You are such a tool.
You are just a system of tools. Different tools have different functions. Different functions require different tools or sets of tools. No functions require all tools.
When you interact with a person face to face, everyone would agree that you are both embodied. You are embodied because you are both using tools in the presence of another, and your tool use effects a change in the environment and in the functioning of the other person. Much of the personal feeling of face to face interactions stems from the immediate feedback loop; the toolset applied to direct face to face interaction consists almost entirely of nearly instantly interpretable functions. Of course, nothing is truly instantaneous! The time it takes light waves to tell us the story of our companion’s actions is negligible to us, but still existent. The story is the same for the vibrations in the air that carry their voice. Would you claim that a person is not embodied through their tool uses, body language and verbal communication?
The rapidity of input and the change thereof lends a different feel to this form of interaction, but obviously we can find examples of less than instant responses. What if you were across a room from somebody, and then you closed your eyes in order to cut off visual feedback, at which point they tossed you a ball? The result of the function they performed is you being struck by the ball; unless they happen to be a major league pitcher, it most likely took a noticeable amount of time for the result of their tool use to be realized, even though the tool use previously concluded. Is it reasonable to say that this person on the other side of the room is not embodied through this tool use? Certainly not! It’s the same as the previous action, but the time required for realization of the effect is greater, and the effect is carried by the medium of a ball instead of photons and sound waves. Does being a mere few feet across the room rend the embodiment from a person’s tool use? By this logic, no.
Kat mentioned that in person, we have far more tools at our disposal to interact with one another. Seeing the embodiment of all of these tool uses in other people, it’s easy to see that they exist and are embodied. But even face to face, nobody utilizes all of their tools for communication simultaneously. This debunks the notion that to be embodied, a person must be using all of their tools at once. But if embodiment does not require all tools, can you set a threshold for number of tools being used that endows embodiment? I say no, and if anyone claims a number as this threshold, I am sure it won’t take much thought to find an example of a clearly embodied person using fewer tools.
It makes sense that if a person is making no use of any tools, they are not embodied anywhere. If the requirements, in terms of tool use, are that a person is embodied for using a certain number of tools between 0 and the number of tools they possess, exclusive, you simply cannot define that threshold.
If we have determined that to be embodied you must be using tools, but cannot give a threshold to required number of tools used, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that any use of a tool necessarily implies embodiment.
12 Responses to 'You are such a tool.'
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I agree with this! I think the argument against it, though, is that embodiment isn’t determined by using a certain number of tools, but rather, some additional factor. The vital force, perhaps?
Katherine Anderson
25 Nov 08 at 8:04 pm
The relevance of the feedback loop is that in face-to-face interactions we are constantly learning and altering our actions to improver our interactions. If a certain statement or gesture wasn’t received well, we will be sure not to mention it again or act that way again.
According to Marx or Gehlen…I get them confused a lot…language is a form of technology. In that case, any form of language be it verbal, written or body language is considered a technology. So arguably, we are embodied through technology in the sense that you bring up Joel.
It’s clear that you are a fan of Clark. The question I have is whether using one tool will give the full effect of being embodied? Can you say that if you are embodied on the internet (even slightly) that it is equivalent to a face-to-face interaction? Let’s be extreme for a moment…and get all y’all’s attention.
Clark discusses some mechanism to simulate sex via technological devises. Is that the same as having sex in person? What about using a webcam? Does that really give you the full satisfaction? What kinds of things are you guarded against by using this method? STDs? Yes…what else? Emotions?
Lihy E.
27 Nov 08 at 5:48 pm
Online conversations still have the feedback loop. People may be more guarded, because they can monitor their responses more carefully than in real life, but if someone says something in bad taste online, I’m likely to reply by saying, “uhh….?!?@#? really???” or something else suggesting that what the other person said was possibly something that he/she shouldn’t have.
In regards to your embodiment question,I don’t think even Clark believes that face-to-face interaction is equivalent to contact over the internet. We all agree we have less tools over the internet. Therefore, it’s not equivalent to real life. It doesn’t have the same effect. I don’t think that’s a fair question in this debate.
Katherine Anderson
27 Nov 08 at 10:41 pm
I’m really glad you wrote this, since we were kind of onto something when we were talking about functions versus tools, but that was left mostly unresolved. Anyways, I also mostly agree with this, but I’ll try and argue a small point against it. As Kat said, the significance is not in the number of tools we need to be embodied, but perhaps in a certain tool, specific to the skin bag. I hesitate to use the words “vital force” because they evoke a mostly negative reaction, but perhaps it is the body itself, and the tools and functions comprised by the biological parts, their relationships. I can’t say my body is in california because I’m chatting with a friend there online. I can only say my body is where…well my skin bag is. So basically, the number isn’t what counts when it comes to embodiment, but simply just the body is pertinent.
Gautam Srikishan
1 Dec 08 at 2:01 am
How would you handle this debate when what comprises a persons body isn’t completely distinct? For example, if a persons prosthetic arm performs an action, was that person doing it? Or was it just a machine? What about darth vader? He is pretty much a machine, but some would argue that he is present despite lacking our traditional conception of a skin bag. But darth vader did have a little bit of meat inside all of that machinery, so to take it even further, consider the telerobots in Clark’s book. They are controlled by a person in a separate location, but the telerobot also works with the person to provide information about the surrounding area. What if the technology became so advanced that a paralyzed person could have a telerobot do his/her day to day tasks without ever having to leave a chair? Could that person be considered present even though the skin bag wasn’t?
Katherine Anderson
1 Dec 08 at 3:36 pm
I’m in agreement in the Clark-side answer to your questions. I would say that the person is present in that place where they have control. The skin bag doesn’t matter, but that person is present where in that place where they are engaged and have control. This is a good example of it because the skin bag is just in a chair and the presence of the person is where this telerobot it. This bring up new ideas that are fun to philosophize about—like does a person still act the same if the telerobot is representing them in a certain place. How do risks change? Obviously you lose the risk of getting airborne disease in whatever place you’re in, but maybe there are a whole new set of risks now present.
Brad Thompson
3 Dec 08 at 1:39 am
The telerobot would not be as embodied as a human. The ability to see, hear, and move elsewhere allows for a high level of embodiment, but it is lacking the real feeling of touch. I feel completely embodied when I can touch something in real life. If I see something on t.v. that is a little outlandish I am very likely to doubt it, but if I am witnessing something in person (and I can touch it) I am 95% likely to believe it. The telerobot doesn’t have the capability of “real touch”.
Dan Pierson
3 Dec 08 at 12:05 pm
But what if the telerobot got nerves that were somehow connected to the person in the chair, and so that person could feel everything that happened?
OR what about in the matrix, when peoples skin bags are located somewhere completely different from where the action of their lives is going on?
Katherine Anderson
3 Dec 08 at 9:12 pm
Well then that just means they are embodied in two places at once. They are embodied in the place where their presence is, but no one can deny that they are embodied wherever their skin bag - their body - is; they are literally emBODIED there. What technology has done is extended our ability to embody ourselves into two or three places at one given time. Yet, as humans, we are still nonetheless subject to the ‘constraints’ of our physical bodies and can only actually be in one place at once.
Elena Solomon
5 Dec 08 at 11:16 am
So, do you think we are embodied on the internet?
Katherine Anderson
5 Dec 08 at 4:01 pm
I think we would have to say yes that we are embodied on the internet. If we weren’t nothing we are saying could hold any relevance. Maybe not or physical body per say, but our reach is extended bye our ideas that are conveyed by our words on the internet, by us paying online with our credit cards, or by us signing up to receive magazines and such online.I think that embodiment could be loosely defined as anything that if taken away from us inhibits our ability to function no matter how minimal the effect. I think there’s a direct correlation between the “amount” of embodiment and functionality.
Austin Maske
5 Dec 08 at 4:20 pm
Why should there be a direct correlation between the amount of embodiment and functionality? I can make an online purchase with a credit card, and that’s just as functional as if I’d done it in a store. I suppose that calls into question the notion that I’m not as embodied on the internet though. I won’t give out my social security number on the internet just because I’m only “sort of” embodied on the internet.
Joel Ferm
5 Dec 08 at 8:55 pm