I think that Dreyfus again points out some serious drawbacks to attempting to replace embodiment and traditional learning with "telepresence." I would have to agree that attempting to learn anything from a course taught solely over the Internet or television would be very difficult for me to do. But I think that technology still serves as a useful support to traditional learning, and that when used in conjunction with embodied learning that technology allows us to achieve the otherwise impossible.
Tools like books allowed us to spread information from an author to many people who had never been in contact with them. Similarly, I think that the Internet and telepresence allow us to share ideas, information, and carry on conversations with people throughout the world. The ability of so many to add to the Internet makes it a more cluttered space than is ideal, but it also means it is a wealth of knowledge of all those who contribute to it. It still has limitations, and I think that is why it would be difficult to master any subject in today's world purely by telecommunication. But I think that future advances in technology may make it more practical to learn while "unembodied." I think today's technology is too limiting in that it is difficult to fully adapt to a classroom setting and not intuitive enough that everyone can engage in it and feel comfortable with it. I certainly wouldn't feel like I was in class if I were watching a professor speak on a television screen. But something like a hologram I think could work well, especially if it is a sufficiently advanced hologram. Indeed, if a telepresence as realistic as "The Matrix" or a holodeck were made, would it even matter that it's "telepresence?" I would almost argue that if technology can make it real enough that we can't tell the difference, then there essentially is none. And although our technology probably will never be able to replicate a perfect copy of reality, I think in the future it will be possible for it to come close, and achieve what Drefus thinks is impossible.
No comments:
Post a Comment