Philosophy 101D

{ 26 }

Comments

1. Brandon Wilkins | 07-Apr-07 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

   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?

   I believe that Clark’s idea on this matter is a little distorted on his use of the word plasticity. I have been taught that this word, in the sciences, means that an object (the brain) undergoes a permanent deformation, which means it isn’t elastic. I believe that our perception can be altered, such as in the 3 foot nose example, but that doesn’t change our view on the world permanently. I think that it is a problem of mind body dualism, and that once our mind has acquired enough evidence that our brain can conclude the true statement, that our nose is only a few inches. The problem falls on where to place the capacity (I don’t know if that is the correct word) of our perception on our senses or our brain.

2. Erin Murphy | 08-Apr-07 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

   What similarities do you see between Clark and Gehlen? What are the differences between these two views?

   Both Clark and Gehlen seem to believe that technology is part of what it means to be human. Our tools become an extension of ourselves.

   Gehlen, however, focuses on the idea that technology makes up for what we lack. Clark concentrates on the idea that human reasoning and intelligence is created by equal relationships between our brains, bodies, technology and environment. In other words, Gehlen only acknowledges our bodies’ dependency on technology, but Clark acknowledges an interdependency between ourselves and technology.

3. Kimberly Koch | 08-Apr-07 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

   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?

   I think Clark is right, that our brains are unique in their ability to be easily shaped and molded. They are unique in that they are precisely made and unlike anything else. The brain’s neural opportunism, the fact that the brain does not take in all information, but more like just enough to get by and know what is going on, also makes them unique. I think in some respects this does fall into the problem of dualism because even if mental phenomena is non-physical, physical presence or lack there of, does effect the mind. For instance, in cases of patients with phantom limbs.

4. Kathleen Pinter | 09-Apr-07 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

   Clark downplays the importance of the barrier between biology and technology. Is this barrier important? Why or why not?

   I have always thought that there was a difference between biology and technology. I believed this because biology is based on our bodies as science. Technology is research and I never associated technology as a human. However, after going to the extra credit viewing and reading Clark’s writing I have changed my view. Clark believes that technology is part of what makes us alive and human. Therefore,wWatching the “All is Love” video my perception has changed. It seems like biology and technology can mix. The robots felt love and kissed, but if they were simple technology they shouldn’t have been able to take on a human characteristic. So, by them feeling love and kissing they represented human traits while being robotic and part of technology.

5. Kerry Phelan | 09-Apr-07 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

   Which examples in the text did you find especially convincing? Which ones were unconvincing? How does this hurt Clark’s argument?

   The example of neural opportunism was especially convincing to me because at first I fell for the card trick on page 65. I had to take a second look before I understood how the trick worked. Clark says the brain does not see everything, it only sees enough to get by. I believe this is treu because I could be a prime example of that. Sometimes I will soak in whatever I think is necessary, what I think I will need to know, and forget the rest.

   The way Clark feels about the idea of telepresence was a little unconvincing to me. He feels that because of telepresence we can ignore what is important to the body and I disagree. Dreifus also disagrees and this will end up hurting Clark’s argument.

6. Jeremy Mcguire | 09-Apr-07 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

   Yes I believe that language is an example of an external tool. Language has developed past just being a way to communicate the bare essentials of human needs. But has become the way in which we can express our feelings and thoughts which allows us to separate ourselves from each other, based on characteristics that normally could not be conveyed easily otherwise. Most importantly language has allowed us to preserve the great ideas of man so we don’t have to start from square one every time but rather we can build new ideas on old ones and advance much more quickly. Animals can not preserve their ideas for the next generation to learn from, rather they start from square one every time and their physical appearance my change but that is about it.

7. Tariq Mohammed | 09-Apr-07 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

   Language is not only an external tool, but an external necessity. Previously, language was regarded as a method to communicate between one another. Today it is recognized as a necessity to function in this modern world. We can differentiate ourselves from other things, because we can express our inner most feelings, opinions, etc. We have the ability to help our fellow man with his problems and our solutions.

   Additionally, we can make a living with language. Teachers, professors, guest speakers, are just a few. As Jeremy said, above all, we can prevent intelligent and great ideas from disappearing. By laying the foundation of these ideas, later generations have the foundation that they can begin to build upon and further advanced them into something that will help the world.

8. William Barrett | 09-Apr-07 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

   Are we natural born cyborgs? Is the mind extended? Are our technological devices part of our (soft) selves?

   Our technological devices are part of our (soft) selves because they become objects and devices in which you eventually come to “automatically rely in formulating and carrying out your daily goals and projects.” For example, the cell phone is “both something you use (as you use your hands to write) and something that is part of you. It is like a prosthetic limb over which you wield full and flexible control.” Such technological devices as the cell phone can develop to become part of our daily lives. They can become so necessary in our lives for us to get by and even function in certain aspects of life, that the use of these devices become natural to us, and thus become part of ourselves. It can become part of an individual to use their cell phones. An occurrence or situation in life may arise and an individual may immediately pull out and use their cell phones as if it is a natural part and function of their body to have and use. Newer technological devices may create greater dependability and may become even bigger parts of our lives. For example, the head pieces that are part of cell phones are a newer device added to the use of a cell phone. These pieces allow us to use our cell phones and talk to people without even using the actual phone. This device can appear even more attached to us and make the function of the cell phone appear even more of a natural part of our body and another added necessity in our lives. As Andy Clark says, “As our worlds become smarter and get to know us better and better, it becomes harder and harder to say where the world stops and the person begins.”

9. John Creger | 09-Apr-07 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

   I think there is a barrier between technology and biology but that they compliment each other very well. Technology could not have manifested itself to what we know today if there was never a biological source to attribute its idea and essence. For example, if a person never thought to further extend knowledge and comprehension (biological aspect) via the internet, then the internet would not exist. Likewise, Technology has permitted us to further research and understand biological aspects of ourselves (brain wave activity, open heart surgery, etc.) Thus, we use technology as a means to further biological claims. All in all, I am still convinced technology must revert to biology to find its cause.

10. Fernando Londono | 09-Apr-07 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    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?

    I do believe that language purposely serves as an external prop to help the way in which we structure the world. The capability of our body to function as a symbiotic relationship with all five senses transmitting information directly to our brain, and our ability to be able to describe what we feel and what we think through words at that exact moment, definitively serves as an external prop. Without language we would never be able to express or make meaning of what it is to be conscience of our physical existence. Like Tariq said it is an external necessity. An external necessity that is adopted throughout almost every culture, a tool that enables the human race to transmit ideas and be able to build and restructure the world and spin it into a new perspective only through language is extremely powerful tool.

11. Ashley Graham | 09-Apr-07 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

    I think that we are natural born cyborgs, in that we can learn and use other devices to extend our capacities and limitations. We use external devices to further ourselves and compensate for natural limitations in ways which no other being can do. We can not fly on our own accord, but we are able to build machines to fly us. We use the plane to surpass our limitations. We can not instantly talk to those far away from us, but cell phones make this possible. Where we do not have a clock in our head allowing us to know the time always, a wristwatch allows us to know. These technologies are so embedded into our daily lives that they have become part of our soft selves.

12. Andrea Fish | 09-Apr-07 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

    Is language an example of an external tool?

    Yes, I absolutely think that language is an example of an external tool that we use to extend our cognitive capacities. Humans and animals a like use different forms of communication to send eachother important messages, the problem with speech is that there are so many different ways to convey the same thing. We have different languages, slang, accents, attitudes, and now technology to consider. The complexity of it all is overwhelming. We use it as a tool to process information and based on the way we process that imformation we form our opinions about the world around us.

13. John Rooney | 09-Apr-07 at 11:13 pm | Permalink

    Clark highly downplays the difference between biology and technology and I think he does this rightfully so. One of Clark’s most important points is the idea that is that in order for us to be considered natural-born cyborgs, the technology that we implement must be “invisible in use.” It is this idea that he successfully demonstrates through out the book. It follows from this that the barrier between technology and biology must be almost completely erased because it is not this the division itself that is important. The simplest example that Clark gives is my favorite and it is the example of just pen and paper. He demonstrates that the simple act of writing something down makes the paper become an extension of the mind, to the point that we don’t even consider what exactly we are doing. Although there are obvious differences between biology and technology, it is also interesting that over time our bodies can come to ignore these differences. Clark said that after Warwick planted a small chip in his arm, he began to feel “like the chip was one with his own body” and that “his biological body was just one aspect of a larger, more powerful and harmoniously operating system.”

14. Angela Kinsella | 09-Apr-07 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

    Clark downplays the importance of the barrier between biology and technology. Is this barrier important? Why or why not?

    I think it is important to distinguish that there is a barrier between biology and technology and that it does exist. I don’t think that they are similar just in the fact that biology is created through reproduction and even though it evolves over time, like technology, the fundamental core is the same. Technology changes all the time and gets increasingly better and more complex. It allows us to learn more about biology in a sense that hospitals contain so much new technology to treat and care for patients. 100 years ago if someone was told a laser could improve someone vision permanently, they probably would not believe you. Both biology and technology exist interdependently of each other and both can help to improve the quality of life for years to come.

15. Ashley Swarts | 09-Apr-07 at 11:30 pm | Permalink

    Clark downplays the importance of the barrier between biology and technology. Is this barrier important? Why or why not?

    I think that there is a barrier between biology and technology that makes them entirely different, and I think that difference is important in that one could not exist without the other. Technology is different in that it has much more advanced capabilities than biology (us) and thus we rely on it in its simplest form for survival (i.e. farming techniques), and also in its more advanced for (cars, cell, internet, etc) to make are lives much easier and to help us understand the world around us better. On the other side, biology is what created technology. Without biology, technology would be non-existent, and thus we would be non-existent.

16. Chris Paolinetti | 09-Apr-07 at 11:47 pm | Permalink

    Is language an example of an external tool?

    Absolutely. Take the example of Hellen Keller. An illness as an infant left her blind and deaf, and yet she was able to learn and reason, as she was very intelligent, although it wasn’t until she learned language that she could express herself effectively. (anyone who passed through high school English probably remembers that scene from “The Miracle Worker”)

    Language is simply a tool that we use to transmit ideas from person to person. By that same token, one could include the satellite system and the internet into that definition of “language,” further reinforcing the concept of language as a tool.

17. Jennifer Crabill | 10-Apr-07 at 12:14 am | Permalink

    To me, Clark at first glance seems to underestimate the human mind and the individual capacity the brain has. But several of his ideas seem very logical. Human intelligence can be based on interaction with resources, such as non-biological things. Technology as a resource and as a medium between the human brain and information is very valuable. I acknowledge this measure of intelligence, but I do not think, however, this acknowledgement means we are natural born cyborgs (as Clark states). Technology and the use of it to obtain information is like a tool; a tool that can measure the intelligence of a human.

    I was trying to think of another example to solidify my agreement with Clark in the idea that you cannot understand intelligence simply by looking at the brain. This may be off topic–but you cannot tell a person’s personality without seeing that person interacting with someone or something. Interaction is a key component when tying to understand something.

18. Ryan Riordan | 10-Apr-07 at 12:52 am | Permalink

    Is language an example of an external tool?

    I defiinitely think language is an example of an external tool. External tools are things we find in our environment that are not innate in us, that help us to relate and, in a way, use the what the world has to offer. Language does this by helping all of us communicate with each other. Take, for instance, this philosophy course. Without language we would not be able to learn the information or to express our individual opinions on the topics presented. In this way we all are using language as a sort of tool to learn and communicate. Language is more a part of us than other things we would label tools, like hammers or programs, and it is by its nature a human tool. Yet, it is external in the sense that it must be learned to be used properly.

19. Amanda Bleatman | 10-Apr-07 at 7:23 am | Permalink

    I agree with Clark that language is an external tool. Why else would have man invented a writing system if he did not intend to use it to his advantage? Since the mind/brain is ‘opportunistic’ and the development of the writing system started when civilizations became more complex, it is evident why people would need the writing system. People were using this tool in order to remember specific things, like financial responsibilities. Also by having the writing system, the information does not easily change. Writing is a concrete form of information. So when it comes to finances, laws, and historical stories, it is hard to change what is fundamentally important to the information (unlike if it was just remember by each individual).

20. Sam Mowry | 10-Apr-07 at 7:32 am | Permalink

    About the barrier between body and technology:
    I agree with Clark in that I think that it doesn’t matter if the barrier is outside the “skinbag” in terms of our ability to merge with the technology at hand. If anything, it is more useful to have it outside our bodies so that if something breaks, we can fix it in front of us rather than needing surgery to repair something in our heads, etc. However, the barrier itself isn’t very important because when someone uses something enough (like me using word and the internet to write this comment), you don’t notice a difference between yourself sitting in the chair and the things you’re looking up on cyberspace.

21. Krystal Kniep | 10-Apr-07 at 7:45 am | Permalink

    Clark believes we are natural born cyborgs already, and that they are very much a reality. When I really ponder the questions, Are we natural born cyborgs?, sometimes it is not hard to side with Clark. It is very true that humans are continuously trying to enhance their biologicial mental capacities through the advancement of technology. We rely on our cellphones, laptops, gps navigators and etc. everyday. We are becoming more and more dependent on them to access or find information instead of using our mind. He believes that minds were made to extend further than just our brain, but to mold into the material world. I believe that humans have to extend their minds in order to have a world that works. If we just functioned for ourselves everyday and did not merge into the “material world”, than society would fall apart.

22. Rutvi Shah | 10-Apr-07 at 8:04 am | Permalink

    Clark downplays the importance of the barrier barrier between biology and technology. Is this important, Why or Why not?

    I believe that it is very crucial to distinguish the two. First, Biology defines life and technology does not. Thinking back to the ice-age, biology still existed when technology did not. In today’s world, the barrier has become narrower because both biology and technology help one another evolve and survive. Through the use of technology, like the internet, much of the research in science is shared. Not to mention, we have developed cures to many diseases with the help of technology. On the other hand, technology is also advancing because now we have developed these minute camera’s that can travel through our body so doctors can catch what diseases we might have. I do agree with Clark when he says it is partly due to technology as to what makes us alive and human.

23. Erica Yuenger | 10-Apr-07 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    Clark downplays the importance of the barrier between biology and technology. Is this barrier important? Why or why not?

    I believe, as others have said before me, that there is a difference between biology and technology, but that they are interrelated and interdependent. We have used our technological advances to enhance our biological abilites and as we develop biological abilities we create new technologies that will advance it even further.
    What I have a hard time grasping, however, is the barrier between biology and technology in the discussion of telepresence. Clark says that humans have the need to answer the questions “Who am I?” and “Where am I?” and that the answers to these questions cross the “biotechnological border”. Clark says that telepresence is the ability to act on things that are away from you, or the ability to assert control at a distance. I can see how the barrier is crossed in the sense that our biological ability to have a conversation with one another is enhanced by the use of a telephone. But I agree with Dreyfus that this idea of telepresence is a bad thing. Even if we can use technology to act on things away from us, it can only go so far. We discussed in class that you cannot hug someone over the phone, or through the use of a webcam, and giving your mom a robot hug would probably be unpleasant. Some may argue that a hug is not a biological need, but there have been studies done with baby monkeys and “mother mokeys” made out of wire and cloth, and the baby monkeys preferred the cloth mother without food to the wire mother with the food because of their need for contact comfort. I do not see how the idea of telepresence will ever satisfy our need for contact comfort.

24. Amanda Jakstas | 10-Apr-07 at 9:07 am | Permalink

    Clark downplays the importance of the barrier between biology and technology. Is this barrier important? Why or why not?

    I agree with Clark when he downplays the importance of the barrier between biology and technology because that barrier barely exists. Today, technology consumes our lives in so many different ways. We are either talking on cellphones or interacting with various computer programs. So if our biological bodies are interacting through technological programs, then where is the barrier. This can be proven today through the creation of robots. Robots are programmed to biologically act like humans, which is parallel to the statement that humans (in a sense) are programmed to technologically interact with various computer programs. Therefore, I do agree with Clark when he says that technology makes us human and alive.

25. Jeffery Villalobos | 10-Apr-07 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    Clark downplays the importance of the barrier between biology and technology. Is this barrier important? Why or why not?

    I feel that people are brought up to believe that there is a fundamental difference between technology and biology. Biology has to do with the functions of the body and technology has to do with machines and how we use them in the world. These two things are different, but I can see how Clark wants to down play the difference to the two. Robots can be very similar to humans in terms of being able to interact with us and convey messages, although they function differently. That is the fundamental difference between robots/machines and humans. We have bodies with blood, muscle, bone, etc. Machines have electrical wiring, metal, etc. Are these two things really that different though in the end? It is just a different means to an end. Both machinces and humans can interact with the world. In the extra credit screening, there was a robot that could dance and interact with its enviornment and show emotion with the lights it emitted from its eyes. It is a simple machine that needs to be programmed to do everything, but there was also another even simpler machine that could dance with the beat of the song on a whim. There was no programming at all. I feel like this just shows, in a simple way, how the biological and technological differences between machines and humans is slowly becoming less meaningful.

26. Jeremy Mcguire | 16-Apr-07 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

    Transparency of technology

    I do agree with Clark that technology has become more and more apart of our lives with out us noticing it or becoming aware of it. One issue that has not been brought up about how technology affects us is its physical impacts on the human body. Every body talks about technology affects the mind but to me the physical aspect is just as important to. Today it seems to me that technology is slowly taking over the physical tasks that our body must go through every day or greatly altering them. My classic example is when I was younger we did most our playing outside and presently I have noticed that more and more kids are replacing outside activities with media. Even the size of children now are a lot bigger than when I was in grade school because they are doing less physical activities. I know in the original question you wanted to know if technology affected our minds in any different way than transparency but I felt that technology affects us physically to.

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.