think about it before u call me heartless

not 100% on the topic, but think about it

evolution- the theory that charles darwin came up with that basically comes down to the strong survive, the weak die off, the species gets stronger, this has been true since the beginning of time
even humans did that at first
but now, we are almost a de-volving species
technology has helped us to protect the weak and not to reward the strong, both mentally and physically,
now computers can do things in a second that it took genius' years to figure out, machines can do things instantly that before only the strongest of people could do
also, the people with diseases are helped, treated, and given special attention all the time, the government helps people who dont have jobs, almost all of the jobs that still require manual labor are looked down upon and considered 'blue-collar' and the jobs where people jsut sit at their office all day are paid better
in the older days, the men had to be strong to be able to farm, build, and protect themselves
now they just have to be good at computers or selling their image or idea,
and in the ancient days, if a child was born sick or incapable, it most likely died, if someone was unable to hunt and catch food, or if they were 2 weak to protect themselves, they died, if they werent smart enough to figure out how to keep themselves alive, they died, if they were smart and could catch food and protect themselves, they lived
now technology supports the sick, weak, and uncapable, and those less mentally capable

call me immoral, but technology is reversing this process of evolution, allowing those who according to darwin's theory are selected against in the process of natural selection to stick around and continue to contribute to the genetic pool, which in the long term will do nothing at all to help us humans as a species

We can always steal pictures!

Err... Stealing is bad...

An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination.
-Voltaire

An interesting page...

So, I found a website that has many "End of the World" scenarios that may or may not happen, and what is more interesting is that most of them are based mostly in facts and gives a reasonable likelihood of it happening. However, one of the scenarios struck me as actually relevent to our class:

http://www.exitmundi.nl/borg.htm

If you don't feel like following the link, here's the text of the article:

"Resistance is futile". If you’re a Star Trek fan, hearing those words probably immediately triggers one thought: the Borg. The Borg is the ultimate nightmare: humanity, enslaved by a computer. Luckily, it is only fiction. Or is it?

In Star Trek, they come in a cube. A huge space ship it is, filled with millions of people. Well -- they’re not really people. They are the Borg. The people in the cube have no free will, no mind of their own. They are One. They’re plugged into the mainframe computer called ‘the Borg’. They’re cyber slaves. Poor little creatures.

But that’s science fiction, right? Not so. In fact, as we speak, the Borg is lurking just around the corner, waiting for its chance. It won’t come in a cube from outer space though, but from the very place you’re on right now: the Internet. And if it comes, resistance will, indeed, be futile.

The signs are disturbing. Let’s do a little experiment. Please, find out what ‘auparishtaka’ is.

Done that?

Ok, all of you readers have probably followed exactly the same routine. You’ve opened Google and entered ‘auparishtaka’. All of you will have found the same search results. You will have visited the same websites. Have absorbed the same information. For a very brief and fleeting moment, you were One.

Silly example, you snort.

But hold on -- that was just to warm you up a little. The real stuff is yet to come. Brace yourself: what you are about to read, could change the way you see your humble computer and the Internet forever.

One: We are being cyborged

Already, there are many experiments with simple implants being inserted into people’s brains. Most of them are there for our health: the implants bring back (some) hearing or even some eyesight, or cure you from terrible conditions like depressions or extreme phobia’s.

But some implants have a more ‘luxurious’ function. They connect to your brain in order to make you move your artificial limb, if you happen to be missing one. Or they make you control the cursor of your computer by mind control, if you’re paralyzed.

Most experts agree that that's just the beginning. Eventually, we will see more and more implants. Need to learn Greek? Just have a cyber doctor plug a tiny chip into your brain, much like a memory stick. Want better eyesight? The doc will upgrade your visual cortex a bit, Vision 2.2. And so on, and so on.

Of course, these are exciting, good things. But there’s a downside. Computer hardware isn’t going to be the only thing that’s entering your brain. Along with it, the Web enters your mind.

Two: We are being assimilated

In small, high-tech countries like Singapore and The Netherlands, the Internet is everywhere you go and everywhere you look already. Gaming, shopping, dating, e-mailing, working, reading about the end of the world -- it’s all done over the Internet.

And the Web is still on the rise. Not only is it on ever more home computers. As we speak, it is entering our TV-sets. It is conquering our laptops and our cell phones. It is sneaking into our car computers and household machinery. In fact, the Internet is about to incorporate every device we associate with ‘communication’.

It is only likely the last ‘device’ will be us. Of course, the computers implanted in our brains will be connected to the Internet. The advantages are just too big not to let this happen. We will have Internet in our ears, and Internet on our eyes -- literally. Our brains will be permanently online.

So, you think of ‘aupraishtaka’, and instantly know that it is just another word for... Ehm, yes, that. You think of your auntie in Timbuktu, and your auntie thinks back at you, setting up a telepathic chat session, brain-to-brain. You think of captain Jean-Luc Picard, and his photograph will instantly pop up in your mind's eye. It is sent straight into your visual cortex, where it is translated into ‘image’ by your brain. You can hear Jean-Luc's voice saying ‘Make it so’, if you like, or think up information about the actor playing Jean-Luc, and what movies he’s in. Convenient!

That's pretty difficult to imagine, don't you think? Well -- it gets a bit weirder. With your brain online, ‘you’ will no longer be exclusively ‘yours’. You will, in a way, become a local cache for the Internet. Your brain will become the Internet’s work memory. And that’s where things turn, well... pretty nasty.

Three: We are being Borged

So, here you are. You’ve got a computer plugged into your brain. Your mind is online all of the time. You’re one smart cyborg, that’s what you are!

But what is online, is vulnerable. Someone could actually hack your head. Some evil genius could virus your mind, or spyware your thoughts. We can agree on one thing: that would be, well, more than a bit confusing.

Probably the biggest danger are viruses that build themselves. Already, there are many experiments with software that becomes smarter -- software that evolves, by constantly improving itself. With every inhabitant of the planet online, such a virus will have at its disposal plenty of calculating power.

It is speculative, but perhaps you could call a virus like this ‘alive’. Perhaps you could say it has a will of its own. You might even call it The Borg.

So, just picture it: one moment, you’re doing fine -- and then, suddenly, you loose control. In the mild case, you’ll start having weird, uncontrollable hallucinations. You’ll hear some internal voice telling you that resistance is futile, or you will experience some reality that isn’t there. You will go insane. In the more extreme case, you’ll suddenly find your body is no longer under your control. Somebody -- or something -- is controlling you, like a puppet. You will have become a prisoner, locked up in your own body.

The Borg might order you to do all kinds of things. For starters: to eliminate everyone who isn’t assimilated yet. Against your will, the Borg will force you to hunt down everybody who hasn’t got an internal brain computer. You will be forced to operate on them and turn them into cyborgs, too. So there you are: suddenly, you find yourself operating on somebody’s brain -- without neither your nor the patient’s consent.

Perhaps the Borg will even order you to build a cube-shaped space ship and go out, in search of more life-forms to assimilate. To the Borg, more slaves means: more calculating power.

So: to Borg or not to Borg?

Perhaps you shrug your shoulders. Really, how bad can it be? People being assimilated by the Internet... C’mon, that’s just too much.

Then again -- maybe it isn’t. Remember the Internet as a mass medium is only some 10, 15 years old. That’s less than 0,001 percent of the time our species is around on this planet! Already, computers and the Internet have totally re-shaped our world. And we can be sure of one thing: it won't stop there.

Of course, the Internet, as it is now, has little to do with Borgs and cube-shaped space ships. It is as dead as a doornail. It doesn't 'want' anything. The Web is still just a bunch of bits and bytes, sitting passively on hard disks around the world.

But the self-learning software we mentioned before could change all that. Say, we’ll make a self-learning piece of software that has one assignment: "Find a cure for cancer". Actually, software like this already exists: it is software that automatically checks certain molecules to see if their shape is suitable for curing cancer.

Ok, now suppose this software gets smarter. It could find new, creative ways to do its task. Like: "Hey, let’s enslave all these silly little humans. Let’s force them to build a giant cube and go out in space to look for a cure for cancer!" Aw, that would be so dumb...

Still, there’s one small straw of hope to cling on to. Nobody can foresee the future. The Borg Problem seems realistic. But so do other scenarios. Perhaps we will be able to erect some kind of advanced firewall between our computers and the thing we call our mind. Or perhaps we will be able to see the Borg coming, and manage to stop it in time.

And if we don’t... Well, there’s always this. Perhaps going out in a cube and monotonely saying "resistance is futile" to everyone we meet will turn out a funny thing to do after all. We will see all the corners of the Galaxy, scare the shit out of everybody we encounter, know what ‘aupraishtaka’ means and find a cure for cancer.

Really, being the Borg isn't all bad.

not just a comment

when we discussed the idea of having the classroom replaced by virtual reality or video confrence type stuff, i agreed that this was not a good idea. i agree that all of the discussion and ideas that would suggest that a classroom would be more benefitial to both teachers and students than just watching lectures and having them online. but i think that the whole ideas of any technology in schools is sort of just grouped with this extreme and is almost condemed completely. my question is why is this idea of technology in the classroom a bad idea if it is taken to a reasonable level and not just all out eliminating the classroom? computers and such, if used effectively can be able to enhance the learning experience. i think in certain subjects being able to not only just have a lecture, but maybe be able to use computers or the internet or DVDs to provide a visual aspect and example to go along with the lecture or reading can help the students understand the concepts. like for instance anything in astronomy can only advance understanding if there is like a digital interactive chart of what the teacher is referring to and you can see everything and its position, or graphs and stat charts for any economics or business or marketing class can only help students to get a grasp on the topic. in my speech class we were talking about visual aids and how they are very good ways to help the audience to understand and relate the topic. i dont see how technology, if used as an advanced visual aid, can have any negative effect on education

Who has heard of Generation X?

I'm sure most of you have, but I was surprised to find out that most people aren't sure what it is. Every generation is defined by some life changing world even. Generation X happens to be the generation defined by computers. Most of us in class are the end of generation X and the beginning of generation Y, where kids had computers and internet. So older people like Borgmann and Dreyfus who never grew up with this stuff aren't as comfortable with it as younger people are. What I am trying to say is I have a hard time relating to where they are coming from because I, and most people in our class, are coming from a different era of technology. And while they are so quick to want to change technology, we are much more accepting of it. Does that make any sense to you?

What is the actual difference between physically being someplace and just seeing and being seen someplace?

Dreyfus uses the lack of an actual body to state that virtual reality can never become a way to replace actual reality. This, of course, is essentially one of the eventual goals of the entire telecommunications industry - to eliminate the need to physically be someplace in order to be there.

This is actually the focus of the attraction at Walt Disney World's EPCOT park, the Spaceship Earth (the big golf-ball looking thing). Already there are technologies that begin to overcome the more obvious issues of not being someplace that are raised (namely visually seeing someone in real time and hearing them in real time). In addition, there are some more sci-fi style technologies that are also in development that could further aid. For example, there is a technology that has been developed to aid with surgeons who want to practice their surgery that allows them to physically feel what the VR headset is showing them. So while there may not be an actual person in the room that they're operating in, inside their headset, they do see an actual person, and with their high-tech gloves, they can even *feel* that person. Given a few years and some interest, this could easily be extended to full-body suits which fully digitizes your body (like the suits they have athletes wear when digitizing their bodies for video games) and then also allows feedback and manipulation with a digital world as if it were a real world.

My main question is that while technology may be able to continually update to make online-life more and more similar to real life, Dreyfus still claims that a virtual-world will never be as effective as a person-to-person real life meeting. Why?

Is Grendel symbolic of technology?

1 ~Dreyfus consistently says throughout On the Internet that the drawback of the internet is that it doesn't give us meaning. But, really are we meaning seeking beings or is it just those crazy book people trying to view their lives as a giant allegory? I know that two of my friends stay on the internet until 3 a.m. most nights and are completely happy with their AIM interactions. As we said in class actions like going on the internet or watching "fair and balanced news" distract us from finding the true meaning in life. Even Borgmann talked about humans using their leisure time, which at one time enabled the Renaissance, to watch TV. It's relaxing for someone to come home after work and sit in front of the TV and not go out run. Are we really meaning seeking beings?

2~ Since history began humans have always assimilated to a conquering force. For example, when Rome fell all the people assimilated (for the worse) to Germanic culture and lost much of their knowledge for hundreds of years. Will we too willingly give over ourselves to technology, the conquering force? Will assimilation be the enabling force for humans to possibly become disembodied because technology is this conquering force, which stealthily attacks us like a monestrous Grendel without a Beowulf in sight? If your nuts like me and see everday events as symbolic of situations in books, it's worth noting that Roman culture was almost lost and Beowulf ended up dying trying to fight the assimilating forces (or in Beowulf's case fighting an assimilating force represented in the invading dragon), are we doomed to lose ourselves to technology too?

3 ~ Is sometimes not committing to causes a good thing? The news allows one to see everything that's going on in our country without having any committment to do anything about it. However, when I think of the Middle East, I wish that people weren't so committed to every small issue that comes up.

Computer Progress

My question is somewhat general about both Dreyfus and Borgmann. My main problem with these two thinkers is that I believe their ideas are shortsided. Both agree that a computer is not able, and will never be able to equal human experience and 'reason'. Going back only, say, a decade, there is no possible way we could have expected to have the innovations that we have in our world today. Just think of all the things we can get from today's internet. This would have never been imaginable. Not only this, but we have discovered and analyzed atoms with computers, and we have even used computers to navigate machines sent to mars (by computer). There is no question in my mind that our technology is ever-evolving. I just don't see how both of these thinkers can state so forwardly that machines will never be able to equal human experiences or reason that is found within in-class learning. Who is to say what we will have in the next decade? the next century?

On page 91, Dreyfus mentions distance education and how one must choose between economy and efficacy.....what does this mean?

Question

Could you please explain what distance learning is?

Comment

I feel that no matter how much technology evolves people must continue to use written communication. The internet allows people to escape reality and not be included with embodied human interaction. These people who spend their life on the internet chose to be in this way but I think we who are concern with technology taking over the world need to focus on keeping the balance between the internt and reality. Human beings must continue leading meaningful lifes. Where as the internet can make us lose skills, risk and the mood of others feelings.

Question

I understand where Dreyfus is coming from when he says that with the Press, specifically, the Internet, we, the Public, aren't ever going to be able to make a set comittment to an issue because we are constantly presented with both sides of every issue presented. However, I'm having a hard time with Dreyfus' criticism of public opinion. The way I understood his accusation is that we are presented with information via the Internet, newspapers, or news programs-we are not actively involved in many world issues and ,therefore, are unable to form an educated opinion about such issues. My question is, what does Dreyfs suggest as a solution or an alternative? Where should we get our information to create a stronger comittment to issues?

a comment and a question

I read Laurie's post about elementary students having to spend a great deal of time on the computer anymore and I am also greatly disturbed by this. I did my student teaching this past fall and I noticed that the use of computers with every age level is emphasized more than reading books. The one school I was at didn't even use textbooks, in fact the principal frowned upon them. I had to plan lessons each week that revolved around computers and technology, but I was not supposed to use any sort of textbook. Since when has a book been perceived as bad teaching, as opposed to computer usage as effective teaching? What a shame!! Children should be reading and playing outside, rather than spending hours in front of a computer screen.

Moving on to something completely different. Could someone please explain to me more clearly what Dreyfus means by the Public? I am especially confused by this passage: "For levelling properly to come about a phantom must first be provided, its spirit, a monstrous abstraction, an all-encompassing something that is a nothing, a mirage--this phantom is the public."

Dreyfus Question

1.) If our body determines the mood of a situation and we control our body movements, why is teleconferencing not acceptible? Even though others are not directly present, can't we set our own mood.

2.) What exactly does Dreyfus mean by physiognomic perception?

Questions,

So far, I have been enjoying Dreyfus because he takes a human being as a whole not cut off from the body and only focus is not directed on the head up. He says in anything we do, we must be fully present and be there! I do think what we lack in today's world is that people are made to be seen as mechanical things with no respect to given to senses or feelings. We are related to the machines. When we refer to a specific part of the body like the brain we refer to the computers and try to create similarities! I think we should stop doing this because it confuses the very fragile human mind.

So lets put people into two categories, those who think of themselves as mechanical beings and those who think of themselves as natural beings that can be compared to no machine of any sort. My question to Dreyfus would be how are we suppose to distinguish these human qualities? Some tend to favor technology a lot more because they are taught and made to feel themselves as such?(mechanical beings than natural humans) Is education the answer? Well, in my own opinion, besides certain majors in colleges, I think education is taking a route which favors technology superbly. Think of what we go through for classes, power points presentations, 3D drawing courses on computers, a single computer course must be completed to graduate, etc.

Question for Dreyfus

Up until this last chapter, Dreyfus has explained all the not so good things that have come from the internet. Now he is eagerly showing us how our views of it can be reformed to use the internet correctly, according to him. My question is this: Does he realistically think that this is something that can happen? Can everyone take his words and understand them so that they use the internet, not to replace social activities and not to be come isolated, depressed, or lonely. As I have experienced, unless you are one of those rare 'go-getters,' human nature is to be lazy. It takes effort to go out and do social things. There is risk of embarrassment, awkwardness, or even just the uneasiness felt when among many people. That risk is lost while on the internet because there is no commitment needed. If you feel uncomfortable in a situation on the internet (which is unlikely because nobody on the internet really knows who you are anyway, even if they do know your name), you can always just leave the site. No worries. Using human history as a reference, if something can be made easier, that is the route humanity will take. Even if it does cause harm somewhere else, e.g. factories causing pollution or the use of lumber disintegrating the rainforests. There are those tree huggers that do their best to preserve those things, but I don't think humans can be blamed for their desire to have things made easier for them. It is the way of nature. So, if the opportunity came for humans to have things made simpler by using the internet, but not in the reformed way proposed by Dreyfus, I would think that they would take it and have not a second thought about it.

Narrow Minds?

Ok so Dreyfus is saying that we have to really get involved in the issues that we are taking on and stick with them. He says that if we go through a bunch of different issues at a time then we really have no idea what is going on with any of them. So my question is: Does anyone think that this type of advice to the general public would cause people to be completely unknowlegeable about a wide range of issues because they are so horned in on the issue that they want to talk about. And this could cause a problem because there won't be nearly as many people to debate an issue with if each person is only focused on one issue and they haven't even heard of other issues. I think sometimes it is good to talk with people about an issue that don't really have a great idea of what the issue is about but they may have paged through it once because they bring a fresh light on the topic and could even reverse the experts thinking a little bit. I don't know; what do all of you guys think??

What Excellent Questions!

I have been reading the recent posts in response to the Dreyfus book, and I have been very impressed with the kinds of questions you are asking. We will talk about them in more detail in class on Friday, after we have discussed the last chapter of the book in which Dreyfus discusses (finally) how the internet can be integrated into learning and into life without overwhelming us with irrelevancies or displacing important and meaningful dimensions of our lives. It turns out that, much like Borgmann, Dreyfus is enthusiastic about the possibility of a reform of technology. Believe it or not, he even broadcasts his class lectures on the net for his students and gives them the option of not attending class. He claims that most of them come to class anyway, which does tend to support some of his ideas about our need for "presence" as opposed to "telepresence" in education.

a question

I ran into my technology, then called "computer," teacher from elementary school last week. We talked for a bit and then she told me about a recent addition to the curriculum that required 4th grade students to spend a minimun of 4 hours a week on the computer performing some required tasks. I found this disturbing, especially as they have recently gotten rid of the playground there.

So my question is this:

Are the children poorer for the time spent learning on the computer instead of playing outside in giant tires? And how does that reflect on contemporary values about internet and the integration of isolation in modern society?

Ok, after reading one of the posts, I feel validated for not allowing my children to play Runescape when we went to the library yesterday! Then again, I don't let them play it at home, either. : )

The thing I've found the most intriguing from our reading was the suggestion that when," people were given access to the World Wide Web, they found themselves feeling isolated and depressed". Does anyone agree with this? I've seen it in people my age and older than me, but I'm wondering if it's present in those younger than myself. Of course, you can always ask which came first, the depression or the internet, but I've seen firsthand how easily an unhappy person, an incredibly shy person, or someone lacking self confidence, can replace social situations with a computer and internet access. So I guess what I'm wondering is, if we replace the human aspect of education, too, will we just be a bunch of really educated, but unhappy people?

Library vs Internet

When it comes to research I normally use the internet. However, when I am begining my search I normally browse through the journals in the basement of the library. Several times I have found interesting articles which lead me in the the direction I want to take with my paper. I agree with Dreyfus when he talks about the use of a library because I can find exactly what I am looking for. Using the internet I do not know if the sites I am using are reliable and if I am looking up the correct information. I type in a key word to be search and I receive several topics concerning the key word and I spend my time looking at different web sites. Where as in the library I can pick up a journal or a book that is directly about the subject I am looking for. Because the internet has so many searches I am unsure of what is relavent and what isn't. Many of websites with the accurate information, I need to pay to recieve the information I need to write a good research paper. Books are free and can be easily checked out of the library. I think education would be less affective if we were to get rid of books and only have the internet.

Dreyfus: Problems with Search Engines

In chapter one Dreyfus talks about how the techniques search engines use "only have about a 10% chance of retrieving a useful document..." So that means that the other 90% is crap. Then he mentions about how library's are so great because they organize everything and you can browse to find a related topic, and sometimes you find something really interesting that you end up researching more. So I don't see why you can't do the same thing with the internet. If you just type in any topic word and get a mass of documents with that word then that could lead you on to other things where you finally find a worthy topic and document. Dreyfus is giving us too little credit when it comes to researching. When I type in a search I expect for some of the documents to be useful and some to be trash because I am depending on a machine with no common sense to find those for me. Then out of the select few I get to chose what is useful and what is not because I'm the intelligent one. I have to do some sort of work to get the information. So when Dreyfus says we should strive for technology that gives us 100% recall and 100% relevance, I say people are just getting lazy. If people don't want to sort through a few things on the internet, then why would they ever actually go to a library. I know I have asked a lot of questions here, does anyone a agree with that, or can they give me some insight that might change my mind?

Without the internet

Without the internet I believe that I would not be able to find half the stuff I am able to find with it. Sure I could go to the library and spend countless hours in there looking up every book on the topic that I am trying to find. But if you use the internet, it becomes much faster and easier to find things. And it also does not cost 10 cents to make a copy of what you are looking per page. Yes, you are not interacting with people like you would at the library, but most people would rather look on the internet and if they need help there are websites that can help. Yes, the internet is not the help all soluation to all problems but it can come in handy if you need to look up something quick. This saves time then having to drive to the library find what you are looking for then wait in line to creck out the book and then drive back and look up the research. The internet is much better in that aspect.

Where would I be without the internet?

I have to admit that I owuld be lost without the internet. I dread going downstairs in the library to the cold dreariness of the those rows and rows of books with the same name as the one next to them. I would much rather log in upstairs and where the sun is shining and look at the world of new (and possibly irrelevant) information that this world-wide-web has to give to me (all the while checking to see what news there is for me in my emails or who has invited me to a party or has a birthday on facebook). This internet talk we've been having in class has been making me feel guilty. Am I a bad person for liking the internet as much as I do, as opposed to real, hard back and paper books that I can actually pick up and physically turn the pages with? I'd like to think not. Let me be who I am and what I want to be! Leave me alone! I may not be a better person for it, but at least I am who I am. What else could anyone want?

The Internet: A Bad Way to Teach

Now more than ever the internet is taking over our lives as we use it for everything, from looking up online journals to purchasing carry out orders from restaurants. The internet has also taken over the education aspect of our lives as teachers rely on email for communication and give out assignments that require only internet sources. What kind of an education can we get from only or primarily using the internet? According to Dreyfus, education requires that human element, where a teacher interacts face to face with his students, responding to their questions and answers. I agree with Dreyfus, as I find my education relying more on the internet, which makes it more difficult to learn and ask questions.

I have never had the internet at my house, but once I entered college in 2003, it seemed like a must to get the internet. I was getting assignment after assignment requiring the use of the internet for completion. I have never found the education I get with the internet anywhere near the education I can get with a human being. Learning by human to human interaction is much more rewarding and provides me with more insight to further my education. I learn much more with a teacher present as I can ask questions and get a reaction. This is exactly how Dreyfus feels as well, as he describes how distance classes or classes through the internet do not provide a person with his/her full learning potential. I for one would prefer one on one contact with the teacher over the internet when it comes to education, though I have to say the internet makes it easier to communicate with more people at once (instant messaging).

I love the library!!!! The real one...

As an employee of the Cincinnati and Hamilton County Public Library system, Dreyfus's thoughts on technology bring about real concerns in my mind. Although the Internet is extremely useful and allows for many sources to be used in research, the actual, physical environment of a library cannot be replaced. At my library there have been many concerns about library resources becoming obsolete. Most people no longer come into the library to check out books, but rather, people are coming in either to use the computers or to check out movies and CD-ROMs. I have noticed that when I am shelving books, I don't run into a great number of crowds in the aisles. However, when I am shelving our videos and DVD's, I can barely get to the shelves due to the number of people browsing at movies. It is almost impossible for patrons to find a computer to use because the computers are perpetually in use. Librarians are no longer needed to look into the system to see if a book is available; patrons can access the system from home or from a library computer without having to approach a librarian at all. Libraries hold such value, but I fear that many people do not view it as such. The worst thing that I see is parents bringing young children into the library and allowing them to play computer games the entire time. I do not see anything inherently wrong with computer games, but I feel that children should be coming to the library in order to find books and enjoy reading. The Internet has its benefits; there is no doubt in my mind. However, when the Internet begins to take over valuable aspects of life, such as browsing at a library, this is when a problem begins to develop.

The Internet and Stages of Education

As we talked about "The Internet" and the author Dreyfus we began discussing the stages of education. There are five stages and they discuss distance learning. It is thought that the first couple of stages can be done in most part through the internet because the way we learn is first getting the information in raw form. In this aspect the internet is very good, and can help learning. This continues through the advanced beginner level and into the competence level. In order to move from the competence to the proficiency level there really has to be at least one human contact in order to see how that type of person acts. This allows the learner to see how a person that has already mastered the skills uses their skills. There really is a style about poeple that have mastered a skill. The difference between competency and proficiency is that although a person that is competant will achieve close to the same thing as the person that is proficient the person that is proficient will not have to think as much about what they are doing as they do the task; whereas the competant person will have to think back to what they learned in the past. Then the jump from being proficient to being an expert or master is the mere fact that the master does things that are brilliant but makes it look effortless. This reminds me of the greatest tennis player in the world Roger Federer. I was lucky enough to see him play over the summer in Mason Ohio and the things he did on the tennis court were amazing. I mean everyone knows how to play tennis and if given the perfect circumstances I could play the game as well as Roger, but he plays the game with so much confidence and never looking over-exerted. If I served a ball 135 m.p.h. I would be exhausted after that serve whereas he was serving that way the entire match and then serving and volleying at a mastery level as well. It almost looked like he was bored out on the tennis court as he was beating the 40th best player in the world. A lot of people say practice will cause things to become second nature like that and that may be true. I also believe that his style is second to none because you would never see Roger Federer question a call on the court. Many players stress over the officials calls and even throw thier racquets when they miss a shot but not Roger, everyhting seemed to be a part of his masterful plot to win the game. By watching this player play the game I believe it really helped me understand how the best should play and act. I couldn't have understood this style by learning about it on the internet I had to see him in action in order to completely understand. I believe this is what Dreyfus is trying to make clear to us in his writing.

The irony that I am posting this online doesn't escape me

A lot of what's said in On the Internet makes sense. I have just recently experienced the frustration of searching a database for a relevant article. (I had to have a relevant article from a database for my project.) It took me upwards of three hours to find anything remotely relevant and even then I had to have a friend of mine retrieve it from UK as Thomas More didn't have access to the full work. Frustrating. As I was doing this I couldn't help but desire wandering through the stacks and finding something new and fun and complete. In a library, there is no tempting you with the snippet of a book and then saying that, sorry, they don't have it. In that respect, then, Dreyfus seems to have a valid point. It's his reasoning for the failure of technology to predict human behavior that I am having trouble agreeing with.

Obviously, the fact that human beings have a body is a large difference between us and machines. But I am having a hard time grasping what exactly Drefus means by "body." Does he mean just the physical entity and parts (including the brain) or does he include the consciousness that comes from that? Human thought is, obviously, erratic. But is that caused by the body? Human reason seems to me to set us apart from machines in that we do not behave consistently and we have the ability to adapt and learn but I wonder if that is what Dreyfus means by "body?" Or does he just mean that the body is the reference point from whence all thought and common sense begins?

I am thinking about this.

buddha and motorcycles

Pirsig's approach to technology reform is interesting. Borgmann, however, finds a flaw in the idea that you can engage with technology. As is pointed out in his book, technology has become more and more obscure and difficult for the layman to comprehend. Persig may have been able to turn the repair of his motorcycle into a focal practice, but especially recently the knowledge to repair anything has become so specialized as to be almost impossible.

Another problem that Pirsig's theory faces is the tendency for technology to isolate an individual from others. You can share in the repairing and riding of a motorcycle (or at least an old school one) but sharing a computer with another is difficult.

Technology has become so obscure and isolated as to become almost impossible to convert into anything remotely focal and meaningful.

eLibrary

Will the library become obsolete? With the recent development of online sites like eLibrary (which, ironically, the Cincinnati Library runs off their database) being offered for free to college students, it's a definite possibility. As yet, they don't have comprehensive book collection like the Cincinnati Library, but this site is most definitely Covington Public library standard. The appeal is that you don't have to leave your room to do extensive research, which you could only do at a very large library. This challenges that problem of the internet searches that you can find something if you know what your looking for but not if you don't know what your looking for because eLibrary functions in much the same way as a real library does with keywords and such. And, the only component that's missing is the librarian, who can be very helpful (only in person, they are really rude phone people) in finding what your looking for if you only have a vague idea. So, like all other internet processes, the disembodiment is the problem and the hurdle to gaining a truly successful search engine. Libraries have become obsolete to most college students who can use proquest, Ebsco host (which I originally thought was a brand of cookie and so wondered for many months why the school was supporting a brand name) and eLibrary. However, for those who are in rhetoric related professions or just love books, the library will never become obsolete. I think Borgmann might have even considered the library a focal practice at least for people who aren't already jaded by the internet. When you go to the Cincinnati Library (downtown) it's a meeting place for the community with events like poetry slams, movie night, book clubs etc... It's a place for an individual to feel in touch with the feeling and smell of books (body), to stretch one's mind to area unknown (mind), and to feel a spirit of times past (soul), all as you stand there lost on the second floor, giving money to hobos, staring in disbelief as a guy looks at pornography on a computer, and already having passed a street gang of kids, who have all lost out on the experience. It just seems like, every person is working so hard to get to the end of a book or a research paper and they completely miss the best experience that the research paper gives, not of writing the paper itself (which can be enjoyable...on occasion) but getting lost in the library, finding book completely unexpected, and then as you sit in middle of aisle blocking no one's way because you're in some obscure section, you find pencil marks or cheeto finger marks and say, "Hey, somebody else read this. That's so cool." That experience is priceless and whether or not some human computer is developed, people who aren't completely lazy or impatient, won't find that enveloping feeling as when they open a library book. (Hopefully that was more realistic and less sentimental...sentimentality is as funny as a Cooper novel)

The internet

I have been using the internet for about 8 years now. When I first starting using the internet it was to talk to my friends through instant messaging. Now the main purpose of why I use the internet is to get research for upcoming projects, news about the world, the weather, and to check my e-mail. I rarely use the library unless a teacher says we have to have a non-internet site for our paper or speech.
I don't use the library because I don't know where to begin. I know this is no excuse, but it's the truth. I should use the library more often because it will probably give me better information than the internet would.
Dreyfus's idea on the internet made me think about how well search engines work and why we only rely on them. I am going to start researching more in the library now to get better references and books.

The internet, is it so bad?

There is vast amount of information one can access on the internet. In terms of the information we gather on the internet, we do not know how much of it is valid and how much of is valuable. I really enjoyed reading the first chapter of Dreyfus but I think he was coming off too strong with the examples he was providing.

I think he is absolutely right that we need to go to libraries and gather information which I also prefer to do because whenever I research something in the library I feel like I accomplish more than just going to a website and filtering unuseful information. Im participating in the research by going to a library and become an active researcher by looking through the stacks of books or walking around and browsing through the stacks of books.

Today's technology is growing incredibly at a fast rate. Dreyfus said that computers will never become advanced researcher like humans. Well, computers are controlled by humans and if we give them brains they will still base their research based on a human mind and what the humans tell them. Dreyfus thinks we are looking for a technology(humans like computers) where the computer learns from the information we gather and is more helpful next time we get on the internet. I do feel this is accomplished in many cases but not just accessible to the general public. As part of the society Dreyfus might not be aware of it. Lets say, you purchased a book from Amazon.com next time you sign into Amazon, it will prefer you new books based on your previous purchases.

So I think Dreyfus is not clear yet that internet can not be examined as a whole like a library rather it has different sections which is helpful to those who'd like to get the information they need quickly in a brief time. Extensive research is needed for bigger assignments or projects.
I think we need to make this distinction before proceeding further with Dreyfus' ideas. I do not think libraries will lose its originality unless we know how to make the distinction between a library and an online research. Both can be useful but we must know where to look for in both cases.

On the Internet

After reading the first chapter of Dreyfus, I am relieved that it is much easier to comprehend than Borgmann. I agree with a lot of the points Dreyfus makes about the internet and about search engines. He says that when we search for uselful things on the internet, it is like searching for a particular needle in a stack of needles; I agree with this. I could not even begin to count the number of times I use google or other search engines and am left with merely one or two credible sources. Also, I think the CYC thing he talks about, from the little bit I read about it, sounds pretty interesting. I think it's odd that after all the progress we've made with technology, we can't seem to make it answer what seems to us to be a logical, simple question such as chewing gum and walking at the same time, as Dreyfus uses for an example. Yet while I agree that as the net grows we will be forced to pick through piles of trash to find a few things of relevance, I see no way around it. The web is growing and people are becoming more and more dependent on it everyday. As we talked about it class, almost all of us go straight to the internet when given a research topic. In a way, this is what Borgmann was talking about, becoming more and more dependent on the devices and not on the focal things and practices. Maybe all we need is a long walk down the fiction section in the library, but when a computer is only three steps from my door, why would I want to drive ten minutes to the library to get relatively the same results?

Thoughts on Borgmann

Now that I have read most of Borgmann's book I can comment on some of his major issues, most of which I agree. Borgmann's entire book was rather dull and somewhat difficult to understand especially in the beginning; however, his overall idea that techonology is beginning to control our lives is a good point. I think too much of our lives are revolving around machines, which alot of the time prove faulty when we really need them. I agree with Borgmann that we all need to get back in touch with our traditional side and with nature. We need to experience the real beauty in our world and engage ourselves once more in social interactions. Borgmann also brings up an interesting point that though technology is consuming our lives currently, we can learn to incorporate devices into our traditional practices. There is no definitive answer as to how technology can be reformed, but Borgmann makes some interesting suggestions as to how society could get started. I believe that it must start with the individual, as well, who can take an initiative to change aspects of their own lives. This will in turn encourage others to make changes, attempting to achieve what we all want: happiness, only this happiness will not solely rely on technology.

Interactions

My reaction to Borgmann is positive overall. I think unlike many writers, who observe problems and nothing else, Borgmann gives us a way to reform our lives in response these problems. In a time when people ask what is the meaning of life and it 's treated like a joke, Borgmann seems to genuinely reflect upon it. He thinks that in fact not our business or our awesome CD player that define our lives but our human relationships and those techonological advancements that make those interactions possible. And I think by saying that primative technologies like wells or guitars have central meaning in our lives as the enrichment, the focal things, which make focal practices possible, is the most reforming idea in his book because it shows that some day we could have gone through enough reform that modern technology and focal practices will be compatible. For me, it gave more meaning to a sociological theory about how humans consume most of what they buy in public for the whole community to observe (I want to say it was Max Weber but probably not...need sociology notes... Ugh). Thus, the function of our commdious life, at least at the base, is to live in the community and that fact is quite comforting becasue through alot of reform we can illuminate this practice from being beneath the surface. The last promising thing that Borgmann presents is that people are starting to rebel against technology whether it be living in a country house or eating together and I think the reason why is best said in another Murakami short story called TV People. He says, "The TV people exit and leave me alone. My sense of reality comes back to me. These hands are once again my hands. It's only then I notice that the dusk has been swallowed by darkness." Perhaps, we are starting to realize that we haven't taken to the time to realize that we are being enveloped by something we have no knowledge of.

Overall reaction to Borgman,

I really do think Borgman makes a lot of interesting remarks in his book titled the Technology and the character of Contemporary Life. His perspective is to move forward with technology but his doubts aim to what extend we should move forward and what do we need to do in order to avoid too much technology. Whether we accept it or not technology has done so much damage on us and we tend not to be as social individuals as we used in the past. Why? Because we have our computers and the internet who are becoming the very two good friends of ours. This is what Borgman thinks is wrong and should not be allowed within the society. This simple example tells us how the direction of a simple human being and its nature is diverted from its orginal meaning to a thing no different than a machine we create in factories. This might be a harsh statement but with the very progressive technology some populations are made to feel as such China, India and Japan among many other nations can be good examples of the few. Borgman's text warns us so we may at least reduce the amount of technology that affects and interferes with our lives. So we can spend the very own lives of ours in a dialogue and strong relationships with friends and more importantly with our families.

Reforming Technology

Borgmann is unsatisfied with Pirsig's conclusion because, in Borgmann's opinion, Pirsig has ignored some key components of modern technology. While Borgmann ultimately believes we need to "reassert our mastery over the machinery of technology", Borgmann recognizes that Pirsig has overlooked the growing intricacy of technology.As the machinery of technology is becoming more invisible and more specialized, the harder it has become to engage with.The whole idea of modern technology is to disburden us, making our lives easier. For example, the concept of reconnecting with technology through fixing a motorcycle, isn't quite as easy as it used to be. With the inability to "care" for technology, it often becomes easily discardable.Unfortnately making a "connection" with technology is ultimately much easier said than done.

Borgmann thinks that Pirsig realizes that there is a, "split between surface appearances and underlying forms", but he thinks that Pirsig sees it too generally. In other words, if I'm interpreting this correctly, technology itself isn't so much the problem, the problem is our attitude towards technology. Pirsig's argument for reform is too strong in the idea that his solution can be applied to all situations, and too weak in the idea that his solution only pertains to the way we see things, not in the way things are actually shaped. We don't question the underlying problems, we only see what's at the surface of the problem. He says that what Pirsig is recommending is," little more than a change of vision." I would have to agree with Borgmann, and I see now that I may have incorrectly judged his opinions based on the first half of the book.

I probably look at this stuff from a slightly different perspective than that of a more traditional student. I know firsthand what he means when he talks about being disengaged. When you're my age and your whole life has unexpectedly and forcibly changed, you find yourself in the unique position of looking back and realizing what you've missed by being disengaged, and what you want to change. I think part of the solution for me is finding the balance between technology and nature, and by trying to instill that search for balance for future generations through my children.

Reconciling Nostalgia and Technology

Robert Pirsig believes that by maintaing and caring for technologcial devices, we can create a peace of mind within the technological world. Borgmann does not necessarily agree that it is possible to become one with technology as we can not become further involved with a world that we are unfamiliar with for the most part. How can we become masters over the devices that have hidden machinery for which we no nothing about. Yes, it is important to consider reforming the world of technology as Pirsig wants to pursue; however, Borgmann sees difficulty in bringing back nostalgia so that it can work side by side with technology. Technology has overwhelmed our lives so that it almost does everything for us, so much so that nostalgia is lost. Pirsig wants people to become more engaged in technological devices yet it is these devices that make our lives so disengaged. Devices are not only unknown to us as far as how they work, but they also have distanced us in our web of relations. We are no longer doing things for each other, but rather relying on machines. With technology we have a world of increasing leisure, however, with out it the requirements upon oursevles increase, which no one is used to anymore. Sure everyone wants the best of both worlds: harmony within a world that is both technological and true to the focal aspect of our lives, but will this ever be possible?

Zen and motorcycles

Borgmann is actually starting to be a bit maddening! It seems that he is unable to adapt to the world in any way, shape, or form. It seems that all he does is moan and groan about the evils of technology. I agree with Borgmann on many of his ideas and writings; however, I disagree with him on the topic of being at peace with technology. I definitely feel that it is possible and rewarding to have a relationship with technology. For example, a car enthusiast may enjoy working on his or her car in the driveway with a family member or friend. This person is dealing with technology, but is also experiencing the outdoors and bonding with others. I enjoy hiking in nature and being out in pristine forests; however, I simply don't agree that a person can't find peace and happiness within a world of technology. Borgmann makes many good points, but he needs to get out of the stone age and accept life as it is now.

Footprints

The problem with the thesis of Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance is not the fact that it seems to bring about a religious experience for the main characters as well as bring them together, it's that the father and son spend all of this time learning to care for a machine that will soon not need caring for. The promise of technology is that it will make our lives easier and so take out the possibility of seeing the beauty and caring about a motorcycle in the same way we care (or are supposed to care) about nature. The whole concept seems to flip the intention of Dogen's (the founder) Soto Zen Buddhist sect, which taught that little by little one could attain enlightenment through meditation. What is interesting about the Soto school is that the meditation didn't have to entail being bald, having a robe, a mat, and an entire day dedicated to mediation instead it was about work as a sort of meditation. (takes 30 minute break from post because can no longer hold in the urge to revise play writing assignment... I feel like I just put up an IM away message... I think I have defiled the Blog with such IM lingo, that’s a shame)
I have returned (there should be some sort of superman music there), back to Zen Buddhism. In this sense the Soto school of Zen Buddhism is completely compatible with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. However, the enlightenment portion of the Soto school, in my opinion doesn't correspond with this idea. Enlightenment is realized when one learns, who God is for them and what spirituality means (thus the four noble truths and the eight-fold path), which is different to each person who is meditating. Also, within Buddhism is this intense respect for nature as embodied in right action of the eight fold path, which puts forth very clearly not to harm anything whether it be nature or humans. On a larger scale, Buddhism, is about getting to a point where one is removed from the world (maya) and is fully enlightened as Siddhartha himself. To me learning how to work a device like a motorcycle is only making one become more engaged in the world and thus not fulfilling a purpose. Furthermore, what seems to bother Borgmann is that a motorcycle is not symbolic of anything not within the scope of technology. For example, Borgmann says the term wilderness excites some sort of excitement to dominate it yet at the same time it is symbolic of the concept of being untamed. However, I can look at a motorcycle and say it's symbolic of how humans have tamed the wilderness but I can't see a universal truth in the symbolism of the motorcycle because it 1) hasn't been around since the beginning of time 2) it's always changing and 3) as it is made by humans it is subject human infallibility unlike nature. I'm sure someone would want to start a God fight with me over the last comment and if they didn't I'd probably want to start one with myself but everyone can agree that I didn't go outside ten years ago pull a seed out my ear, throw it on the ground, and say "tree, I command you, be made." First, because I didn't know what command meant, second because my talking consisted of successive growls at age 8 (by choice...the world just wasn't cool enough), and because seeds do not grow out my ears (contrary to popular belief). So, why shouldn't we search for Enlightenment and spirituality in something that is concrete and eternal. Since, I have never read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance the experience Borgmann talks about with nature and this novel reminds me a great deal of a quotation from one of my favorite short stories called Sleep by Haruki Murakami. It goes something like, "And the fact that I was part of such a life, a life that had swallowed me up so completely. At the fact that my footprints were being blown away before I even had a chance to turn and look at them... I'd stare at my face purely as a physical object, and gradually it would disconnect from the rest of me, becoming just something that happened to exist at the same time as myself. And a realization would come to me. It's got nothing to do with footprints." That's attaining enlightenment. (swooning at the fact that I talked about Murakami without getting stares of huh? Because no one can give evil stares on the internet unless you attach one of those aim faces...While writing this I find it highly ironic that I'm writing against taking any value in a technological device in this post even though it just gave me some incredible freedom...perhaps that's the problem)

Feelings and Technology,

We are at a point in our life time where we can create imaginary worlds on computers which we may think we can feel and enjoy. One feels the world with their whole body. When you run or walk, your whole body functions and you sense great pleasure out of these natural phenomenons. When you swim, your whole body functions and you feel the water and calmness of the water all around you. You say the water is cold or hot. This sort of relaxes you and you get a pleasure out of it. Lets say you try to experience swimming in a simulation. Yes, you will be swimming in a digital world but how much can you enjoy such experience? In this case, in a digital world rather than feeling you'd have to think that you are now swimming. Feelings and thinkings are two different concepts that one must be careful when giving such examples.

Why can we not be happy anymore? I think most people suffer from psychological disorders because every where you turn has nothing left from its original beauty. We ask the question of what is natural beauty nowadays because we are so apart from it. People do not have the time to take walks in the forests or enjoy a day out in the nature under the sun. I think we are forgetting how we were created one with the nature and as a part of it. When one tries to separate a human being from the nature, the human nature itself starts its own fight.

Pirsig and Buddha

Borgmann is unsatisfied with Pirsigs conclusion of technology because he says that technology is not as important as the environment, beauty, life, or art. Pirsig says that Buddha is just as satisfied with having a computer as he would be standing on top of mountain. Both do give one satisfacation but the beauty of being on top of a mountain is by far more tremendous and breath-taking then playing and researching on a computer. One should enjoy the environment in which they visit and live in, the food they eat, and the art they see. One cannot enjoy these things through technology. Technology can and does make people happy but one cannot get the full advantages and experience of life through it.

Reforming Technology, Part One

Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance suggests an approach to reforming technology that Borgmann finds both compelling and disturbingly flawed (Borgmann, 160-1). Pirsig, Borgmann thinks, is arguing for a reform of technology "from within" by emphasizing the possibility of a caring, responsible, and engaged relationship with technological objects such as motorcycles. Pirsig thinks that such a relationship with technology brings with it the awareness that "The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits of a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the top of a mountain or in a flower." Why is Borgmann unsatisfied with Pirsig's conclusion? Your replies can take the form of either comments or new posts.