I feel as though the debate between Hubert Dreyfus and Andy Clark represents the classic age-old (well, since the birth of the Internet) question of whether or not you think the Internet is an overall “good thing.” As annoying as it is, I hate to say my opinion rests somewhere between the twos’ arguments. Dreyfus, to me, is like your stuck-in-the-50s grandmother who looks back on the good ol’ days when you knew your paperboy on a first-name basis. He makes excellent arguments, including his idea that the Internet creates a sense of disembodiment. This disembodiment is the most tangible item of evidence we have studied in this class. I see evidence of disembodiment all around me! No need to list examples; we have all seen it or experienced it ourselves. However, when he goes deeper into his ideas, such as the idea that hyperlinks are chaotic and unorganized, he starts sounding like someone who is refusing to accept the technological benefits the Web has to offer. Although the library does contain an extremely organized hierarchy of information; how many people go to the library for information these days (without a professor requiring them to do so)? I find the Internet to be a very useful and timesaving instrument—Which brings us to Clark.
“It is the mind-body-scaffolding problem. It is a problem of understanding how human thought and the reason is born out of looping interactions between material brains, material bodies, and complex cultural and technological environments (Clark, 11).” Clark claims that there isn’t a difference really between the biological and technological way of gathering information. Whether Inga memorized the location of a place in her mind or Otto looked up the location in his notebook, they both end up with the correct bit of information. I agree with Clark that there is a fluidity of human-machine integration. Clark seems much more likely to accept the impacts of technology than Dreyfus. These days, the Internet plays a significant role in people’s lives. I still, however have a problem with Clark’s definition of intelligence. As he states, he says we are intelligent because of the way we can interact with technology, and, therefore, we are natural-born cyborgs. I think there is a major difference between individual, biological intelligence and the intelligence of using a computer. Anyone can learn to navigate through the Web, but only some are born with a high level of unique intelligence.
Ashley Graham | 25-Apr-07 at 1:21 pm | Permalink
I agree with you not understanding the underlying point to the debates of technology. Don’t get me wrong, I do find it interesting to hear the views of famous philosophers and my classmates, but I have yet to figure out why it matters. I see technology materialistically. It is what it is, and nothing more. I do not think that technology is what defines us as humans. I think that each of use define ourselves by our actions, thoughts, and beliefs. Technology is here to stay, it will only progress, and we should get over ourselves and accept it, if not embrace it.
Krystal Kniep | 26-Apr-07 at 9:04 am | Permalink
I agree, I do not know why these philosophers are making such a big deal.I think contemplating whether technology is taking over our lives is only hindering us even more. Like Ashley said, technology is here to stay, and we have to learn how to accept it in our lives if we want to succeed and progress in life. I also do not think technology will ever take over civilization. The only reason we have such advancements is because of human interaction. It depends on us to use technology to our fullest potential.
Ryan Riordan | 26-Apr-07 at 7:11 pm | Permalink
I don’t think i would say that it is annoying that you don’t have a clear opinion on whether the internet is a bad thing or a good thing. Personally, i find people that are super opinionated to be annoying. The reason for that being that they are not open to see both sides of an argument as well as somebody that is not quite sure. In a topic like, “Is the internet a good thing or a bad thing,” I dont think that there really will be a correct answer or opinion. I feel the same way as you do, I am not too sure how I feel about half of the things we talk about in this class. Everytime I hear a different side to something, i see some valid points. It’s tough to know right answers for topics like these.
Amanda Jakstas | 26-Apr-07 at 8:35 pm | Permalink
I also disagree with the philosophers and how technology is overcoming humans. I also believe that we define ourselves through our thoughts, actions, feelings, etc. However, I do think that technology, at least today, does play a part in defining us. I’m not saying that technology has overcome all of lives, but I am saying that it is an element that defines us. For example, people are defined by their ipod or their cell phone or even their cars. Overall, I agree that technology is not taking over our lives, but it definitely plays a role in our lives.
Adam Domanico | 26-Apr-07 at 9:29 pm | Permalink
Jennifer: I see where you are comming from by stating that Dreyfus is an old timmer. It is true that his stance of disembodiment my grandparents would more strongly agree with. However, this is because my grandparents built their own house with nothing but the inginuity of themselves and their friends and they have reeped the benefits of personal interations and hard work that technology has diminished. So although I strongly agree with you, my question for you is whether the change is a good thing. Yes Dreyfus may be refusing the technological benefits of the Internet but is everyone that accepts to benefits not refusing the benefits of the oldtimers. Using the Internet is fast, but are you not forfeiting the reward of persistence search in a library. Although there are more convinient benefits that technologies provide, maybe the older benefits, although harder, make us grow more as individuals.