Philosophy 101 Unit 1

• Are we natural born cyborgs? Is the mind extended? Are our technological devices part of our (soft) selves?
• Does Clark’s revision of the old mind-body problem solve any of the Cartesian worries we encountered at the beginning of the semester? If so, which ones? If not, why not?
• Which examples in the text did you find especially convincing? Which ones were unconvincing? How does this hurt Clark’s argument?
• What similarities do you see between Clark and Gehlen? What are the differences between these two views?
• Clark boils down our interactions with technology to two fundamental dimensions: the transparency of the interface and the resulting expansion of our capacities. Are there any other ways in which technology might affect our cognitive abilities?
• Clark says the human brain is unique in its plasticity and opportunism. Is he right, or is there some other source of uniqueness? If so, does this fall into the Cartesian problem of dualism?
• Clark downplays the importance of the barrier between biology and technology. Is this barrier important? Why or why not?
• Clark says that language itself is an example of an external prop that not only extends our cognitive capacities but restructures the way we think about the world. Is language an example of an external tool?

In honor that people will be going to the polls in close to 8 hours, I thought I would write a lovely little post that ties in voter fraud to our discussions on Tech.

According to Gehlen, he believes that technology is in and of itself neutral. I would normally disagree with that statement. Afterall, I always argue that yes, the gun may not kill people, but it makes killing people much easier, and hence can make murders out of those who wouldn’t normally be. However, on this occasion I shall take a different approach.

We are all firmilliar with voting machines, either from the media or by actually using one. When one stops to think about, such machines were really designed to simplify the voting process. The ballots would no longer need to be hand counted, delaying election results. All one would need to do is talley up the ballots from each canidate. I worked as a judge of election during the primaries in Chicago. Their were two types of ballots, the electronic machine which would print out a copy of the ballot for you to check to make sure everything was ok, and a paper ballot which you would connect a line with a special pen. While the electronic machines is obviously…electric, the paper ballot would be run through a machine, which kept tabs on the votes and the number of ballots. At the end all the scores would be tabulated. The point I am really getting at is, this process in theory, makes things extremely simple.

But of course, even if the technology is indead neutral, people seem to like to like to fuck the system. Companies it would seem, have a vested interest in who wins. So then, is the technology neutral? In this case, I would say probably so. People have been trying to steal elections for years. Hell I should know, I’m from Chicago, the city where the dead vote! Voter fraud has been going on for generations. It is all about paying the right people. It just happens to have gotten much easier. All one needs to do is make sure that there is no paper trail, and that the machines are programmed correctly so that say a canidate doesn’t start out with 0 votes, but negative votes. But I digress.

Essentially I can this being interpreted either way. Yes, electronic voting had obviously been designed to easy the stress that comes along with counting ballots. They were invented with the idea of simplifying peoples lives. Unfortunately, greedy and corrupt people seem to not think that was good enough. So is this technology neutral or not? Have elections been getting stolen for years and this is just the new generation of it, or has this made it so much easier that it cannot be thought up as neutral? As much as I hate ending posts with questions, I feel it will at least generate discussion.

Is science dangerous? AND Is technology dangerous?

First I want to distinguish the difference between my meaning of science and technology. I am referring to science as controlled experimentation of a predetermined procedure such as one would perform in a chemistry lab. Technology I am defining as anything that makes tasks easier for humans and has moving parts (i.e. computers, machinery, robotics, etc.)

The question sounds like it is unsure of itself. Science has advanced humans in tremendous ways. Science has created an easy mode of transportation, the automobile. Science has given humans numerous cures to previously deadly diseases. Science has extended the life expectancy for people all over the world. Science has improved the quality of life for people all over the world by simplifying difficult tasks and reducing the risks that humans need to take. Currently scientists have been experimentation with stem cells and furthering stem cell research. Science is something that will ever continue to evolve and change lives in the future, but only if done correctly. Science can be performed safely with no harm to anyone. Science is roughly performing controlled tests in controlled experiments. Theoretically there shouldn’t be a way for things to go horribly wrong. If done properly with a meaningfully goal in mind science can be safe, but some information that scientists can learn could be dangerous. A scientist could for example learn how to clone a human…perfectly and use that information for the good of mankind. Or he could be inherently evil and clone himself a whole army of white supremacists who go out and perform murder and try to control the world. Obviously this is a drastic example but in the end makes perfect sense. Scientific principals learned from experimentation are neutral. The way I see it in order for science to become a danger, it would have to be in the hands of some sort of evil genius.

My stance on technology being dangerous is similar to my stance on science. Technology again has advanced exponentially in the last 20 years. As Dan Estrada said in class, the internet is actually younger than most of us. Try to think back to the first time you can remember using a computer. The first personal computer my family had was a very clunky monitor (that couldn’t display complex graphics) connected to a HUGE box containing all the mechanical components. In addition I believe we also had a dot-matrix printer. To be honest, I don’t even think that computer had internet. Now I look at the machine that is enabling me to type this post on. It is 1 piece, fairly small, has internet (obviously) and is very different. Advances in technology have allowed for this to happen. New technology comes out constantly whether or not everyone is aware of it. It can come in the form of a bug fix or a new type of advanced touch screen computer. Has any of this proved (at current) to be dangerous at all. Obviously computers have not. On the other hand there are different types of technology. Robotics are ever improving and are not dangerous at all. Certain robots, like those on a manufacturing line, have safety restrictions which don’t allow humans to enter their workspace but following safety procedures basically ensures that technology is always safe. Now as with science, if someone was able to construct a robot focused on eliminating people (think Terminator/Matrix movies) then yes technology could be dangerous. But one has to remember that movies are not the same as reality. All our machines are built to be safe and can in no way intentionally harm humans.

This started out as a comment but ended up fleshing out quite nicely.

Lihy wrote in her post that if you deleted friends from your facebook or decided to stop answering emails, people would get upset with you, and that this is caused by the fact that conversations and phone calls have been replaced by these social networking tools. Imagine for a minute, what if a phone call or a face to face conversation was the highest-tech method for communicating? If you suddenly stopped talking to people or stopped calling them, would they not be just as upset, if not moreso? The way I see it, the reason you are chained to facebook and email is not because they are technology, but because you are chained to social interaction. Man enters into definite relations, independent of his will, because it his nature as a social being.

You could also look at being chained to facebook and email as being chained to high technology in general. This addiction humanity has is not limited to social networking groups. You use facebook and email instead of face to face conversations and phone calls the same way you take a car or a bus or a plane home instead of walking or riding a horse. The new technology expands the rate at which you can accomplish whatever task you have at hand, be it communication or travel.

As for the heightened social awareness and self-centeredness that is so rampant on facebook? It is my view that there will always be people who are concerned overmuch with such things, and will meticulously construct their image as viewed by peers, be it on facebook or in real life. Again, facebook simply accelerates the entire process. If you’ve ever read The Sun Also Rises or The Great Gatsby, it’s clear that in these pre-facebook times, a person’s image can still be fine-tuned to the finest detail if a person so wishes. Hemingway’s Lost Generation is made up of the same people who would be on facebook to the wee hours of the morn, deciding what music to like and what pictures to display, in the hopes that all others would see and approve. The thirst for attention is inherent to all humans, and exists to varying degrees in all of us. Facebook doesn’t make us attention whores, it just makes it easier to express. A person who puts in effort to be fake on facebook will put in just as much effort in real life, and would have put in just as much effort fifty years ago. Just as the communication and travel examples, facebook is simply a higher-tech way of doing this, with more rapid and more substantial returns.

There is nothing like the highly philosophical room of requirement example. Given to the general public by the source of all things good and magical, Harry Potter, through the words of the wise and deep modern day philosopher, JK Rowling.

Seriously though, Harry Potter is good stuff. Any philosophy teacher shouldn’t be able to call him or herself a philosophy teacher unless he/she has read and meditated over it.

Now onto the real post…

When thinking of the room of requirement and technology, I remember the matrix. Outside of the matrix, on the ship in the real world, they had simulators that they used. These simulations would be used for practice (before going into the matrix), and other things. The simulations could take the person to whatever time, location, and supply whatever materials they needed. This simulation is basically a room of requirement, simply replacing magic with technology (another example where magic and technology can (with the help of imagination) serve the same purpose!) we hope to have in the future.

I recall the image where they would be in the certain room that was just a vast, open, white expanse (This wall-less white room was also popular in lots of commercials and stuff). Before entering the matrix they would need weapons, so all these racks of weapons would just come flying from nowhere. Then they could load up, and be prepared to enter the actual matrix.

This makes it seem like a virtual room of requirement is plausible with the proper technology. If we have technology good enough to trick our minds, then we find ourselves with a “room of requirement.” In such a room people would be able to be in whatever situation they wanted, including flying around, being 10 years younger, making love to someone, or whatever you could think to do.

We already have things like flight simulators, videogames with ever-better graphics, and other equipment that might fit into a virtual room of requirement.

The problem with this room (because it is virtual and ultimately not real) is that many people might prefer it to reality. Think about it, if you have a mediocre life, but then you get the opportunities to use a simulator to give you whatever experience you wanted, a room of requirement, you’d probably prefer the exciting virtual world to your own life. We would be removing ourselves even further from the real world. We already somewhat remove ourselves from contact with other humans with the help of iPods, television, videogames, and other things (yes, I’m sure that are cases where these specific example don’t exactly apply, like watching tv with a friend or multiplayer games. But for the most part, they are a way for individuals to isolate themselves). So for the trade-off of getting a simulation of any experience you want, we might end up losing all love for real life.

That sounds kinda like a bummer. Lets talk about something more fun… oh! I’ve got it. What does everyone think about the weather lately? Crazy huh? Yeah I know. Warm is beautiful. Everyone loves talking about the weather!

(if you’re reading this a while after it was posted, then it might be cold again, but it was warm when it was written)

So today in class, when Daniel asked us where we all stand on the views of Gehlen and Heidegger, no one really responded.  When the difference between their opinions was made more clear, more people answered, but obviously not with a lot of conviction.  I’m writing this blog to discuss about this issue on technology so as to maybe end up at some solid opinion by the end of it.  And if I’m really lucky, it’ll help you guys as well.  Then our debate will be just as violent as the previous ones.

So let’s talk about Heidegger first.  He says that technology changes perspective.  I can’t deny that.  If I never had a jacket before and I just happened to get one this year for my birthday, I would see the outside world in a new light.  I wouldn’t be as adverse to going out, because now I have something that keeps me warm.  So that’s true.  So now let’s say I get a gun.  I’ve never had one of those either (for real this time), so it’s a bit of a change for me to have something that has the capability to kill.  Still, I don’t think people are just going to start looking like targets to me.  I’m not going to go around shooting anything that dissatisfies me.  In fact, I won’t be shooting anything probably.  Having that gun might change my perspective, I might think to myself “I could kill someone right now if I wanted to.”  But as it is now, I’m not so into the idea, and no presence of a gun is going to change that.  When it comes down to it, technology might have some sway over my opinions, but it couldn’t change my values so easily, if at all.

But since it’s safe to say that technology does indeed effect perspective, even if it does not effect values quite the same way, can it be said that technology is entirely neutral?  Probably not.  The capabilities of a certain item are changing certain things about the way I think and see things.  If there is any change, it can’t be neutral, right?  I would say so.  I still don’t agree with the example of “having a hammer makes everyone looks like nails.” Technology can certainly change perspective, but not to such a great extent, not to the point where my very values are changing as quickly as it takes for me to pick up a gun.

Overall then, I guess I would fall on Heidegger’s side, though I wouldn’t want to assosciate myself entirely with it.  I’m not sure I agree with some of the other things he’s said, but in terms of technology’s “charge,” I don’t see how it could be entirely neutral.

Post by Tuesday?

• Is technology a “dumb process of nature”?
• Does technology serve the same psychological functions as magic?
• Is man himself automatism?
• How does technology mirror man?
• How does technology bear a “twisted relationship to nature”?
• Is technology part of our essence?

Reminder: Screening Tonight at 9pm in the South Rec Room.
Read Marx and Aristotle for Thursday.

Two things I talked about today are below the fold

Read the rest of this entry »

Chatter away.

Reminder: Next week we will spend most of Tuesday talking about the Kline article “What is Technology?”, and most of Thursday talking about the Marx selection from Das Kapital. Both articles can be found in the course packet. 

Also, if you haven’t ordered “On The Internet“, do so now!

This post will summarize some of the main points made by our guests in residence at last night’s session, entitled “The Amplified Individual: Technology, Drugs, and Future Superpowers,” as well as my interpretations, ideas, and whatnot on the subject.

We started by considering where the world is headed in terms of how people will deal with technology in the future.  One of the problems we have (or will soon have, if you don’t already feel this way) is how to handle all the information thrown at us on a daily basis.  When you have hundreds of emails, facebook requests, pages to read for classes, how can you be expected to do it all?

David felt that “ambient devices” could aid in gentle, “human” way, by emitting a certain color light.  For example, rather than having to check the weather report daily, you would know to grab an umbrella on your way out if the light on the door was blue.  In this way, people are getting the information they really wanted (do I need an umbrella?) without having to sift through a complete report on temperature, wind, and precipitation conditions across America.

These external devices would be a first step.  But as the wealth of available information increases, so too do the measures needed to cope with it all.  At some point, implanted devices or drugs could help aid our ability to cope.  These devices have already started out as ways to help people with disabilities or other medical conditions.  For example, the drug designed to help people with narcolepsy, a disorder in which the person randomly and suddenly falls asleep, can be abused to allow a person to go without sleep and improve a sleep deprived person’s performance.  Seemingly, the person would stay awake much longer than a normal human while enjoying a better performance than humans sleeping normally.  These types of drugs would make an academic environment hell for students who refused to take them.  Drug tests required for job applications might be used to see who isn’t taking drugs, as opposed to who is.

Implanting devices, like memory aids, could have a similar course.  They might begin as efforts to help Alzheimer’s patients, and end up completely changing the classroom environment.  Would a classroom even be necessary if information could simply be implanted in our minds?  A simple origin could be a mental calcultor — the rules of math are simple enough.  But where does this lead?

Once implanting devices is a norm, the line between human and robot is blurred.  Surely a person on drugs or with implants is superhuman but how many changes can be made before that superhuman is considered a robot?  Are you human so long as you still have flesh, bone, and a bearing heart, even if you don’t need sleep?  Are you human if you still have desires and urges, like for food, water, and sex?  Are you a robot if emotion no longer matter to you, if you become apathetic about other humans?

What I’m asking is how you define human and humanity.  To me, emotions play a huge role in that.  A human who no longer feels the need for love or sex could be considered a robot, but there are humans alive today who meet that criteria, and clearly they are not robots!

What do you do when being “just human” isn’t good enough anymore?  How far will you go to survive?  Would you give up your humanity?

Some ideas for discussion:

• Define that gray area between human and robot.  At what point is the change?  Or is it more, “He’s 72.3% robot… he’s still human, though.”
• Spectate on other ways we’ll become superhuman in the future and the impact of those changes.