Philosophy 101E

     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. 

In our last class before Thanksgiving break, Daniel had us debate the arguments between Dreyfus and Clark.  Since we ran out of time, we did not get a chance to get to Daniel’s last point in the debate which was about Wikipedia and who would argue for or against it.

Clark would say that Wikipedia is a non-biological construct in the world around us that does help us store more information.  According to Clark, once technology is integrated, you come to trust it in the same way you trust your body.  Wikipedia can then be associated with the human brain and memory.  Your brain stores and retains information which can be changed at any time.  Also, false or distorted information can be stored in the brain sometimes.  Since Wikipedia is a compilation of data that anyone can edit, it is similar to the human brain in that any information can be added or stored and there is a possibility of false or distorted information since anyone can edit Wikipedia.  This can relate to the extended mind thesis; just because an action is mediated by technology doesn’t make them any different.  The only problem is that the internet is not supposed to be part of the extended mind thesis because it is unreliable.  Although the internet is unreliable and Wikipedia is part of the internet, I believe that you can make the argument that the human brain is also unreliable.  For example, if there is a bank robbery, eyewitness accounts are always different among all of the innocent bystanders.  Since the human brain and Wikipedia alike are both subject to error, I believe that they can still be related and Clark would advocate the point that Wikipedia helps us with the storage of information.

Dreyfus, on the other hand, would disagree with that argument.  Dreyfus stated “if our body goes, so does relevance, skill, reality, and meaning.”  Considering Wikipedia as an extended part of the human brain is definitely not what Dreyfus has in mind.  He believes that considering something such as Wikipedia as the brain would cause humans to be less real and lose meaning.  Since there is no interaction with other human beings or any first hand experience in looking up things on Wikipedia, it cannot be part of us.  The information stored on Wikipedia is outside, unreliable information that can be wrong.  Dreyfus believes the information supplied on the internet cannot substitute for the human interaction.  Learning at a school, for example, causes students to discuss and validate their information.  Since Wikipedia is not validated, it can contain false information. As the saying goes, false knowledge is worse than no knowledge at all.

Clark quotes Kevin Warwick in chapter 1 of “Natural Born Cyborgs” as saying: “I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it’s something we have the power to change.

This is a very interesting, though slightly pessimistic view of humanity. My first reaction was to question what was so wrong with humanity that we would rather change that fact and be cyborgs, which is implicated as clearly better. As I read on however, I discovered that Clark’s as well as Warwick’s opinion of cyborgs and our gradual and inevitable morph into them really depends on definition. As Clark acknowledges, his cat with a chip imbedded under his skin may not be considered “as much” of a cyborg as someone with a special hearing aid that connects directly to the brain stem. I will admit that I am much more willing to accept the positives of nonbiological devices improving humanity and turing us into cyborgs if they go deeper into the realm of “humanity.” The examples Clark uses to explain the extensive use of these nonbiological devices, pacemakers, chips, hearing aids, nerve implants, and more, demonstrate that the argument can be made just as easily for the other side as it can for Clark’s. I think this is important to realize as you are reading.

Also, as clark says, “We resonate with terror, excitement, or both to the idea of ever-deeper neural and bodily implants in part because we sense some rough-and-ready correlation between depth-of-interface and such transformative potentials”

I agree with this statement. It seems to me that he is saying that the grander the fix provided by the nonbiological device and the deeper it delves into what we see as the essences of humanity, the more likely we are to accept it. Clearly, the idea that those essences are fixable through human ‘technology’ will not sit easily with most at first because we are very set in our “belief that there is something absolutey special about the cognitive machinery that happense to be housed within the primitive bioinsulation of skin and skull.” However I agree with Clark in the fact that they may not be a valid belief, and is really one we should shy away from because we have proved time and time again that we can create certain technology that really does improve even that deepest sense of humanity: the brain. If we can manipulate the brain using nonbiological devices, I think Clark’s ideas of humans as natural born cyborgs are entirely feasible; it really depends on definition, and I think we, as humans, match that which Clark provides.

This post is just initial thoughts and impressions from the first couple chapters of Natural-Born Cyborgs. When I purchased the book I was assumed the focus was on electronic gadgets implanted into the body, such as pace-makers, cochlear implants, muscle stimulators/relaxors. He actually makes it his point NOT to talk about such things.

Clark spends the first two sections talking about how humans were cyborgs way before we ever had a pacemaker installed to regulate heart beats. The incorporation of technology into ours bodies does not have to be as concrete implanting something battery operated using surgery. Clark says that everytime we interface with any form of technology, that is the same as the well-imagined cyborg presented in sci-fi movies. Using a computer, writing down notes using a pen and paper, driving a car- all examples of cybernetic incorporations. This ability to interface with an infinite amount of different technologies is also what makes us different than the rest of the animal kingdom. The only exceptions would be the use of primitive tools by some mammals, but I think the degree of difference between using a stick to gather ants and using a cars with thousands of moving parts and electrical circuits obviously still separates us from animal tool-users. It is an interesting take on technology. But after thinkking about it, it doesn’t seem like that much of a stretch. Technology doesn’t have to be inside our skin to be integrated in our lives. Clark makes this point using cel phones as an example. It has become such a dominant part of everyday life. Many people keep it on there person at all times. Some have a bluetooth headset in their ear at all times. There is a slang term in Finland that refers to the cell phone as an “arm extension.” I would have to agree that many forms of technology are becoming so “everyday” that it would be hard to argue that they are not a part of us.