say face to face. You could always write a little note fold it up really small, then ask your best friend to deliver it to you soon to be ex. But I think this would be a little too 5th grade. Granted though, it would get the job done. If you were to text your significant other the words “I don’t love you anymore.” They on first instinct probably call. Now this message/call it’s self according to Dreyfus doesn’t hold any merit because we aren’t embodied in the information being sent. But if we aren’t embodied how come it makes a change in the relationship status of you and the person you were previously with. Now maybe yeah it would be totally lame to break up someone over text messaging, but it doesn’t make it any less effective. I think the argument in class was more on morals than it was on the actual argument that Daniel put up for debate. If Dreyfus is right then in no way shape or form should there be any effect from the text/call that was placed. Since we aren’t embodied in this exchange, how could we possibly make a decision of this magnitude? In class I believe people were not looking at the argument the right way. Clark doesn’t say are we entirely completely 100% embodied on the internet. He just says embodied. Which implies that the smallest amount of embodiment that we have gives a resounding “yes” to his question. Luke made Clark’s point several times during class stating that there is some embodiment through instant messaging and texting. And I was going to say something but Calli wouldn’t stop talking (sorry my computer got hacked there, that last sentence wasn’t me). Therefore if these words have no connection to me I should be able to go off on some rant about the people I don’t like and why, without any repercussion from them. Here is where I place the argument of a bomb threat, if someone was to write in a give a bomb threat then does that message embody them, or once again is it just a string of words that they throw together with no apparent effect on society. My guess would be whether you man, woman, child, black, white, blue, or green, if you wrote that message and sent it to the White House, they’re going to take it literally. They aren’t going to be like “Oh he/she/it didn’t mean it, it was over e-mail.” I’m willing to bet the money in my checking right now (which isn’t much) that the secret service, or homeland security, or who ever would jump on that threat and take care of it right away. The argument in class was to case to case basis. If in any way you can dispute the fact that we can have effects in different places through the internet then be my guest, and therefore if we have an effect on an area we are embodied in the action it took to cause that effect, maybe not the effect itself but definitely the action. That’s why even the slightest bit of embodiment solidifies Clarks claim that we are embodied on the internet. There are just to many ways to attack Dreyfus’ argument, that is unless you just say “no you’re wrong.” which some people apparently think is valid. There you go kids, eat it up.
17 Responses to 'Mind-Body Extension'
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Austin, you bring up a very good distinction between the moral side of the argument and the functional side of whether or not we are embodied on the internet/in technology in general. Some part of us is embodied on this forum even if it is so minimal. In class, we were discussing the appropriateness of breaking up with someone via text/online. Effectiveness is a question of perspective. Is breaking up with someone via a text effective? Sure, you got the message across. Will you two still have amicable relations? Probably not. Would things be different had you broken up face-to-face? Maybe, but who knows.
The question of embodiment brings up the question of consequences. How much are we/can we be held accountable for actions done online or through the use of technology? Can Austin be held accountable for the computer slip up/attack at Calli? In this case, everyone will probably agree that Austin should be held accountable. Though, if you’re sending a text to someone, and your phone has glitch and sends the text to everyone in your phonebook. Who pays for all the texts that were just sent? You or the phone company?
Lihy E.
27 Nov 08 at 3:52 pm
I agree with most of what Austin said, which is why I side with Clark.
People will always be held accountable for their actions online (so long as they’re not anonymous) or with technology, there are just more explanations for what could go wrong (hackers, “my little brother got on my screenname!” etc). Just because mistakes happen that can be explained, and therefore, absolve responsibility, does not mean that people are not embodied on the internet. Mistakes happen in real life, too. Take, for example, in Freaky Friday when the mom and daughter swapped bodies and messed with each others lives. Do not tell me that this is invalid because it’s a fictional story, because someday we’re going to have body swapping technology and you’re all going to be sorry for criticizing my argument.
Katherine Anderson
1 Dec 08 at 4:42 pm
Horrible movie. Lindsay Lohan is a dirty, confused, little girl.
Austin Maske
2 Dec 08 at 8:12 pm
I think embodiment through technology is more grey than it is black and white. We were arguing the extremes in class, but you can be somewhat embodied in text messages and on the internet. I am somewhat embodied on the internet, but the level of embodiment will never come close to doing or saying something in person. You are a little less responsible for what you say online than what you say in person, but there is still a bit of responsibility on the internet. If you say something that you regret on the internet you can’t reasonably get away with blaming it on hackers. There has to be something pretty outrageous said under your online name for there to be a possibility of believing that hackers were responsible.
Dan Pierson
3 Dec 08 at 1:42 am
crackhead lindsay
Dan Pierson
3 Dec 08 at 1:43 am
I do think there is a lot of responsibility and risk online—moreso than we can even understand at this point in time.
Perhaps in the future we will develop new technologies and improve the internet, in a way that makes us more responsible for our online actions. What if in the future your social networking page was tied to all your blogs and stupid youtube comments you’ve made. Maybe you wanted to have two separate online identities, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be connected. There is lots of information online, and it’s all being recorded. In the future it might be incredibly easy for another person to figure out what online alias you use, and be able to view all of your online past and present to find out what kind of person you are.
This is even more responsibility because we are are accountable for past actions that we can never escape because they’re permanently recorded on some database.
Brad Thompson
3 Dec 08 at 2:18 am
That’s a great point Brad. We tend to think we are anonymous on the internet if we don’t have our name attached to our screen name. I could make up an anonymous screen on youtube and say whatever I want, but I’m sure somebody could really find out exactly who I am if they really wanted to. Everything we do on the internet is being recorded, but the same goes for what we say in person except the database is human memory. Human memory is a little less intimidating because most people will forget exactly what you say. Anything you write on the internet is set in “stone”.
Dan Pierson
3 Dec 08 at 3:12 pm
true. I was going to bring that point up in a different post, but I think I got distracted. Dreyfus says there’s less risk on the internet, but I argue that there’s more, because all your comments can be traced, and anyone can prove you said them. If everything spoken was actually written or recorded someplace, lawyers would have a much easier time proving their cases, and there would be less cases in general, because whether or not someone said something would never be in question. Although Dan I disagree with your point about being “less responsible” for what we say on the internet merely because we are less embodied than in person. On that argument, I only sort of take your argument as legitimate, cause you only sort of said it.
And Austin, your spelling and other grammatical errors are atrocious and despicable. honestly, man, ever heard of proof-reading?
also, seriously, Freaky Friday can in no way be used as legitimate support for an argument. Although I guess you only sort of used it, so I’m only sort of mad at you.
Elena Solomon
5 Dec 08 at 2:11 am
that was to katherine, by the way, not austin.
Elena Solomon
5 Dec 08 at 2:12 am
Hahaha.
@Austin
I liked Freaky Friday, and I like Lindsay Lohan. She’s a good actress and very pretty. At least, she was before she got all weird, drugged up, and skinny- like in Freaky Friday!
@Dan
Hahaha.
@Elena
Thanks for telling Austin off. That made me smile. I apologize for using an argument that is such a stretch, but I think it is appropriate and I stand by what I said. Sort of (like you said).
@everyone
I think I just said something to the effect of “things can be more risky online,” in some other thread. Cool! But sorry for accidentally ripping you guys off.
Katherine Anderson
5 Dec 08 at 3:02 am
Wow elena wutz with all the austin hayting i’m sory I cant be az guud az yu at speling I wuz just triing to make a ded-line. Yu seam too bee vury hostil torad mee Ms. soloman, wutz the problim?
Austin Maske
5 Dec 08 at 9:06 am
Maybe if you refrained from making woman jokes, I would be more friendly.
And its solomOn, not solomAn, please.
Elena Solomon
5 Dec 08 at 12:50 pm
I am going to say that our embodiment on the internet is very flawed, that we are embodied, and other times we are ‘embodied’. Times when it is really me on facebook, AIM, texting, w.e., yes I am indeed embodied in those respects. When I send a text message, when I talk to someone on the phone, I am embodied in those conversations. However, if my passwords/phone are stolen, then I am not really embodied, but people will still think I am. It is a kind of false embodiment which is very detrimental because the vast majority will still believe it is I who is embodied on the hacked AIM, Facebook, etc.
@Elena
Please woman, who actually proofreads anything these days, especially online when they have to make a deadline? Don’t hate on Austin so much.
@Katherine
Hells ya, pre-anorexic Lindsay Lohan before she was blonde was very awesome indeed. And I don’t mean just in looks, she was a talented actress in Freaky Friday and Mean Girls. Speaking of which, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htyf5wnC96w
Jason Blumstein
5 Dec 08 at 1:26 pm
Thank you Jason! Taste it Elena SoloMAN!
Austin Maske
5 Dec 08 at 3:07 pm
I wouldn’t describe it as “detrimental” when someone hacks AIM or facebook. If I were to send out a facebook message to all of you and say, “i think yor realy fat and i hate u 4evr and i hop u die” and then sent you a message the next day that said, “Sorry, kids. My little brother got on my facebook and sent out mean messages,” you would all probably believe me. Just the other day, I got on my roommates AIM and said stupid things to our friend, but when she got back, she figured out what was going on, and told him that it wasn’t her. Not a big deal.
MEAN GIRLS IS THE BOMB
Katherine Anderson
5 Dec 08 at 4:30 pm
I like the scene with Amy Poehler where they do the dance in the little outfits. I give that two thumbs up.
Austin Maske
5 Dec 08 at 4:33 pm
Ah but Kat, what about if someone really hacks you in the sense that they are trying to steal your identity for some reason. Who knows, maybe your roommate decides she wants to know who your secret boyfriend is and hacks your facebook, but impersonates you in the sense that she is trying to get information out of your friends. She isn’t going to try your little brother, ‘i think yor realy fat’ tactic, rather be more subtle and act like you. And if they are convincing enough, your friend will think the roommate is really you embodied online. I hope this doesn’t cause you to now distrust your roommate! xP
“This is Karen Smith with the weather and *holds breast* there is a 70% chance it’s already raining”!
Jason Blumstein
5 Dec 08 at 4:53 pm