Please post a comment by Tuesday’s class for participation credit for this week.
Prompts and Questions:
- Dreyfus is attempting to combat the inflated hype surrounding the Internet. In what ways has the Internet been hyped? Does it live up to the hype, or does it fall flat?
- Dreyfus makes a big deal out of the failure of search. What similarities do you see between his arguments and Searle’s arguments against strong AI? Is search really a failure? If not, what does this imply about artificial intelligence?
- Dreyfus thinks the body is the source of meaning, relevance, and significance. Why are Dreyfus’ arguments for this view? What implications does this hold for our engagement with the Internet? Is Dreyfus right to be skeptical of the Internet?
- Dreyfus thinks that distance learning is necessarily deficient. Are his criticisms reasonable? If you have had any experience with distance learning, do his criticisms ring true?
- Dreyfus focuses much of his criticisms at the very notion of ‘telepresence’. He says “Whatever hugs do for people, I’m quite sure telehugs won’t do it.” Are interpersonal relationships over the Internet necessarily deficient? What might Clark say in response?
- Dreyfus thinks that the Internet is symptomatic of the nihilism of the contemporary age, and he sides with Kierkegaard in seeing this nihilism reflected in the press, the media, and the way people behave on the Internet. Is the modern age really nihilistic? If so, is this nihilism a product of the technology or does it reflect something deeper about contemporary culture, or perhaps about human nature?
- Does the internet represent an overload of information? Is this dangerous to our democracy, or to our individual freedoms? Is this something we are prepared to handle, or does the technology move too quickly for us to keep up?
- In the conclusion of the book, Dreyfus distinguishes his criticisms of the Internet from Plato’s criticisms of written language. What is Plato’s view, and why does Dreyfus think his criticisms are different?
- Should the network be neutral? Do the telecommunications companies responsible for building the infrastructure of the network have a legitimate claim to those pipes? Should the internet be a public utility like water and electricity, or is it a luxury item that is rightfully under the control of private interests?
Amanda Bleatman | 14-Apr-07 at 10:12 am | Permalink
Dreyfus and Kierkegaard do have a reason to believe that nihilism is affecting the modern age. I don’t know how serious they believe this problem is, but I do agree that society does show some characteristics. When divorce rate is more than 50%, people are more concerned with TV shows, consumer products, which celebrity just got knocked up, or how much excessive money they have, then something must be wrong. All of that stuff might not exactly be nihilism itself, but if you think about what meaning it brings to a persons life…it is. Part of this though, could just be due to lack of morals and care. However, more importantly, I think that technology could be a possible culprit (especially now when technology is heavily geared towards consumer entertainment). Maybe Dreyfus, Kierkegaard, and I are just pessimistic people when it comes to society, but whatever the cause for the problems of modern society, all I know is that it’s not good.
Kimberly Koch | 15-Apr-07 at 5:15 pm | Permalink
Dreyfus thinks that distance learning is necessarily deficient. Are his criticisms reasonable? If you have had any experience with distance learning, do his criticisms ring true?
I think Dreyfus’s criticism on distance learning is reasonable. I don’t think learning through computers, TVs, or films is ever as effective as learning from teachers. I agree that you lose content, relevance, and significance. When a teacher is present and there is a shared risk, the teacher learns how to get information across better and in more interesting ways by learning from the students what works well and what does not. A computer does not do this. When I take courses online instead of in a class room I always do worse. I have a harder time focusing and paying attention because there is no interaction and I can’t ask questions.
Ryan Marshall | 15-Apr-07 at 6:36 pm | Permalink
On the internet and what it provides.
I think the internet provides a wealth of information but has kept it from becoming an overload of information through search engines. This, in a way, organizes the information in a well enough way as to not completely confuse us when presented with that information. It allows us to get something useful rather easily without being overwhelmed.
Brandon Wilkins | 15-Apr-07 at 8:22 pm | Permalink
Dreyfus thinks that distance learning is necessarily deficient. Are his criticisms reasonable? If you have had any experience with distance learning, do his criticisms ring true?
It is a little confusing for me to draw a conclusion based on Dreyfus’ claims. He says that distance learning is impossible because of the interaction that occurs between the students and the teacher. This relationship is based on the reactions that the students give based on the professors lecture as well as the relationship totally being mediated by technology. He says that context and relevance can be diluted based on the use of technology. In my experiences, with technology, it seems to enhance our relationship with the world; such as being able to hear the teacher better or see his lecture easier. The use of technology can be beneficial by allowing the student to view the lecture at a convenient time, hear everything the teacher has to say, as well as pause or replay what the teacher says. These concepts would lead me to believe that distance learning could be beneficial, but doesn’t allow for a full interaction with the teacher. Dreyfus says that how a teacher provides the lecture information is based on the presence of the students. It seems to me, that distance learning could be effective solely based on the teacher’s ability to produce an effective lecture. I say that Dreyfus’ criticisms aren’t always true, because it is based on the ability of teacher to lecture on the topic as if the students were present.
William Barrett | 15-Apr-07 at 9:50 pm | Permalink
Should the network be neutral? Do the telecommunications companies responsible for building the infrastructure of the network have a legitimate claim to those pipes? Should the internet be a public utility like water and electricity, or is it a luxury item that is rightfully under the control of private interests?
The network should be neutral because the idea behind it being built was to allow for innovation on the edges of the network and for people to use the internet. Innovation in the network builds faster paths within the network for information to travel. This allows for more access and better access for people when they are on the internet. The internet should be a public utility like water and electricity because in today’s society is basically just as necessary in everyday life as such utilities as water and electricity. For example, at the University of Illinois we are required to have an email address, which we access through the internet. This email address is necessary for us to function properly as a student at this college; therefore, internet is necessary for us to function properly as student at this college.
Sam Mowry | 16-Apr-07 at 2:49 pm | Permalink
About the internet being nihilistic:
It isn’t. People use the internet to find love (eharmony and others), play games (any of the online role-playing games), and talk to their friends over email that the otherwise would have lost touch with. Yes, it might mean that a large number of people are more withdrawn from the people around them (especially the role-players), but they’re still investing their energies in making other connections. People don’t get on the internet and lose all sense of hope or meaning; they learn new facts and make new friends. On the whole Dreyfus is blowing the issue of the internet way out of proportion.
Daniel Estrada | 16-Apr-07 at 2:58 pm | Permalink
Sam: Dreyfus wouldn’t deny that people try to form meaningful relationships online; his point is simply that they always fall short, and the internet as a technological medium doesn’t support the kinds of interactions that make real human relationships matter.
People try to substitute real relationships for internet games, but they will never be the same as real relationships. Your WoW friends will never be as close to you as your real friends; and if you only have WoW friends, you have really failed to establish a meaningful human connection.
Examples like eHarmony are predicated on the idea that these people will actually meet face-to-face at some point; a relationship conducted solely over the internet just won’t be fulfilling, according to Dreyfus. Youc an’t hug or kiss someone of the internet, and the substitutions the internet provides are fundamentally limited.
In other words, Dreyfus would say that YOU are blowing the issue out of proportion if you think these online interactions are anywhere near as fulfilling as real life interpersonal relationships.
Kathleen Pinter | 16-Apr-07 at 4:30 pm | Permalink
In the conclusion of the book, Dreyfus distinguishes his criticisms of the Internet from Plato’s criticisms of written language. What is Plato’s view, and why does Dreyfus think his criticisms are different?
Plato first hated the idea of writing because he felt people wouldn’t understand the writer’s tone or posture. Now, we see how much writing has given us. Because of writing, we all have discovered a new way to communicate, new way to keep in contact long distance, and a whole new cultural shock. The difference between Plato’s claim and Dreyfus’ claim is that Dreyfus’ simply believes that the internet is all hype. Sure, he believes that the internet will help us in some way in the future just like writing would help us in the future, but he believes it’s all hype. Dreyfus also beleives he differs from Plato because nowadays he believes we are being told the more we use the internet the better off we’ll be , and Dreyfus’ doesn’t believe that to be true.
I agree with Dreyfus’ on the account that the internet is a lot of hype and people take it to another level, however, I believe great things in the internet. I believe with the right people, right timing it will do many great things for us in the future, such as cure cancer. It may not be seen yet, just like Plato didn’t see what writing could do, but I believe it may be hype, but in the end it will pay off.
Kerry Phelan | 16-Apr-07 at 6:12 pm | Permalink
Dreyfus thinks that distance learning is necessarily deficient. Are his criticisms reasonable? If you have had any experience with distance learning, do his criticisms ring true?
I feel that Dreyfus’ criticisms on distance learning are reasonable. He argues that with distance learning you lose context, relevance, significance, and risk. When we lose the possibility of risk we lose the feeling of care. Distance learning consists only of bare language. Through the internet it is extremely difficult establish feelings and whether they are true or not. Learning within a techer-student environment you experience interaction, firm engagement, eye contact, and emotions.
I agree with Dreyfus that distance learning causes you to lose a few things compared to normal learning. I believe it can be done and some people do just fine with distance learning. However, it is not the same as having the personal interaction with a teacher. Personal interaction eliminates confusion and loss of context, significance, and risk.
Ashley Graham | 16-Apr-07 at 6:25 pm | Permalink
The internet does contain an immense amount of information, but it is not an overload. An overload would be impossible for us to handle, and overwhelming. Because there are search engines like google and yahoo, we do not have to individually filter millions of pages to find what we are looking for. The search engines do this for us. Similairly, the internet is personalized. My e-mail is just that, MY e-mail, no one elses. I am not bombarded by e-mails for other people and irrelevant information. Technologies have allowed us to prevent beinng overwhelmed by the vast quantities of available information.
Tariq Mohammed | 16-Apr-07 at 6:57 pm | Permalink
The internet is hyped in the sense that people say you can do anything and everything on it. To be honest, I couldn’t agree more. In the early stages of the internet, it was utilized to research and gather information about various topics. As time has passed, it is pretty obvious that the internet is no longer used for such simple purposes. We have the options of shopping anywhere in the world, communicating with most anyone more efficiently and easier, exploring the earth from one spot, etc. So yeah, it definitely lives up to its hype. Additionally, it seems that this more developed internet has made us more lazy. We can order groceries online…
Erin Murphy | 16-Apr-07 at 10:10 pm | Permalink
“Dreyfus thinks that distance learning is necessarily deficient. Are his criticisms reasonable? If you have had any experience with distance learning, do his criticisms ring true?”
Dreyfus says that with distance learning, the farthest a student can possibly get without context, interaction and risk is mere competence.
I’m going to give an example I’ve had a little experience with. Every once in awhile, I’ll look on the internet for websites or podcasts that teach another language. While such things are excellent for building vocabulary and repeating back for pronunciation, I don’t think you could ever become fluent that way. You need the context of a conversation to really communicate well.
But distance learning can be a good supplement for live classes. Dreyfus even says in the end of the book that he’s been posting recorded lectures on the web to help his students.
Andrea Fish | 16-Apr-07 at 11:07 pm | Permalink
The internet has overloaded our mental capacities as human beings. There is so much information to be obtained on a day to day basis through the media and word of mouth that its hard not to sit down at the end of your day and look it up. But how much of this information is relevant and reliable. Slim to none would be my answer. I fell empowered by the internet, I no longer am simply another mindless human being, because I can access and process information at my own will, with the click of a button. Do I watch politicians on tv and laugh at the lack of intellegence and reasoning ablilites, yes. If this is the way I feel, there must be many more out there with much stronger stance. Thus, I agree that technology can be very dangerous to democracy.
John Rooney | 16-Apr-07 at 11:18 pm | Permalink
At times, the internet can definitely be overwhelming. When we access the World Wide Web, we literally have the entire world at our fingertips. You can learn just about everything about just about anything. Dreyfus considers this to be information overload, and I agree that this is so. However, I don’t believe that this is in anyway a bad thing. We have been overloaded with information long before the intent was born. Television, newspapers, magazines, books and libraries for that matter are filled with information, but that doesn’t mean that we must take in all of it or that it effects us in a negative way. We filter through the things that we don’t want or need and spend time on the things that we need or are interested in. I believe that we are well prepared to handle all of the information that the internet has to offer and that if we weren’t, it would already have had profoundly negative effects on us. I cant imagine anyway that the internet could limit our freedoms, just as I cant imagine that a newspaper could do the same.
Adam Domanico | 17-Apr-07 at 1:05 am | Permalink
Dreyfus thinks that distance learning is necessarily deficient. Are his criticisms reasonable? If you have had any experience with distance learning, do his criticisms ring true?
I think that Dreyfus is right about distance learning and that it lacks components necessary to truely understand. He says that a major part of the learning is simply sharing in a personal experience with fellow students and the teacher. This personal interaction will allow the teacher to assess how the students are learning the material best and to adjust acordingly. This view rings true from my personal experiences. As a very basic example, it is always esaier for me to recall information after going to lectures rather than just reading the material. The simple fact that you experienced the material with the professor and the other students gives you references to remember the information within context.
Dreyfus focuses much of his criticisms at the very notion of ‘telepresence’. He says “Whatever hugs do for people, I’m quite sure telehugs won’t do it.” Are interpersonal relationships over the Internet necessarily deficient? What might Clark say in response?
Adam Domanico | 17-Apr-07 at 1:15 am | Permalink
(Sorry this is my real comment. The last one was sent before I finished)
I think that Dreyfus is right about distance learning and that it lacks components necessary to truely understand. He says that a major part of the learning is simply sharing in a personal experience with fellow students and the teacher. This personal interaction will allow the teacher to assess how the students are learning the material best and to adjust acordingly. This view rings true from my personal experiences. As a very basic example, it is always esaier for me to recall information after going to lectures rather than just reading the material.
This idea also coresponds to Dreyfus’ other notion that ‘telepresence’ is insufficient means of communication. I agree that a telehug would not be suitable enough to satisfy its need. One of the main reasons that people need hugs to get comfort for the empathy of another person. There is something about the shared experience that makes this emapthy believable and sufficient so comfort. Although thoughts can be presented over the internet, feelings can not be expressed very well. Interpersonal relationships over the internet are therefore deficient in providing us humans with the proper social environment that allow empathy.
Ashley Swarts | 17-Apr-07 at 4:54 am | Permalink
Is the internet nihilistic?
I disagree with Dreyfus’ view of the internet being nihilistic. I think if anything it is the exact opposite. There are many ways to interact with people over the internet, and I think it is a way for people who are otherwise inward and very shy to open up and be themselves without being embarrassed. Interacting in person with people is very hard and awkward for some, so the internet provides a means of expressing themselves easily. Although they might now have as much interaction with “physical” people, they are still interacting with people on the internet, just in a different way.
Rutvi Shah | 17-Apr-07 at 6:30 am | Permalink
Does the internet represent an overload of information? Is this dangerous to our democracy, or to our individual freedoms? Is this something we are prepared to handle, or does the technology move too quickly for us to keep up?
A large variety of information can be found on the internet. This large quantity of information on one topic is not always trustworthy. Anyone and everyone is allowed to post on the web, therefore, the validity of information should always be questioned. On the other hand, the advantage to having so much information present is to allow the reader to form their own opinion on that particular issue. The internet provides us with an array of knowledge, which enhances our abilitiy to think. I believe the internet is definately not a threat to our individual freedom. Unlike following a dictator, the internet allows one to make choices and form their opinion. Sites like YouTube make is easier for one to things without any restrictions. This encourages creativity and self-opinion at the same time. The internet has been developing at a very fast pace since it was born. With new innovations, it is forcing us to adapt, which means continuous learning. This in a sense is beneficial to us because the advancements are making us more intelligent. Just by comparing an average human today to ice-age man, there is no doubt that there is a large I.Q differences between the two.
Krystal Kniep | 17-Apr-07 at 7:09 am | Permalink
Yes, I do believe the internet does represent an overload of information; however, I think there are easy ways you can beat back the overload and you do not even realize it. First, the internet is organized into various search engines which greatly helps a lot. Once you become more familiar with the internet, it is a lot easy to filter information and recognize the quality data versus the junk information. In addition, you can also download spam control, so junk mail does not pile up in your email account. If you take control and develop an information strategy that works best for you, you won’t even realize the overload of information.
Jennifer Crabill | 17-Apr-07 at 8:18 am | Permalink
My personal beliefs about the consequences of the Internet are most similar to Dreyfus’. I do think we are past the stage where the Internet is “hyped” and on to the stage where the Internet is now a staple in most people’s lives. However, as Dreyfus points out, the Internet (with all of its benefits, shortcuts and time savers) does produce this sort of “disembodiment.” Dreyfus takes the issue a little too far when calling hyper links “bad” and online learning programs unsuccessful, but I think his overall main idea is a very honest representation of *some* people’s experience with the Internet.
Erica Yuenger | 17-Apr-07 at 8:18 am | Permalink
Dreyfus makes a big deal out of the failure of search. What similarities do you see between his arguments and Searle’s arguments against strong AI? Is search really a failure? If not, what does this imply about artificial intelligence?
Dreyfus’ argument for the failure of search is similar to Searle’s argument against strong AI that computers cannot understand what they are doing. Both assert that computers understand syntax, but not semantics. For Dreyfus, this is a problem when using search engines such as Google, because the computer does not know what the user means, but simply finds any article or web site with the key words typed in regardless of its relevance to the users meaning. I wouldn’t necessarily consider search to be a complete failure, because once in a while you can find a knowledgeable, credible source. While it’s not a complete failure, however, there is definitely room for improvement.I get really irritated when I’m searching for something and most of what turns up in the search is junk that is useless to my purpose. Dreyfus makes the distinction between data retrieval and information retrieval. In a search, it is fairly easy to obtain data, such as a restaurant phone number or location. It is usually much more difficult, however, to find credible information for a research paper.
Wes Gotschall | 17-Apr-07 at 8:20 am | Permalink
Dreyfus focuses much of his criticisms at the very notion of ‘telepresence’. He says “Whatever hugs do for people, I’m quite sure telehugs won’t do it.” Are interpersonal relationships over the Internet necessarily deficient?
I don’t believe an internet relationship with somebody is deficient simply because it is different. Many of the dating websites enjoy huge success and people get married after getting to know each other online and then get married when they finally meet in person. Also, some people lose their inhibitions when they don’t have to talk face to face and therefore say what they really want to and are able to get out their true feelings.
Although I knew these people before, I still keep in touch with friends from high school by talking to them online. Whenever I do get to see them face to face it makes it quite a bit less awkward than when I see other friends who I haven’t talked to for so long. Telepresence is different, and has its own advantages and disadvantages. I would not describe it as deficient, merely different.
Angela Kinsella | 17-Apr-07 at 8:59 am | Permalink
The internet has so much to offer people these days that it gets a little overwhelming at times. It also is a relief to know that if there is ever something I don’t know what is means, I can just Google it. This is very different from previous generations that had to go to the library, read newspapers, and so on to find out their information. I could spend a whole day researching all of my curiosities and that still probably wouldn’t be enough time. Sometimes I do get overwhelmed at how much information is at my disposal, but in a way it is such a benefit. The internet is great.
Jeffery Villalobos | 17-Apr-07 at 9:02 am | Permalink
Does the internet represent an overload of information? Is this dangerous to our democracy, or to our individual freedoms? Is this something we are prepared to handle, or does the technology move too quickly for us to keep up?
The internet provides humans with a plethora of information at the tip of our finger tips. It is one of the most valuable resources and world changing phenomena in hman history. Being able to communicate with anyone anywhere in the world instantly has vastly changed communication between businesses, governments, everyday people, etc. People are able to play video games with people all across the world, and so on. I could go on and on about what the internet allows us to do.
I believe that this is a great asset to humans. I do not believe that it takes away from our democracy or individual freedoms. The internet does not control who we are or hinder our ability to think for ourselves The internet provides a forum for people to discuss isses on blogs, network with sites such as facebook, and gather information about virtually anything.
There are also draw backs to the internet. People become disconnected with other human interaction. Some people sit on the internet playing games such as WoW, which leads to isolation from society. Yes, there is interaction between people because you can talk, but it is not the same as being in persona dn picking up on non-verbal communication such as body language and tone.
I believe these small drawbacks to the internet do not nearly diminish the positive aspects that the internet brings to the world. It has made communication easier, businesses more efficient, and information more weidely available to everyone. These few positives alone, in my opinion, outway the small number of negative factors.
Jaren Gaddi | 17-Apr-07 at 9:13 am | Permalink
Does the internet represent an overload of information? Is this dangerous to our democracy, or to our individual freedoms? Is this something we are prepared to handle, or does the technology move too quickly for us to keep up?
The internet is a means for the proliferation of information - it allows the public to quickly and rapidly access new information. While this initially seems like a benefit to our democracy and individual freedoms, it causes an information overload. The constant feeding of new information forces the public to further contemplate actions and reform their opinions, and they will express their different opinions through various means (such as the internet). But, by voicing their opinions on the internet, they become disembodied from them - the internet becomes a means for us to be able to voice opinions without taking responsibility for them. And because we can do this, we become detached from the necessity of action. It seems to me like Dreyfus is worried that without the need to take responsibility for our opinions, coupled with the vast amount of information quickly accessible on the internet, will foster an environment of political inaction - everyone will have an opinion in matters of public interest, but none will be motivated to take action regarding those opinions
Fernando Londono | 17-Apr-07 at 9:19 am | Permalink
Does the internet represent an overload of information? Is this dangerous to our democracy, or to our individual freedoms? Is this something we are prepared to handle, or does the technology move too quickly for us to keep up?
I do believe that there is additional information that is not relevant to certain topics imposed on search engines. This inhibits the claim of certain sources, so anyone can say they are knowledgable in those fields but truly are not. In a democratic society where people are allowed to express their opinions openly and freely does impose some dangerous threats for society as a whole. People should be able to express their opinions on any subject matter regardless of academic credentials; this is the purpose of a democratic society because we never know if the individual is saying the truth. It does serve a great purpose in allowing us to go beyond the boundaries of our physical limitations, however it seems as though it has taken us faster there than we are willing to admit. It is a an economically well developed tool used for recreation, business, shopping etc. yet the boundaries seem limitless for where it can actually take us.