Philosophy 101E

How to stop worrying and love the Internet

by Douglas Adams

Because the Internet is so new we still don’t really understand what it is. We mistake it for a type of publishing or broadcasting, because that’s what we’re used to. So people complain that there’s a lot of rubbish online, or that it’s dominated by Americans, or that you can’t necessarily trust what you read on the web. Imagine trying to apply any of those criticisms to what you hear on the telephone. Of course you can’t ‘trust’ what people tell you on the web anymore than you can ‘trust’ what people tell you on megaphones, postcards or in restaurants. Working out the social politics of who you can trust and why is, quite literally, what a very large part of our brain has evolved to do. For some batty reason we turn off this natural scepticism when we see things in any medium which require a lot of work or resources to work in, or in which we can’t easily answer back - like newspapers, television or granite. Hence ‘carved in stone.’ What should concern us is not that we can’t take what we read on the internet on trust - of course you can’t, it’s just people talking - but that we ever got into the dangerous habit of believing what we read in the newspapers or saw on the TV - a mistake that no one who has met an actual journalist would ever make. One of the most important things you learn from the internet is that there is no ‘them’ out there. It’s just an awful lot of ‘us’.

Robots Inherit Human Minds

by Hans Moravac, who also appeared in the movie Love Machine screened last week.

Our first tools, sticks and stones, were very different from ourselves. But many tools now resemble us, in function or form, and they are beginning to have minds. A loose parallel with our own evolution suggests how they may develop in future. Computerless industrial machinery exhibits the behavioral flexibility of single-celled organisms. Today’s best computer-controlled robots are like the simpler invertebrates. A thousand-fold increase in computer power in this decade should make possible machines with reptile-like sensory and motor competence. Growing computer power over the next half century will allow robots that learn like mammals, model their world like primates and eventually reason like humans. Depending on your point of view, humanity will then have produced a worthy successor, or transcended inherited limitations and transformed itself into something quite new. No longer limited by the slow pace of human learning and even slower biological evolution, intelligent machinery will conduct its affairs on an ever faster, ever smaller scale, until coarse physical nature has been converted to fine-grained purposeful thought.

This is just a really cool video that inspired me and I wanted to share with the class. No matter how bad life is, you can always make the best out of it

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/307183/video/

In the movie there was a sex machine developed in Illinois known as Sybian that was basically a rotating dildo on top of a vibrating seat. This really brought the odd idea of sex with robots into play. Would it not be considered cheating if you had sex with a robot because it is man-made? Man-made is ontologically different from evolutionary and everything natural, but what if robots grew on trees? Would it be acceptable then to have sex with them? For those females who invested in the Sybian system, it is not a substitute to sex but an addition. There can be no true substitute for intercourse, hence when people masturbate they do not say they just got laid by themselves. This Sybian is an addition not a substitute because no man can spin around in circles while he is inside a woman, but no Sybian can kiss a woman after she is finished and tell her how good it was.

Now if you had been dating a girl for a long time and you liked her, then you found out that she was a cybourg, would you break up with her? Cybourgs are not part of our moral ingroup so the natural thing to do would be to break it off. Similarly, in the 1940’s a white man dated a woman for many years and they fell in love. Then one day he found out that his lover’s great grandmother was black and he broke up with her because of his beliefs. He was white and, that being a different time, he rejected blacks from his moral ingroup. Historically people have rejected the idea of robots in their moral ingroup. Can you love someone that is not a part of your moral community?

For those who went to the movie screening tonight, here is a chance to comment on some of the things we saw. For those who did not attend you missed what I thought to be the strangest and most interesting screening of the entire semester, not to mention the discussion held afterwards. The central theme of the movie was robots and love. Can people fall in love with robots the way they do with pets? I think this is possible to an extent similar to that of a man’s love for his dog. When you play with your dog he shows affection by wagging his tail, jumping up on you, and licking you. The robots in this movie showed not similar signs of reciprocity, but signs on the same level. They had eyebrows, eyelids, mouths, and ears and could adjust all of them to run the gamut of facial expressions depicting emotions that are merely programmed in their silicon memories. We do not have a problem with people falling in love with with their pets, so why should matter if a human loves a robot that is just as smart as a pet? This kind of companionate love may be possible from a robot but I would still be skeptical of a robot telling me how much it liked me. Would that not just be the programmer speaking through the robot?  Even further, can humans have a passionate relationship with a robot? Some men do not require Sartrian reciprocity in their sexual encounters. When visiting a prostitue, a man will not care if the woman is into the sex because he has such a low life that he sleeps with prostitutes and does not care what happens to her as long as he gets what he wants. So is it acceptable to have a relationship with a robot if it will just be the same as that with a prostitute? One of the many aspects that the robot lacks is that of feedback. You do not know how the relationship is developing if the robot cannot tell you. As discussed after the movie you can have a relationship with cocaine but it still will not give you any feedback (unless you hallucinate and have an out-of-body experience or something). We are not yet at the point where robots can tell us how to grow in life and until we reach that point I do not believe that a relationship with a robot is possible–and even then it would be weird.

I made the point today that we are embodied on the internet. I hadn’t planned to discuss this, so my response was a bit scattered (stream of consciousness, heh). Let me try to make it a bit clearer:

We are embodied on the internet. Technology doesn’t simply extend our capacities, but it also changes the kinds of environments in which we act. This in turn changes the kinds of actions that are required for engaging in those environments. Sometimes this results in actions that are very different from the kinds of behaviors we make while engaging nature, but that doesn’t make them any less engaged actions.

It is harder for Dreyfus to make his arguments about technology stick now days, because the technology we use today is literally engaging our bodies in ways it never could before. Take a look at any video on YouTube that shows people using the Wii. These people are clearly engaged with their whole bodies.

But there is a sense in which the Wii example is too easy and superficial. I think it is better to think of the skill required to navigate any complicated website or program. Think about people who use Photoshop, or Final Cut, or any other big, complicated program. It is impossible to doubt that there is a learned skill involved in using this kind of software. It is something that requires practice and training; its the kind of thing that some people are better at than others. But Dreyfus’ argument is that skills are acquired through the use of the body. If he’s right, then we must be embodied when we are using these programs.

Or think about all the social rules and norms involved in interacting with any online community- your favorite message boards; Facebook; MySpace; Wikipedia; this blog. These are all very complicated social environments. We all have some sense of what is appropriate for these environments, and what is inappropriate, and how to behave. Some people do it better than others. MySpace is full of social cues- music, backgrounds, images, links, friends, etc. MySpace is just like a fashion accessory to your online identity.

If these places on the Internet are really environments that take skill to navigate, then you must conclude that we are embodied on the internet. If that’s the case, then the Internet doesn’t pose a threat to our humanity. At most it poses a threat to our current understanding of ourselves and our environment, because in a real sense it changes what we are, and what we interact with. But that doesn’t undermine our humanity; it reaffirms it.

Facebook and MySpace users aren’t examples of people who despise the body, or who think that the body is obsolete. They are people who desperately want to integrate these new possibilities and forms of expression into their lives. They are people who want to make their online identity real and meaningful and relevant. They are people who are trying to find a stable social environment, not just as an abstract mind or identity, but as a real person.

We disscussed this point and I wanted to raise it as a comment on other posts but it did not follow completely. When I sit down to play guitar, more specifically to write a song, I may already have a melody in my head that I want to figure out the notes for it on guitar. So I find the root note of the melody, and use the relative pitch in my mind and play notes on the guitar until the pitches match up–relative pitch is where given two notes you can hear how far they are apart, say a third, a fifth, or an octave. I now have a root note and the next note of the melody, which is still fresh in my mind. From there it is usually pretty easy to match up the rest of the melody with the notes on the guitar using relative pitch. Viola, the melody in my head is now one that I can play on guitar, move it up an octave, and even tease it when I am soloing over a chord progression. Then there are other times where I may be soloing or just messing around on the guitar and I play a string of notes that sound good together, repeat them, decide I like the sound, and turn that into a melody. Can you say that in the first instance I wrote the melody and in the latter situation the guitar wrote a melody? If the mind is the homefront of all ideas, and I hear something after I have played it, without really thinking about what I was playing, and decide that I like this new sound, did I actually create this sound myself or does the guitar deserve credit?

I wanted to pose a question at the end of the semester that we never really talked about in class, even though it has a lot to do with technology.  Hopefully it will also give an easy opportunity for posts before they’re due.

Movies have portrayed the end of the world coming about due to the advancement of technology.  Normally they have something to do with machinces becoming super intelligent and fighting back.  But there are also cases in which it was not a machine making descisions, but humans using obedient technology.  Think about the cold war and how close the world was to total destruction by means of nuclear weapons being fired from both sides.  So technology can help extend possibilities, but sometimes those possibilities lead to destruction.  So i guess the question is this-

WHen you think about the new weapons we are inventing and human nature (which seems to always create fights and wars with other peoples), and then you also think about the scenarios presented by movies like THE TERMINATOR and THE MATRIX where machines become smart and take over, do you think that the technology we invent will ulimately lead to our own destruction?

Well, we got quite a bit into this, but I felt there was more to explore. An example that I thought of, which I believe shows Squarepusher’s point without being anthropocentric is as follows: Consider a symphony orchestra. Ultimately, it is the conductors interpretation and version of the symphony that gets performed. The instrumentalists merely play what the conductor wants to hear (also consider that this is an orchestra in which this holds completely true). Then, one could say that the final work is solely the conductor’s accomplishment. It was he who controlled the whole thing, after all.

However, I don’t think there is a single person that would argue that the conductor is the only one who deserves credit for the work, even though the instrumentalists were just ‘tools’ that the conductor used to realize his vision of the song. So why would we credit these musicians who are doing the brunt of the work, when we wouldn’t consider any of the work an instrument is doing? The music would not be possible without the instrument. Furthermore, the song might sound different with a different instrument.

So it is this that leads to the bigger idea. It is my opinion that we should no consider the whole group, artist(s) and tool(s), as a team. There may be one coach, or controller of the project, but his role is just to set the process in motion. A paint brush won’t hang out with some paint and make a masterpiece on their own. They need the coach to set the project in motion. Then, as a team, the work is completed.

In the end, the finished piece is, for the most part, what we admire. No one goes to a Van Gogh exhibit expecting to see cat scans of Van Gogh’s brain during the process, or pictures of him painting. So if the end result, which includes the brushstroke textures, paints, and canvas are what everyone wants to see, then how can all of that credit go solely to Van Gogh. Surely without all of these other contributors the work would not have been completed. Furthermore, abstract pieces where the canvas is left absolutely blank is a perfect extension of Squarepusher’s idea. When humans try to control the tools, instead of working with them, the result is an artifact of human stupidity. The blank canvas is just the artist’s refusal to collaborate with the paintbrush and paint, in my opinion.

Even though class is basically done, I would love to get this dialog going so we can get a good conversation out of this.

On Tuesday, we will discuss Bleecker and Jenkinson, and we will move on to the Chaing short story. Please come to class prepared to discuss all these works.

Remember, your second 10 comments are due by this thursday at midnight!

Finally, we will have our final screening on Thursday at 7pm. The room has changed: it will be in 113 Davenport Hall. As always, I will bring snacks. Feel free to being your friends, although seating may be limited.
We will be watching the local underground cult class Love Machine. The documentary interviews a wide range of famous philosophers, roboticists, sex experts, and tech wizards to ask the burning question: can you ever love a machine? You can read more about the film in the official press release from the original screening at the Beckman Institute a few years ago. You will definitely recognize some of the names in the film, as well as most of the topics discussed.
Because this movie is so wildly popular, a few other classes might show up. Additionally, a lot of my fellow philosophy grad students are coming to see the film, many for the first time. So be prepared to see some new faces. Hopefully this means we will have a good discussion afterwards.

University of Southern California’s Annenberg Center for the Digital Future recently released a study of of online relationships. Here are some highlights:

Ars Technica: We love our Internet friends, really.

Online friends are just as important to people as their offline friends, according to the results of a recent survey.

[…]

The survey included 2,000 households in the US and defined an online community as “a group that shares thoughts or ideas, or works on common projects, through electronic communication only.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, well over half of those participating in online communities reported doing so at least once a day. 70.4 percent “sometimes or always” interact with other members while logged in.

The report also found that as Internet users increasingly use the web to socialize, they also translate those online social connections to real-life activities. 20.3 percent of those who participate in online communities also participate in offline activities related to the online community at least once a year… Similarly, 40 percent of the respondents reported being more involved in social activism since they began to participate in online communities, with two thirds of those involved with social causes saying that they are now involved in activities because of the Internet.

What might be a surprise, though, is that all of this online interaction is apparently not detracting from interaction with close friends and family offline. While 37.7 percent of respondents said that the Internet helps them communicate more with family and friends, “almost all” users reported that increased Internet interaction has no effect on the amount of time spent with those people in real life.

[…]

Most importantly, the report says that 43 percent of those who participate in online communities feel “as strongly” about their online buddies as those offline. What this shows is that—due to the proliferation of chat rooms, blogs, sites like MySpace, forums, games, virtual worlds, and other communities online—Internet users are reaching out to more people, not less, as technology critics have feared.

Take that, Dreyfus.

The Internet has had a tremendous affect on how we communicate, possibly the greatest change that has been taken in the past few decades. No longer do we have to spend time using a phone or meeting somewhere, instead we can talk to each other electronically. With the simple click of the mouse, we can send emails around the world quicker than you can say “email”. While emails are indeed a popular form of communication, instant and text messaging have taken over how we communicate with each other. Right on the phone, companies have developed a way for us to talk to other people without actually talking into the phone. Want to get some people together for a movie without having to deal with the hassle of calling all of them individually? Just send a single text message to multiple friends and it can be done in less than a few minutes. I believe that this advancement in technology has been good for society.

Websites, such as Facebook and Myspace are able to make long distance communication very simple. People are able to share photos and journal entries with all their friends instead of having to do it individually. There are message boards that bring together people with similar interests, while others can bring together people with certain problems that can offer help to them. Long lost friends have been found on websites like these and along with that, new friendships have also been made. In the case of Internet dating websites, the bond of marriage was created. Sure, these form of communication may not be as mutual as one on one conversations, the fact still remains that many positive things result from this type of communication. If I wanted to, I could easily call my friends to talk with them, but why should I when I could multitask by talking to them with relative ease on the Internet.

A topic that we did not get to today was on Internet collaboration. Frank had mentioned the Postal Service. Upon some research, the amount of collaboration on the Postal Service’s album was quite limited. It would seem that one guy would create some beats and send it to the other guy, who would write and record everything else. The first guy then had some final input into whether or not he liked it.

I think this here is sort of a clear case of why Dreyfus thinks that Internet collaborations are insufficient. The collaborative creativity was taken out of the equation when the Postal Service merely shared a beat. Before any of you Postal Service fans get upset, I do actually like the album. I do not think it lacks anything that most albums nowadays lack regardless of whether or not everyone is in the studio at the same time.

For me, and I would think Dreyfus would agree, the ultimate example of collaborative playing is in a jazz combo. That is a small jazz ensemble meant for playing more improvisational jazz songs, for those of you who have never heard the term. In a jazz combo, everyone plays together and reacts to each other. The important part of this interaction is what you could call a “feedback loop.” That is to say, if the drummer plays something and the bassist reacts to that, but then the drummer reacts to the bassist’s reaction, you have a feedback loop. There is no definite end.

The reason most current songs lack this is because of multi-track recording. In multi-track recording, parts are recorded individually and combined in either a computer or onto multi-track media. This would seem to be a good thing for musicians to play off of and react to each other. However, there is no feedback in the process. Once the drummer records his part, it is set in stone unless the part or sections are rerecorded. The guitarist may be able to react to the drummer’s part, but that’s the end of the line.

This is basically what the whole Internet deficiency for human interaction. There is no real-time, 100%, feel of being with and reacting to another human. Regardless of how transparent the interface for interacting with another is, it still lacks that spiritual warmth of sharing space with a person. I will admit that meaningful relationships may develop through connections on the Internet, but you can never do a trust fall with an AIM friend. And we all know that trust falls are what make human relationships real.

The discussion of network neutrality was really interesting to me. What the basis of this controversy is that telecommunication companies like SBC are complaining that websites like google and skype are using their Internet to provide some type of service to customers. In order to prevent this, those companies would make customers take preferred pathway in order for them to view that site. As a result, the companies providing the services would have to pay additional money in order to have this specific pathway. In turn, the telecommunication companies would have all control over the Internet, which terminates all type of network neutrality.

While I understand that internet service is a business and some of these companies feel like they can make that extra dollar by doing this, I am against any type of violation against network neutrality. I believe that the Internet should be used how people want it to be used. I already pay enough to get these services from the ISP companies and I should have the right to view whatever website I want without being restricted from services like google just because the company feels like it. The only thing that should be restricted to people are things that are illegal or pose some type of harm to society.

If we give these telecommunication companies such as SBC total control over the World Wide Web, that would fall under the category of a monopoly. As has been shown many times throughout history, monopolies cause more harm then good. In the long run, most of the harm will just fall on the customer. The only thing I fear is that these telecommunication companies have developed a very strong relationship with the government. Our government is obviously very powerful and in turn can have a large say on whether this bill passes or not.

     When I first heard that we were going to have to read a book about how humans are cyborgs, I immediately thought that this was going to be a book that I would hate reading.  Men as machines is something that just does not appeal to me, and I thought that reading about it would be boring.  However, after reading the first chapter of Natural-Born Cyborgs, I found myself completely agreeing with Clark.  I think what made me agree with Clark was the way he used wording in his book.  He doesn’t simply say that men are machines, rather what Clark argues is that technology constitutes “”a cascade of mindware upgrades”: cognitive upheavals in which the effective architecture of the human mind is altered and transformed”.  What makes us cyborgs is the fact that our use of technology has become so crucial in our lives that it has changed the way our brains function and made it harder to distinguish what is human intelligence from what is human intelligence aided by technological tools. 

     Clark gives the cell phone as an example of how we have become cyborgs.  He discusses how we all get so wrapped up in text messaging and talking on the phone with others that we often seem to be leading divided lives.  On the one hand, we are in the space that we are physically occupying, but on the other hand, our minds are with the people that we are talking to.  I know that when I am talking to someone on the phone, my mind gets completely wrapped up in that conversation that I sometimes lose sight of where I actually am.  The same thing happens when I am texting with someone.  Physically I may be in class, but mentally I am with that person and focused on whatever it is that we are talking about.  Another way that I think my cell phone has become a part of me is just the fact that when I don’t have it with me or within my reach, I feel as if a part of me is missing.  I never feel comfortable when I don’t have my phone because I feel as though any communication that I have with the world has been totally cut off.  In reality this is not the case, but I rely on my phone so much to communicate with others that I feel as if it is my only means of communication with the world.

     The cell phone is one example among many that Clark gives, but I think it is the one that stands out the most and that almost all of us can probably relate to.  I doubt that I am the only one that feels lost without a cell phone and that relies on it for so many parts of my life.  I think that with all of the advancements in technology that have happened and are happening at this very moment, it is almost inevitable for us to become so integrated with it.  We have become one with technology in so many ways that we can no longer really doubt that we are what Clark refers to as natural-born cyborgs. 

I’m not going to talk about one specific book or one specific topic, that we discussed in class, I am going to address the whole thought of us being cyborgs. A lot of the time that we spend in class was spent with us discussing if we where like machines or if machines are able to think for themselves or if machines will one day take over. I think that in a way we are just like machines I say this because machines are programmed and only know what they are programmed to know. Also when playing chess a machine learns from his opponent’s moves and is ready for that opponent the next time. Well we as humans are not programmed but we are also thought good and bad and right and wrong. Also like machines we learn from are mistakes and are ready for the next time. However I don’t think that they will take over one day because I think that we are smarter than they are simply for the fact that we created them. What I do think is that one day it will get to the point that we won’t know what to do without them, because they are becoming such an important part of our daily life. I think that machines are just like cell phones and are such an important part of our daily life that we can’t be without them. I think that at this time we would be lost without technology because that’s all we know. Is like when you get use to your cell phone but the day you don’t have it feels like you are missing a part from you. I also don’t think that machines are able to think for themselves although they are able to learn from their mistakes or from what others due they can’t have their own ideas or thought. They also don’t have feeling like we do but they can be program to want something like to win or beat the opponent. Overall I think that humans will always be dominant over anything else but in a way we are also machines and are thought right from wrong, good and bad and learn from our mistakes but have the advantage to think and feel.

We discussed in class about how Dreyfus thought that technology could possibly cause us to lead lives without meaning. Daniel summed up Dreyfus’s views by saying something along the lines of whatever hugs do for people, e-hugs will never be able to. I think Dreyfus meant for this statement to be hypothetical, but with advances in technology, the actual idea of an e-hug is becoming more and more plausible.

The appropriately named company CuteCircuit has several projects in the works that attempt to make technology more user friendly. Most of their projects incorporate some type of computing device into clothing. In this sense, we are coming that much closer to being one with technology, as Clark thinks. The most interesting and pertinent piece that they are working on now is the Hug Shirt. This is their description:

“The Hug Shirt is a shirt that makes people send hugs over distance! Embedded in the shirt there are sensors that feel the strength of the touch, the skin warmth and the heartbeat rate of the sender and actuators that recreate the sensation of touch, warmth and emotion of the hug to the shirt of the distant loved one.”

You can send and receive hugs through normal cell phones. The shirt “encodes” the hug before sending it out to whomever you choose. While this won’t be exactly like a real hug, it’s the next best thing to receiving a real one when you’re restrained distance. It’s a warm gesture that expresses how one feels. Besides, it’s the thought behind the action that really counts.

In addition, Cisco System has developed a conference system called TelePresence. It promises to bring people together even across great distances. The video pretty much explains everything.

With these new technologies emerging, we can now find out what their true potentials really are instead open ended debates with no resolution. Even though these existing technologies may not be able to prove Dreyfus wrong, we will be able to learn from these devices’ shortcomings and continually improve upon them. Maybe someday, e-hugs will be able to do whatever real hugs can.

So as this semester comes to an end we have learned many things about philosophy and how it has related to technology. We can see that the world we live in today is definitely a digital one. In one way or another, every person has been affected by technology. When I look back at my lifetime and think of how far technology has come in that little amount of time, I can’t help but wonder what we can look forward to with technology. Does it have borders or are the possibilities endless? One thing I have noticed with technology advances in my lifetime is that new technologies usually emerge independently and then as they advance they merge with other technologies. Take cellular phones and the internet for example. They both emerged as separate entities and now the advances of technology allow us to browse the web on our cell phones or place a phone call from the internet. I think the technologies that we have to look forward to in the future are going to harness our favorite and everyday essential technologies into one powerful tool that can “do it all” if you will.

Along with the anticipation and excitement of new technology, I can’t help to be a little concerned that the next wave of technology, especially pertaining to the internet. It is scary when with one tool, a total stranger can look up a property that you own, find your address, a layout of the home, and a picture of the house, all in the public domain. Maybe my concern in this regard will pave the way for a technology in the future to safeguard ones personal information or perhaps revolutionalize the way that data is stored and shared in a way that one can not even dream of in this day and age. Only time will tell. What do you guys think?

In class before break we talked about how text messaging and other forms of technological communication cannot take the place of actual one-on-one communication in person. Gone are the days of the Beat generation when people hitchhiked across the country to meet friends sending only a letter stating, “I’ll be in D.C. between Christmas and New Years.” The world today displays much different forms of communication that are geared more towards the new advancements in technology such as text messaging, cell phones, e-mail, the internet, etc. These days you cannot hang out with a group of friends for more than an hour without one being interrupted by a cell phone call. With the increasing amount of communication expressed via technology today, it seems that actual face-to-face communication has become almost unnecessary in many situations. It seems that many people are now met through other forms of communications such as facebook or myspace, where a person can access the internet and meet complete strangers throughout the world that share common interests with them. Although this may seem very superficial because a person has met only through computer screen and possible posted pictures, this type of communication can lead to people connecting at a different level that can lead to possible in-person meetings, and possible friendships or relationships. Also, many people are now turning to online dating services that will help people find others that might possible make a good match for them. Furthermore, there are websites, such as Monster.com, where a person can post their resume and then from that get contacted for possible job offers. This is not a one on one original contact but it can lead to it and for some possibly a new job. For these reasons for someone to say that these technological forms of communication are not nearly as personal and real as one on one meetings or conversations might be somewhat true, but the fact remains that much good can come out of these developments that can help people meet others that may have significant impact on their life. Overall, these advancements in communication are impacting our lives significantly and are here to stay.

I think that Heidegger would really promote an Amish type lifestyle. After learning a little about how their society works, it seems like the very issue that Heidegger was talking about in “The Question Concerning Technology”. Heidegger is concerned with our way of being in the world. Dryfus too thinks that technology conceals humanity. The Amish do use technology, of course, in ways like using language and in ways like driving cars. The way their society works is based on what certain elders and the community agree would be beneficial to all of the people. For example, phones were viewed as important and necessary for such things as business calls, but to keep the telephone from being used too often and unnecessarily, the phone was put outside away from the house. The Amish agree that the phone would lead to less face-to-face conversations. Because of this concern also, the phone was put in a place to be shared with other families, making it more of a responsibilitiy and social interaction will still have to occur. The Amish of course have their relgious reasons for not wanting to mix with people that are not Amish, but they also feel that they need to strive to live that simple life without letting technology “introduce individualist competition for worldly goods that would be destructive of community”(wikipedia: Amish). I really do believe that the concern Hediegger had with the way humans will lose control of technology the more advanced it gets is a concern that the Amish have taken notice to a long time ago. They assess every new technology they want to introduce into their lives, and in doing so understands that piece of technology far better than most humans, which most people only strive for that transparency in technology like Gehlen points out. After discussing how that piece of technology would benefit or disrupt their lives, the Amish then decide how they want to take advantange or not take advantage of it. I just think that if the world were to adopt Heidegger’s ideas, our lives could be more like the Amish. I personally think that if the world was like that, it would slow down the development of technology tremendously.