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.

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.

Technology is so important in our lives these days that we don’t always think about how immersed we are.  When I was talking to my friends about what I was doing in my philosophy class, we started talking about technology.  It was very hard to get them to understand that writing with a pen and paper is technology. All they were trying to justify that it wasn’t was that technology is silicon chips and electronic pulses.  But I told them that the pen and the paper are external objects beyond our body and so they are technology.  I told them about Aristotle hated writing and how that writing things down would be the downfall to our mental memories.  Well, I believe that is true. No, I don’t know how much better my memory would be if I hadn’t learned to write at an early age, but I know that with external objects such as a post it not, I can “know” a lot more.  I use the word “know” in quotes because I do not remember it on my own accord, so I do not know the fact, but I can know where to look for where it is.  This is the same as pictures and not remembering exactly what a landscape looks like, but knowing how to find a picture that can capture it externally from our minds.  I do not believe writing is such a horrible thing though.  Because we have the ability to write down thing that do not have to be known at all times, we can have more space to know how to find how to know those things.  That might sound counter productive, but if you don’t have to know everything about Queen Elizabeth at all times, then you have more space to know where to find all of that information in a book.  Then you are not using so much ‘space’ in your mind to know so many facts, but just a way to find those facts.  Technology is created to increase our mind and abilities to find information. 

            Just like with the phone or the internet.  AOL instant messenger was created to help people who can’t talk face to face or on the phone.  They can still have conversations online, learn from each other, and interact while being miles away.  It wasn’t created to hinder physical contact, which is does for some lazy people, but to make life easier, help you talk to more people then you could have, and for information to move faster.  It does make things less personal the further away from face-to-face you get, but at least that opportunity to talk is there.  Also, having a written object makes it easier to tell the next person the same thing without changing the words.  That is why books are better then folktales because they are accurate and easily translated to someone else in the correct manner.

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.

Here are links to most of the videos I showed tonight. Its a little much to embed all these videos, so I’m just linking them. Feel free to post any comments you have on any of these videos, or link to others you find interesting.

Music Videos
Bjork - All is full of love
Bjork - Bachelorette
Bjork - Hyperballad (we didn’t watch this one, but its worth seeing)
U.N.K.L.E - Rabbit in your headlights
Daft Punk - Technologic
Aphex Twin - Rubber Johnny
Aphex Twin - Monkey Drummer

Robot Videos
Big Dog
Robot Chair
Film Making Robot (Some additional commentary)
You can see lots more robot stuff on my website.

Misc
Interactive Display
Stelarc (This is referenced in Clark’s book)

Since the “movie screening” tonight (in quotes because it was loosely a movie screening and more of a jumble of interesting and pertaining videos) is the freshest thing in my mind, I decided to write about that even though many people weren’t there.

First, the thought of art and the videos was intriguing. Not just the first video about the robot video making art, but also the Camera video. I said it in the room, but I’m going to say it again; if a robot made the video the way he thinks is good, then there could be a robot that is shown the same pictures that would think the video was great. That would actually make an interesting experiment if it would react positively to the video. Just like how twins are brought up the same way and they are different people, would two same machines “grow up” to be different? If they are learning from the pictures they are looking at and studying, like students, would they develop different “thoughts” and ideas of what is being presented to them. That is almost the idea of how nature reveals itself to us and we make perceptions of what our understanding is. I was thinking about how to relate this to another topic and I was thinking it is like phobias. People interact with objects once and if it is bad, then they can be scared of that object forever just due to the first understanding.

Next, I was thinking about the old man, the camera, and death. We talked about how the camera captures the death of the moment and how we don’t think that is a good way to think about things. Looking back on today’s lecture, I completely understand why the old man thinks about the death and not the positives of the moment being captured to share forever. Because death is the ultimate conclusion and that man is closer to his time of death (at least more likely to be closer), he is demonstrating his authenticity and realizing death is adamant so he is relating it to other objects like the moment and the camera. I think once he thought about the kids using the camera after it is pretty much obsolete, made the guy happy to think that after his death people will still “use” him, such as in stories.

Well, the movies were all interesting and they actually had me thinking about other videos about technology. So I searched YouTube and I found one funny video that I just want to share because it talks about the dangers of technology. Yes, it is Gary Busey and he is crazy, but I think it is funny and he is thinking about the dangers of using technology for our own purposes.

See that image above? That’s right, it’s two robotic Bjorks making out with each other. Sure, it’s sensual…kind of, but there’s definitely something unnatural about it. The act of kissing and fondling is usually an act performed by two humans. So why does it look so silly when robots do it?

Sex is usually accompanied by at least two of the three following emotions: lust, love, and desire. These are very human characteristics that would be difficult for a machine to learn, even with a neural network. Seeing this type of relationship between two machines is difficult for us because emotion is the one thing that we all thought would separate humans from robots.

An androids, a robot with a humanoid form, is an attempt to make a machine with as many human qualities with possible. The video portrayed an attempt to make an android with qualities that separate man and machine. The emotions in the two androids were heavily contrasted by the use of machines that were far less complex than they were. These assembly line robots worked efficiently and precisely, as fine tuned instruments should. But they gave off a cold, sterile, and uncaring feel as they meticulously worked to finish up the android.

This definitely redefined the what the words “robot” and “machine” mean to me. A machine is no more than a a tool, something to be used by someone. A robot, however, has a certain degree of independence and can work on it’s own. The music video portrayed a distant future, one where robots are capable of some level of compassion. The video shows the two androids going through the motions of compassion and erotic love, but I do not think that androids, no matter how realistic, will ever feel exactly what we as humans feel.

So today in class we talked about humans and if we were obsolete. Are we only here for a special purpose and once we are done with that is that the end for us. When we go to the store we often purchase things that we know will not last us forever. When a maker makes something it only last for a certain amount of time. The stuff often only last for as long as the manufacturer said it would after that most of the times the thing start to give you problems. For example when we go out and buy a car the manufacturer offers a warranty for up to a certain amount of miles but after that it begins to break down. Ones it has reached that point that they have given you warranty for the car begins to need parts changed or little touch up here and there. While listening to all this the idea that first popped in my head was that of our race the human race being replaced. I began to think that is it that we are obsolete just like machines and cars. Are we going to come to and end and be replaced by something else? Are we going to reach to the point when we are out of date and something else is in complete control?

All of this kept me thinking about how machines are getting to powerful and one day are going to be able to think. I know it sounds kind of crazy but maybe is not. Maybe we are making machines to smart maybe in the future they will be able to think for themselves, I think that if that happens then that will be the time when we come to an end. Just like we do to machines now it will be done to us.

What will happen to us in the future? Everyday we wake up and do something we decide what to do. We have the freedom to make choices or at least we think we do. But are we making the best choice or are all the choices we are making today the wrong choices. Are they going to come back and bit us in the ass? Are we becoming obsolete? Are we making our selves come to and end?

Some of the recent conversation going on in class is particularly interesting. I like more of this material on technology because I feel that I, like most people, naturally have such a deeper connection with technology. I don’t know about most other people but I’m slightly misguided on who exactly to believe when we talk about Gehlen and Heidegger’s ideas. For me I think that both men have points that I could make myself believe more. I find the broad sense that Gehlen uses ‘’culture” in to speak about how it’s about the habits or traditions or even the signs and symbols we keep define our culture. In class Daniel used the example of the highway system and how/why it works. Our road system is relatively pretty safe and predictable because we have all chosen to adopt a particular symbol system that we abide by. Our system allows people to travel even though the person driving in the next lane has a different destination, a different way of life and may be nothing like you at all, but it’s funny to see how for some seconds on the highway that we pass somebody we are able to peacefully coexist. From this cultural definition and examples like this, Gehlen touches on technology and goes to say that technology is created to help make up for he deficiencies of man. It’s crazy to think how right he actually is. We build everything around us to enhance our lives and ourselves, we built planes because we weren’t meant to naturally fly. The interesting part is that technology will never cease to progress and man will continue to build to make our lives easier. I personally believe in the pursuit of technology but I also think that as more and more is created we as people are moved to become lazier. For example, the TV allows us to connect with the world without leaving our house, the remote lets us flip channels without leaving the couch. In some ways I feel that technology is helping us to become lazier than we need to be. On the other hand, technology is obviously revolutionizing our world in the field of medicine for example and constantly finding remedies and cures for the diseases that we cannot fight off ourselves (because we are deficient.) Heidegger on the other hand has a very simple point with a lot of other text around it. Heidegger it seems, believe that technology will hide the truth of the real world. For example Daniel mentioned in class that humans use the technology we have to exploit the resources of our environment for our use. Heidegger would say that doing this only helps hide what nature really is from us. While I agree with the statement to some degree I, I almost feel like he is suggesting that we stop our production of technology. It seems as if he would rather us move back to a more simple stone age like time. Though a thought, I believe our society is much to immersed in the advancement of technology to ever move backwards.

I began to flip through the pages of On the Internet today, and I discovered some really interesting ideas. First and foremost, like Daniel mentioned before, we can tell that this book is pretty outdated. The author, Dreyfus, predicts that the internet will bring “a new era of economic prosperity, lead to the development of intelligent search engines that will deliver to us just the information we desire, solve the problems of mass education, put us in touch with all of reality, allow us to have even more flexible identities than we already have and thereby add new dimensions of meaning to our lives.” We know that all of these predictions have already been made true. The second point I noticed was just that, his predictions have already come true. For a perspective published in 2001 to predict the next generation of search engines, a generation which will “allow us to have even more flexible identities than we already have and thereby add new dimensions of meaning to our lives.” This was a bold prediction for its time that we know to be a reality today with companies such as Google that were only in their infancy in 2001. A company like Google does give us a flexible identity with the ability to retrieve email from anywhere on the globe, research topics with the click of a button, and post dynamic content for the world to see. In the words of Hubert Dreyfus it really does bring “new meaning to our lives”. Another thing to think about is that Dreyfus presents a major question in the introduction, which seems to be the premise behind his book: is it possible to transcend the limits imposed on us by our body, as the internet promises, and still hold onto our relevance, skill, reality, and meaning?

Today in lecture, we discussed many different topics. One thing that stuck in my mind was the end of lecture when we touched on the idea of being obsolete. Obsolete is defined as “no longer in general use,” and “of a discarded or outmoded type; out of date.” In the discussion, we simply said that something that is obsolete is something that is not used anymore. Even though the object, whatever it may be, can be used – it isn’t- this is because we have newer, better objects that replace the older ones. We also talked about planned obsolescence. This is when manufactured machines are only designed to have a lifespan up to their warranty, then afterward- these objects die (break).
This reminded me of my PlayStation 2. After about 4 years of using my game system, I noticed it did not read discs well. My friends, who also had PS2s, also had trouble with their game systems. How convenient of Sony to start marketing the new slim PS2s around that time, as well as the eventual release of the PS2. These systems will get us by for a little while, until many Sony game system users want to get the new PS3- which comes out soon.
Looking at the idea of planned obsolescence in a bigger picture, an interesting idea came into my head. What if God has a “planned obsolescence” for mankind? Like we said in our discussion, according to Heidegger – we care about being because we are going to die. When you are authentic, as humans are, your projects matter because you can see their significance. But as Christians believe, one day the World will end through Judgment Day. Is this God’s way of taking everything away because it is obsolete? The way humans replace, upgrade, and create new technology to advance and “better” our lives could be the same way in which humans, through death, are made into something better.
As humans, we are thrown into events and situations that we must interpret. But, like in the discussion, we said that the ideas of Heidegger claim that we don’t have any control over what these situations are. Does that make us just a little bit better off than the pieces on a chess board? Even though we are in situations in which we appear to have no control, we are capable of harnessing the use of technology to better our situations. However we can doubt, as Heidegger says, the need to adopt technology. So, like we said in our discussion… Heidegger’s philosophy can help confuse the needs and wants of technology.

In class over the past week or so, we’ve tried to understand Gehlen and Heidegger. After our first few classes on the two, I thought I was definitely on Heidegger’s side because I couldn’t relate to anything Gehlen was saying. But after thinking about it a little more carefully, I realized that I just don’t know which one I agree with because I see the point in a lot of Gehlen’s arguments. One of the main points of Gehlen’s ideology is that it is easier to know inorganic things than organic things. By saying this, Gehlen basically implies that it is easier to know and understand a computer than it is to understand the environment. For example, if I was a video game designer, I would know everything there is to know about that game. I’d know all of the different tools that went into making it, where they came from, and what their functions are. In contrast, no matter what we do, we will never understand certain things about the world and the universe as a whole. I think that this is Gehlen’s way of saying that we know best what we create. This is an interesting argument, and I agree with it because it does make sense that this would be true - if we create something we would seem to have good understanding of it, as opposed to something we did not create, and therefore cannot completely understand its innerworkings. I definitely agree with this part of Gehlen’s argument. However, Gehlen goes on to say that man essentially needs for technology to exist, and that technology must compensate for man’s deficiencies. This just doesn’t seem right to me. It’s true, of course, that man and technology co-exist, but can man exist without technology? I think so. In the first years of man, technology did not exist, and man did not need technology. However, I think that it’s interesting to think about man and technology today. Though I do feel that technology is not necessary for man’s exisitence, I know that for humans to live the way we do today, to have almost unlimited access to information, and even to do our philosophy homework online, we need technology. So although I realize that we need technology today, I don’t think that it was always the case. All in all, I still see a lot of problems with Gehlen’s argument but I see how it isn’t so far-fetched afterall.

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.

In today’s class discussion of Heidegger’s view that technology reveals nature as a standing reserve, I was very much intrigued by his thoughts. To clarify to anyone not there, Heidegger was speaking of how technology reveals nature to us as something there for us to use to our benefit and profit. He warns of the danger of this view, part of the reason in being that if we take this view, we may start to believe the delusion that man is lord over all the world, that everything in it is a human construct meant for our use. At first this idea seemed ridiculous to me, though after closer consideration I was surprised to find how relevant these words actually were.Last summer I traveled to both Ireland and France, and two experiences I had there really relate to this point made by Heidegger. While in Ireland, I climbed a mountain up in the country with my family, surrounded by almost nothing but beautiful green landscape and nature. About a week later, I was on top of the Eiffel Tower, surrounded by the sprawling urban expanse of Paris. Both experiences were similar in that it was a moment where a person can look out into the world and take it all in, and think about the world around you. However, they differed greatly in terms of technology and what I found myself thinking about in terms of the world. On the mountaintop in Ireland, there was a sense of peace, and in a way poesis, an almost poetic way in which the land made me feel. I didn’t find myself thinking of all the great buildings that could be constructed on this land or the resources that could be better used here with our technology. It is this feeling of awe and way of viewing nature that Heidegger fears we will lose if we continue to simply follow technology alone. At first, I the thought of ever losing this view seemed ridiculous to me.

However, in Paris I was also awe-struck, but this time not by anything in nature or really poetic. Looking at the lights and bustling nightlife of Paris, I found myself viewing the world as technology reveals it to us, according to Heidegger. Staring out into the city, I thought of all man-made spectacles that made the city great, and all I could do there. Upon reflecting on this today after class, I was appalled to find a theory we talked about and I thought to be ridiculous had already affected me in my short lifetime. And, this obviously is not just me, as the most popular tourist destinations in the world are increasingly becoming the largest cities and hubs of technological advancement. If this is where we go to relax and reflect on our world, then Heidegger is possibly right in that we are allowing technology to show us a world of human utility and potential, and making us blind to the simple, poetic, and more important qualities of life around us.

I thought that Heidegger’s theory about techne being split into episteme and poiesis was very interesting. I totally agreed with the idea that looking at the environment only to find the ways it can be used for human purposes makes you miss a huge part of it. We live in a world where we are always rushing around trying to get as much done in as little time as possible that most of us never even look around us. We see everything that will benefit or help us out in some way, and everything else just flies by without us giving it a second glance. By just seeing the things that will benefit us, we miss all the beauty that nature has to offer.

I agree with Heidegger that this way of seeing nature as just a standing reserve is very dangerous. Without giving any thought to what we are doing, we strive to make our lives easier and more interesting through technology, no matter how much damage it causes to the environment around us. I don’t believe that we will ever be able to go back to when we didn’t rely on technology however. I think we have come to depend on it so much for every part of our lives, that it comes naturally to us now to just keep “improving” what we already have instead of taking it away.

Heidegger’s second threat, that we will see everything as a human construct, made me really think about how selfish and egotistical we are as a human species. Growing up in this type of culture, it comes almost automatically for me to look at something and immediately think about what I can use it for and what it can do for me. The thought of how beautiful it is or how it came about crosses my mind for a split second if even at all. When Heidegger mentioned that we might think not only of what use we can get out of every part of the environment, but also that it was put there FOR us, it made me realize just how egotisical we are. It is terrible how we have almost completely lost Heidegger’s idea of poiesis, and instead live on the episteme and technological aspects. We may believe that in doing this we are just expanding our knowledge and making our lives better, but we are actually digging ourselves into a deeper and deeper hole, and destroying what should be important in our lives, the nature and environment that surround us.

Heidegger’s philosophies on technology and poetry are interesting, especially his views on technology. The idea that the entire universe, or at least what has been revealed to us so far is a “standing reserve” for us to put whatever us to it that we choose is a very overwhelming idea. Correct me if I am wrong, but is Heidegger suggesting that it is conceivable that the entire universe was put together and that all of it is just there for us to use? Obviously, as discussed today, it would be a fault to assume that all of this is for humans. I do, however, support the idea that the unveiling of nature is not within human grasps. Though somebody in class suggested it might be because we can look at the stars with a telescope and find new things and be part of it, I do not believe it resembles any sort of control over what we see. We cannot say “Oh, I’ll look up and there will be a giant star.” We might be part of the unveiling, but is that not always true? What is there will be there and there is no way we can change it until it has been revealed to us. So I do agree that we have no control over the unveiling of nature.

Another issue is that how can we as human’s possibly revert back to the more primitive forms of existence that he stated as the most ideal situation? He is obviously against the idea of further technology being used to solve problems created by a previous technology. However, are we not too far along to go back? I do agree that it has caused problems. You talk about wars for example. Wars happen and it appears that throughout history, the only way to solve them is to build bigger guns. The countries with the bigger and more powerful arsenals typically pull out the victories. It is constantly adding layer upon layer upon layer. So Heidegger might be right here, but how can it be possible to go back after layering it on over so many years?

I thought it was pretty interesting to see both of Heidegger’s concerns on enframing coming true in our time. He said that enframing will lead to man’s inability to to see objects anymore and therefore man will become part of the standing-reserve. On top of that, man will start viewing the world where they are the master and controller of all things. There is evidence of these concerns around us today. These days everybody is so wrapped up in the ease and availibility of everything. The fast pace world leaves us only concerned with how we can get things done faster and with less work. I think that is the main view on life in general right now. The internet and cell phones are only a few of the most obvious barriers that have layered themselves on top of the plain truths of objects. Heidegger also points out that man becomes part of the standing-reserve which I think this has started happening too. To get our projects done, sometimes we have to use humans as a tool to get us to the end. That is Heidegger’s definition of technology in a instrumental way. In this situation, in this time, humans become a step in the process and are not always seen as humans anymore. That is one of Heidgger’s big concerns. Also, he is afraid that man will become too egotistic about the world. This is already very true, although it doesn’t have to exactly be egotistical. With all of the knowledge that man has by this time, he feels anything is possible. We don’t even have to give into death right away. We can postpone death. We can extend our lives. With the knowledge that man has, he can fix anything. Man feels almighty with everything within grasp, there as a means to exploit and alter in a way that is beneficial.

Here’s the Wiki link to some simple explanations of Heidegger’s distinction between ready-to-hand and present-at-hand. You can find more background on Heidegger in the SEP, and on the page devoted to the Question Concerning Technology.

Remember, you can use these threads to discuss anything you want about the lecture this week. But as usual, I’ll provide a few prompting questions to get a discussion going:

Do you think that use is our fundamental way of understanding technology?

Heidegger says that in comporting with equipment, both the equipment and the self become transparent. Do you think thats right? Do you have any examples of this phenomena outside of those discussed in class?

How is technology a way of revealing, for Heidegger?

I’m going to try something new here. As we go through new subjects, I’m going to post an open thread on the topic. This is for people who have questions or comments on a subject, but not enough to write a full post, and are waiting around for someone else to post on the topic so they could comment on it. Hopefully this helps the discussion move along, and hopefully it also prepares you a bit more for the final.

So use these open threads to leave any question or comment you have on the topic. It doesn’t even have to be a full comment- if you were unclear about something in lecture, just ask, and I’ll try to respond.

I’ll get the discussion going with some quotes from the text and some questions:

If by technique we understand the capacities and means whereby man puts nature into his own service, by identifying nature’s properties and laws in order to exploit them and to control their interaction, clearly technique, in this highly general sense, is part and parcel of man’s very essence. It truely mirrors man– like man himself it is clever, it represents something intrinsically improbable, it bears a complex and twisted relationship to nature

[…]

Like man, [technique] is inventive, resourceful, life-fostering and at the same time life-destroying, involved with primeval nature in a complex relationship. Technique constitutes, as does man himself, nature artificelle.

[…]

Scientific research employs ever-new technical devices; nature is forced open through technique. The scientist much reach an understanding with the technician, for each problem is defined by the not-yet-available equipment required to solve it. Advances in theoretical physics, for instance, depend no less upon electronic computers than upon the brains of physicists.

[…]

The fascination with automatisms is a prerational, transpractical impulse, which previously, for millennia, found expression in magic– the technique of things and processes beyond our senses– and has more recently found its full realization in clocks, engines, and all manner of rotating mechanisms. Whoever considers from a psychological viewpoint the magic which cars exercise upon today’s young, cannot doubt that the interests appealed to lie deeper than those of a rational and practical nature. If this seems improbable, one should consider the fact that a machine’s automatism exercises a fascination entirely independent of its practical uses, a fascination that might well be best embodied in a perpetual motion machine whose only goal and activity would consist in forever reproducing the same circular motion. None of the innumerable individuals who over the centuries have grappled with the insoluble problem of perpetual motion, did so in view of any practical effect. Instead, they were all fascinated by the singular appeal of a machine that runs itself, a clock that winds itself. Such an appeal is not merely intellectual in nature, but has deeper sources.

Gehlen, following Nietzsche, claims that man is underdetermined by nature. Can we make sense of the claim that nature left man deficient in comparison to other animals?

Is technology fundamental to man’s essence? Does technology mirror man’s ‘twisted’ relationship with nature?