Wednesday, February 28, 2007
M-5 Computer
As technology becomes bigger, better, and smarter there is this thought that it may be able to do human activities and possibly even over power the human kind, as the M-5 was doing in the episode. As we all know technology is a big part of mostly every ones life and it makes jobs easier, quicker, and much more efficient. computers and technology have even taken over some of the jobs that humans use to do such as that of the factory work. Although these jobs were lost to computers they are still ran by humans and maintained by humans. As far as the M-5 goes I don't think that computers will be a great comparison to the human mind and being able to make critical decisions. Take war equipment for example, No one wants soldiers to die and would love to have technology cable of going in and taking care of the missions themselves. One of the flaws of such technology would be exactly what happened in the Star Trek episode the technology would not be able to tell the difference between what was an enemy and what was a innocent human being or ship as in the episode. Technology cannot make distinctions and doesn't have the human instinct when it comes to such matters as telling the difference between that in which will harm you and those who are completely innocent. I believe that technology will continue to grow and become more advanced but I don't believe it will over take the human race because all technology takes mankind to run it and fix it when it is broken.
Star Trek and the Ultimate Computer
Ihde repeatedly says that people see technology in two ways: they want the convenience technology provides, but they are afraid that technology might start to control them. This contrast is evident in the Star Trek episode. Daystrom has good intentions in building M5, allowing ships to run fairly autonomous, resulting in less people being in danger. Kirk worried that he would lose his job to the "ultimate computer". The computer ends up taking over the Enterprise, realizing many people's fears.
Unrelated, I found a funny Star Trek picture.
Unrelated, I found a funny Star Trek picture.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Blog 7
This chapter went much deeper into the technology and how it relaties to our society of today then any of the other chapters. This chapter to me seem to show us how technology relates to humans cultures. It talks about how when a technology advice is used in a culture the culture itself changes as a whole. One example from the text is the australians sardine cans. They use these as a center piece for their headwear. they used it for headgear on the pure fact of its shape. To them the can is only a object not a can and they percieve that it is used for your head because it is circular. Another example from the text was the different uses of the clock. We use the clock as a time keeper where as in the text the chinese clock is used as a astromonical calender. It is used to keep what we call a calender. After this Ihde starts talking bout how first and third world countries differ. His mai point was in order to become a very sucessful country you have to be technologically advanced and in order to do that you have to be educated. This is why the first world countries are so much more advanced then the third world coutnries.
Blog 6
If brain scanning did come into action someday it would have very good effects but also very bad effects also. It would be a great factor in trying to find out who was guilty in the court room for crimes and so forth. Also it would help mentally ill patients maybe be better benefitted by a brain scan so that the doctors would have a better idea of what is wrong with that patient. The negative effects would also have a very big impact on todays society. If we scan a humans brain and we find negative thoughts about someone from awhile back that meant no harm but yet the judges still see the bad thought and thta person gets accused of the crime adn they are really inoccent this could be a huge problem. People of today might hink about a person bad one day and the next feel totally different. This is why these brain scans would be literally impossible to have done because we would never find out which bad thoughts of a human were seriously bad or just a bad thought that day because they made them mad.
Blog 5
This chapter of Ihde was still confusing but i was still able to come to some conclusions. My first observation is my interraction with the glasses. When we put the glasses on we see the world differently ten when we dont have them on. These glasses reshape the world for us. Through embodiment we dont ever relly notice these things as objects unless the object encounters a problem. This is very similar to heideggers hammer. Another analogy i can make is when we drive a car. We do not think of he car as a objedct we feel one with it. The only way we see the car as a object is when we wreck of something with the car goes wrong then we see that us adn the car are really not one and the same. Ihde mentions that our technologies relate us to our world. This is because without technology we hardly would be able to do anything in todays world.
Reading Minds
The topic of mind reading seems to be a continual area of interests. Of course, there are a few factors to consider in this movement. The first of which is outside the realm of ethics, and questions whether or not such technology would even be possible. The age of exploration is far from over. Part of this journey, I would assume, would tap into the deep levels of consciousness that remain, as of now, undiscovered. The fact that we do not understand, in its completeness, the way the mind works, leads me to question the validity of the ethics of this potential technology. On one hand, I do not believe this particular technological advance is beyond the reach of humanity; and thus, I believe we will one day need to seriously question our motives at the advent of its discovery. On the other side of the spectrum, it has been suggested that our culture cannot compete with technological advances. Remembering Idhe's philosophy, we cannot approach technology with the question "can it be controlled?"; instead, we must acknowledge the real issue of "can we control ourselves?" This draws us into more ethical issues. The ethics of reading minds is something that partially humors me. Imagine the response from one receives from a group of people (perhaps two or three) who suddenly realize that their intimate conversation has been invaded by you. I have read some of the posts and the issue of privacy has always come forward. Our thoughts, our feelings, our fears, our desires; they are all ours to have and no one else. Another issue is that of community. My faith directs my call to remind others that people are ends in themselves and part of the body as a whole. This delicate balance can only be held while recognizing the dignity of every human life. I would maintain that this involves every aspect of human life, especially our thoughts. The episode of Robot Stories involving mind scanning still has an effect on my viewing of this situation. One character conveyed that notion that it would be illegal not to go through the procedure. Why? This cannot just be viewed as a political problem. The philosophical concerns are prevalent, but also the theological concerns of religious authorities. The characters exhibited greed. There was a deeper need that lay beneath their motives, which hid their pride. They could not stand the thought of being without someone in their "collective". I could foresee the same problem with any advance in technology that would lead to further our ability to read minds. I do not believe that we could inevitably limit ourselves. Inevitably, every man, woman, and child would be called to join in this new creation - "a brave new world." And I could foresee the persecution of those who would not conform, leading to an ever downward spiral. For the sake of tolerance, humanity often becomes intolerant. My main objection centers on the loss of individuality. The action of becoming less than human, taking place by any means that emphasizes we are means to an end, and not ends in ourselves. We are part of the whole, but that identity should never over arch this position.
Star Trek
The episode of star trek was very interesting. The idea of a computer taking over and controlling everything in the future could be true to a certain extent. We may allow computer's to do many of those jobs in which the computer in star trek did. For example, we have planes who use computers when flying on auto pilot. When it comes to the actual flying however, it is up to the pilot because the pilot ultimately is the one putting the destination and information into the computer. Auto-Pilot just does the easy part of the flying, but when it comes to piloting through turbulance and taking-off and landing, we still entrust that to the human person. I think as society we will never let it get to the point where computers run everything about us. We won't be taking orders from computers and computers won't be controlling our lives. Yes people may say they already control oour lives with the internet, ipods and cell phones, but that is because we allow them. In star-trek, it was involuntary. I am optimistic that as a human society we will never let computers get to powerful and smart that they control us, instead of us controlling them.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Servants or Masters? (Blog #7)
In the opening chapters of the book, Don Ihde postulated a technology free society, the “New Eden”. In the closing pages of chapter five, however, Ihde hypothesizes a technologically “totalized” world-in other words, the opposite of the New Eden. Totalization does not necessarily refer to technology. Ihde offers the Aboriginal hope of realizing the “Dreamtime” envisions a spiritually, naturally totalized world. What interests our class most, however, is the threat, or promise of a technically totalized world. The beginnings of such a scenario are seen plainly in the fascinating (sorry Dr. McCoy, I had to say it) episode of Star Trek: “The Ultimate Computer”.
Dr. Daystrom’s incredible computer invention the “M-5” represents the climax of his research. It is so advanced that it can run a starship that normally requires up to a thousand man crew. Kirk, McCoy, Scotty and even Spock have some reservations about such a technology. Kirk first questioned his own motivations b
elieving, perhaps, his hesitation resulted from vanity and pride. Yet a feeling he amusingly describes as a “Red alert” in his head (only Kirk) remains. It quickly becomes obvious; however, that M-5 has some ulterior, or contradictory motives. It starts taking control of the Enterprise, not simply working with its minimal crew. When the M-5 claims the life of one of Kirk’s crew, the captain decides to pull the plug, but it becomes quite difficult. The scenario is now familiar to us through a multitude of sci-fi offerings, most notably 2001: A Space Odyssey. The technology was becoming totalized. It had total power over the ship and, consequently, the crew’s lives. The M-5 thinks on its own, but not logically (as Spock noted). Daystrom eventually reveals that the computer has been imprinted with his own human brain patterns, to make it think more like a human. Daystrom solved the common criticism of his machines that they couldn’t “think like men”. Unfortunately, though, M-5 was still a machine and with its illogical component, a very dangerous one; one that ultimately claims many lives.What I found most interesting in this episode was Daystrom’s reason for inventing M-5. He wanted it to protect human life by taking dangerous work from humans and allowing them to engage in more important pursuits (philosophy perhaps?). Like so many inventions designed to facilitate peace and happiness, it actually created disaster. Daystrom may seem deranged and extreme, but we all, in some way, have something in common with him. The “promise” of technology we have discussed, envisions a future in which technology has become so advanced and pervasive that human beings can live like Adam did—perfection, contentment, no labor and no disease. It is ironic, then, that both the technologically totalized world and the un-technical world both converge in Eden. At least for Daystrom, the ultimate goal of technology is to free humans and allow them to live a life of contentment. As the Star Trek episode suggests, this is not possible.
The M-5, for all of its technical brilliance, failed to achieve Daystrom’s utopian goal and actually created a dystopian situation. In his treatment of alterity relations, Don Ihde makes it clear that it is impossible for technology to become a true “other” as the M-5 almost did. Ihde believes that it is impossible for technology to become both human and technological. In other words, there is a point at which technical advancement must halt. Or, at least, it will become impossible to tell the difference between humans and technology. Hopefully, this is not possible. As Spock so aptly noted, computers, and technology in general, “make excellent and efficient servants”, but no one would like to “serve under them”.
Blog 7:
As we have learned there are three relations to technologies (or at least this is what I think I picked up in class, I blame technology for scrambling any information I have acquired).
1)Embodiment - technological artifact becomes a material extension
2)Hermeneutic - technology is a means for interpretation, presents information for an idea that cannot be physically seen. (ex. understanding of how cold it is outside from reading the thermometer)
2) Alterity - treating the technology as am object itself, a quasi-other, anthropomorphism
The super computer in the star trek episode can be classified according to one of these theories/relations. We can see that the super computer was not an emodiment relation as no personel used it to extend their bodily functions. The machine had a part in hermeneutics, as it relayed information about the status of the ship and its surroundings to the crew. The best area for the super computer can be characterized by an alterity relation. The computer took on a free will, exhibiting human thought by using the intelligence and programming imparted from the humans themselves. Thus, the technology would fall under the formula:
Human --> SuperPC-(-World). However, this means the technology is a quasi-other. It is not a complete human form, giving some assurance it can be turned off. The presentation in star trek showed the super computer as a thinking, calculating, and life fearing individual. It did not want to be turned off for the choices it made. This unique situation has brought up the thought that perhaps the computer is the one using the technology now, as under embodiment relations. It could be formulated as following: (SuperPC-Starship)-->World. The intelligent computer is embodying the ship as its own body, a sort of complete, overall extension of itself in which to interact with the outside world.
On a completely different note, does technology have to have some sort of intelligence in order to conquer and control humans? We ourselves give technology a certain life that we depend on as seen here:
Kinda hard to read but in the first caption the boy is saying "The poor young chap's IBook died! And his IPod! His IPod Nano! His shuffle!! His Blackberry!His gameboy! His web-browsing, instant-messaging, game-playing, musical phone!"
In the last caption the boy says, "We killed him."
1)Embodiment - technological artifact becomes a material extension
2)Hermeneutic - technology is a means for interpretation, presents information for an idea that cannot be physically seen. (ex. understanding of how cold it is outside from reading the thermometer)
2) Alterity - treating the technology as am object itself, a quasi-other, anthropomorphism
The super computer in the star trek episode can be classified according to one of these theories/relations. We can see that the super computer was not an emodiment relation as no personel used it to extend their bodily functions. The machine had a part in hermeneutics, as it relayed information about the status of the ship and its surroundings to the crew. The best area for the super computer can be characterized by an alterity relation. The computer took on a free will, exhibiting human thought by using the intelligence and programming imparted from the humans themselves. Thus, the technology would fall under the formula:
Human --> SuperPC-(-World). However, this means the technology is a quasi-other. It is not a complete human form, giving some assurance it can be turned off. The presentation in star trek showed the super computer as a thinking, calculating, and life fearing individual. It did not want to be turned off for the choices it made. This unique situation has brought up the thought that perhaps the computer is the one using the technology now, as under embodiment relations. It could be formulated as following: (SuperPC-Starship)-->World. The intelligent computer is embodying the ship as its own body, a sort of complete, overall extension of itself in which to interact with the outside world.
On a completely different note, does technology have to have some sort of intelligence in order to conquer and control humans? We ourselves give technology a certain life that we depend on as seen here:
Kinda hard to read but in the first caption the boy is saying "The poor young chap's IBook died! And his IPod! His IPod Nano! His shuffle!! His Blackberry!His gameboy! His web-browsing, instant-messaging, game-playing, musical phone!"In the last caption the boy says, "We killed him."
Atmospheric Fear of Technology in Star Trek
In our reading, Ihde explains the idea of technology as a cocoon where all aspects of our life are mediated by technology (Eve and her spaceship). In the Star Trek episode "The Ultimate Computer", we see the ultimate fantasy in which humans have taken it to the extreme. In class we discussed that we have a desire to become technology however we are afraid what this would do to humans. We called this concern the "Atmospheric" fear of technology.
"In the future...." are often the most spoken words in science fiction. The reason being of course that there is a broad spectrum of possibilities in the future. This plot has been used a lot in many movies and books today. Apparently the idea of technology "taking over" our lives scares most people. The intentions of using such technology are always good and everything goes well at first. However in almost every plot the computer loses its mind (in a human sense). The computer's logic no longer aligns with our human logic. Eventually of course the humans are able to shut off the computer.
In the Star Trek Episode, a super computer is downloaded into the ship's systems where it controls almost all aspects of the ship's functions. Kirk is of course naturally upset that a computer is taking over his job as captain. One quote that really caught my attention was when Kirk said: "There are certain things men must do to remain men" and that the computer was taking that away. I feel that Kirk (along with most humans) define themselves through their work (what they do). However technology is limiting that and even in some cases, taking it away. As a result we have split feelings when it comes to technology. We enjoy some of the freedoms it provides (when are relationship with the world is transformed) yet we are hesitant because of the way we are defined with the technology.
"In the future...." are often the most spoken words in science fiction. The reason being of course that there is a broad spectrum of possibilities in the future. This plot has been used a lot in many movies and books today. Apparently the idea of technology "taking over" our lives scares most people. The intentions of using such technology are always good and everything goes well at first. However in almost every plot the computer loses its mind (in a human sense). The computer's logic no longer aligns with our human logic. Eventually of course the humans are able to shut off the computer.
In the Star Trek Episode, a super computer is downloaded into the ship's systems where it controls almost all aspects of the ship's functions. Kirk is of course naturally upset that a computer is taking over his job as captain. One quote that really caught my attention was when Kirk said: "There are certain things men must do to remain men" and that the computer was taking that away. I feel that Kirk (along with most humans) define themselves through their work (what they do). However technology is limiting that and even in some cases, taking it away. As a result we have split feelings when it comes to technology. We enjoy some of the freedoms it provides (when are relationship with the world is transformed) yet we are hesitant because of the way we are defined with the technology.
Star Trek
Having never seen a star trek episode until the other day, I found it very interesting. The idea of a machine, M-5, having the ability to do all that a human could. M-5 detected things before the human brain had even processed them. Within the episode it also showed some of what Ihde is talking about in the book. Ihde discusses the idea of technological totalization and atmospheric fear. The machine took over all aspects of the ship, doing things without permission from humans. M-5 in a sense fought back and was in control over the humans. They tried to turn off the machine but where unable. To think of a future when technology takes over mankind is a bit scary to think of. In Star Trek it touched on the idea that the Captain was losing his job. Many may worry about the idea of losing jobs due to technology, but even a bigger fear comes when we think about technology taking over. There is a constant fear of nuclear annihilation. We continually make technology to beat the prior development and with that we are creating something that could destroy us or take over control.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
M-5 Computer in relation to Toyota
In the recent Star Trek episode we watched in class it talked about the wonderful M-5 computer. This computer basically ran the ship by itself, thus allowing the ship to be run with less amount of people and allowed the ship to do more things. The only reason people were on the ship was to make sure everything was running as it should. Last semester i was fortunate enough to tour the Toyota plant in Georgetown, KY. This M-5 computer reminded me of the plant in Georgetown. Their were robots that actually did the work for the people. The persons job was just to inspect the part after it was finished, to make sure is up to Toyota standards. These robot save a bunch of time in the production of cars. Toyota says they average 30 plus cars rolling off the assembly line every hour. In the episode, the M-5 computer started to mal-function and it was really hard if not imposible to fix. While i was their on of the robots started to mal-function also. Toyota said that everytime on of these robots mal-function it costs them anywhere from 5 to 10 cars in delay time. This is equal to lost money. Another thing i found real interesting, was Toyota had robots called A.G.V.'s, which stands for Automatic Guided Vehicles. These A.V.G.'s were computerized vehicles that take particular parts to different parts of the plant without the operation of a human being. They are computerized so the vehicle knows exactly were to turn and stop. So i felt that was pretty cool.
Brain Scanning
Brain Scanning could be a valuable asset in solving criminal cases. Just as well as being an assest to the law officials it can also violate the privacy of others who are recieving the actual brain scan. So like everything else their are pros and cons to brain scans. On the pro side law officials can scan a suspect's brain, and determine if in fact that particular person committed the proposed crimanl act. This process will actaully cut the cost of the investigation process. All the investigation will be is actually scanning the brain of the suspect. This leads to the reduction of the trial process as well. Their will be no need for trial by jury any longer. With te results of the brain scan your either determined guilty or non guilty. On the con side it invades the privacy of the suspect in my opinion, but really doesn't matter because of the Patriot Act. They can listen into your phone calls, so why not just scan your brain. So the invasion of privacy issue is pretty much ruled out because they already have the right to do just about anything with the implimentation of the Patriot Act. Another reason it can be a good idea is to cut back, or even liminate innocent people that have been found guilty. All in all i feel it would be a good idea.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
"The Ultimate Computer"
Imagine a time in the not so distant future when society is completely dependent on machines. A technology for every human function has been invented. Due to such modernization, the human race has become virtually unneeded, a thing of the past. The fear of all phenomenologists, that technology would make man outdated, has been fulfilled. This episode of Star Trek addresses this atmospheric fear of technology, when the ultimate M-5 computer is installed on the Enterprise. Soon Captain Kirk discovers that the majority of his loyal crew has been replaced by this machine, which is able to think as a human does. The technology begins to override Kirk's commands, and becomes so powerful that no crew member can disable it. No longer does man control technology and use it to make life easier and effort free. Technology has evolved to control men and use the human race as their pawn. In reality there is no technology, no matter how revolutionary, that can completely replace men. A machine can be constructed to perform human motor functions, think somewhat like a man, and perhaps in some cases be more efficient than a man. However, human nature, including free will and complex emotional processes, cannot be reproduced in any artificial intelligence machine, regardless of the technology available. I believe there is a line that must be drawn of how advanced we should allow our technology to become. As society becomes more futuristic, the possibility of the fulfillment of our worst fear draws nearer. The human race is approaching that fine line between man and cyborg.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Will our emotions betray us
Dear Society Members,
I can see the future as it unfolds around us. No longer do we need the Nazis turning our families against us. Now we can bring people in to the hospital for their yearly checkup and learn what they're thinking and put them into the concentration camp before they do something against the state. We will look at what they are thinking about our government and determine if they have any revolutionary ideas. We can also look into their thoughts about their fellow man. Maybe they are looking with lust at their neighbors wife. We know by our research that 58% of all men who are thinking these thoughts about another man's wife will make inappropriate advances sometime in the future. These advances undermine the very core of our society and we few have looked at the Constitution and have decided that it gives us preemptive status in these matters. We have consulted our lawyers and the best way to handle this matter is by chemical castration during their quarterly vitamin insert. This will ensure that they have no knowledge that an action has been taken place and we will remain a secret society as always. Our forefathers have dreamed about this very thing from the beginning. It is clearly evident in the Declaration of Independence that they wanted us to protect the society from these rogue individuals. We have developed the technology for this very purpose.
Concerning the upcoming election, we may need to focus on the oppositional candidates and bring them in early for their physical to determine whether they need incarceration or cancellation. Although incarceration is the preferred public choice in these matters, the cancellation of their life status will remove any possibility of their infecting the rest of the country.
Thank you for your time in these matters. As always, I remain your faithful servant.
I can see the future as it unfolds around us. No longer do we need the Nazis turning our families against us. Now we can bring people in to the hospital for their yearly checkup and learn what they're thinking and put them into the concentration camp before they do something against the state. We will look at what they are thinking about our government and determine if they have any revolutionary ideas. We can also look into their thoughts about their fellow man. Maybe they are looking with lust at their neighbors wife. We know by our research that 58% of all men who are thinking these thoughts about another man's wife will make inappropriate advances sometime in the future. These advances undermine the very core of our society and we few have looked at the Constitution and have decided that it gives us preemptive status in these matters. We have consulted our lawyers and the best way to handle this matter is by chemical castration during their quarterly vitamin insert. This will ensure that they have no knowledge that an action has been taken place and we will remain a secret society as always. Our forefathers have dreamed about this very thing from the beginning. It is clearly evident in the Declaration of Independence that they wanted us to protect the society from these rogue individuals. We have developed the technology for this very purpose.
Concerning the upcoming election, we may need to focus on the oppositional candidates and bring them in early for their physical to determine whether they need incarceration or cancellation. Although incarceration is the preferred public choice in these matters, the cancellation of their life status will remove any possibility of their infecting the rest of the country.
Thank you for your time in these matters. As always, I remain your faithful servant.
David Honaker
President
Sons of Founding Fathers
PS Don't forget that your yearly checkups are due next month. Have a nice day.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Is brain scanning for crimes possible?
First, let us examine the path modern brain imaging has taken. Brain scans (such as CAT, MRI, PET, and others) look at the ways the brain reacts to a stimulus. This is how we came to figure out what parts of the brain deal with each senses. Neuroscientists (for the most part) try to develop more accurate scanning techniques. The problem with this method of examining the brain is that it only deals with regions. Other neruoscientists are working on mapping the connections between neurons. By understanding the way the layers in the neocortex interact, these neuroscientists are discovering the way the brain learns and remembers. By tracing neural networks, neuroscientists can understand how memories form.
Second, let us investigate the claim brain scanning can predict a person's actions. At present, the correlation between brain scan and action is 30%, in our inquiry let us assume the technology will advance to a higher percentage. Is there a necessary relation between the state of the brain at one point (ie. when a scan is done) and some future action (most likely criminal)? If the answer is no, then the brain scan-for-future-events is of no use, since we cannot be sure of what will happen. If the answer is yes, then there is no such thing as free will. Without free will, many problems arise. If a person lacks free will, then they cannot do anything to change the course of events. In this case, the person cannot be held responsible for their actions, since the actions necessarily had to happen. Is a criminal action in this case a societal evil? The answer is not apparent
Also, what effect would brain scanning have on the populous? When would people be scanned? Who would be scanned? If scanning was done randomly (like "random" checks at the airport), the scanned person would be seen as suspicious. The suspicion associated with scanning might lead to discrimination and possibly hate crimes. However, if everyone was scanned, what would happen then? Increased state policing with enough resources to scan every person is a frightening image. What if a person was found to (possibly) commit a crime in the future? The obvious choice for criminals is to send them to jail, but jails would quickly fill. Jails would be a means of keeping the potential-criminal from the rest of the population. Of course, the jail could not be for re-education, since there would be a necessary relation to the action, which can not be avoided. The law would need to change also, since our system of laws take as one of its basis innocence until proven guilty. Another option for what to do with potential-criminals is capital punishment, which would result in a sense of negative eugenics.
What would be the signal of a future crime? Are all possible situations (ie. the movements and ideas involved in the act of a crime) already in the brain, or is merely the thought of a crime enough?
Third, and slightly off-topic, let us briefly examine the relationship between brain scanning and AI. Brain scanning (and relatedly AI) tends to focus on the relationship between stimulus and reaction. By documenting reactions to stimuli, AI developers hope to mimic human reactions. However, in order to reproduce human intelligence, AI developers need to recreate the way humans learn. In this way, an AI machine would be able to learn and respond in the fashion of a human being, not just respond to a set list of stimuli.
I am much indebted to Jeff Hawkins, author of On Intelligence.
Second, let us investigate the claim brain scanning can predict a person's actions. At present, the correlation between brain scan and action is 30%, in our inquiry let us assume the technology will advance to a higher percentage. Is there a necessary relation between the state of the brain at one point (ie. when a scan is done) and some future action (most likely criminal)? If the answer is no, then the brain scan-for-future-events is of no use, since we cannot be sure of what will happen. If the answer is yes, then there is no such thing as free will. Without free will, many problems arise. If a person lacks free will, then they cannot do anything to change the course of events. In this case, the person cannot be held responsible for their actions, since the actions necessarily had to happen. Is a criminal action in this case a societal evil? The answer is not apparent
Also, what effect would brain scanning have on the populous? When would people be scanned? Who would be scanned? If scanning was done randomly (like "random" checks at the airport), the scanned person would be seen as suspicious. The suspicion associated with scanning might lead to discrimination and possibly hate crimes. However, if everyone was scanned, what would happen then? Increased state policing with enough resources to scan every person is a frightening image. What if a person was found to (possibly) commit a crime in the future? The obvious choice for criminals is to send them to jail, but jails would quickly fill. Jails would be a means of keeping the potential-criminal from the rest of the population. Of course, the jail could not be for re-education, since there would be a necessary relation to the action, which can not be avoided. The law would need to change also, since our system of laws take as one of its basis innocence until proven guilty. Another option for what to do with potential-criminals is capital punishment, which would result in a sense of negative eugenics.
What would be the signal of a future crime? Are all possible situations (ie. the movements and ideas involved in the act of a crime) already in the brain, or is merely the thought of a crime enough?
Third, and slightly off-topic, let us briefly examine the relationship between brain scanning and AI. Brain scanning (and relatedly AI) tends to focus on the relationship between stimulus and reaction. By documenting reactions to stimuli, AI developers hope to mimic human reactions. However, in order to reproduce human intelligence, AI developers need to recreate the way humans learn. In this way, an AI machine would be able to learn and respond in the fashion of a human being, not just respond to a set list of stimuli.
I am much indebted to Jeff Hawkins, author of On Intelligence.
Blog 7: Program Two: Cultural Hermeneutics
This chapter seemed to look a bit deeper into technology and how in fact culture plays a role in the way that technology is used and therefore what it in fact is. The first section of the chapter shows that when cultures use a device for different uses it becomes something else altogether. There a few examples mentioned in the text. One being the sardine can that the Australians brought with them when entering the New Guinean highlands in the hopes of finding gold. The New Guineans found sardine cans left behind and then used them as a center piece for their headwear. By the look and shape of the object they did what they perceived it to be used for. An object is what it is culturally. Another example is the case of the clock. The clock as we use it today is for regulataing time and the Chinese clock was for an astrological calender than for telling hours, minutes, and seconds. As states int he book: "a contextless conclusion that the 'technology' as such is 'neutral' but takes its significance dependent upon different 'uses' (p.128)." An object is what it is in its cultural context.
The book then went into a bit of a different direction. Ihde started to discuss the difference in first and third world countries. A lot of what he said made sense. He discussed the fact that science education is essential in order to become an high-technological country. While we are one of the first world countries money for research and development and scientists and engineers, third world countries do not have this luxury. These countries want to develop but are not given the chance. One interesting point that he mentioned was the idea that children in Japan, China, etc. are exceeding United States' children in mathematics and science. This is something that should be recognized. Due to current technologies like the calculator, mathematics may have taken the back burner. Everyone can enter numbers into a calculator, but you still have to be able to read the numbers and comprehend the meaning. It seems as though we are falling behind a bit globally.
The last section of the book goes into the idea of controlling our technologies. There is no way to control something that you have not mastered. The whole idea of "controlling" a technology is a hard question to answer. Is any type of technology controllable? In order to control something you have to know every facit of it. It seems to me that nothing is truly controllable. Especially with things continually changing. This chapter's main focus seemed to be on the idea of connecting technology to our culture. Your culture makes an object what it is.
The book then went into a bit of a different direction. Ihde started to discuss the difference in first and third world countries. A lot of what he said made sense. He discussed the fact that science education is essential in order to become an high-technological country. While we are one of the first world countries money for research and development and scientists and engineers, third world countries do not have this luxury. These countries want to develop but are not given the chance. One interesting point that he mentioned was the idea that children in Japan, China, etc. are exceeding United States' children in mathematics and science. This is something that should be recognized. Due to current technologies like the calculator, mathematics may have taken the back burner. Everyone can enter numbers into a calculator, but you still have to be able to read the numbers and comprehend the meaning. It seems as though we are falling behind a bit globally.
The last section of the book goes into the idea of controlling our technologies. There is no way to control something that you have not mastered. The whole idea of "controlling" a technology is a hard question to answer. Is any type of technology controllable? In order to control something you have to know every facit of it. It seems to me that nothing is truly controllable. Especially with things continually changing. This chapter's main focus seemed to be on the idea of connecting technology to our culture. Your culture makes an object what it is.
Brain scanning will be a very touchy subject in the near future if it is uses. However I see how it can be good to society in helping interrogations of criminals for our security and in education especially for the disables. Even though these are great attributes to this technology there are downfalls. What if we read ones mind and they were once thinking of doing a crime but would decide not commit it? This is proving them guilty on unfair terms. Criminals and minorites could also be labled much easier as criminals so there is a chance crime rates will go up. This type of technology also takes away some individual freedom of human kind. Our emotions, faith an thoughts are very personal and I would want that taken away from me. Its like having a car. You have the individual freedom to get in it and just go whenever you want. Its a good feeling and to take away my own personal thoughts and feelings from myself would be disturbing.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Read my Mind?
The idea of having people read my mind kind of frekas me out. There are many personal thoughts up in my mind that I don't want any one else knowing about. The idea of having the police read my mind to see whether of not I may have committed a crime or if someone else is thinking about committing a crime in theory is a good idea. They can stop someone from committing a crime or find out what exactly happened if that person did committ a crime, but thats good in theory. Our minds, to me is the most private part about me. It is the one place where I can think what I want because I know no one else can read my mind and see what I am thinking. If someone could read my mind, that would be a huge invasion of my privacy. I suppose that if the police could read of ours they would solve alot more crimes, and the crime rate would go down, but still the invasion of someone reading my mind, in my opinion, isn't worth the benefits. There is more downfall to reading minds than good. If there was a way the police could only read the information containing information about the crime and nothing else, then I would be all for it. But if everyone could read my every thought, that would be very unnerving. Reading minds is an invasion of the most intimate part of myself.
In the Year 2525... (Blog #6)
“Have you been scanned yet?” the petite, brunette woman impatiently asked as she grabbed her evening bag.
“No—not yet, Eva,” was the tall, flaxen haired man’s reply.
“This has been your answer for three months now, Rick. Is there something I should be concerned about?” Rick swiped the door for his indignant girlfriend and followed her out of the small apartment. She moved hastily down the hall, stopping at the imposing bulkhead door at the terminus of the corridor. She tore through her bag.
“Damn, I forgot my nano-key!” Rick finally caught up.
“We can use mine.” Rick swiped a small card in the door. Eva walked through, intentionally staying ahead of her consort.
This scenario, with minor variations, had played itself out a dozen times over the past three months. Eva was adamant that her boyfriend get scanned. The latest NeuroTrack Inc. product, “Nostradamus” was considered to be the most accurate predictor of human behavior since Microsoft’s “ThinkSuite 3.1”. It achieved an impressive 88% accuracy rate with up to a three year range. Unfortunately, though, ThinkSuite 3.1 could only predict basic thought patterns. It proved unable to discern between variations in emotion. The system malfunction of 2089 was also a great embarrassment. It took another ten years, and the founding of NanoTrack Inc., to rebuild the public trust in behavior predicting software. Rick, however, was still apprehensive.
“It’s not like I’m asking you to give up the internet Rick,” Eva saw that her silent treatment had sufficiently shaken up her companion.
“I realize that Eva, I’m just not convinced “Nostradamus” is anymore reliable than that old ‘mind shock’ thing was”.
“ThinkSuite, Rick, it was called ThinkSuite”.
“See, if my memory is that bad, how on earth will that scanner be able to predict how I might act in the future?” The two stopped in front of another door, this one leading to the subterranean, high-speed shuttle system.
“Would you do it for me? I would really like to know where this relationship is going. “Nostradamus” can predict behavior up to a five year span! It said I would remain committed to my current relationship.”
“Eva, how is that possible? What if I get abducted by aliens or something? Couldn’t be very committed then.”
“Stop being ridiculous. We both know that extra terrestrial life was proven a mathematical impossibility in 2093.” Eva sighed deeply. “If you won’t even get scanned for me, how can this relationship possibly work?” Rick finally conceded defeat.
“Alright, I’ll get scanned.” Eva smiled and took him by the arm.
“Great! We can go now.”
“Don’t you need an appointment?”
“I already made one.”
“If you can predict my behavior this easily, why do I need to get scanned?”
***********************************
“Hmmm.”
“Hmmm”? What exactly does that mean, Dr. Loveless?” Rick worriedly asked.
“Well, it means, that your scan is showing some erratic behavior signatures.” The doctor paged through the scan once again “hmmm”ing at least three more times.
“This is not something I would want to show my wife.” The doctor handed the portfolio to Rick who found it difficult to interpret. There were numerous images of his brain, he assumed at least, and each had different wave pattern graphs applied over the image. The tall, thin doctor looked wraithlike in the bright, sterile light of the scan-room.
“Why not? All I see are dots and something that looks a little like a Jello mold”.
“Jello?”, the doctor laughed, “what a quaint reference.” The doctor moved closer to Rick. “The Jello formation is actually an extra-marital affair about two years down the road by the looks of it.”
“What!?”
“Oh yes, we’ve seen it hundreds of times—and that was just during our CEO’s scan.” The doctor took the portfolio and tucked it under his arm. “This can remain confidential, of course.” Rick pulled himself out of the uncomfortable scanning chair and approached the doctor.
“That doesn’t mean anything. I wouldn’t do something like that.”
“No? How can you be so sure? Nostradamus has never once been wrong.”
“Maybe they’re self-fulfilling prophecies.” The doctor handed Rick the scan.
“Believe what you like, but facts are facts. Now please be on your way, I have five more subjects to scan this evening.” Rick exited the scan-room and handed his nano-key to the receptionist. The bill was exorbitant.
“Thank you sir,” the receptionist perkily responded, “please scan with us again.” Rick took his card back and slowly approached the patiently waiting Eva.
“How did it go?” Eva asked. Rick paused. “Well?” she prodded.
“This is absurd, Eva. There is no way that maniac Dr. Loveless could accurately predict that I will cheat on you.” Eva grabbed the portfolio.
“Cheat on me?!” She quickly reviewed the doctor’s comments. “More than once?”
“Eva, it’s all conjecture—“
“So how many times have you already cheated on me? This mathematical trend indicates that you must have at least once!”
“No, no I haven’t—“ Eva’s anger dissolved into tears.
“I knew something was wrong when you refused to come. My mother was right about you.” Rick reached for his sobbing girlfriend but she pulled away.
“Eva, it’s a computer. They can be wrong.”
“Rick, it’s science, it’s fact.” She handed the portfolio back to Rick. “I’m just glad I found out now.” Eva collected herself and walked away from her now ex-boyfriend. “I hope we can still be civil.” Rick followed her; she was sprinting towards the elevator now.
“Eva, wait come back.” It was too late, she was already safely aboard the shuttle elevator. He watched her speed down the tunnel. An elderly gentleman ambled towards the forlorn Rick, hoping to catch the next shuttle. The clever old man shrewdly inferred what had happened.
“Why can’t young people just go see palm readers anymore?”
“A what?” Rick confusedly replied as the two boarded the next elevator.
“No—not yet, Eva,” was the tall, flaxen haired man’s reply.
“This has been your answer for three months now, Rick. Is there something I should be concerned about?” Rick swiped the door for his indignant girlfriend and followed her out of the small apartment. She moved hastily down the hall, stopping at the imposing bulkhead door at the terminus of the corridor. She tore through her bag.
“Damn, I forgot my nano-key!” Rick finally caught up.
“We can use mine.” Rick swiped a small card in the door. Eva walked through, intentionally staying ahead of her consort.
This scenario, with minor variations, had played itself out a dozen times over the past three months. Eva was adamant that her boyfriend get scanned. The latest NeuroTrack Inc. product, “Nostradamus” was considered to be the most accurate predictor of human behavior since Microsoft’s “ThinkSuite 3.1”. It achieved an impressive 88% accuracy rate with up to a three year range. Unfortunately, though, ThinkSuite 3.1 could only predict basic thought patterns. It proved unable to discern between variations in emotion. The system malfunction of 2089 was also a great embarrassment. It took another ten years, and the founding of NanoTrack Inc., to rebuild the public trust in behavior predicting software. Rick, however, was still apprehensive.
“It’s not like I’m asking you to give up the internet Rick,” Eva saw that her silent treatment had sufficiently shaken up her companion.
“I realize that Eva, I’m just not convinced “Nostradamus” is anymore reliable than that old ‘mind shock’ thing was”.
“ThinkSuite, Rick, it was called ThinkSuite”.
“See, if my memory is that bad, how on earth will that scanner be able to predict how I might act in the future?” The two stopped in front of another door, this one leading to the subterranean, high-speed shuttle system.
“Would you do it for me? I would really like to know where this relationship is going. “Nostradamus” can predict behavior up to a five year span! It said I would remain committed to my current relationship.”
“Eva, how is that possible? What if I get abducted by aliens or something? Couldn’t be very committed then.”
“Stop being ridiculous. We both know that extra terrestrial life was proven a mathematical impossibility in 2093.” Eva sighed deeply. “If you won’t even get scanned for me, how can this relationship possibly work?” Rick finally conceded defeat.
“Alright, I’ll get scanned.” Eva smiled and took him by the arm.
“Great! We can go now.”
“Don’t you need an appointment?”
“I already made one.”
“If you can predict my behavior this easily, why do I need to get scanned?”
***********************************
“Hmmm.”
“Hmmm”? What exactly does that mean, Dr. Loveless?” Rick worriedly asked.
“Well, it means, that your scan is showing some erratic behavior signatures.” The doctor paged through the scan once again “hmmm”ing at least three more times.
“This is not something I would want to show my wife.” The doctor handed the portfolio to Rick who found it difficult to interpret. There were numerous images of his brain, he assumed at least, and each had different wave pattern graphs applied over the image. The tall, thin doctor looked wraithlike in the bright, sterile light of the scan-room.
“Why not? All I see are dots and something that looks a little like a Jello mold”.
“Jello?”, the doctor laughed, “what a quaint reference.” The doctor moved closer to Rick. “The Jello formation is actually an extra-marital affair about two years down the road by the looks of it.”
“What!?”
“Oh yes, we’ve seen it hundreds of times—and that was just during our CEO’s scan.” The doctor took the portfolio and tucked it under his arm. “This can remain confidential, of course.” Rick pulled himself out of the uncomfortable scanning chair and approached the doctor.
“That doesn’t mean anything. I wouldn’t do something like that.”
“No? How can you be so sure? Nostradamus has never once been wrong.”
“Maybe they’re self-fulfilling prophecies.” The doctor handed Rick the scan.
“Believe what you like, but facts are facts. Now please be on your way, I have five more subjects to scan this evening.” Rick exited the scan-room and handed his nano-key to the receptionist. The bill was exorbitant.
“Thank you sir,” the receptionist perkily responded, “please scan with us again.” Rick took his card back and slowly approached the patiently waiting Eva.
“How did it go?” Eva asked. Rick paused. “Well?” she prodded.
“This is absurd, Eva. There is no way that maniac Dr. Loveless could accurately predict that I will cheat on you.” Eva grabbed the portfolio.
“Cheat on me?!” She quickly reviewed the doctor’s comments. “More than once?”
“Eva, it’s all conjecture—“
“So how many times have you already cheated on me? This mathematical trend indicates that you must have at least once!”
“No, no I haven’t—“ Eva’s anger dissolved into tears.
“I knew something was wrong when you refused to come. My mother was right about you.” Rick reached for his sobbing girlfriend but she pulled away.
“Eva, it’s a computer. They can be wrong.”
“Rick, it’s science, it’s fact.” She handed the portfolio back to Rick. “I’m just glad I found out now.” Eva collected herself and walked away from her now ex-boyfriend. “I hope we can still be civil.” Rick followed her; she was sprinting towards the elevator now.
“Eva, wait come back.” It was too late, she was already safely aboard the shuttle elevator. He watched her speed down the tunnel. An elderly gentleman ambled towards the forlorn Rick, hoping to catch the next shuttle. The clever old man shrewdly inferred what had happened.
“Why can’t young people just go see palm readers anymore?”
“A what?” Rick confusedly replied as the two boarded the next elevator.
**********************************
Doctor Loveless was only half aware of the altercation that took place in his waiting room. They were quite commonplace in his line of work. How many times had he diagnosed the “cheating” signature…100, maybe 150? Or was it 250? It didn’t matter if he could remember, Nostradamus was always right….
Fin
Doctor Loveless was only half aware of the altercation that took place in his waiting room. They were quite commonplace in his line of work. How many times had he diagnosed the “cheating” signature…100, maybe 150? Or was it 250? It didn’t matter if he could remember, Nostradamus was always right….
Fin
Monday, February 19, 2007
This title has already been uploaded into your brain, so don't bother reading it.
In the future, telepathy is possible, so long as you are fluent in binary. There no longer exist any barriers to what one person intends to say to how another person interprets it. Every thought you intend to communicate is instantly downloaded, telecasted, and uploaded by your audience, who have the option of viewing your thoughts in high definition 3D and digital surround sound. Meetings convene, discuss, and adjourn before the commercial break of each person's favorite TV show is over. As ambiguity is eliminated it takes with it certain literary forms, like written poetry, and a large number of jokes and the entirety of puns. Not to mention the elimination of "foreign" languages; everyone's thoughts will be converted to unicode.
All of your thoughts are backed up on hard drives, your dreams are digitized, compressed and archived, your ambitions are compiled into lines of code dictating how you should live your life. You no longer read novels or textbooks or love letters, the underlying thoughts behind each are uploaded in moments into your consciousness, where you spend at most a millisecond pondering each of them. You don't talk to anyone, and nobody talks to you, at least not with their mouths, those archaic old things. You have too little time to move as slowly as people used to, but lucky for you, all this technology is saving you time. At least that's what the ads assure.
A convenient pastel light located on your forehead indicates when you are in a bad mood, or feeling tired, confused, happy, depressed, or any of the other 50 options available. This has thankfully lifted the burden from anyone to have expression on their faces. After all, if you can see the pale green light above my brow why would you need to see a smile?
Of course there will be a few problems for the brainwave generation. Everyone knows when you're daydreaming in church, and staring after attractive members of the opposite sex is considered a thought-crime. Your best friend knows that you really just forgot their birthday rather than "accidentally left their present at home." You have lost your ability to lie entirely, which some view as a great step forward to humanity. Of course, up until it is gotten away with no one realizes how often it is used. But it does allow you to never have to "swear" to do anything again; your real intentions are as visible as a read-out on a monitor.
Everyone in the brainwave generation will feel so lucky to possess this wonderful technology, and be amazed at how more primitive and ancient cultures ever survived without it. Perhaps a select few will resist the full integration made possible by brain-casting, but they will be the outliers and anomalies, regarded as weirdos and crackpots. Human thought will become an intricate amalgam of everyone's thoughts, with the minor drawback of destroying individual thought. But it's all for the best. Right?
All of your thoughts are backed up on hard drives, your dreams are digitized, compressed and archived, your ambitions are compiled into lines of code dictating how you should live your life. You no longer read novels or textbooks or love letters, the underlying thoughts behind each are uploaded in moments into your consciousness, where you spend at most a millisecond pondering each of them. You don't talk to anyone, and nobody talks to you, at least not with their mouths, those archaic old things. You have too little time to move as slowly as people used to, but lucky for you, all this technology is saving you time. At least that's what the ads assure.
A convenient pastel light located on your forehead indicates when you are in a bad mood, or feeling tired, confused, happy, depressed, or any of the other 50 options available. This has thankfully lifted the burden from anyone to have expression on their faces. After all, if you can see the pale green light above my brow why would you need to see a smile?
Of course there will be a few problems for the brainwave generation. Everyone knows when you're daydreaming in church, and staring after attractive members of the opposite sex is considered a thought-crime. Your best friend knows that you really just forgot their birthday rather than "accidentally left their present at home." You have lost your ability to lie entirely, which some view as a great step forward to humanity. Of course, up until it is gotten away with no one realizes how often it is used. But it does allow you to never have to "swear" to do anything again; your real intentions are as visible as a read-out on a monitor.
Everyone in the brainwave generation will feel so lucky to possess this wonderful technology, and be amazed at how more primitive and ancient cultures ever survived without it. Perhaps a select few will resist the full integration made possible by brain-casting, but they will be the outliers and anomalies, regarded as weirdos and crackpots. Human thought will become an intricate amalgam of everyone's thoughts, with the minor drawback of destroying individual thought. But it's all for the best. Right?
Scan Your Brain Today!!!!
The year: The not so distant future
The place: Could be your very own backyard
The what: Brain Scanning
The Who: YOU
A relatively painless procedure, it only involves hooking your cranial data port up to the mainframe's computers and about five minutes of your time. The data that they extract from your innermost sanctum is only used to: calculate what ads would work best on you, what you ate for dinner three months ago, why you broke up with your girlfriend of three years, your political and moral affiliations, find out that you really did cheat on that math exam, your secret gumbo recipe that you refuse to tell your son, and to determine if you are going to become a mortal enemy of the glorious earth empire. It is every person's patriotic duty to get their brain scanned. After your brain scan you will be treated to a never ending assault of advertisements directed specifically at you and you biases. Your neighbors will love you again, you'll get a raise, and you wont have to life a finger. The professionals at Brain Scan Tech will scan your skull for the low low price of $120.99. If you act soon you will get a complimentary subscription to Tech Weekly, a value of almost $40.00. Any shred of individuality will be replaced with complete obedience. You wont have to worry about catching up with the Joneses since they will be scanned too! Once everyone has had their noodle scanned crime will decrease by 200%, and people wont have to lock their doors at night. If you use your United Earth Express card you will earn an extra 6% cash back on your next bill. Reserve your scanning today. Space is limited to the first 1,000 callers. Call 1-800-555-5555. We have people standing by waiting to hear the sound of your sweet voice over the phone lines. Leave yourself defenseless and mindless. A society of automatons is the wave of the future, become one TODAY!!!!
Copyright 2045, Thought Controlling Casting Ltd. (TTC). The TTC is in noway affliated with the United Earth Government.
The place: Could be your very own backyard
The what: Brain Scanning
The Who: YOU
A relatively painless procedure, it only involves hooking your cranial data port up to the mainframe's computers and about five minutes of your time. The data that they extract from your innermost sanctum is only used to: calculate what ads would work best on you, what you ate for dinner three months ago, why you broke up with your girlfriend of three years, your political and moral affiliations, find out that you really did cheat on that math exam, your secret gumbo recipe that you refuse to tell your son, and to determine if you are going to become a mortal enemy of the glorious earth empire. It is every person's patriotic duty to get their brain scanned. After your brain scan you will be treated to a never ending assault of advertisements directed specifically at you and you biases. Your neighbors will love you again, you'll get a raise, and you wont have to life a finger. The professionals at Brain Scan Tech will scan your skull for the low low price of $120.99. If you act soon you will get a complimentary subscription to Tech Weekly, a value of almost $40.00. Any shred of individuality will be replaced with complete obedience. You wont have to worry about catching up with the Joneses since they will be scanned too! Once everyone has had their noodle scanned crime will decrease by 200%, and people wont have to lock their doors at night. If you use your United Earth Express card you will earn an extra 6% cash back on your next bill. Reserve your scanning today. Space is limited to the first 1,000 callers. Call 1-800-555-5555. We have people standing by waiting to hear the sound of your sweet voice over the phone lines. Leave yourself defenseless and mindless. A society of automatons is the wave of the future, become one TODAY!!!!
Copyright 2045, Thought Controlling Casting Ltd. (TTC). The TTC is in noway affliated with the United Earth Government.
When the Chief Leaves the Station
Ihde suggests that technology tends to recede into the back of people's minds when they use that technology. That we in a sense completely forget about that technology, or tool, while we use it. Ihde goes on to suggest that the only time that technology enters into our minds, while we are using it, is when that technology no longer functions that way it is supposed to function. Our pens that we use to take notes with doesn't seem to matter until that pen starts to write sloppily or it starts to run out of ink. Our computers don't really enter into our minds, until they freeze or get a virus (sometimes all to often). The glasses on my nose doesn't enter into my thought processes until the lenses start to dirty. We don't think about the bathroom faucet until it starts to drip. We hardly think about our cars that we drive everywhere until the "check engine" light starts to glow on the dash, at which point we start to panic and take it into the shop as soon as possible. All of this reminds me a another great Star Trek episode, this time it comes from Deep Space Nine. There was an episode in the 6th season in which Chief O'Brian goes on a secret assignment for Starfleet Intelligence. While the Chief is off the station everything seems to go wrong. The turbo-lifts stop 3/4ths of the way to their destination. All the station computers seem to go array. And to make matters worse for the crew of the station all the replicators go off-line making lunch time a real choir. I think that it is pretty interesting that this placing of technology on the "back burner" happens in our minds. I guess we get distracted with the task at hand, and the technology just becomes a tool that we unknowingly use to accomplish said task. Perhaps if we just give the technologies that we use a little more attention then our technology wont break as often. A good check at the amount of oil in our cars never hurt anyone. A virus/spyware scan of our computers never hurt either. Yes, doing these seemingly routine check-ups on everyday things may be time consuming, but in the long run is it worth catching and fixing a problem before it grows into a major breakdown rather than waiting for the breakdown to happen and being stuck with an expensive and even more time consuming repair job that could have been avoided in the first place.
Do you mind if I read your mind?
How beneficial would the technology be if a computer could scan the mind and predict people's intentions? One of the focuses conveys a positive outlook for applications of this type of technology. It is theorized it could be used to stop a crime that was to happen in the future as was the case in Minority Report. I have to admit that would be great. It might potentialy save my life from a person who wish to do me harm. However, this is based on the assumption that the human being will carry out the action no matter what, as if we are programmed for that specific function. We are not computers. One forgets the aspect of free will, "the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces." This personal choice stems from our process of thinking. Humans weigh out the goods and the bads of the choice they are deciding to make. They also have the ability to change their minds, from a change of conscience or in light of new information. What if the person saw it wasn't worth killing his fellow man? Oh well, because with the technology, he would probably be behind bars before he could make that decision. Furthermore, the technology might invade other areas of our lives. Consider academic classes. We learn information, and take tests to prove our knowledge. A technology like this could scan our minds for what we know, and assign a grade without our chance to prove our knowledge. Some knowledge is not straightforward, and requires delineating a path to the correct answer. For a very basic example, we might be given a triangle with two known sides, and we are asked the measurement of the hypotenuse. Well, we could not possible know the correct answer without using mathematical equations. That would require memorizing all the possible combinations of triangles, to which there are an infinite number of possibilities. So we would have to rely on facts of the triangle, see that it is a right triangle, and use the Pythagorean theorem to calculate the hypotenuse. One might say that the technology would pick up on the brain waves of the process of recognizing the triangle and using the appropriate equation. I say how is this different than the human performing the task on paper? Or one might ask you to prove the pythagorean theorem. Would it be right to mark you wrong for a technology to select the brain waves characteristic of proof number 1? How about proof number number 10, or any of the 72 proofs I came across on google? And I won't even get started on how it could reveal your personal feelings, your anxieties, secret company information, and other priviledged information. I don't know, maybe I am missing the point, but of course, this technology would have clearly revealed that? Or would it?
My alarm clock is trying to kill me.
Ihde's discussion of horizon effects and dreams for technological totality towards the end of his Phenomenology of Technics chapter were interesting. He points out that due to the advancements of modern technology, we are encountering new horizons that blur the boundaries between technology and self in ways never before experienced. That's not to say that horizonal phenomena didn't always exist, but that as technology has evolved it has introduced new horizons previously incomprehensible to us. Idhe mentions birth control pills and genetic alteration as examples of modern technologies that are difficult to separate very easily into the I-technology-world fashion that he did earlier.
I was especially interested when he talked about humanity's dream of totalization of technology. He mentions that it is a curious dream, because often we would prefer a real world over something artificial, and will only accept the artificial if it becomes necessary. Also, we have a certain fear regarding our own technology, a fear of what it could become. For example, the advent of nuclear weapons introduced a frightening new era that made it a very real possibility that humanity could be obliterated should the weapons ever be used in a full exchange. This fear could also extend to AIs or robots, as it does in many sci-fi thrillers. In this case, our technological progeny outgrows us and enslaves or destroys us. Or, in the more intriguing cases that Isaac Asimov delves into, they learn to take care of us better than we could ourselves, even if it is against our will. I agree with Ihde that a realization of a totally technological existence is probably something we will stop short of, but I don't think that will prevent future generations from fantasizing about how such an advanced world could potentially solve all problems.
I was especially interested when he talked about humanity's dream of totalization of technology. He mentions that it is a curious dream, because often we would prefer a real world over something artificial, and will only accept the artificial if it becomes necessary. Also, we have a certain fear regarding our own technology, a fear of what it could become. For example, the advent of nuclear weapons introduced a frightening new era that made it a very real possibility that humanity could be obliterated should the weapons ever be used in a full exchange. This fear could also extend to AIs or robots, as it does in many sci-fi thrillers. In this case, our technological progeny outgrows us and enslaves or destroys us. Or, in the more intriguing cases that Isaac Asimov delves into, they learn to take care of us better than we could ourselves, even if it is against our will. I agree with Ihde that a realization of a totally technological existence is probably something we will stop short of, but I don't think that will prevent future generations from fantasizing about how such an advanced world could potentially solve all problems.
Cruel Intentions (haha get it? Like the stupid movie! Yeah I've got nothing witty...)
From the way the article describes this brain scanning device, it would seem probable that it could eventually be perfected into an instrument that could even measure the truth to a person's words in addition to their intentions. This of course opens up a whole new world of possibilities.
In the world I imagine, people would use this device when they want to know the truth about something. This use stretches to people who are getting married to an employer wanting more than a background check, and even on the president (there is a political joke in there somewhere).
However the wide uses of this device would have to be controlled. There maybe laws that would protect the people's minds or the device would be mercilessly abused by the people in power. In our democratic setting, I would like to think that there would be judges in place that decide (on a grading scale perhaps...?) when this technology should be used. These laws would be in place to protect the innocent from, forgive my crude language, having their minds literally raped.
Strong enforcement would have to be in place in order to keep the world from going insane. I say this because a world with this device would become a world without secrets and a world without secrets would decay into a world with strange forms of trust, relationships, and dullness. There would be people that would abuse this technology in so many ways that it is almost impossible to conceive. Instead of unveiling the truth, they may take this technology and shroud us in distrust and false impressions.
In a closing statement, I would not like to live in a world that could be so dramatically affected by this device. I feel that this technology has the possibility would transform the people using it into tyrants capable of reducing our world to a place of hate and mistrust.
In the world I imagine, people would use this device when they want to know the truth about something. This use stretches to people who are getting married to an employer wanting more than a background check, and even on the president (there is a political joke in there somewhere).
However the wide uses of this device would have to be controlled. There maybe laws that would protect the people's minds or the device would be mercilessly abused by the people in power. In our democratic setting, I would like to think that there would be judges in place that decide (on a grading scale perhaps...?) when this technology should be used. These laws would be in place to protect the innocent from, forgive my crude language, having their minds literally raped.
Strong enforcement would have to be in place in order to keep the world from going insane. I say this because a world with this device would become a world without secrets and a world without secrets would decay into a world with strange forms of trust, relationships, and dullness. There would be people that would abuse this technology in so many ways that it is almost impossible to conceive. Instead of unveiling the truth, they may take this technology and shroud us in distrust and false impressions.
In a closing statement, I would not like to live in a world that could be so dramatically affected by this device. I feel that this technology has the possibility would transform the people using it into tyrants capable of reducing our world to a place of hate and mistrust.
Brain Scanning
In the future brain scanning could be a commonly used practice. It is possible that it could be affective enough to use within legal matters. If this technology does become used, it will be a great advancement that would be used greatly. This new technology would be greatly help in discovering if people were guilty of crimes. Along with everything in the world, it would have it's negative qualities as well. The human mind is a very complex and difficult thing to understand. People can have negative thoughts about something or someone, but this does not mean that they were acted upon in a negative way or followed through with. I feel that it would be next to impossible to be able to pick between the real and momentary upset thoughts that we have in our minds. I do not think we could declare the difference and i feel this could cause several false accusations about innocence people. If most of the legal system was based on such a technology it would have to 100% accurate or there would be a lot of people in jail for something they did not do. If this technology became 100% accurate, it would have great advantages within court rooms and would be better than the lie detection test that can be manipulated and may not give reliable results. We would not need a courtroom or trial because we could just scan the brain to find the truth. On the other hand, there would be a big invasion of privacy upon scanning someones brain. We would have to give up some of our own freedoms to secure the truth and safety of everyone. Would this be worth it?
Blog #6 Brain Scanning
If in the near future brain scanning is believed to be affective enough to use within legal matters it could be a great advancement that would be of great use. Although this new technology would be of great help in telling whether people were guilty of crimes and such it would bring with it negative quality's as well. The human mind is a very complex and difficult thing to understand and people have negative thoughts about something or someone almost everyday that are never acted upon or followed through with. In scanning someones brain it seems that picking between the real and momentary upset thoughts would be almost impossible to declare the difference which could cause several false accusations about innocence people that didn't mean any harm but just had bad thoughts briefly enter their brain. If most of the legal system was based on such a technology it would almost certainly be of erroneous qualities.
Some of the advantages of such a technology would be the use of it within court rooms and replacing a poly gram test that can be manipulated and may not give reliable results. If this new technology was of decent reliability it could be used to declare the truth of someones statement on the witness stand or rather it could tell if a person on trial for a crime was innocence or guilty. If anything such a technology could manipulate suspects into telling the truth because of them thinking the jury will know it no matter what, causing suspects to confess rather then trying to lie. As it is seen such a technology has its advantages as well as disadvantages, but if used in the proper way within the proper boundaries it could be of great importance within the technology world.
Some of the advantages of such a technology would be the use of it within court rooms and replacing a poly gram test that can be manipulated and may not give reliable results. If this new technology was of decent reliability it could be used to declare the truth of someones statement on the witness stand or rather it could tell if a person on trial for a crime was innocence or guilty. If anything such a technology could manipulate suspects into telling the truth because of them thinking the jury will know it no matter what, causing suspects to confess rather then trying to lie. As it is seen such a technology has its advantages as well as disadvantages, but if used in the proper way within the proper boundaries it could be of great importance within the technology world.
Blog 5
I found this section of readings even more difficult to understand. However i found the idea of emdodiment technology very interesting. Especially in the example of the eye glasses. I myself wear glasses sometimes and don't think twice about them. I do feel as if they are a part of me that help me perceive the world around me. If I didn't have them on I wouldn't be able to see certain things as they were farther away in distance. I don't notice them on my face or find myself thinking about them constantly. They have become a part of my embodied experience. However if something is flawed with them and they become a problem or hinder my vision I become very aware of the presence. If they are functioning properly they remain transparent. I think that this is very interesting and true. It also holds true for other pieces of technology such as the telephone and several other objects.
Blog 5
I found this section of readings even more difficult to understand. However i found the idea of emdodiment technology very interesting. Especially in the example of the eye glasses. I myself wear glasses sometimes and don't think twice about them. I do feel as if they are a part of me that help me perceive the world around me. If I didn't have them on I wouldn't be able to see certain things as they were farther away in distance. I don't notice them on my face or find myself thinking about them constantly. They have become a part of my embodied experience. However if something is flawed with them and they become a problem or hinder my vision I become very aware of the presence. If they are functioning properly they remain transparent. I think that this is very interesting and true. It also holds true for other pieces of technology such as the telephone and several other objects.
Blog 4: Ihde Readings
I'd like to start out by saying that this text is very hard to read. It takes a lot of effort and re-reading to understand what the philosophers and what Ihde are trying to say. They sort of beat around the bush and don't come out and tell you what they mean. They give you a lot of examples or circumstances without saying their main point. However in regards to chapter three i did find something understandable and interesting. Heidegger used the example of the process of hammering in a nail. He stated how the hammer as an object or as equipment disappears during the process because you are not thinking about the hammer. I found this very interesting because it is true in a lot of cases with different pieces of technology. We are not necessarily aware of the object we are using unless someting is wrong with it or it hinders the overall process. Then we become aware of the object, and the flaw it has and then how to fix it. Once the object is working properly again we begin to slowly but surely start to not notice the object anymore.
Blog #6- "A Futuristic World"
It is the year 2075, and life is radically different than the seemingly "olden days" of the beginning of the century. Society has become almost unrecognizable due to the infiltration of many new and complicated technologies. Most people would claim that the value of life has improved significantly as a result of the inventions of technologies, which make everyday activities quick and effort free. The United States has become the forerunner in the technological world, while other nations have attempted to keep up with the quick pace of modern life. The concept of being an American citizen has changed drastically, while personal freedom possess a whole new meaning. It is hard to believe that the invention of one single device would have so much influence on almost every aspect of society.
A brain scanning machine has been invented, which is capable of reading one's thoughts, intentions, memories, and innermost desires. It is now impossible to be alone in you own head. Everyone's personal thoughts have now become publicly available to anyone who has access to the program. This technology threatens the ethical/moral realm of life by hindering one's free will. The United Sates was founded on the principles that each person regardless of affiliation, or race should receive equal rights under the law. The Bill of Rights extends to every valid citizen the freedom of speech, press, and the right to bear arms. The fourth amendment offers a citizen security in effects, person, and actions, making searches or impositions unreasonable without just cause. This scanning technology most definitely defies these national beliefs and traditions which were so important to our founding fathers. Due to this technology, people have lost faith in the government because their personal freedom has been threatened. A new vision of the ruling body as a conspiring, evil government, which spies on people's every thought and intention, has become popular. Life is very uneasy, because one constantly feels like someone is watching their every move.
In the legal realm, brain scanning has allowed police and investigators to catch a criminal, before a crime is even commit, simply because they thought about it. Murder and robbery rates have declined, but with a consequence. Using this form of technology would require that the public service force be increased significantly, because there are so many people to monitor on a constant basis. In a criminal investigation, the search for the perpetrator of the crime is much more direct and less time consuming. One problem that has arisen from the technologies use is the rise in false accusations. Many people have been punished for crimes they didn't commit, only thought about. The idea of the courtroom, including the jury and the judge, has become a thing of the past. There is no longer need for interrogation or a search for motives, because the technology's results are deemed guaranteed. It has become virtually impossible for a person to lie under oath or to the law enforcement body.
With all positives, inevitably come negative consequences. While this brain scanning technology can be completely useful and beneficiary, it must be in the "right hands" to do good. It would be very possible that anyone could hack into the system or get a hold of the technology, and use it to spy on innocent people. With this modernization comes a new found fear that anyone could invade your personal privacy. However this is a risk that must be taken in order for brain scanning to be used. Like any other device, abuse can occur depending on the individual. In the long run, the invention of this and other technologies like this was inevitable due to the resources available in the modern world. As humans we must adjust to this change in our environment, and try desperately to protect ourselves from these negative consequences. The idea of embodiment has become virtually less and less possible due to this modernization and expansion of the technological realm of society.
A brain scanning machine has been invented, which is capable of reading one's thoughts, intentions, memories, and innermost desires. It is now impossible to be alone in you own head. Everyone's personal thoughts have now become publicly available to anyone who has access to the program. This technology threatens the ethical/moral realm of life by hindering one's free will. The United Sates was founded on the principles that each person regardless of affiliation, or race should receive equal rights under the law. The Bill of Rights extends to every valid citizen the freedom of speech, press, and the right to bear arms. The fourth amendment offers a citizen security in effects, person, and actions, making searches or impositions unreasonable without just cause. This scanning technology most definitely defies these national beliefs and traditions which were so important to our founding fathers. Due to this technology, people have lost faith in the government because their personal freedom has been threatened. A new vision of the ruling body as a conspiring, evil government, which spies on people's every thought and intention, has become popular. Life is very uneasy, because one constantly feels like someone is watching their every move.
In the legal realm, brain scanning has allowed police and investigators to catch a criminal, before a crime is even commit, simply because they thought about it. Murder and robbery rates have declined, but with a consequence. Using this form of technology would require that the public service force be increased significantly, because there are so many people to monitor on a constant basis. In a criminal investigation, the search for the perpetrator of the crime is much more direct and less time consuming. One problem that has arisen from the technologies use is the rise in false accusations. Many people have been punished for crimes they didn't commit, only thought about. The idea of the courtroom, including the jury and the judge, has become a thing of the past. There is no longer need for interrogation or a search for motives, because the technology's results are deemed guaranteed. It has become virtually impossible for a person to lie under oath or to the law enforcement body.
With all positives, inevitably come negative consequences. While this brain scanning technology can be completely useful and beneficiary, it must be in the "right hands" to do good. It would be very possible that anyone could hack into the system or get a hold of the technology, and use it to spy on innocent people. With this modernization comes a new found fear that anyone could invade your personal privacy. However this is a risk that must be taken in order for brain scanning to be used. Like any other device, abuse can occur depending on the individual. In the long run, the invention of this and other technologies like this was inevitable due to the resources available in the modern world. As humans we must adjust to this change in our environment, and try desperately to protect ourselves from these negative consequences. The idea of embodiment has become virtually less and less possible due to this modernization and expansion of the technological realm of society.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Blog 6: Brain Scanning
What could the future be like with the use of brain scanning? The possiblities are endless. Let's imagine it's year 2050 and the United States has completely developed and mastered the art of brain scanning or so they think. They use brain scanning as a way to catch the bad guys before they are in fact bad. All efforts have gone into developing this and enacting it.
There is one main building where all thoughts are filtered in Washington D.C., but each city has their own individual unit. Men are in the "office" 24/7, to make sure to catch all possible bad or violent thoughts that come through the program. There are also men on call to be sent to stop an act before it may occur. This could mean having seconds before someone is going to commit a violent act. If you don't make it in time, you are partly to blame for the crime that takes place. If this program spits out your name, you are then arrested and kept for what your sentence for what that crime would have been. There are no longer any courts or judges, all faith is put into this new technology. Do you therefore believe that this program will never make any errors? To put your entire legal system in the hands of technology. In the big piture this wonderful addition has been made to our legal system that allows people to be caught for crimes without the crime actually occuring. What if the program shuts down? With this type of development someone always finds a way around... would that be possible with this? How could the program decifer between thoughts that one intends to act upon and ones that they never plan on doing anything? There is no case here for innocence. We wouldn't have enough room for all these people. If our whole world was focused on this type of technology I think there would be complete chaos. Humans would fear to think at all. I believe that this would takeover all together. We would walk around trying never to have a bad thought enter our minds.
There is one main building where all thoughts are filtered in Washington D.C., but each city has their own individual unit. Men are in the "office" 24/7, to make sure to catch all possible bad or violent thoughts that come through the program. There are also men on call to be sent to stop an act before it may occur. This could mean having seconds before someone is going to commit a violent act. If you don't make it in time, you are partly to blame for the crime that takes place. If this program spits out your name, you are then arrested and kept for what your sentence for what that crime would have been. There are no longer any courts or judges, all faith is put into this new technology. Do you therefore believe that this program will never make any errors? To put your entire legal system in the hands of technology. In the big piture this wonderful addition has been made to our legal system that allows people to be caught for crimes without the crime actually occuring. What if the program shuts down? With this type of development someone always finds a way around... would that be possible with this? How could the program decifer between thoughts that one intends to act upon and ones that they never plan on doing anything? There is no case here for innocence. We wouldn't have enough room for all these people. If our whole world was focused on this type of technology I think there would be complete chaos. Humans would fear to think at all. I believe that this would takeover all together. We would walk around trying never to have a bad thought enter our minds.
The Phenomenology of MacGyver (Blog #5)
I'm hopeful this post is not as ridiculous as the title might suggest....
Don Ihde’s “Phenomenology of Technics” (Chapter 5) is an extensive (and quite long) chapter that approaches a wide variety of topics. In the first half of the chapter, Ihde outlines three major ways in which humans relate with technology, or as he calls them, as only Don Ihde can, “focal human-technology relations” (98). They are: embodiment, hermeneutic, and alterity relations. Ihde’s discussion challenges conventional understandings of technology and humanity’s relationship to said technology.
In the opening paragraphs of the alterity section, Ihde criticizes purely objective assessments of technology. He comments that a “naïve objectivist account would likely begin with some attempt to circumscribe or define technologies by object characteristics” (97). He admits that objectivist accounts have something to offer, but ignoring the relativistic properties of tools and technology is myopic. One only needs to watch MacGyver once to realize that technologies can be used for anything—not just what they are, by definition, supposed to do. The show is famous for the ridiculous, but mostly plausible gadgets the hero, MacGyver, creates. In one episode, he created a defibrillator out of candlesticks and electrical cord—you probably would
n’t want to trust your life to that device. For a more approachable example, MacGyver has, in more than one episode, used a gun as a wrench (partially because he is diametrically opposed to the violent use of handguns and partially due to the fact that MacGyver can’t do anything easily). I wonder if Ihde would still characterize this interaction as I-Gun-world (the general intentionality diagram) since Mac uses it as a wrench. This use involves a variety of other factors. Maybe it just requires an entirely new diagram, or it may fall into a different category.
If it is the embodied relationship, where the technology withdraws and becomes symbiotically linked to its user, this diagram would follow:
(MacGyver-gun)-world
This scenario is still lacking. It implies that the gun is applied in the world as a gun. Perhaps another focal relationship is more fitting.
The hermeneutic relationship involves the use of some interpretive schema, such as a map or, another example Ihde uses, a thermometer at a nuclear power plant which in turn refers to the world. Such a relationship is characterized generally:
I-technology-world
This becomes further complicated in a situation where the hermeneutic, let’s say a robot arm (controlled by a panel), is used to move rocks. In this case, the panel controlling the robot “is immediately perceived” (86) not the robot or the world itself. This is diagrammed in a different way:
I-(technology-world)
He quickly adds that this can become “enigmatic” (86). In embodiment relations, such as the use of a gun or a wrench, the fact that the technology and person can become “partially” symbiotic is due to the capacity of the technology to “become perceptually transparent” (86). In the case of any hermeneutic device, however, it is not entirely clear if the panel or the referent, whether it be the world in the case of the thermometer, or the robot arm in my previous example, is the focus of human attention. Ihde lists a few “enigma positions” that result from this confusion. Essentially, it is very difficult to define where the microperceptual withdrawal takes place, but the basic diagram for hermeneutic relationships is:
I-(technology-world)
At first glance, it seems this diagram would not fit the MacGyver-gun scenario, but perhaps it does. For MacGyver to consider using the gun as a wrench, he had to be aware of certain macroperceptual concepts; particularly science. Ihde does not specifically refer to scientific or personal beliefs (such as Mac’s aversion to guns used-as-weapons) as hermeneutic relations, but perhaps they should be. They provide a mediation through which we understand technology and the world, as much as any thermometer or panel might. In addition, MacGyver needs to objectively consider the situation, which in and of itself requires a hermeneutic leap, to decide what sort of object could be used as a wrench. In this case, MacGyver’s understanding of physics, knowing that the gun can be used as a wrench, and his aversion to shooting firearms serve as the hermeneutic through which he employs the referent, the gun, and affects the world:
MacGyver-(gun-world)
This diagram implies that more than the simple use of a firearm is happening. This is a strong way to diagram the gun-wrench problem, but Ihde offers yet another possibility.
The final possible focal relationships are “alterity” relationships. The term alterity, Ihde notes, is derived from Emmanuel Levinas’s Totality and Infinity. In the work, alterity refers to “the radical difference posed to any human by another human, an other (and by the ultimately other, God)” (98). Ihde, however, uses other to refer to technology. This sort of focal relationship has more in common with the “autonomy of technology” viewpoint.
Interestingly, Ihde identifies film as a technology that is in between hermeneutic and alterity relations. He notes that film appears more “life-like” than reading or writing which it “retains the functional features of” (105) so it becomes “quasi-other” at the same time. He quickly adds that its “quasi-alterity” (105) is not apparent in media footage since it serves as a hermeneutic transparency to other realties.
Ihde also indicates the computer as a quasi-other technology, referencing the fact that many users develop anthropomorphic relationships with their word processors. Like many other computer systems, he says, fail to successfully “mimic bodily incarnations” but they nevertheless display “a quasi-otherness within the limits of linguistics and, more particularly, of logical behaviors” (106). Dreyfus spoke at length about this feigned embodiment and the danger that posed to humanity. Ihde, however, classifies works such as 2001: A Space Odyssey as romanticizing “quasi otherness” because they transform technology into complete others which Ihde does not see as possible. He says it retains its “unique role in the human-technology continuum of relations” (106)/.
Ihde diagrams all of this as well:
I---->technology-(-world)
In this relationship, Ihde adds, the world, “may remain context and background, and the technology may emerge as the foreground and focal quasi-other with which I momentarily engage” (107). He further notes that this “disengagement of the technology form its ordinary-use context is also what allows the technology to fall into various disengaged engagements which constitute activities as play, art or sport” (107).
What does this mean for the gun-wrench example? Well, it is not as though the gun becomes a quasi other, or the focus of the activity, the gun is still a tool. However, it briefly does become the focus of activity as MacGyver searches to find something to fill the role of a wrench t. This diagram, therefore, is possible:
MacGyver---->gun-(-world)
This diagram is not entirely applicable, however. It would apply to the series of MacGyver as a whole, though, because it falls into the film category that Ihde believes can be considered an alterity relation; especially since I’ve essentially treated the fictional character as a living entity throughout this post. I will not open that Pandora’s Box at this time, because I’ve already rambled far too long.
I will conclude with an entirely new diagram explaining the gun-wrench paradox. It reverses the alterity relationship. MacGyver is focused on a problem within the world and seeks out a technology to surpass an obstacle on his quest—probably to save a wounded puppy. Here it is:
MacGyver---->world-(-gun)
The gun is in the background, its use isn’t even significant. The personal obstacle within the world faced by our hero is.
In conclusion, I think Ihde’s opening analysis is intriguing and provides a means of considering the complex realities of human-technology relations. Obviously, and Ihde admits to this, the three focal relations he outlines are not the only way of considering human-technology relationships. In a world where it’s possible to create defibrillator out of candlesticks, no one ‘focal relationship” will suffice.
In the opening paragraphs of the alterity section, Ihde criticizes purely objective assessments of technology. He comments that a “naïve objectivist account would likely begin with some attempt to circumscribe or define technologies by object characteristics” (97). He admits that objectivist accounts have something to offer, but ignoring the relativistic properties of tools and technology is myopic. One only needs to watch MacGyver once to realize that technologies can be used for anything—not just what they are, by definition, supposed to do. The show is famous for the ridiculous, but mostly plausible gadgets the hero, MacGyver, creates. In one episode, he created a defibrillator out of candlesticks and electrical cord—you probably would
n’t want to trust your life to that device. For a more approachable example, MacGyver has, in more than one episode, used a gun as a wrench (partially because he is diametrically opposed to the violent use of handguns and partially due to the fact that MacGyver can’t do anything easily). I wonder if Ihde would still characterize this interaction as I-Gun-world (the general intentionality diagram) since Mac uses it as a wrench. This use involves a variety of other factors. Maybe it just requires an entirely new diagram, or it may fall into a different category.If it is the embodied relationship, where the technology withdraws and becomes symbiotically linked to its user, this diagram would follow:
(MacGyver-gun)-world
This scenario is still lacking. It implies that the gun is applied in the world as a gun. Perhaps another focal relationship is more fitting.
The hermeneutic relationship involves the use of some interpretive schema, such as a map or, another example Ihde uses, a thermometer at a nuclear power plant which in turn refers to the world. Such a relationship is characterized generally:
I-technology-world
This becomes further complicated in a situation where the hermeneutic, let’s say a robot arm (controlled by a panel), is used to move rocks. In this case, the panel controlling the robot “is immediately perceived” (86) not the robot or the world itself. This is diagrammed in a different way:
I-(technology-world)
He quickly adds that this can become “enigmatic” (86). In embodiment relations, such as the use of a gun or a wrench, the fact that the technology and person can become “partially” symbiotic is due to the capacity of the technology to “become perceptually transparent” (86). In the case of any hermeneutic device, however, it is not entirely clear if the panel or the referent, whether it be the world in the case of the thermometer, or the robot arm in my previous example, is the focus of human attention. Ihde lists a few “enigma positions” that result from this confusion. Essentially, it is very difficult to define where the microperceptual withdrawal takes place, but the basic diagram for hermeneutic relationships is:
I-(technology-world)
At first glance, it seems this diagram would not fit the MacGyver-gun scenario, but perhaps it does. For MacGyver to consider using the gun as a wrench, he had to be aware of certain macroperceptual concepts; particularly science. Ihde does not specifically refer to scientific or personal beliefs (such as Mac’s aversion to guns used-as-weapons) as hermeneutic relations, but perhaps they should be. They provide a mediation through which we understand technology and the world, as much as any thermometer or panel might. In addition, MacGyver needs to objectively consider the situation, which in and of itself requires a hermeneutic leap, to decide what sort of object could be used as a wrench. In this case, MacGyver’s understanding of physics, knowing that the gun can be used as a wrench, and his aversion to shooting firearms serve as the hermeneutic through which he employs the referent, the gun, and affects the world:
MacGyver-(gun-world)
This diagram implies that more than the simple use of a firearm is happening. This is a strong way to diagram the gun-wrench problem, but Ihde offers yet another possibility.
The final possible focal relationships are “alterity” relationships. The term alterity, Ihde notes, is derived from Emmanuel Levinas’s Totality and Infinity. In the work, alterity refers to “the radical difference posed to any human by another human, an other (and by the ultimately other, God)” (98). Ihde, however, uses other to refer to technology. This sort of focal relationship has more in common with the “autonomy of technology” viewpoint.
Interestingly, Ihde identifies film as a technology that is in between hermeneutic and alterity relations. He notes that film appears more “life-like” than reading or writing which it “retains the functional features of” (105) so it becomes “quasi-other” at the same time. He quickly adds that its “quasi-alterity” (105) is not apparent in media footage since it serves as a hermeneutic transparency to other realties.
Ihde also indicates the computer as a quasi-other technology, referencing the fact that many users develop anthropomorphic relationships with their word processors. Like many other computer systems, he says, fail to successfully “mimic bodily incarnations” but they nevertheless display “a quasi-otherness within the limits of linguistics and, more particularly, of logical behaviors” (106). Dreyfus spoke at length about this feigned embodiment and the danger that posed to humanity. Ihde, however, classifies works such as 2001: A Space Odyssey as romanticizing “quasi otherness” because they transform technology into complete others which Ihde does not see as possible. He says it retains its “unique role in the human-technology continuum of relations” (106)/.
Ihde diagrams all of this as well:
I---->technology-(-world)
In this relationship, Ihde adds, the world, “may remain context and background, and the technology may emerge as the foreground and focal quasi-other with which I momentarily engage” (107). He further notes that this “disengagement of the technology form its ordinary-use context is also what allows the technology to fall into various disengaged engagements which constitute activities as play, art or sport” (107).
What does this mean for the gun-wrench example? Well, it is not as though the gun becomes a quasi other, or the focus of the activity, the gun is still a tool. However, it briefly does become the focus of activity as MacGyver searches to find something to fill the role of a wrench t. This diagram, therefore, is possible:
MacGyver---->gun-(-world)
This diagram is not entirely applicable, however. It would apply to the series of MacGyver as a whole, though, because it falls into the film category that Ihde believes can be considered an alterity relation; especially since I’ve essentially treated the fictional character as a living entity throughout this post. I will not open that Pandora’s Box at this time, because I’ve already rambled far too long.
I will conclude with an entirely new diagram explaining the gun-wrench paradox. It reverses the alterity relationship. MacGyver is focused on a problem within the world and seeks out a technology to surpass an obstacle on his quest—probably to save a wounded puppy. Here it is:
MacGyver---->world-(-gun)
The gun is in the background, its use isn’t even significant. The personal obstacle within the world faced by our hero is.
In conclusion, I think Ihde’s opening analysis is intriguing and provides a means of considering the complex realities of human-technology relations. Obviously, and Ihde admits to this, the three focal relations he outlines are not the only way of considering human-technology relationships. In a world where it’s possible to create defibrillator out of candlesticks, no one ‘focal relationship” will suffice.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Blog 6- brain scanning story
This article on brain scanning was very interesting
here's my story:
Imagine it's the year 2100 and by now hundred of advances have been made in neuroscience technology. the need for jails on the mainland has virtually been eliminated. A huge world jail/community has now been created on the island of Hawaii. It is equipped with state of the art security technology that allows people to go in but never leave. On the bright side these people get to live on hawaii for the rest of their lives.
Let me give you some background as to how this came about. Around the year 2010 a new technology began to be developed that could read people's minds and thoughts. The governments of the world first sought out this technology to gaining intelligence from high profile terrorist and criminals and others that refused to speak. This proved to be quite an undertaking but was working in preventing huge terrorist attacks and mass genocides from occuring. High profile terrorist and criminals were caught from the use of this technology leading to the eventual eradication of all terrorist cells throughout the world.
Later on with more applications of this technology laws were passed to include these scanners in all public places. You could no longer enter any public place without going through these things and even ordinary citizens began to put them in their homes as part of their home security systems. If when you went through these brain scanners your thoughts were seen to be malicious and criminal a signal would be sent to the local world security office. at first, you would be sent to the local jail but quickly these filled up and soon all the countries of the world were having problems of where to put thes malicious-thinking individuals. After thinking about it a lot, the United Sates stilling being a major world power, decided the perfect site would hawaii for a world jail/ community. It would be equipped with the highest form of security technology available. and all these malicious thinking individuals would be sent there away from their country.
This lead to no one any longer needing jails and turned most countries into a form of the long imagined utopia. but those malicious-individuals numbering quite a few million on that island started developing ways to escape. You see there was no brain scanner on this island and this concentration of like minded individuals was to bring about the end of the world as we know it.
Little did the good-willed humans know that this technology was about to turn on them more than they could ever imagine...
The End.
here's my story:
Imagine it's the year 2100 and by now hundred of advances have been made in neuroscience technology. the need for jails on the mainland has virtually been eliminated. A huge world jail/community has now been created on the island of Hawaii. It is equipped with state of the art security technology that allows people to go in but never leave. On the bright side these people get to live on hawaii for the rest of their lives.
Let me give you some background as to how this came about. Around the year 2010 a new technology began to be developed that could read people's minds and thoughts. The governments of the world first sought out this technology to gaining intelligence from high profile terrorist and criminals and others that refused to speak. This proved to be quite an undertaking but was working in preventing huge terrorist attacks and mass genocides from occuring. High profile terrorist and criminals were caught from the use of this technology leading to the eventual eradication of all terrorist cells throughout the world.
Later on with more applications of this technology laws were passed to include these scanners in all public places. You could no longer enter any public place without going through these things and even ordinary citizens began to put them in their homes as part of their home security systems. If when you went through these brain scanners your thoughts were seen to be malicious and criminal a signal would be sent to the local world security office. at first, you would be sent to the local jail but quickly these filled up and soon all the countries of the world were having problems of where to put thes malicious-thinking individuals. After thinking about it a lot, the United Sates stilling being a major world power, decided the perfect site would hawaii for a world jail/ community. It would be equipped with the highest form of security technology available. and all these malicious thinking individuals would be sent there away from their country.
This lead to no one any longer needing jails and turned most countries into a form of the long imagined utopia. but those malicious-individuals numbering quite a few million on that island started developing ways to escape. You see there was no brain scanner on this island and this concentration of like minded individuals was to bring about the end of the world as we know it.
Little did the good-willed humans know that this technology was about to turn on them more than they could ever imagine...
The End.
Blog 5
Even though I found this last chapter of Ihde a bit confusing, I was able to draw some conclusions. Such as the glasses he describes. when we first put on glasses we notice them as they reshape the world in which we have experiences. However, over time we embody this technology to the point we dont even notice them unless we lack the technolgy which is very much similar to Heidegger's hammer. Same thing with the telephone... when we use the telephone our bodies take on a sense of embodiment through the phone and it seems as though the person we are talk9ing with is rightt there beside us even though in actuality they may be half way around the world. Just like Ihde has mentioned before, our technologies relate us to our world by the I-technology-world or other times, I-(technology-world). but again I found this chapter very confusing.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
A Phenomenology of Technics
Ihde starts out using the last chapter and expanding it a bit further. He starts us out with Technics Embodied and begins to show us that "...while the fact that optics transform vision may be clear, the variants and invariants of such a transformation are not yet precise." (72) He first takes us through and shows us that the I-see-the world that we simply see through the optics that he talked about earlier. The technology is completely embodied within us. The I-glasses world takes us further and we find out it's not just the glasses, but also the hearing aid and the blind man's cane that is used because it's simply extending our own senses. These technologies withdraw from our senses and become perfect because they become a part of our life. They actually become a part of us and reach total embodiement. The third area here is the I-telephone-you in which we are further distanced from true embodiement. The telephone extends and sends our voice to the far croners of this earth and enables us to reach people like never before, but it also conceals our emotions. While the glasses amplified our vision, the telephone truly restricts our embodied hearing.
The second area that Ihde brings up is Hermeneutic Technics. He begins by telling us that hermeneutics refers to textual interpretation and for that reason must include reading. I have read this chapter over and over and what really stands out to me is when Ihde talks about Three Mile Island. It's not that we can't read and understand. It's not that we don't have the ability to have textual transparency. Technology can be altered or formed in such a way that we don't have the ability to accurately read it. We are doomed to failure by the very way we design something because we take away the embodiement of that technology when we distance ourselves from it.
These next areas I had problems understanding where Ihde was going and he seemed to be lacking a point other than saying that other philosophers were wrong.
The second area that Ihde brings up is Hermeneutic Technics. He begins by telling us that hermeneutics refers to textual interpretation and for that reason must include reading. I have read this chapter over and over and what really stands out to me is when Ihde talks about Three Mile Island. It's not that we can't read and understand. It's not that we don't have the ability to have textual transparency. Technology can be altered or formed in such a way that we don't have the ability to accurately read it. We are doomed to failure by the very way we design something because we take away the embodiement of that technology when we distance ourselves from it.
These next areas I had problems understanding where Ihde was going and he seemed to be lacking a point other than saying that other philosophers were wrong.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Phenomenology of Technics
Ihde says that technics is "the symbiosis of artifact and user within human action" (73). People want technology to be "total transparency," but they also want "the power, the transformation that the technology makes available" (75). The "design perfection is not one related to the machine alone but to the combination of machine and human" (74).
The study of usability has become important. Designers and developers are realizing that systems need to be as user-friendly as possible. Users want the system to reproduce their everyday activities (ie. filing out paperwork, filing folders, etc.), but they also want the system to do more than they could do in everyday life (ie. intelligently fill-in fields, interconnect records, instantly retrieve information, etc.). However, no system can do both, you can't have your cake and eat it too. The more the system tries to do (more "power"), the more the user realizes their lack of control, and the more the user most likely will need to check for errors. The user also doesn't want the system to do less work, which leaves more work for the user.
The study of usability has become important. Designers and developers are realizing that systems need to be as user-friendly as possible. Users want the system to reproduce their everyday activities (ie. filing out paperwork, filing folders, etc.), but they also want the system to do more than they could do in everyday life (ie. intelligently fill-in fields, interconnect records, instantly retrieve information, etc.). However, no system can do both, you can't have your cake and eat it too. The more the system tries to do (more "power"), the more the user realizes their lack of control, and the more the user most likely will need to check for errors. The user also doesn't want the system to do less work, which leaves more work for the user.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Blog #5 A Phenomenology Of Technics
When Ihde talks about embodying technologies and using them as if they were apart of us is something that I myself noticed within my everyday activities. Ihde's glasses example explains it all when he says they become transparent and are no longer noticed, but rather they are excepted as a way of perceiving the world and what is around us. As long as technologies do what they are suppose to and don't render off the unbeaten path causing problems they are transparent to us and are not thought about. Its when technologies are mediated by things such as a gauge or thermometer as Ihde uses that we get a hermeneutic relation, and when these mediation's or dividers malfunction or do something different then we perceive them to is when bodily and hermeneutic relations lose there transparency and become relevant to us because they are doing something different then we perceive them to do causing us to notice there extents and our use of them. The last and final point that Ihde touches on is the alterity relations with technology that takes a little different view then that of embodiment and hermeneutic relations which have the human and technology as being one or the technology as being transparent. In alterity relations technology can never really be one with the human and it can not replace what all humans have, physical strength or the face to face interactions in which some believe that technology has already replaced in some situations. this chapter is very eye opening and brings up several very diverse but intriguing arguments that make aware of exactly all the technologies that we use on a daily basis and how they have impacted our lives so dramatically.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Blog #5- A Phenomenology of Technics
Again Ihde begins his chapter by expanding upon examples of technology, such as the lens/telescope/microscope, which were introduced earlier in the book. This chapter addresses the three possible "human-technology relations" as Ihde classifies them: Technics Embodied, Hermeneutic Technics, and Alterity Relations. Technology is embodied when it serves as an extension of the human body aiding a person in achieving some specified task. (blind man's cane or a person with a hearing aid) Technology alters an individual's perception of the world and it is through this bodily extension that a person experiences the contexts of the environment. The example of optical technologies is what Ihde uses to describe this relationship. Ihde claims that if someone is completely embodied within the technological context, he/she will no longer realize its existence and the piece of technology will "withdraw" from the situation. One of Ihde's main points, which he restates many times is the fact that only when there is a malfunction with the technology, is a person's complete dependence revealed to them. In the embodiment relationship the technology therefore is the median, (I-glasses)-world, where the human and technology are an inseparable unit. There are always requirements for a technology to be embodied. One example is that the lenses in a pair of glasses must be transparent enough so the vision upon the world is completely unaltered. Ihde also points out the contradiction in this relationship: humans crave the power received from using a technology, yet the desire to become completely embodied within them.
Hermeneutic literally means interpretation of the world with regards to human-technology relationships. Ihde believes that interpretation is most important in the written word. A comparison is drawn between a written page and a chart in which the symbols, in this case letters, carry a person beyond written word to different contexts. This is referred to as textual transparency. In this way language is a technology, because it alters reality's perception. Ihde describes the evolution of the alphabet from pictographic characters, and poses the question of wether speech was the predecessor of the written word or vice versa. Enigmas are misinterpretations, misuses, or malfunctions in the human-technology relationship. The first is (I-technology)-world in which the enigma occurs between the person and the piece of technology. I-(technology-world) and I-technology-(world) are the other two enigmas Ihde describes.
Lastly alterity relations are presented in this chapter of "Technology and the Lifeworld." Alterities refer to more positive relationships with technology than proposed in embodiment and hermeneutics. The word "alterity" is defined as, "The radical difference posed to any human by another human, an other." This approach refers to the idea that technology is completely separate than human beings. Technology can aid humans in certain processes but they can never completely replace actual physical human actions. The example of riding a horse is used in which a horse has"a life of its own within the environment that allowed this form of life," encompasses this idea of alterity. The bottom line in this human-technology relationship is than people will always feel as if they are interacting with something outside of themselves or other than them, regardless of perception or embodiment.
Hermeneutic literally means interpretation of the world with regards to human-technology relationships. Ihde believes that interpretation is most important in the written word. A comparison is drawn between a written page and a chart in which the symbols, in this case letters, carry a person beyond written word to different contexts. This is referred to as textual transparency. In this way language is a technology, because it alters reality's perception. Ihde describes the evolution of the alphabet from pictographic characters, and poses the question of wether speech was the predecessor of the written word or vice versa. Enigmas are misinterpretations, misuses, or malfunctions in the human-technology relationship. The first is (I-technology)-world in which the enigma occurs between the person and the piece of technology. I-(technology-world) and I-technology-(world) are the other two enigmas Ihde describes.
Lastly alterity relations are presented in this chapter of "Technology and the Lifeworld." Alterities refer to more positive relationships with technology than proposed in embodiment and hermeneutics. The word "alterity" is defined as, "The radical difference posed to any human by another human, an other." This approach refers to the idea that technology is completely separate than human beings. Technology can aid humans in certain processes but they can never completely replace actual physical human actions. The example of riding a horse is used in which a horse has"a life of its own within the environment that allowed this form of life," encompasses this idea of alterity. The bottom line in this human-technology relationship is than people will always feel as if they are interacting with something outside of themselves or other than them, regardless of perception or embodiment.
Blog 5: Program One: A Phenomenology of Technics
This chapter begins with some of the same ideals mentioned in the previous chapter. It discusses the idea of transparency and whether wearing glasses will adjust our perception of the world. In order to be “connected” with the world the glasses must be transparent; just like with the window. They are merely a means to looking out. As stated by Ihde, there is “a wish for total transparency, total embodiment, for the technology to truly ‘become me.’” You want to experience that face-to-face interaction you would experience without technology. One idea that really sparked my interest was the idea of what if life as you knew it was always through a lens system to begin with? You would know no different. We could in fact be blind to something that we have no knowledge to at this point. We could be in a mediate experience at all times.
The next idea that was interesting to me was the idea of the hermeneutic technics, which related to interpretation and therefore reading. There was talk about whether speech was primary or whether writing was in fact primary. Was language developed from the written word? Or was the written word developed from speech or linguistics? Which in fact came first? It reminds me of the chicken and the egg. The book then goes into a story about sitting in a warm house looking outside and knowing that you can see that is cold outside. However, as noted in the book, you cannot feel that it is cold outside until you are physically outside (a face-to-face interaction). You can read a thermometer (hermeneutics) and know that below zero is cold, but still have not felt that it was in fact cold. “Text has hermeneutically delivered its ‘world’ reference, the cold.” What must be considered with reading technology is the chance for a misreading by your part or even a malfunction by the technology itself. They call these enigma positions in the book. There are three different types of variants discussed in the books. The first is (I-technology) à world, which is an embodied relation between us and the technology. The enigma position is then in between the person and the technology. The person can’t understand the text or technology. The second is I à (technology-world), which is a hermeneutic relation. The enigma position is then upon the instrument itself. The third is I à technology –(-world), which is alterity relations. This is the relations to or with a technology. There may be a relationship between technology and the world but there doesn’t need to be. The world itself may in fact be a background to the technology. Technology can also be the background, as mentioned in the book. Semiautomatic appliances are an example mentioned in the text. They are “absent” or put “to the side” but still play a role in our everyday behavior. What would we do if we didn’t have lights or heat? This chapter is very in depth and covers a lot of information. This continual look at the difference of human face-to-face interaction and that of a mediated or “interrupted” interaction is interesting in itself, but now we add on different implications. As long as the interruption is in fact transparent does that make up for a face-to-face interaction. Can we read a text and thus understand what it is like to be outside? Every experience seems to have a downfall attached to it.
The next idea that was interesting to me was the idea of the hermeneutic technics, which related to interpretation and therefore reading. There was talk about whether speech was primary or whether writing was in fact primary. Was language developed from the written word? Or was the written word developed from speech or linguistics? Which in fact came first? It reminds me of the chicken and the egg. The book then goes into a story about sitting in a warm house looking outside and knowing that you can see that is cold outside. However, as noted in the book, you cannot feel that it is cold outside until you are physically outside (a face-to-face interaction). You can read a thermometer (hermeneutics) and know that below zero is cold, but still have not felt that it was in fact cold. “Text has hermeneutically delivered its ‘world’ reference, the cold.” What must be considered with reading technology is the chance for a misreading by your part or even a malfunction by the technology itself. They call these enigma positions in the book. There are three different types of variants discussed in the books. The first is (I-technology) à world, which is an embodied relation between us and the technology. The enigma position is then in between the person and the technology. The person can’t understand the text or technology. The second is I à (technology-world), which is a hermeneutic relation. The enigma position is then upon the instrument itself. The third is I à technology –(-world), which is alterity relations. This is the relations to or with a technology. There may be a relationship between technology and the world but there doesn’t need to be. The world itself may in fact be a background to the technology. Technology can also be the background, as mentioned in the book. Semiautomatic appliances are an example mentioned in the text. They are “absent” or put “to the side” but still play a role in our everyday behavior. What would we do if we didn’t have lights or heat? This chapter is very in depth and covers a lot of information. This continual look at the difference of human face-to-face interaction and that of a mediated or “interrupted” interaction is interesting in itself, but now we add on different implications. As long as the interruption is in fact transparent does that make up for a face-to-face interaction. Can we read a text and thus understand what it is like to be outside? Every experience seems to have a downfall attached to it.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Telepresence "from when i missed class"
This reminds me of Star Trek. Telepresence, is a seperation from our bodies using an electronic device. I feel that it does not allow us to not experience life to the fullest. I feel it takes the meaningful connections with people away from life. Telepresence is a futuristic force that takes away from humans to use eye movements, head motion, gesture, and posture to interact in a in life. With me planning on becoming a teacher, I agree that in order to learn you have to be present, both mind and body. If one would use the computer to learn, the person is limiting him/herself. The person cannot see the greater picture of the subject, just the area the teacher is focusing on. Sometimes a teacher focuses on a specific point in order to drive the students to ask questions about the big picture, and without this students may not ask questions and everyone needs to ask those questions. People need interaction in their lives to grow in thier educational lives and in everyday life actions.
Blog 4 Ihde Readings
This book takes a lot more effort to read. I find it very hard to understand. All the philosophers bounce from topic to topic, instead of just stating it directly. Heidegger seems to say that we are consumed to the tools that we use, resulting in we use them without thinking about them. In order to bring the tool back into context, it has to obtain a flaw or something that makes us think about it. Husserl's seems to claim that the lifeworld is the one existed and relates everything to the scientific world. At the same time, this scientific world replaces the lifeworld in the process. Merlu-Ponty states that we have body, and through the actions of this body we experience the world. He takes technology as it becomes a part of us while we use it, and becomes an extension of ourselves. All of this is still a little blurry to me, and i hope it becomes more clear after talking about it in class.
Red, 650 nanometer wavelength electromagnetic radiation, what's the difference?
I was intrigued by Husserl's concepts about Galileo and the "bifurcation" of the lifeworld from the "world" of science. Husserl suggests that the lifeworld is, on its most fundamental and real level, a world of perceptions and embodiment. He views Galileo's "mathematization" of the world as an attempt to perfect the sensory world, and Husserl thinks that this necessarily overlooks some aspects of the sensory world. Husserl called these qualities "plena", an example being the color of an object.
I don't think Husserl's opinions of Galileo and the science he is helping to establish are accurate, or that a "bifurcation" occurs between science and the lifeworld. I think that Husserl's concept that reality or the lifeworld is ultimately something we experience is wrong. In the end I think there is a reality external to the way we percieve it, and modern science is based on this. Human senses are very powerful and central to our interaction with the world, but they are also limited and imperfect. Science does not depend solely on what we can directly see, taste or touch, and as such can describe reality in a much more encompassing way. Human senses are also very subjective, people can perceive things differently in different situations. To say that the way we perceive reality is the way reality actually exists is absurd. Husserl's "plena" I think are equally ridiculous. Certainly there are aspects of the way we percieve things that are difficult to quantify or explain, but I think there is still a way to explain them. If something we experience is totally unrelateable, I think it is just one of the subjective experiences of the individual mind, and not actually descriptive of reality in any meaningful way.
Science has its limitations, of course. A lot of assumptions are made here and there, and some approximations and estimation. But I think it does an infinitely better job at desribing reality than human perception alone could. If anything, science has brought us closer to reality and understanding it, rather than splitting us from it as Husserl suggests. And as Ihde even points out, modern science has "perceptions" of its own with intrumentation of all sorts to detect and measure natural phenomena that no human could do alone.
I don't think Husserl's opinions of Galileo and the science he is helping to establish are accurate, or that a "bifurcation" occurs between science and the lifeworld. I think that Husserl's concept that reality or the lifeworld is ultimately something we experience is wrong. In the end I think there is a reality external to the way we percieve it, and modern science is based on this. Human senses are very powerful and central to our interaction with the world, but they are also limited and imperfect. Science does not depend solely on what we can directly see, taste or touch, and as such can describe reality in a much more encompassing way. Human senses are also very subjective, people can perceive things differently in different situations. To say that the way we perceive reality is the way reality actually exists is absurd. Husserl's "plena" I think are equally ridiculous. Certainly there are aspects of the way we percieve things that are difficult to quantify or explain, but I think there is still a way to explain them. If something we experience is totally unrelateable, I think it is just one of the subjective experiences of the individual mind, and not actually descriptive of reality in any meaningful way.
Science has its limitations, of course. A lot of assumptions are made here and there, and some approximations and estimation. But I think it does an infinitely better job at desribing reality than human perception alone could. If anything, science has brought us closer to reality and understanding it, rather than splitting us from it as Husserl suggests. And as Ihde even points out, modern science has "perceptions" of its own with intrumentation of all sorts to detect and measure natural phenomena that no human could do alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)