In Borgmann's first few chapters, he discusses the idea of information. He states that information can take many different states and there are multiple types of information. One thing Borgmann pointed out that was interesting to me was when he mentioned that the internet allows us to constantly be bombarded with information, but even without the internet, we are still always having information thrown at us from television, music, billboards, advertisements and so on. Another interesting point and almost alarming thing that he points out in his introduction is the fact that people today can often feel closer with someone down the hall by sending an e-mail than to a person right next to them within talking distance. It's disturbing to think that a technological connection with a person can engage two people better than the good old-fashioned way of physically carrying on a conversation face-to-face.
Borgmann then goes on to question the structure of information. He askes the question of whether having information is the same as "knowing" something. He then goes on to further break it down by stating that there is indirect knowledge and direct knowledge. Direct knowledge is directly knowing or experiencing something, while indirect knowledge is learning it indirectly and not actually experiencing it yourself but second hand. He goes into the idea that there is natural information and cultural information. Natural information is "about" reality; signs connect us to our natural environment. Cultural information is "for" reality.
I also agree with Borgmann when he talks about our language and how it is becoming "shapeless." Today, so many people use text, instant messaging, e-mail, myspace and facebook and it's easy to fall into the mode of "short-hand" or "slang." In my personal experience, I'm used to abbreviating some things on text and at times, when I have to actually write those words out on paper, I will catch myself wanting to write the "text" version, which is scary. One would think that as our means of communicating and use of technology grew, we would also have to grow intellectually with it to understand it, but I believe that some people today are hindered by the short-hand and have actually lost some of their knowledge of how to write things correctly; not many people ever use proper capitalization, grammar, or spelling rules over text.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Week 3 Entry
In the beginning of his book, Borgman discusses wat he sees as the 3 types of information. He discusses how the first two types, natural and cultural, build upon each other, enhance each other, and inform each other. However, he observes that the third type of information, technological, does not follow the same pattern. He argues that technological information has begun to replace or become reality, instead of informing or enriching reality as the other 2 types do. He believes that we have begun to replace reality with technilogical information. We would rather look at a website about te natural world than actually go outside and experience it, or at least Borgman fears that we will soon if we follow the path we are on now. It was brought up in class that his fear of this happening is unnecessary because the natural world will always be there for us to see if we wish to experience it. However, I believe that Borgman has a valid point. His fear is not that our technology will destroy the natural world, but that it will remove our desire to experience nature when we can look at pictures of it from the comfort of our own homes. I have to admit that as time goes on, I spend more and more time on my computer, and less time outdoors just enjoying nature. Borgman's fear of nature being replaced by the world of technological information , in my opinion, is a very valid one.
Technology vs. Reality
In his book Holding on to Reality, Borgmann claims that his main goal is to find a balance between technology and reality. However, I am not sure such a balance exists. Isn’t it one of technology’s purposes to create a place with few inhibitions and an incredible scope – the exact opposite of reality?
For example, movies were first designed to entertain. They had no deep, philosophical messages to pass down from generation to generation. Filmmakers just wanted to experiment with moving pictures. The camera was just a new gadget with which to play. However, as technology improved so did the seriousness of the pictures. Instead of just entertaining their audiences, movies began to express and analyze reality. Nevertheless, the reality shown in the movies was mostly an exaggeration. Truly, how many people experience such events like those found in, for instance, Love Actually or Say Anything?
Honestly, I find it difficult to believe that any sort of balance between the influx of information technology and reality can be achieved however much one wishes it to happen.
For example, movies were first designed to entertain. They had no deep, philosophical messages to pass down from generation to generation. Filmmakers just wanted to experiment with moving pictures. The camera was just a new gadget with which to play. However, as technology improved so did the seriousness of the pictures. Instead of just entertaining their audiences, movies began to express and analyze reality. Nevertheless, the reality shown in the movies was mostly an exaggeration. Truly, how many people experience such events like those found in, for instance, Love Actually or Say Anything?
Honestly, I find it difficult to believe that any sort of balance between the influx of information technology and reality can be achieved however much one wishes it to happen.
Cyborgs?
Through our discussion concerning “The Technique”, I gradually noticed the extent to which technology has shaped my life as well as the extent to which it has become an irreplaceable part of it. I cannot imagine living a life with no internet or iPod, let alone electricity. However, it was not so long ago that these things did not exist.
It makes me wonder if I could live without these technological inventions that have become so enmeshed in my life that one could call them necessary to survival. Could I spend a week in silence with no “background noise” to keep me focused and occupied? Has technology become so much a part of myself that I could be called a cyborg?
The answer to both of these questions is…I don’t know. I don’t know if I could spend a week in silence because silence is so hard to acquire in an age where advertisements scream at you from every corner. I don’t know if I could live without the comforts of technology. Perhaps, I am a cyborg in some sense of the term. Perhaps, technology has moved from just being our environment to being an irreplaceable part of our selves.
It makes me wonder if I could live without these technological inventions that have become so enmeshed in my life that one could call them necessary to survival. Could I spend a week in silence with no “background noise” to keep me focused and occupied? Has technology become so much a part of myself that I could be called a cyborg?
The answer to both of these questions is…I don’t know. I don’t know if I could spend a week in silence because silence is so hard to acquire in an age where advertisements scream at you from every corner. I don’t know if I could live without the comforts of technology. Perhaps, I am a cyborg in some sense of the term. Perhaps, technology has moved from just being our environment to being an irreplaceable part of our selves.
Oh, technology...
As I read the textbooks and listen to the class discussions, I find it increasingly more difficult to form an opinion about technology and it influences, beneficial or disastrous, on society and humanity. I find myself agreeing with both the opinions of the philosophers who claim that technology is taking over our lives as well as with those in our class who say society is using technology as a scapegoat. However, I am certain of one thing – the idea of technology is better, although not necessarily more advantageous, than the actual creation of such technical gadgets as the internet and the computer.
The idea of technology as an easier, faster, more available means of obtaining knowledge is rather…limited. Without doubt, technology has achieved these goals and looks to improve even more in the coming years. However, at what cost? Has our desire for an easier, quicker, more connected world and the invention of such objects to achieve this goal, actually hindered and isolated us from each other?
I do not think the answer can be a simple yes or no. If I answer yes, I feel a little medieval. If I answer no, I feel rather exposed. In short, I do not think we can determine whether technology is “good” or “bad”. It exists, and we must deal with the consequences.
The idea of technology as an easier, faster, more available means of obtaining knowledge is rather…limited. Without doubt, technology has achieved these goals and looks to improve even more in the coming years. However, at what cost? Has our desire for an easier, quicker, more connected world and the invention of such objects to achieve this goal, actually hindered and isolated us from each other?
I do not think the answer can be a simple yes or no. If I answer yes, I feel a little medieval. If I answer no, I feel rather exposed. In short, I do not think we can determine whether technology is “good” or “bad”. It exists, and we must deal with the consequences.
Week 2 Entry
Dreyfus makes a lot of valid points about distance learning and traditional learning. I agree with his belief that distance learning could never fully replace traditional methods of education. Dreyfus maintains that in the 6 stages of learning, distance learning could never allow a student to get past the stage of competence. Dreyfus argues that past this point, the learner must have a real emotional investment in learning the material that is not possible in distance learning. He also maintains in order to truly master any subject, one must follow, and study other masters of the subject, laerning their styles until you eventually formulate your own style. Tis would be entirely impossible to do with distance learning. Thus according to Dreyfus, replacing traditional education entirely with distance learning would produce a world in which there are no experts in any fields, and no true masters of anything. Advocates of distance learning would argue that these would be possible through telepresence. They argue that a classroom setting could be simulated in which the students could view lectures live via the internet, and the techer could view the students in the same manner, but Dreyfus disagrees. He argues that not only could this not create a good enough situation forthe student to learn sufficiently, but it could not create a suitable situation to teach in. Dreyfus argues that taechers would have no feel for the classroom, the mood of teh students, or any sense of the class's interst in waht is being taught. It would lead to lectures being dull and difficult to pay attention to because the teacher would have no way of guaging the interest of the students, and would not have any way to alter it.
I have to agree with Dreyfus's stance on distance learning. As a biology major, I have had 2 different science labs every semester so far in my 3 years at school here. I can certainly say that the laboratory exercises make it much easier to learn the material being taught in the lectures, as it provides a visual example of the things being covered in the class. Being able to see and physically participate in the laboratory exercises is sometimes even more helpful than being physically present in the lectures to here explanantions of the physical, chemical, or biological systems. Distance learning could not provide the kinds of opportunities like this that can be greatly important in a person's education. This is just a more specific example that expresses the point that Dreyfus makes about the limits of distance learning.
I have to agree with Dreyfus's stance on distance learning. As a biology major, I have had 2 different science labs every semester so far in my 3 years at school here. I can certainly say that the laboratory exercises make it much easier to learn the material being taught in the lectures, as it provides a visual example of the things being covered in the class. Being able to see and physically participate in the laboratory exercises is sometimes even more helpful than being physically present in the lectures to here explanantions of the physical, chemical, or biological systems. Distance learning could not provide the kinds of opportunities like this that can be greatly important in a person's education. This is just a more specific example that expresses the point that Dreyfus makes about the limits of distance learning.
Journal 3
I had a much harder time understanding Borgman because of his analogies and metaphors that he used to express his point. Many just seemed irrelevant to any topics discussed in the classroom and some were just stretched out too far. What I got from the reading was the part concerning how we as humans use three types of information; natural, cultural, and technological (which we also discussed in lecture). Like Dreyfus, Borgman assumes the role as the pessimist who feels that technology is “replacing” former aspects of our lives and environment. He assumes that we will lose touch with nature and culture, and instead focus all available attention to the technological. Borgman calls for a balance, which I like because it’s less pessimistic, but it’s not quite as necessary as he makes it out to be. Natural and cultural information are important and although they are sometimes looked over for the easily accessible technological information, it does not mean that they are fading away completely. Information can be affectively acquired by means of technology, but not as far in depth as cultural or natural information can provide for us. Basically, if you desire that greater understanding of it, you will seek it. We have free will and more control than Borgman would want you to think. So, “where can one go to experience pure silence, without the roar of technological information?” Not far really; probably your own house. Most technological devices have an off switch, you know? If you really don’t want to receive any calls, emails, watch TV, listen to music, or be bothered by any other “roaring” and intrusive technologies, I suggest you stay home and turn everything off. Technology’s all around us, but usually the most intrusive ones that directly affect your personal space and privacy (phones, computers, TV’s, Mp3 players) can be avoided with some will-power. Who’s to say what’s real and what’s not anyway? Technology is real just like nature and culture. It’s just grows more complex and flexible over time to the point where some inevitably develop pessimistic a point of view like Borgman’s here.
Sincerity and Technology
Dear Fellow Bloggers:
Last class we discussed the decline of formal conventions involved in writing a letter with the advent of email, instant messaging and text messaging, one of which is including "Sincerely," at the end of a letter. Well, I happened upon a very interesting article about the sincerity of contemporary poetry in the February issue of Poetry. And it got me thinking about sincerity on the internet. In this article, the author quotes Robert Frost, whom I sincerely hope you are all familiar with.
"There is such a thing as sincerity. It is hard to define but it is probably nothing more than your highest liveliness escaping from a succession of dead selves. Miraculously. It is the same with illusions. Any belief you sink into when you should be leaving it behind is an illusion. Reality is the cold feeling on the end of the trout's nose."
I just love that phrase: "your highest liveliness escaping from a succession of dead selves. Miraculously." Now miracles are something that technology will never understand, and I think Frost's phrasing here is perfect for our discussion of things like facebook and myspace--you can never be sincere in an artificial space because such a page is a veritable collection of corpses, of "dead selves." The moment you've posted something posted something on facebook, it's already dead to you, isn't it? It's certainly not your highest liveliness--how could it be? It's just pixels or words--nothing real. Also, I think Borgman would appreciate Frost saying that "reality is the cold feeling on the end of trout's nose." Definitely natural information.
The internet severely lacks sincerity. Everything that springs from the internet is a mockery of itself--the internet itself is one of the favorite things to poke fun at--not that it doesn't deserve it. It's really hard for me, personally, to take anyone very seriously who says "lulz" even occasionally. As far as I can see, the internet makes a parody of everything: I don't think I've ever witnessed a tragedy involving the internet. Even things that were once tragedies become parodies on the internet.
Sincerely,
Hank Backer
Week 1 Entry
When I think of Ethics and Technology, the internet is not the first thing that comes to mind. As a biology major, when I signed up for the class, I expected that we would be discussing things like genetic engineering, cloning, or stem cell research. However, the internet is technology that influences everyone's life in a very real way. It has become such an integral part of my life that I often take it for granted, enough so that I was somewhat surprised to see that it would be a topic in a philosophy class on technology. It sems ridiculous now that I did not expect it to be a major topic of discussion, but that is an indication of the depth to which the internet is a part of my life. The idea of the technological imperative seemed to be strange and far fetched to me at first, however the more I think about it the more I begin to see the point that Ellul was making. I'm not sure I am as pessimistic as Ellul, but I certainly can see his point. It certainly makes me see technology in a different light. Most people today think of the internet as one of the best things to ever happen to the world, however Ellul, and Dreyfus as well, would caution us from thinking about only the positive elements of the internet. Dreyfus points out some unexpected results of spending time on the internet. Contrary to original expectations, studies show that as time spent on the internet increases, people show a decrease in social activity, an increase in loneliness, and occurrence of depression. This is a very interesting effect since one of the internet's supposed benefits is that it makes communication much easier. However, I do not believe that the internet could ever relpace the need for social activity, or the importance of physical presence and interaction in our social activity.
Journal Entry #2
I completely disagree with distance learning. I agree that a student could get a basic knowledge of the material with the information being presented to them, but there is more to the equation than that. The student also will have to have discipline and lets face it there are a lot of people out there who don't have the discipline to properly analyze the material on their own. From experience I feel it is necessary to have a professor present to actually drag the student into the material. Last year while taking my tax class I got involved with the volunteer program VITA. If I was taking that class over the internet there is no way I would have participated after receiving an email from some guy I didn't know asking me to participate. I did participate, because of Professor Gilday. He caught my attention and got me interested. In turn I was able to apply what I learned in class to a real life setting and gained a much better understanding of the material.
There is a human need to be with others face-to-face. Sites like myspace and facebook cannot fulfill that need. We have plenty of myspace friends and some make new friends on the sites and there is always a need/want to take the frienship from an internet friendship to actually hanging out in real life.
I believe it was during this week that Professor Langguth said something along the lines of he would hate the day he couldn't pull his calculator out to do a math problem. When he said that it got me thinking about what we learned in our psychology class that the human brain can only do so much. In that case I think it is a good thing and it isn't hurting us to be lazy in a sense. It means instead of wasting brain power on simple calculations we can get those calculations and use our minds on developing and analyzing the calculations so that we can make some true meaning of them and their use.
There is a human need to be with others face-to-face. Sites like myspace and facebook cannot fulfill that need. We have plenty of myspace friends and some make new friends on the sites and there is always a need/want to take the frienship from an internet friendship to actually hanging out in real life.
I believe it was during this week that Professor Langguth said something along the lines of he would hate the day he couldn't pull his calculator out to do a math problem. When he said that it got me thinking about what we learned in our psychology class that the human brain can only do so much. In that case I think it is a good thing and it isn't hurting us to be lazy in a sense. It means instead of wasting brain power on simple calculations we can get those calculations and use our minds on developing and analyzing the calculations so that we can make some true meaning of them and their use.
Journal Entry #1
I completely agree with what Dreyfus has to say about the way we retrieve information from the internet. When looking for research in most cases it is extremely hard to find anything quality. Most of the time a lot of the pages have the exact same information word-for-word that had been copied and pasted. However, a library doesn't help me very much either, because of the internet. When I go to do research I always turn to the internet so my lack of experience in the library makes it hard for to navigate in a library.
David Lynch, The Matrix, and My 3rd Post
I've come to realize something. Every class period we've talked about the same thing: Technology and how it's taking over our lives. Every lecture boils down to the fear that technology is just chugging along, becoming better and stronger. David Lynch is angry that you can watch movies on the iPhone, we've addressed the possibility of living in a Matrix-like world, and that tech seems to have a "life" of its own. The fear seems to be that through technology we will destroy our reality and ourselves.
Kind of bleak, if you think about it. Just imagine it: One day you're listening to that iPod, rocking out to whatever teenybopper music you sold your soul to, then BAM! Your head's rolling across the parking lot. They've invaded! The machines have taken control! Arnold Schwarzenegger and his robotic brethren have come to enslave us!
At least, that's what our textbooks want us to believe. Aren't there any other downsides to technology? Aside from the MySpace closet cases living out the rest of their days in cyber space. Really though, would it be such a loss to lose those mouthbreathers?
Kind of bleak, if you think about it. Just imagine it: One day you're listening to that iPod, rocking out to whatever teenybopper music you sold your soul to, then BAM! Your head's rolling across the parking lot. They've invaded! The machines have taken control! Arnold Schwarzenegger and his robotic brethren have come to enslave us!
At least, that's what our textbooks want us to believe. Aren't there any other downsides to technology? Aside from the MySpace closet cases living out the rest of their days in cyber space. Really though, would it be such a loss to lose those mouthbreathers?
Uncle Technology wants you!
The speculation of technology actually being a living thing in a sense seems to keep resurfacing each class. Always leaving you to wonder, could these shiny new and fancy everyday technology have a mind of their own? Are they just waiting for the right moment to strike? It seems crazy, but with technology advancing at such a rapid rate, will it overcome its so called, maker?
Of course if you were to suddenly run out of every room that you spot some sort of technology in, you're guna look nuts and then where would you be able to enjoy your solitute? Technology is everywhere. It seems to fall into each of our laps at some point or another. Seducing us with it's fancy gadgetry and pulling us into it's little or big I should say...world of numbers and science.
Seems as though we're moving to a time where Uncle Sam is gradually falling out of the picture, along with any other concept that doesn't involve technology.
Of course if you were to suddenly run out of every room that you spot some sort of technology in, you're guna look nuts and then where would you be able to enjoy your solitute? Technology is everywhere. It seems to fall into each of our laps at some point or another. Seducing us with it's fancy gadgetry and pulling us into it's little or big I should say...world of numbers and science.
Seems as though we're moving to a time where Uncle Sam is gradually falling out of the picture, along with any other concept that doesn't involve technology.
Distance Learning
Dreyfus tackles "Distance Learning" in the second chapter of his book. He states that distance learning will never be able to exist independently of the traditional classroom setting because to master a topic or field, students need more than a computer screen and keyboard.
I agree with this statement. I am a transfer student from a rather large university. At my previous college, I took a class that was almost entirely online. We were strongly encouraged to come to lecture, as per college policy, but all tests, quizzes, and assignments were to be completed on the computer and sent to the professor via blackboard. There were quite a few problems with this method. The professor used lecture time to go off on tangents and talk about her children. We were left to do assignments and tests with no direction and to, basically, teach ourselves the information from the textbook. Assignments were difficult to submit because the internet was not always functioning properly. And tests...Since we were not taking tests in the classroom and were not monitored, all tests were open book, open notes, which sounds great. However, since this was the case, the professor thought it appropriate to choose very hard questions and place a time limit on the exam. Since cheating was also a problem between students, all tests had questions in different orders (which is perfectly understandable, but hard to follow).
In the very beginning of the course, she told us we would either love the online exams or hate them. She used the fact that we could take it from the "comfort of our own home" as a perk. I love that phrase, "comfort of your own home". At that point in time, my home was not a very "comfortable" environment for test taking. I lived in an apartment with unreliable Internet, 3 roommates, 2 small puppies, and very rowdy neighbors. With all that going on, it didn't matter how comfortable it was to sit on my fluffy couch as opposed to a hard, wooden chair in a freezing classroom. While my hind end preferred the couch, my brain (and grade) preferred the quiet classroom.
I agree with this statement. I am a transfer student from a rather large university. At my previous college, I took a class that was almost entirely online. We were strongly encouraged to come to lecture, as per college policy, but all tests, quizzes, and assignments were to be completed on the computer and sent to the professor via blackboard. There were quite a few problems with this method. The professor used lecture time to go off on tangents and talk about her children. We were left to do assignments and tests with no direction and to, basically, teach ourselves the information from the textbook. Assignments were difficult to submit because the internet was not always functioning properly. And tests...Since we were not taking tests in the classroom and were not monitored, all tests were open book, open notes, which sounds great. However, since this was the case, the professor thought it appropriate to choose very hard questions and place a time limit on the exam. Since cheating was also a problem between students, all tests had questions in different orders (which is perfectly understandable, but hard to follow).
In the very beginning of the course, she told us we would either love the online exams or hate them. She used the fact that we could take it from the "comfort of our own home" as a perk. I love that phrase, "comfort of your own home". At that point in time, my home was not a very "comfortable" environment for test taking. I lived in an apartment with unreliable Internet, 3 roommates, 2 small puppies, and very rowdy neighbors. With all that going on, it didn't matter how comfortable it was to sit on my fluffy couch as opposed to a hard, wooden chair in a freezing classroom. While my hind end preferred the couch, my brain (and grade) preferred the quiet classroom.
The three types of information
Although technology seems to be playing a bigger part each day in people's lives, it still seems very unlikely for it to just eliminate natural and culturual information, taking them out of the picture completely. It just doesn't seem possible. There will always be someone that takes the time to learn things with natural and cultural information. That option will always be open and it just doesn't seem fit for it to no longer exist.
If the information is acknowledged correctly, all three of these information categories should fall into place in some balanced way. Technology will not "conquer" or take over either of these other information, but certainly seems to be more and more prevalent in our lives as the days go by.
If the information is acknowledged correctly, all three of these information categories should fall into place in some balanced way. Technology will not "conquer" or take over either of these other information, but certainly seems to be more and more prevalent in our lives as the days go by.
Embodiment is defined as the way in which human psychology arises from the brain's and body's physiology (wikipedia.com). Dreyfus examines the issue of embodiment in his book "On the Internet". Dreyfus feels that internet relationships can only go so far--that finding one's true essence lies in being with them in person. But how accurate is this viewpoint, really? If you think about relationships, the first thing that comes to mind is probably someone close to you, physically. Family, close friends, significant others, etc. But what if your best friend lives 3,000 miles away. Does that mean your relationship with them is not as good as one in close proximity to you?
There are both pros and cons to developments in technology that make communication with others more efficient. A pro is that you can stay in close contact with someone that lives far away, and possibly even sustain a romantic relationship through phone calls and webcam viewings. Nothing can replace that persons "presence" but technology is coming closer to it. Some are more able to express themselves through writing than in person (saying "I'm sorry" for example, has become rather popular to hear in a text message or email) which can be seen as both positive and negative. This is positive for the one apologizing because it removes the chance of hostile conflict. It can be viewed as negative to the person recieving the message because that person then has to question the sincerity of the apology.
There are both pros and cons to developments in technology that make communication with others more efficient. A pro is that you can stay in close contact with someone that lives far away, and possibly even sustain a romantic relationship through phone calls and webcam viewings. Nothing can replace that persons "presence" but technology is coming closer to it. Some are more able to express themselves through writing than in person (saying "I'm sorry" for example, has become rather popular to hear in a text message or email) which can be seen as both positive and negative. This is positive for the one apologizing because it removes the chance of hostile conflict. It can be viewed as negative to the person recieving the message because that person then has to question the sincerity of the apology.
Borgman: CDs are bad, Bach is good
I find Borgman's stance on CDs to be interesting, but ultimately antiquated. I understand that how the CD or mp3 file has replaced actual music as our idea of what music is, and I agree, when you're talking about Bach's Cantata, generally, that's a bad thing. The idea behind Bach's Cantata, when it was composed, doesn't have anything to do with CDs, and if you're listening to it on earbuds, as David Lynch put it, you need to "get real."
But music today is a whole other matter than anything Bach composed. Borgman sort of strikes me as a follower of Theodore Adorno: for quick and dirty summary of Adorno's view on music, he thinks anything that isn't classical is propoganda for the military. I, however, am not a follower of Adorno, which allows me to pose this question to Borgman: what about music that wouldn't be possible if not for recorded sound? I'm talking here about most popular music, really, but the best cases are DJs. A group like the Avalanches, or artists like Lovage or Kid Koala, who create music by looping other records together to create something new. I mean, if CDs, or what DJs usually use, vinyl, is bad, then what one of my personal favorite albums, which I have on CD, Lovage's "Music to Make Love to Your Old Lady By"? CDs recordings are information as reality, right? So if I went to see Lovage perform, would that be information as reality, or since I was participating in the music making act as part of the crowd, would it closer to natural reality in Borgman's book, even though the source of the music was information as reality?
Then there's a case like Daft Punk's "Alive 2007", a recording of an electronic artist, using computers to create a live show for audiences all over the world, yet recorded again on CD, so you can hear the crowds chanting in the background--and it really does add to the music. So it goes from computers, information as reality, where the music is made, to the live show, natural reality, back to information as reality. Anyway, in summary, I think Borgman's system of discussing recorded sound in nowhere near intricate enough for all the interesting expirements musicians are doing today with recording.
But music today is a whole other matter than anything Bach composed. Borgman sort of strikes me as a follower of Theodore Adorno: for quick and dirty summary of Adorno's view on music, he thinks anything that isn't classical is propoganda for the military. I, however, am not a follower of Adorno, which allows me to pose this question to Borgman: what about music that wouldn't be possible if not for recorded sound? I'm talking here about most popular music, really, but the best cases are DJs. A group like the Avalanches, or artists like Lovage or Kid Koala, who create music by looping other records together to create something new. I mean, if CDs, or what DJs usually use, vinyl, is bad, then what one of my personal favorite albums, which I have on CD, Lovage's "Music to Make Love to Your Old Lady By"? CDs recordings are information as reality, right? So if I went to see Lovage perform, would that be information as reality, or since I was participating in the music making act as part of the crowd, would it closer to natural reality in Borgman's book, even though the source of the music was information as reality?
Then there's a case like Daft Punk's "Alive 2007", a recording of an electronic artist, using computers to create a live show for audiences all over the world, yet recorded again on CD, so you can hear the crowds chanting in the background--and it really does add to the music. So it goes from computers, information as reality, where the music is made, to the live show, natural reality, back to information as reality. Anyway, in summary, I think Borgman's system of discussing recorded sound in nowhere near intricate enough for all the interesting expirements musicians are doing today with recording.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Blog 3 : Illich/Borgmann
I found the Illich reading to be particularly interesting because the stuff it describes is so easily taken for granted, specifically the ordering devices in our world today. I couldn’t imagine what it would be like to have to use random chance in order to find a specific text. At one point in the passage it said that in Hugh’s time, everyone could recite the alphabet, but it was never used as an ordering device. In today’s world, we can type a couple of words into a search engine and come up with an unlimited amount of information in only seconds. The long way would be considered paging through the library catalogue for a couple of minutes in order to find the text that you need. The thought of paging through thousands of pages with no particular direction as to where your pertinent information is located is crazy to think about. The Borgmann reading in chapter one was a bit confusing but after going over it in class I agree with what he is saying. I think that most people are just accepting technology as a definite positive when it comes to everything without challenging that thought at all. One particular quote was on page 5 when he said, “Whatever is touched by information technology detaches itself from its foundation and retains a bond to its origin that is no more substantial than the Hope diamond’s tie to the mine where it was found.” If you think about it everything is becoming this way. Instead of experiencing things in person, people are doing it through technology. People really do have the whole world at their fingertips when it comes to technology, and it will only get more advanced in the future.
Is technological information replacing natural and cultural information?
In class on Thursday, January 24, 2008, we discussed the book “Holding On To Reality: The Nature of Information at the Turn of the Millennium” by Albert Borgmann. The author discussed that there is three types of information; natural, cultural, and technological. Natural information is information about reality and is based on signs which then lead to presence. Cultural information is information that you do not necessarily have to discover for yourself but you can read in a book. While technological information is information as reality. Technological information was compared to a CD, it is not a recipe for performing the score however it is the music itself. The author states that technological information has the possibility to erode natural and cultural information resulting in the unchallenged supremacy of technological information. The author stated that our goal needs to be finding a balance between the three types of information.
I agree that there needs to be a balance between the three types of information. However, I am not as convinced that technological information if left unchecked will erode natural and cultural information. I believe this because even if a person uses technological information to determine a vast degree of information if a person is truly interested in a particular subject they will take the time to learn through natural and cultural information.
I agree that there needs to be a balance between the three types of information. However, I am not as convinced that technological information if left unchecked will erode natural and cultural information. I believe this because even if a person uses technological information to determine a vast degree of information if a person is truly interested in a particular subject they will take the time to learn through natural and cultural information.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Journal 3: Controling Technological Information
In class this week, we discussed the introduction and first chapter of Alan Borgmann’s Holding on to Reality. Throughout this book, Borgmann promises to describe the relationship between ‘reality’ and ‘information’. Borgmann’s thesis at the end of the introduction promises the reader that the author will develop a theory and an ethics of information so that humanity may find a balance between the three types of information. According to Borgmann, these three kinds of information can be categorized as natural (information about reality), cultural (information for reality), and technological (information as reality).
Borgmann, a professor at the University of Montana, worries that our culture today relies too heavily on and is infatuated with the last type of information, namely, information as reality. With the growth of technology, Borgmann fears that this kind of information will grow and spread, making natural and cultural information less and less important or used. Regarding natural information, we use natural signs to learn about the actual presences (or the reality) of nature. With cultural information, we use the more stable, practical conventional signs (made by humans) to enrich the natural information. However, technological information is different. It takes the signs of technological devices and treats them as reality, not as signs of reality. By doing this, the true presences of reality are disregarded and maybe even lost, Borgmann believes. To save these presences, and natural and cultural information along with them, Borgmann thinks, as is stated in his thesis, that a balance should be struck between the three types of information.
I believe Borgmann has a very legitimate and important concern about humanity’s loss of contract with reality, natural information, and cultural information. I can see people losing touch with reality all around me, especially in my generation. Even I have let technology become a reality for me in my life. It is not that I (and others around me) do not recognize that there are true presences out there, in reality. We know that natural and cultural information exist. We just seem to have little use for them, if there is a technological device that can portray a new reality for us that is ‘better’ and ‘more convenient’.
Reading these first few pages of Borgmann really helped me to realize how much the third kind of information has infiltrated my life. Really, the question ‘where can one go to experience pure silence, without the roar of technological information?’ rings true within my experience. In my house, information as reality is everywhere. With 4 telephones, 5 cell phones, 5 televisions, 3 computers, and 3 laptops, the third type of information has taken over every single room. In my car, my radio and my CDs keep me entertained as I drive. At school, I cannot escape computers, TVs, or cell phones either. Even exploring in the woods behind my house, I have my cell phone with me, for fear that I may be needed, in case of emergence. The saddest part of all is that I feel like I need all of these devices, these carriers of information as reality. Without them, I feel more out of touch with reality than ever. But what kind of reality am I feeling alienated from? This is the most important question, one that I know Borgmann will address.
In a perfect world, maybe humanity could be rid of this third type of information, or at least its pull on and control over society. However, I realize that we cannot get rid of technological information, and most would not want to, because, indeed, this third type of information definitely has its advantages. It is my sincere hope, then, that Borgmann can, as his thesis suggests, help us strike a balance between the three existing kinds of information, so that we may truly see reality as ‘an economy of signs and presences.’
Borgmann, a professor at the University of Montana, worries that our culture today relies too heavily on and is infatuated with the last type of information, namely, information as reality. With the growth of technology, Borgmann fears that this kind of information will grow and spread, making natural and cultural information less and less important or used. Regarding natural information, we use natural signs to learn about the actual presences (or the reality) of nature. With cultural information, we use the more stable, practical conventional signs (made by humans) to enrich the natural information. However, technological information is different. It takes the signs of technological devices and treats them as reality, not as signs of reality. By doing this, the true presences of reality are disregarded and maybe even lost, Borgmann believes. To save these presences, and natural and cultural information along with them, Borgmann thinks, as is stated in his thesis, that a balance should be struck between the three types of information.
I believe Borgmann has a very legitimate and important concern about humanity’s loss of contract with reality, natural information, and cultural information. I can see people losing touch with reality all around me, especially in my generation. Even I have let technology become a reality for me in my life. It is not that I (and others around me) do not recognize that there are true presences out there, in reality. We know that natural and cultural information exist. We just seem to have little use for them, if there is a technological device that can portray a new reality for us that is ‘better’ and ‘more convenient’.
Reading these first few pages of Borgmann really helped me to realize how much the third kind of information has infiltrated my life. Really, the question ‘where can one go to experience pure silence, without the roar of technological information?’ rings true within my experience. In my house, information as reality is everywhere. With 4 telephones, 5 cell phones, 5 televisions, 3 computers, and 3 laptops, the third type of information has taken over every single room. In my car, my radio and my CDs keep me entertained as I drive. At school, I cannot escape computers, TVs, or cell phones either. Even exploring in the woods behind my house, I have my cell phone with me, for fear that I may be needed, in case of emergence. The saddest part of all is that I feel like I need all of these devices, these carriers of information as reality. Without them, I feel more out of touch with reality than ever. But what kind of reality am I feeling alienated from? This is the most important question, one that I know Borgmann will address.
In a perfect world, maybe humanity could be rid of this third type of information, or at least its pull on and control over society. However, I realize that we cannot get rid of technological information, and most would not want to, because, indeed, this third type of information definitely has its advantages. It is my sincere hope, then, that Borgmann can, as his thesis suggests, help us strike a balance between the three existing kinds of information, so that we may truly see reality as ‘an economy of signs and presences.’
Jacking In
The idea that technology will overtake reality is an intriguing one. I think that there are more and more people everyday who can't live without technology. Look at all the people hardwired into their ipods, their cellphones, their laptops, etc. Sure, we don't know if this is just simple recreation or if it has become "necessary" for their existence. Some people just can't bear to tear themselves away from tech for more than two minutes.
After all, how many people actually read anymore? When is the last time YOU went to a library? Was it to actually get a book and, if so, is it because you wanted the book for recreational reading or for an assignment? Most likely you used the library for a computer or to rent a DVD. Libraries have become nothing more than glorified Blockbusters, where people can walk in to rent free movies.
The truth is that technology is, in many ways, starting to overtake reality. MySpace, Facebook, iTunes: each is a way to escape from the waking world. In small doses, sure, they can't really be harmful. But how long before your entire life is played out in the digital realm?
After all, how many people actually read anymore? When is the last time YOU went to a library? Was it to actually get a book and, if so, is it because you wanted the book for recreational reading or for an assignment? Most likely you used the library for a computer or to rent a DVD. Libraries have become nothing more than glorified Blockbusters, where people can walk in to rent free movies.
The truth is that technology is, in many ways, starting to overtake reality. MySpace, Facebook, iTunes: each is a way to escape from the waking world. In small doses, sure, they can't really be harmful. But how long before your entire life is played out in the digital realm?
Friday, January 25, 2008
Journal 3
In class this week we talked about how technology is not longer a tool but our enviorment. In todays world technology has become an integrated part of everday life. Personally I see my cell phone and laptop as a tool that has become a large focus in my world.
In the reading, Borgmann wants there to be a balance between information and reality. Borgmann says this can only be achieved when reality disappears and we only have information. There are three main types of information: Natural, cultural and information as reality. Natural information is information about reality and cultural information information about or for reality. Borgmann believes the third type on information, information as reality will eventually eradicate cultural and natural information.
In the reading, Borgmann wants there to be a balance between information and reality. Borgmann says this can only be achieved when reality disappears and we only have information. There are three main types of information: Natural, cultural and information as reality. Natural information is information about reality and cultural information information about or for reality. Borgmann believes the third type on information, information as reality will eventually eradicate cultural and natural information.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Journal 3: Facebook...'Letting go of Reality'
Before I even begin to say much on this post, I must confess that I am a frequent user of facebook myself...and perhaps even on the hypocritical end on even writing about problems associated with it. However, I find it a fascinating concept to explore and critically examine.
Facebook...what is so fascinating about such a simple concept...social networking? One site has generated millions of user to log on and create a profile for themselves, representing who they think they are for the world to see. Psychologically, I think this has much to do with our inborn desire to be noticed. Sometimes after I post something on facebook, I wonder, "What on earth makes me think that there are other people in this world interested enough in my personal life to look at the note I just wrote, or that I happened to change my profile picture?"
We cannot escape the fact that we are social beings. Many times we thrive on knowing what is going on in other people's lives just for the thrill of knowing something about someone else, or even being able to compare their experiences to our own.
Borgmann's comments in "Holding onto Reality" about information greatly interested me regarding facebook. Oftentimes, when looking at a person's profile, we think that we're getting the 'real deal' of who that perons is. What we forget, however, is that people are more complex than filling out answers to "Relationship Status", "Interests", or even the "About Me" section. We are looking at subjective information about that person from that person's point of view. We're not seeing the entire reality. We are seeing a one-sided picture of that person, and it becomes what we think is the reality. This Technological Information, or "Information as Reality" presents information as it really is, but it is still not the real thing.
The internet can be a means for people to present the versions of themselves that they want others to see as reality. Let me give an example: There could be a person who has a really annoying habit of interrupting people all the time, and therefore, many people find it difficult to get along with her. This girl might not see that in herself, and obviously not put that on her facebook profile. Her profile, therefore, only becomes part of the reality, and the whole reality is only visible in its presence...its being 'natural information'.
In this way, facebook could potentially be a means of lying to others, whether it be intentional or unintentional . One example that comes to mind is when I see facebook profiles of celebrities that others have created who aren't really that celebrity.
Facebook, although it is addicting can become a means of distorting reality to the point where online social interaction has nothing in connection with the real interaction between individuals. This is reminiscent of the example used in class of the Hope Diamond's distant, almost nonexistent relation to the mine from which it was taken. We must be aware when using facebook, questioning ourselves... "Do I really see this as reality?" If so...I just might need to change my perspective.
Instant messaging & Language
Borgmann discussed in the introduction the idea that the way we use language has been damaged. Computer and technology can both influence our language. I believe this is very true, but only to a certain extent. There is a certain language that is used for instant messaging or text messaging that is completely different than academic language. Most of the language used in instant messaging and text messaging is a form of short hand for example lol, which refers to the statement laughing out loud. There are many other forms of this so called short hand that could only be known between two people who are having that conversation or only to people who use instant or text messaging. I know my parents would not know what lol or ttyl (talk to you later) stands for. This is probably because they do not use text or instant message or grow up during the same time frame that I have.
In high school I was frequently using instant message and when I needed to write an e-mail to a teacher or type up a paper for school I noticed I was using the messaging lingo. It was tricky to train my brain to use a certain language for a school paper and use other language for instant messaging. After using short hand it seemed that it dominated my brain with that lingo. For example when I was typing a paper instead of typing you I would type u every single time I used that word. After practicing I was able to change from using correct language when writing a paper to talking to my friends on the internet language. So in essence it can be difficult in the beginning to be able to do both, but after you continue to practice, it can become second nature. So I believe that the computer and technology has an effect on one’s language, but it doesn’t have to have this same effect in everything we do.
In high school I was frequently using instant message and when I needed to write an e-mail to a teacher or type up a paper for school I noticed I was using the messaging lingo. It was tricky to train my brain to use a certain language for a school paper and use other language for instant messaging. After using short hand it seemed that it dominated my brain with that lingo. For example when I was typing a paper instead of typing you I would type u every single time I used that word. After practicing I was able to change from using correct language when writing a paper to talking to my friends on the internet language. So in essence it can be difficult in the beginning to be able to do both, but after you continue to practice, it can become second nature. So I believe that the computer and technology has an effect on one’s language, but it doesn’t have to have this same effect in everything we do.
In the second chapter of Dreyfus’s book, “On the Internet”, the discussion of whether or not distant learning is appropriate was mentioned. Through the levels of learning Dreyfus states that the stages of Novice and Advanced Beginner can be learned in distant learning after that the learning must be done face to face in a classroom. The reason is the knowledge of material being discussed needs to be taught and then the behavior needs to be mimicked.
I agree with Dreyfus on his opinion of distant learning needing to be learned after stage two in a classroom. It is not likely that we can get similar knowledge of how to complete a task or tasks by reading it on a computer screen. It is true that the basics can be read but how much easier is it to lets say prepare a complicated cooking dish after watching someone complete it compared to reading word for word from a cook book. I see the point of learning being able to be done on a computer and not face to face but I also see how much is learned or gained when seeing the lesson taught and or demonstrated.
I agree with Dreyfus on his opinion of distant learning needing to be learned after stage two in a classroom. It is not likely that we can get similar knowledge of how to complete a task or tasks by reading it on a computer screen. It is true that the basics can be read but how much easier is it to lets say prepare a complicated cooking dish after watching someone complete it compared to reading word for word from a cook book. I see the point of learning being able to be done on a computer and not face to face but I also see how much is learned or gained when seeing the lesson taught and or demonstrated.
Information as a reality
Is information as a reality really taking over the other two types of reality? I can relate to Borgman's out in the wilderness idea. I live in Perryville, Arkansas at the Heifer Ranch this summer, where there was no television, and the most access I had to a computer was about once a week. Its a totally different world. You get to focus more on information about reality than information being a reality. Now back to the main question I do not exactly believe that information as a reality is taking the other two types of information over, however I do believe it is making the other two types harder to come by. If people can just axis information from their television, computer, ipod, or whatever cool new device they have, one starts to wonder if they would ever feel the need to go out and exactly experience anything for themselves anymore. I still value the outdoors and actually playing my own music because I feel the other ways of getting this information loses a lot in this process. No matter high tech the ways of getting this information become they will still lose something because you are not actually physically experiencing this information.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Journal Entry 2
In the next chapters of Dreyfus' book, we are introduced to the stages of learning which consist of novice, advanced beginner, competence, proficiency, expertise, and mastery. With distance learning, Dreyfus states that competence is the limit of learning that we can achieve. We cannot become masters at something through distant learning because we are not involved in first-hand mistakes and corrections that come with the classroom setting; we need emotional involvement that a distant classroom cannot provide. Competence just teaches you how to do everything step-by-step according to rules. With a classroom setting you can achieve proficiency and mastery where the things you learn can become second nature. For example, you can read about what to do while driving a car, but until you actually have first-hand experience, it is hard for you to learn what to do in certain situations.
Dreyfus also introduces us to the idea telepresence. He states that this is the closest that distant learning can come to the actual classroom learning. With telepresence you may be able to see a teacher's reaction to a piece of writing that you've done or assignments you turned in. I believe and agree with Dreyfus that first-hand experience is vital to learning and learning from you mistakes.
Dreyfus also introduces us to the idea telepresence. He states that this is the closest that distant learning can come to the actual classroom learning. With telepresence you may be able to see a teacher's reaction to a piece of writing that you've done or assignments you turned in. I believe and agree with Dreyfus that first-hand experience is vital to learning and learning from you mistakes.
Journal 2
We discussed in class the possibility of our entire existence being fabricated by machines. Specifically, the theory suggests that there is a 20% chance that we live in some sort of Matrix-like world. This is positively the most absurd theory we’ve discussed yet. Even though we could we never scientifically test such a theory, some people have somehow come up with a numeric probability directly related to it. How could someone possibly prove this or even make a rough estimate? There’s virtually no evidence to work with other than a popular science fiction movie. Statements like these can’t really be proven or refuted. It’s basically a matter a faith; a belief fabricated by man. You either believe it or you don’t and no one will ever be able to prove it. I can’t refute this theory scientifically, but I do have enough common sense to know that this is just a result of watching the Matrix too many times. Ideas like these are just a waste of brain power; however they do show just how creative the human brain is. In my opinion, whoever first thought this to be a possibility probably figured that if we can’t prove it wrong, then it must be a valid statement worthy of looking into. The obvious truth is that this idea is completely imagined. We’re the creators; the machines work for us and this is not likely to change.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Dreyfus 2
In Chapter 2 of the book, Dreyfus pretty much talk about Traditional Learning being compared to Distance Learning. In this chapter, Dreyfus talks about the six different stages of learning. The first stage, Novice is where you learn the basics of a task that you are trying to achieve. Next is the advanced beginner where you maximized instead of rules, develop a set of schedule that you get enough practice, but not too long. After the advanced beginner has developed his skills, the person moves onto the competence stage where you start to explore you own potential.
When your body eventually remembers what to do and you have have to think about it anyone, you have arrived at the Proficiency stage. The last two stages are Expert and Master where they are the degrees of Mastery. At these two stages the learner need to explores their telepresence.
Dreyfus talked about the differences between traditional and distance learning. Unlike traditional learning, distance learning is only good for the two stages of learning because the competence stage limitations of distance learning occurs due to lack of a teacher helping the student. Traditional learning is good for one on one teaching between a student and a teacher.
I personally think that distance learning is only good when you don't have time to actually set down in a classroom for about a hour or two due to an inflexible schedule. I remember most of my friends who attend large school in Florida such as Florida Atlantic University and University of Florida take some online classes due to their tight schedules.
One of the topics that we talked about in class this past week was the question being that if myspace and facebook is private and public. You can make an argument for both sides either being a public or private site. In the case of being private that facebook you request someone as a friend before you can even some their profile. On both sites, you can set your profile on private in order to prevent some users from viewing it. Also users under the age of 18 have their profliles set automatically on private to protect them from sex predators online. To support an argument of myspace and facebook being public sites that you can view someone's if they're in the same network as you regardless if you are friends with them or not. Many people put their personal information and pictures on myspace and facebook. People are willing post pictures of daily activities on myspace and facebook. I remember some of my friends posted pictures of themselves getting wasted at parties, serving their country overseas, etc. It seems that most users on facebook and myspace have a purpose to inform and entertain other users especially their about their daily lives.
When your body eventually remembers what to do and you have have to think about it anyone, you have arrived at the Proficiency stage. The last two stages are Expert and Master where they are the degrees of Mastery. At these two stages the learner need to explores their telepresence.
Dreyfus talked about the differences between traditional and distance learning. Unlike traditional learning, distance learning is only good for the two stages of learning because the competence stage limitations of distance learning occurs due to lack of a teacher helping the student. Traditional learning is good for one on one teaching between a student and a teacher.
I personally think that distance learning is only good when you don't have time to actually set down in a classroom for about a hour or two due to an inflexible schedule. I remember most of my friends who attend large school in Florida such as Florida Atlantic University and University of Florida take some online classes due to their tight schedules.
One of the topics that we talked about in class this past week was the question being that if myspace and facebook is private and public. You can make an argument for both sides either being a public or private site. In the case of being private that facebook you request someone as a friend before you can even some their profile. On both sites, you can set your profile on private in order to prevent some users from viewing it. Also users under the age of 18 have their profliles set automatically on private to protect them from sex predators online. To support an argument of myspace and facebook being public sites that you can view someone's if they're in the same network as you regardless if you are friends with them or not. Many people put their personal information and pictures on myspace and facebook. People are willing post pictures of daily activities on myspace and facebook. I remember some of my friends posted pictures of themselves getting wasted at parties, serving their country overseas, etc. It seems that most users on facebook and myspace have a purpose to inform and entertain other users especially their about their daily lives.
Blog 2 : Dreyfus
I agree with the points Dreyfus is making in chapter two. That is all we have been hearing about is how computers are going to change education for the better. I would agree with that to a certain extent, but I think there comes a point during education in which the physical teacher-student interaction must be present. People are saying that the ability to stay home and still be taught will be a great thing. I couldn’t disagree more. Why would you change the system that has worked for all these years? Dreyfus says that as long as we are just consumers of information, the distance learning could be possible. That statement is followed by one in which he says, “The student needs not only the facts but also an understanding of the context in which that information makes sense.” Anyone can just memorize material they have been given, but to become truly educated in something, you must gain that real life experience and explaining that only an embodied educator can provide. I believe that technology is advancing at such a rapid pace that we are just doing it to show the world that we can. I agree with Dr. Langguth and the point that he made the other day in class, in that we will eventually see things such as human clones just because we have the technology to do so. In conclusion, I don’t see distance learning completely taking the place of the lecture environment anytime in the near future. People are beginning to use technology as an excuse to change things that have worked for such a long time. If it makes things more efficient, while maintaining a great rate of success, I’m all for it. I don’t see that happening in terms of a person’s valuable education being received through a computer screen.
Journal Entry 1
In the opening pages of Dreyfus' book, we are introduced to the effects of technology and the arguments that are made on those effects. Dreyfus questions whether or not the internet hinders us from human interactions and the physical friendships that we need. Internet friendships cannot fully replace physical interaction between people. He also goes on to question whether or not we even need our bodies, or if they are actually just holding us back a spiritual and intellectual freedom. Are we starting to live a cyber life?
The internet is considered perfect because it is so easily accessible and has so many purposes. Among those purposes, the user can interact virtually with friends online and can also have the ability to make friends with someone possibly across the world, a friendship that could probably not take place otherwise. Yet, I don't see these features as important and vital to our everyday existence. As far as friendships go, virtually you cannot truly connect or feel what the other person means or feels. A virtual relationship can only go so far, whereas a physical interaction, you can learn so much just by watching mannerisms and listening to the tone of a person's voice. Online, we are not involved in the same day-to-day interactions that are needed to base a relationship on; in a virtual relationship we are limited to the amount of interaction and the friendship is ultimately hindered.Chapter one focuses on how the internet has changed particular things such as browsing for a book at the library. Hyperlinks turn 'browsing' into 'surfing.' With browsing, you must physically go find a book, and read through the material of that book in order to find what you are looking for. Surfing brings all the information to you and lets you dig through the immense amount of searches to find what you need. This idea also brings up the thought that too much isn't always good. Many people think that the more hits you receive, the more information you have, yet, not all of your results are good information. Dreyfus uses the analogy of comparing the use of a search engine to trying to find someone in New York based on a very vague description; it's close to impossible to find exactly what you need on a search engine by typing in only a few words into the search box.
I believe that I agree with Dreyfus. The interent promotes disembodied interaction, but I believe that that can only go so far, and then you will need the physical interaction. The internet may be considered the "essence of technology," but it still has plenty of improvements before it can be considered the 'essence of living.'
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Technological Imerpative
In class this week we discussed the concept of the technological imperative, which states that if a technology can be developed that technology will be developed. This is suggesting that technology has a mind of its own and in so is above our control. The example that Dr. Langguth used in class was the formation of the atomic bomb. Apparently, if you speak to most of the developers of the atomic bomb today they wished that the technology would have never been developed; however, it was far out of anybodies hands. For the future, Dr. Langguth, suggests that their will eventually be the development of a human clone just because we have the technology to perform such a shocking event. It is suggested that even if the world says no to human cloning it will eventually occur. I believe this is not the case; technology is under the control of the person who uses the technology. If we so choose we can get rid of the technology that apparently controls us. There is no need for the internet; people can live without running water, heat, air conditioning, cars, and electricity. I know that many people are laughing at me, with this comment. However, what did people do before the advent of these technologies? The people lived, albeit the conditions were a lot harder and people were forced to perform more working tasks. Also, technology does not have a mind nor does it have free will. It is easier to blame something else for the problems that we created, such as the atomic bomb. However, there is nobody to blame but ourselves. We have the choice to create a technology and use it, when things don’t work out the way that we think it should we can’t blame the uncontrollable development of the technology.
Is Distance Learning Possible?
In Chapter Two of the book “On the Internet” by Hubert Dreyfus it is discussed whether or not distance learning is an appropriate form of learning. Dreyfus discusses seven stages in learning and tells whether or not that stage of learning can be achieved in a distance environment. The seven stages of learning are novice, advanced beginner, competence, proficiency, expertise, mastery and practical wisdom. Dreyfus suggests that the first two phases can be taught in a distance learning environment; however, beyond the second phase a person has to be taught in a classroom. The novice phase is when a person just learns facts just like a computer program. The advanced beginner phase the student begins to cope with real life situations and develop an understanding of the relevant context. Past the second stage the emotion of the student begins to have an aspect on learning which can not be taught over the internet. At later stages a learner seeks the knowledge of a master in order to gain more insight on a given field. When this stage is being taught the student tends to replicate the actions of the person that they are interning. In order to prevent students from becoming an exact replicate of the person that they are studying with other techniques must be followed. A student needs to be apprenticed to many people in order to get a mix and develop their own style.
I am writing with regard to Dr. Dreyfus's opinion that distance learning in not compatible to students wanting to gain a level of competence in a given subject. I have to agree that distance learning does pose certain problems if you actually want to gain a high level of understanding of a certain subject. However, does a one semester class really give a student this high level of understanding? I went to a school in England for awhile and the way that they teach students is that there are no Core Classes. All students spend three years getting a degree in lets say Chemistry taking only chemistry courses. This gives a better understanding for the student of the subject matter that they wish to pursue. Students also are more involved because the student cares about the subject matter. In many American schools not only does a student take some classes that involve the subject they will eventually have a job in but other core classes. For these core classes I don't believe that you can become an expert in the subject because not enough time and reinforcement is given. If this is true...then why does a student have to physically be in the classroom? I also had a distance learning course for politics and determined that I probably learned more in this class compared to the students in the traditional politics class. When talking to other students, it seemed like my teacher assigned more work since we were not taking the time to travel to campus and sit in the classroom. Therefore, overall I feel that some classes probably could get away with teaching online but others such as your major classes need to be taken in a classroom environment.
I am writing with regard to Dr. Dreyfus's opinion that distance learning in not compatible to students wanting to gain a level of competence in a given subject. I have to agree that distance learning does pose certain problems if you actually want to gain a high level of understanding of a certain subject. However, does a one semester class really give a student this high level of understanding? I went to a school in England for awhile and the way that they teach students is that there are no Core Classes. All students spend three years getting a degree in lets say Chemistry taking only chemistry courses. This gives a better understanding for the student of the subject matter that they wish to pursue. Students also are more involved because the student cares about the subject matter. In many American schools not only does a student take some classes that involve the subject they will eventually have a job in but other core classes. For these core classes I don't believe that you can become an expert in the subject because not enough time and reinforcement is given. If this is true...then why does a student have to physically be in the classroom? I also had a distance learning course for politics and determined that I probably learned more in this class compared to the students in the traditional politics class. When talking to other students, it seemed like my teacher assigned more work since we were not taking the time to travel to campus and sit in the classroom. Therefore, overall I feel that some classes probably could get away with teaching online but others such as your major classes need to be taken in a classroom environment.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Telepresence Possible?
In class this week, we discussed distance learning and telepresence. Is distance learning all it promises to be? Is it egalitarian, cheap, efficient, grade-A education? Will distance learning ever replace classroom learning, or will the disembodiment of telepresence be the downfall of Internet education? Dreyfus, in On the Internet, claims that distance learning fails in education (beyond the mere delivery of facts) because students cannot get as emotionally involved in their work. The learners do not care as much about their performance in a ‘tele-classroom’ where all they can see is their far-away professor. If they mess up, no one (or next to no one) knows or cares. Thus, the learners can never move past the beginning levels, and certainly cannot become completely competent in their knowledge and/or skill. Stuck in the competency stage, the students cannot reach other, more advanced stages where they make their own maxims and eventually study under an actual master of the field/skill. Distance learning is indeed (nearly) void of emotional attachment and field experience, and thus, it is not as successful, Dreyfus writes. As a part of the Internet and its technology, distance learning disembodies us.
Dreyfus goes on to tackle the possibility of the effectiveness of telepresence, specifically in education. If one examines the difficulties of distance learning from a teachers’ point of view, it is easy to see that telepresence could never substitute ‘real’ presence. For instance, in a distance learning environment, a teacher cannot make eye contact with his pupils nor can he pick up on feelings within the classroom, like disengagement or boredom. In a word, the teacher cannot get immediate bodily feedback from his students. He cannot get the "feel" of the room, per se. Again, the disembodiment of distance learning becomes a problem.
Yet, what if a type of telepresence could be created that makes an exact replica of the classroom, with bodily feedback, eye contact and everything this implies? This question bounced around in my head all throughout class. Using other theories mentioned in this course, I deduced that this type of telepresence might be possible in the near future.
When I was younger, my dad watched Star Trek faithfully. Consequently, I picked up a thing or two about the show. One thing I remember vividly (probably because I thought it was so cool) is the Holodeck, a virtual-reality room on the ship that created 'perfect' telepresence for all the senses. It would take the user wherever and whenever he/she wanted to go. Because we’ve discussed in class the effect science fiction (and specifically Star Trek) has on future technology, and because of the technological imperative (which states that anything that can be produced, will be), I believe that the technology this Holodeck utlizes could be created in the future, in theory. With this ‘perfect’ telepresence, could the issue of disembodiment in distance learning be overcome? Or would the fact that, just knowing the teacher is not physically there even though it seems in every capacity that he is cause the students to be less emotionally involved? Is it unreasonable to think this ‘Holodeck’ would be an effective teaching device?
Dreyfus goes on to tackle the possibility of the effectiveness of telepresence, specifically in education. If one examines the difficulties of distance learning from a teachers’ point of view, it is easy to see that telepresence could never substitute ‘real’ presence. For instance, in a distance learning environment, a teacher cannot make eye contact with his pupils nor can he pick up on feelings within the classroom, like disengagement or boredom. In a word, the teacher cannot get immediate bodily feedback from his students. He cannot get the "feel" of the room, per se. Again, the disembodiment of distance learning becomes a problem.
Yet, what if a type of telepresence could be created that makes an exact replica of the classroom, with bodily feedback, eye contact and everything this implies? This question bounced around in my head all throughout class. Using other theories mentioned in this course, I deduced that this type of telepresence might be possible in the near future.
When I was younger, my dad watched Star Trek faithfully. Consequently, I picked up a thing or two about the show. One thing I remember vividly (probably because I thought it was so cool) is the Holodeck, a virtual-reality room on the ship that created 'perfect' telepresence for all the senses. It would take the user wherever and whenever he/she wanted to go. Because we’ve discussed in class the effect science fiction (and specifically Star Trek) has on future technology, and because of the technological imperative (which states that anything that can be produced, will be), I believe that the technology this Holodeck utlizes could be created in the future, in theory. With this ‘perfect’ telepresence, could the issue of disembodiment in distance learning be overcome? Or would the fact that, just knowing the teacher is not physically there even though it seems in every capacity that he is cause the students to be less emotionally involved? Is it unreasonable to think this ‘Holodeck’ would be an effective teaching device?
Journal 1: Ever-changing technology
Today, people seemed to be so consumed with the things around them. Primearily by technology. Every single day it seems as if technology is growing faster and faster. With less and less human interaction and more and more technology in people's lives, it beings to make one wonder where the world is headed.
Technology seems to be making things so much easier, but in reality it just seems to be making society lazier. Being able to do remotely just about anything at the click of a mouse may seem nice, but we rely on these fancy new gadgets and the internet way too much. Despite the bad things that technology seems to contribute to, a lot of good has come out of it as well. It can make life easier for people who are less fortunate and with email, you can contact just about in the world.
I believe that things like the internet and other technology are being taken advantage of way too much. A time where textbooks were used regularly and a world without popular search engines like google guiding america's youth seems so far away.
Technology seems to be making things so much easier, but in reality it just seems to be making society lazier. Being able to do remotely just about anything at the click of a mouse may seem nice, but we rely on these fancy new gadgets and the internet way too much. Despite the bad things that technology seems to contribute to, a lot of good has come out of it as well. It can make life easier for people who are less fortunate and with email, you can contact just about in the world.
I believe that things like the internet and other technology are being taken advantage of way too much. A time where textbooks were used regularly and a world without popular search engines like google guiding america's youth seems so far away.
Friday, January 18, 2008
I found this slightly funny...
After reading the 2nd chapter in "On the Internet,"I flipped through the book, couriously looking at the next chapters and the conclusion. In the back, as in most books, there was an order form that contained other books that were available for sale from the publisher. Now what I found funny was the fact that our book, "On The Internet," is available as an e-book. What? Doesnt this contradict what Dreyfus is talking about in his book? Dreyfus talks about the embodiement factor of teaching and learning, this is excatly the same. At least in my experience there is something different about holding a book in your hand, reading it, seeing the words on paper, and seeing yourself progress farther and farther through the book by watching the bookmark get closer and closer to the back cover. This is also more proof of the technological imparative that we discussed last class. And its not so much that imparative that is driving it as it is the monetary aspect. This is just another way for the publishing company to make more money off one item. Money is the main reason much of the technology we see today is developed, the more you develop the more money you make.
Journal 2
This week in class we talked about the advantages and disadvantages of distance learning. I believe being taught in a classroom will never be fully replaced by online classes. I think being taught in a classroom has many more advantages than distance learning. By learning in a classroom you recieve social interactions that you cannot get while being taught online. Also by being taught in a classroom you can truley master a certain subject, something you cannot do with distance learning. Even though distance learning has the advantage of ease it will never replace classroom learning.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Different Ways of Learning
The concept of which is superior distance learning as opposed to classroom learning can be debated forever. It is necessary to experience both because they can provide learning for an individual in different ways. Distance learning can allow for an individual to understand and learn the basics of material within their own time frame, while classroom learning allows for more of a bodily experience through interaction with the teacher and other students. The advantages of distance learning are ease of access and convenience. The main disadvantage of distance learning that Dreyfus discusses is that you can only attain competence. You are not able to master and become an expert of a subject without the classroom and human to human interaction part. I agree with Dreyfus on this point because it is necessary to practice what you’ve learned with other people to see if you truly understood what you’ve learned. Classroom learning seems to bring out emotion in individuals that aid in the learning process. The eye-to-eye contact that can only be used in a classroom is very helpful for the teacher to understand if the material is too difficult or if the students are understanding it just by the students movements and facial expressions. Distance learning will never replace classroom learning due to the fact stated above.
Should elementary school teachers need to incorporate technology in all of their lesson plans? I believe a main reason why they should use technology is to benefit the students. All kids learn in different ways, some are visual learners, auditory learners, kinesthetic learners, or tactile learners. The visual learners can learn by looking at images such that a power point could represent by having a picture on it. The auditory learners could just learn by having the teacher talk about a certain subject in which this would involve no technology. Kinesthetic learners learn through doing and interaction. Tactile learners learn through notes and drawing diagrams. Due do the fact that not every kid learns the same it is important for teachers to incorporate technology into their lesson plan so they have different ways to convey the information to the kids. Technology such as power points, overhead projectors, or videos can be a different way to teach students material that may not be understood just by explanation. Also technology can be used to keep kids interested and actively learning a subject. Finally technology is something that we all use everyday. So it is important to keep up with it because it is always changing and improving.
Should elementary school teachers need to incorporate technology in all of their lesson plans? I believe a main reason why they should use technology is to benefit the students. All kids learn in different ways, some are visual learners, auditory learners, kinesthetic learners, or tactile learners. The visual learners can learn by looking at images such that a power point could represent by having a picture on it. The auditory learners could just learn by having the teacher talk about a certain subject in which this would involve no technology. Kinesthetic learners learn through doing and interaction. Tactile learners learn through notes and drawing diagrams. Due do the fact that not every kid learns the same it is important for teachers to incorporate technology into their lesson plan so they have different ways to convey the information to the kids. Technology such as power points, overhead projectors, or videos can be a different way to teach students material that may not be understood just by explanation. Also technology can be used to keep kids interested and actively learning a subject. Finally technology is something that we all use everyday. So it is important to keep up with it because it is always changing and improving.
CDs vs. Ipods
In class today we spoke about the ipod eventually replacing the cd, and if this is something that could actually happen. I would like to think this would never be a reality. Being a huge fan of music there is something about having an album on cd, rather than just having it on a computer file. I liek having a hard copy because there many things that go along with having that hard copy. Such as the album art, and notes that come with it. I'm sure that you can probably download these online but it is not the same.
Making an album is an art, down to the cover and the notes that go in the booklet that comes with the album. If the ipod replaces the cd would we then lose this. Would people artists still put the work together to have a booklet that is available for download? I'm a musician and I currently working on recording and putting together an album. Besides the songs themselves one thing that I'm very excited about is designing the look of the album. I have recordings on my computer but it is not the same as having a hard copy. You don't get that feeling of accomplishment that comes with the 100 percent completed album. From the artist perspective it means so much more to have the album as hard copy that the artist put together rather than just a bunch of files floating around in cyberspace.
Making an album is an art, down to the cover and the notes that go in the booklet that comes with the album. If the ipod replaces the cd would we then lose this. Would people artists still put the work together to have a booklet that is available for download? I'm a musician and I currently working on recording and putting together an album. Besides the songs themselves one thing that I'm very excited about is designing the look of the album. I have recordings on my computer but it is not the same as having a hard copy. You don't get that feeling of accomplishment that comes with the 100 percent completed album. From the artist perspective it means so much more to have the album as hard copy that the artist put together rather than just a bunch of files floating around in cyberspace.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Journal 1
While reading and discussing Dreyfus in class, I couldn't help but get agitated by his overly negative views of technology. He seems to assume that there are little or no positives to modern technologies. Technology can be both good and bad. It just depends on its purpose. Like all things in life, anything done in excess can have negative consequences. Recent technologies fall into this category like any other. Computers have become an essential part of our lives and yes, we do rely on them. That's not necessarily a bad thing though. Without computers and electronics in this day and age, many aspects of life would be more difficult and time consuming. That is why we make technology; to simplify. If we have no desire to create, can we even call ourselves human? The earliest tribes of men used technology to simplify their lives as well. What's the point of trying to hunt a wild animal with your bare hands when you could simply craft a weapon? Dreyfus talks a lot about how we humans are embodied creatures and how our technologies, as advanced as they are, will never be able to mimic us. I completely agree with this statement. Artificial Intelligence is most likely unreachable considering there are so many things about how our own brains work that we don't understand and because we are in many ways shaped by our experiences. So that would mean that Dreyfus is implying that computers are in a sense, inferior to a human's capacity and understanding of knowledge. This makes sense, but unfortunately Dreyfus also seems to imply that modern technologies have some sort of hold over us. Obviously, this is not true. Technology needs a creator and most of the time, an operator as well. We create the technologies because we feel the need to create, not because some external force is influencing us. We use the technologies because we long for a simplistic, convenient, and entertaining life; not because it's controlling us. Just because we rely on technology, it doesn't mean that we are being controlled by it. As we discussed in lecture, technology is an extension of ourselves. It has always been part of our lives and will continue to because without technology, we're nothing more than wildlife.
Post 1
As I begin reading Dreyfus’s book On Internet I begin to question just what he was asking and after reading I began to truly agree with the fact that technology is taking us away as far as relationship with other humans and placing us behind an isolated computer for the way of communication, such as email instant messaging the famous college websites all to communicate with friends, friends that without computers we would be forced to go see and talk to instead of typing messages these such messages that have replaced the tone of voice of just how we are feeling with short sayings that we tell the person on the other screen such as LOL this letting a person no we are joking because they can’t tell by the tone in our voice. To look at technology in the since of just how dependent we as a society are on it and how much it consumes our life it fascinates me that we try and try to better the technology but the fact that we still need to step out and away from behind the computers and truly connect with one another face to face.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
"In Soviet Russia, Car Drives You!"
In class we've discussed the idea that technology is always changing, and that every day it grows in leaps and bounds beyond our own understanding. Today even we went over the fact that the creation of the atomic bomb was set into motion as soon as its inventors soon dreamed it up, perhaps even before. It would not have mattered if they had stopped production, the bomb would have eventually found its way into this world and into the hands of its people. Technology, like many things, has a way of pushing through boundaries.
This raises a whole host of questions. Could technology itself be alive? Does it in fact help, hinder, or ruin our lives? And, should it ever come down to it, could the wondrous and deadly powers of technology ever be stopped?
People worry about so called "minorities" invading our country but, years from now, what if we ourselves were a minority? At the moment it sounds as if it were ripped from the pages of science fiction but, as has been the case, technology has a way and a life of its own. We've got MP3 players and phones no bigger than our palms and tiny robots named ASIMO paving the way in robotic technologies. How long before the works of Aasimov and Gibson are more fact than fiction? Is it conceivable that technology could spin out of our control?
I believe that that is a topic everyone must grapple with on their own.
This raises a whole host of questions. Could technology itself be alive? Does it in fact help, hinder, or ruin our lives? And, should it ever come down to it, could the wondrous and deadly powers of technology ever be stopped?
People worry about so called "minorities" invading our country but, years from now, what if we ourselves were a minority? At the moment it sounds as if it were ripped from the pages of science fiction but, as has been the case, technology has a way and a life of its own. We've got MP3 players and phones no bigger than our palms and tiny robots named ASIMO paving the way in robotic technologies. How long before the works of Aasimov and Gibson are more fact than fiction? Is it conceivable that technology could spin out of our control?
I believe that that is a topic everyone must grapple with on their own.
Journal 2: The Technological Imperative
Today in class I was stuck with that phrase, "technological imperative", which states that if a certain technology can be developed, it will. In this sense, technology has 'a mind of its own', per say. Even though we discussed the issue of human free will and responsibility in class today, I still do not believe that technology operates on its own. There needs to be human brain power, willpower behind these new developments.
If humans we to stop imagining, thinking, creating ideas and techniques, machines that make the world a better place, the latest developments would cease to exist. A computer cannot suddenly make decisions for us about new developments and technological advancements. Humans are behind the technology.
Here is one example: When the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, this devastating technology was in the hands of humans. It was developed by humans, and the eventual decision to drop the bomb was made by humans. We can blame the technology all we want, but in the end, as someone said in class, "It just becomes another way of passing the blame onto something else and avoiding responsibility for what humankind has done". We can resist decisions like these. I have put a link below to a YouTube video Representation of the bombing of Hiroshima. Look closely at the faces of the pilots of the Enola Gay after they drop the bomb. It is almost as if they see the destruction and devastation below, recognizing that their simple action of pushing that button that released the bomb caused the terror below. The ultimate decisions was in their hands and in the hands of many others who were in the plot to make Japan surrender through the use of this technology.
The other example we mentioned in class was human cloning. Right now, there is the technology available to seemingly recreate a human being from the genetic makeup of another human being. Obviously this technology is not overtaking us right now because we have ethical and moral standards that we must adhere to in the process of science.
In the end, this force of technology is just another tool in the hands of man. A tool that is often misused, which could create chaos and destruction. But one must remember: it is not out of our hands. The technology that can destruct an entire city and kill thousands of lives began in the mind of a human being...and that is where the ultimate choice and power lies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JGu__2h5Co
If humans we to stop imagining, thinking, creating ideas and techniques, machines that make the world a better place, the latest developments would cease to exist. A computer cannot suddenly make decisions for us about new developments and technological advancements. Humans are behind the technology.
Here is one example: When the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, this devastating technology was in the hands of humans. It was developed by humans, and the eventual decision to drop the bomb was made by humans. We can blame the technology all we want, but in the end, as someone said in class, "It just becomes another way of passing the blame onto something else and avoiding responsibility for what humankind has done". We can resist decisions like these. I have put a link below to a YouTube video Representation of the bombing of Hiroshima. Look closely at the faces of the pilots of the Enola Gay after they drop the bomb. It is almost as if they see the destruction and devastation below, recognizing that their simple action of pushing that button that released the bomb caused the terror below. The ultimate decisions was in their hands and in the hands of many others who were in the plot to make Japan surrender through the use of this technology.
The other example we mentioned in class was human cloning. Right now, there is the technology available to seemingly recreate a human being from the genetic makeup of another human being. Obviously this technology is not overtaking us right now because we have ethical and moral standards that we must adhere to in the process of science.
In the end, this force of technology is just another tool in the hands of man. A tool that is often misused, which could create chaos and destruction. But one must remember: it is not out of our hands. The technology that can destruct an entire city and kill thousands of lives began in the mind of a human being...and that is where the ultimate choice and power lies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JGu__2h5Co
Monday, January 14, 2008
Journal Entry 1
As technology throughout the world keep on improving, we are replying more on these technological advances to help us with are daily routines. I remember 10 years ago, the best way to get the showtimes for a movies before going to the movie theater was calling the moviephone which takes forever the times of even one movie. Today, I can go on yahoo.com and check on the movies showtimes in a matter of a few seconds. In Dreyfus's book, he mentioned that technology is apart of a body. What he means is that everything we do involves technology assisting us. Also we relied on technology so much that if these tools were removed away from us that it might be difficult to survive without them. In other words, it is almost like you were to lose to one of your five senses.Even though, the internet is an essential tool for us human beings, there are some negative consequences of the internet. One is that internet can isolate you from other people. One example is this new online game that is taking this country by storm is the World of Warcraft aka WOW. From my observations in the Ackerman Residence Halls, the students who WOW are usually the nerds or outsiders who will spend most of the day in their dorms playing this addictive game. Therefore, they really socialize with anybody which leads to inherited poor people skills.These online dating services such as E.harmony.com screw you over when finding a potential significant other. You may meet a person who claims that they are as looking as Brad Pitt and Beyonce and then you meet them and they turn out to look like Rosie O'Donnell's sister.But there are some positive consequences of the internet. One is that the internet help people make new friendships and reestablished old ones. I remember when I was down in my hometown of Fort Lauderdale, Florida from January to August of 2007, I used the world famous website myspace.com to get in touch with friends who I have not see since high school.
Journal #1 - Dreyfus
"If the essence of technology is to make everything easily accessible and optimizable, then the Internet is the perfect technological device. It is the culmination of the same tendency to make everything as flexible as possible that has led us to digitalize and interconnect as much of reality as we can. What the Web allows us to do is literally unlimited." These words are located in the introduction and they immediately triggered red flags in my mind when I read them. The more I thought about it the more I realized just how many people actually believe that the Internet is limitless. It is almost revered to a god-like status. Although I find the Internet to be an amazing and useful tool I am constantly aware of its vast number of limitations. Perhaps my biggest concern is the belief that the Internet makes "everything easily accessible." Granted, there is very little information that cannot be found on the Web but since when is information alone "everything?" The Internet primarily makes use of one of our senses....sight...but what about the other 4? We have somehow diminished their importance and each generation continues to hold them in less and less regard. Sure, the Web makes some use of sound but can anyone honestly say that the sound of waves crashing on the shore on the computer is the same as actually being on the beach and hearing it in person? I lived in Romania briefly and the pictures on the Net don't do it justice. Nor does it capture the overwhelming sense of despair and hopelessness that pervades the entire country...it's not something that can be seen accurately in pictures or described adequately in a Wikipedia entry...it is something that can only be felt. These distinctions may seem trivial and perhaps they are, but I can't help feeling as though ignoring these subtle differences now are the first steps leading towards complete desensitization of society in the future.
Journal 1
As the world becomes more dependent on computers, we are loosing everyday contact with other people. We can sit at a computer virtually anywhere and have anything we can imagine at our fingertips. We can shop on-line and avoid the mall. We can pay bills on line and e-mail our friends and avoid the post office. Even when we go out to places like the grocery store and gas station we can mostly avoid having to talk to another person. Self-check lanes and pay at the pump allow for this. When was the last time you called a company and were greeted by an actual person. It is great to have all the things that make our busy lives more convenient, but it is really scary that one could go through live and easily avoid people. Will we eventually live in a world that forgets how to communicate with a breathing person, and only be able to relate to computers? It is definitely something to think about.
Dreyfus on search engines
With the search engine it seems as if this sticks more closely to the original thought of the internet. This original thought was to catalog research and information. However, it seems the search enngine which should be a helpful resource has gotten farther away from this concept. The computer cannot distinguish from a legitimate source and one that is not. Since the internet is the way it is anyone can make a web page. Just because one can make a webpage doesn;t mean they should. One internet post could be one you're could be relevant to the search, but it may not be a valid source.
There should be a way in which the search engine is ordered, where the most scholarly material is the first information the search engine returns. I don't know how difficult of a task this would be to put together, but it seems like it would be in the best interest of the users of the search engines to try to make that happen.
One problem that arises is that when one looks up information they may not know how to tell if they are looking at a valid source. This lets people believe that what they read is true. So this creates a problem where many people start to believe things that simply aren't true.
There should be a way in which the search engine is ordered, where the most scholarly material is the first information the search engine returns. I don't know how difficult of a task this would be to put together, but it seems like it would be in the best interest of the users of the search engines to try to make that happen.
One problem that arises is that when one looks up information they may not know how to tell if they are looking at a valid source. This lets people believe that what they read is true. So this creates a problem where many people start to believe things that simply aren't true.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Journal 1: The Universality of Technology
During our discussion today as class began for the semester, I was struck with the fact that the effects of technology are felt universally, whether directly or indirectly. Even in the remotest and most impoverished parts of the world, technology affects societies by creating an increased gap between the "haves" and the "have nots"; perhaps even causing resentment toward the more affluent societies.
Often among younger generations, there is a push to buy the latest electronic device as soon as it arrives in stores. (I recall the last holiday season of long lines and camping outside stores for certain videogames…) It seems that once you have the latest gadget, however, it soon gets “old” as next years newest item arrives and you must jump on the bandwagon with ‘everyone else’ and get one for yourself. Sociologically, this is an interesting idea. For these types of individuals, it seems that technology affects them in a more direct manner. They choose to be exposed to the latest and greatest electronics and inventions.
During the holiday season, my parents will often see the ads in stores for the newest electronic item. They frequently say, “What’s the point of getting that…it’ll be old news by next Christmas.” In many ways, I see their point. It seems that the advances in technology have a unifying influence on many people who flock to the stores together (not necessarily in a friendly manner), but it is incredibly fascinating how technology brings people together in one place (ie: a store), for one purpose (to purchase the newest gadget). Technology is not only universal, it is unifying in the most un-unified sense. We are together in one place, yet not cooperating with one another, but competing to see who gets the item first.
Look at the example of the car. This device has changed the world, especially our American culture in the past century. When Ford began mass-producing cars for increased public use, sales skyrocketed and our culture would never be the same. For example, the car would be largely responsible for taking the institution of dating out of the house, and into the movie theaters and other public areas outside the family. Technology changes society. It is interesting to note that for people over a century ago, it would be a thrill just to drive a car. Give a little technological advancement, and several years you have cars with heated leather seats, GPS systems that talk to you, and computers that track your car and communicate with it via someone across the country in case of an emergency...the beauty of "On Star". These are things people would have never dreamed of!
People such as my grandma swear that they will never touch a computer or even attempt to let it benefit her life. I highly respect her ideals. I often wish I could follow her example! Some prefer to maintain a simpler life without such advances. Whether they realize it or not, however, their lives have been affected, even benefited, by what they try to avoid. Computers are everywhere: in cars, in cash registers, and a host of other examples. The lack of having a computer has also affected the way people interact with my grandma. Oftentimes, my aunt will say to her, “So when are you going to get a computer?” Without this advance in technology, it wouldn’t be necessary to bring that up. So indirectly, my grandmother and many like her have been affected by technological advances.
In conclusion, technology has affected us all. Technology has the possibility to change lives and entire societies. It is a powerful tool that must be used with much caution and forethought.
Often among younger generations, there is a push to buy the latest electronic device as soon as it arrives in stores. (I recall the last holiday season of long lines and camping outside stores for certain videogames…) It seems that once you have the latest gadget, however, it soon gets “old” as next years newest item arrives and you must jump on the bandwagon with ‘everyone else’ and get one for yourself. Sociologically, this is an interesting idea. For these types of individuals, it seems that technology affects them in a more direct manner. They choose to be exposed to the latest and greatest electronics and inventions.
During the holiday season, my parents will often see the ads in stores for the newest electronic item. They frequently say, “What’s the point of getting that…it’ll be old news by next Christmas.” In many ways, I see their point. It seems that the advances in technology have a unifying influence on many people who flock to the stores together (not necessarily in a friendly manner), but it is incredibly fascinating how technology brings people together in one place (ie: a store), for one purpose (to purchase the newest gadget). Technology is not only universal, it is unifying in the most un-unified sense. We are together in one place, yet not cooperating with one another, but competing to see who gets the item first.
Look at the example of the car. This device has changed the world, especially our American culture in the past century. When Ford began mass-producing cars for increased public use, sales skyrocketed and our culture would never be the same. For example, the car would be largely responsible for taking the institution of dating out of the house, and into the movie theaters and other public areas outside the family. Technology changes society. It is interesting to note that for people over a century ago, it would be a thrill just to drive a car. Give a little technological advancement, and several years you have cars with heated leather seats, GPS systems that talk to you, and computers that track your car and communicate with it via someone across the country in case of an emergency...the beauty of "On Star". These are things people would have never dreamed of!
People such as my grandma swear that they will never touch a computer or even attempt to let it benefit her life. I highly respect her ideals. I often wish I could follow her example! Some prefer to maintain a simpler life without such advances. Whether they realize it or not, however, their lives have been affected, even benefited, by what they try to avoid. Computers are everywhere: in cars, in cash registers, and a host of other examples. The lack of having a computer has also affected the way people interact with my grandma. Oftentimes, my aunt will say to her, “So when are you going to get a computer?” Without this advance in technology, it wouldn’t be necessary to bring that up. So indirectly, my grandmother and many like her have been affected by technological advances.
In conclusion, technology has affected us all. Technology has the possibility to change lives and entire societies. It is a powerful tool that must be used with much caution and forethought.
Blog 1 : Dreyfus
I found the first twenty-six pages of Dreyfus very interesting. When I first started reading I was very skeptical of what he was saying, but the more I read, the more I started to agree with him. I agree with him that there are great limits to the internet because we can’t take our bodies into cyberspace with us. It is impossible for the computer to give us exactly what we want because it lacks our commonsense knowledge. Dreyfus tried to prove his points in chapter one by comparing the old library culture with the new hyperlink culture. He argues that the new hyperlink culture is not worried about what is relevant information, but rather it gives you as much information as possible. If you think about that, it is very true. When you type a search into Google, the majority of the websites it provides you with are not relevant to what you really need. I know for me and probably for most people, the reason we use online search engines is out of laziness. Why walk through the library and find sources when you can sit down and type out a few words and get tons of information? That is probably not the most efficient way in most cases because we often spend a lot of time sifting through the numerous sites trying to find pertinent information that we can actually use. However, I don’t think people are going to stop using the new hyperlink system over the old style. Technology has engulfed almost all of our society and it is only going to get worse. In class the other day someone mentioned the fact that you can get on the internet with no particular purpose or goal in mind and spend hours just surfing the net and not even realize it. It is funny to think about how much we depend on technology. I agree with Dreyfus that truly knowing a person requires commonsense knowledge, and face-to-face interaction. The ability to do that is being threatened by cell phones, computers, etc. and it will continue to have a large impact on our lives.
Rant on Cell Phones
The topic of phenomenology in regards to technology, especially the idea of embodiment, struck me during last class meeting. It's a cool idea when it comes to a blind person using a cane as a sort of antenna, but I find it alarming the the cell phone has become an extension of almost everyone's fingers, ears, and eyes.
The cell phone is an extension of our digits just in how we manipulate the keypad while texting. While not able to perform the phenomenon myself, I've seen how quickly people are able to manipulate this horrid system of communication--instead of twenty-six letters, you know have ten digits, and using proper timing, are supposed to string together entire sentences? Not to mention what texting is doing to our language, just on a linguistic level. When you begin using acronyms in place of words, grammar just becomes completely superfluous, and we forget how to spell the words we're abbreviating. Yeah, it's cool on medical dramas: "Quick, we need 15 CCs of plasma for this GSW!" (Isn't it easier just to say gunshot wound?) but if texting becomes the predominant mode of communication, the English language is sure to suffer, as I think it already has.
As for cell phones becoming our new ears, the obvious reason of communication, but music, as well? No music will ever sound good coming out of a cell phone, period.
And eyes: this is perhaps the most disturbing element. Cameras on cell phones. I'm not sure who came up with the idea to stick a sub-par digital lens on a cell phone, but I really think it puts an odd, we are having fun so we need to record this vibe on everything. I mean, photographs used to be kind of special things to me--I still have a few 3x5 color glossies which I have emotional attachment to. There's just not that sort of feeling around photographs anymore, and I think it's thanks to cellphone photography, which is inferior to both film and digital cameras. I understand we're usually not trying for quality photographs here, but why the need to record yet another pixelated image that means nothing to anyone ten seconds after it was shot? Oh, but then we can slap it up on facebook, and it will stick around forever.
Anyway, I think we should all replace our heads with large cell phones. Then, we wouldn't even have to call anyone, we could just think, and talk someone miles away! And, we'd remember everything we saw. And play ringtones whenever we wanted to. And vibrate. A lot.
Journal 1: The Issue of Embodiment
In our first week of class in Ethics and Technology, we spent some time discussing the effects, advantages and limitations of technology (and, more specifically, the Internet) in our lives today. More specifically, we analyzed the introduction and first chapter of the book On the Internet by phenomenologist and Heidegger scholar Hubert Dreyfus. For me, it was interesting to review Dreyfus’ rather pessimistic view of the Internet and the consequences of its use on society today because Dreyfus’ assertions are (characteristically) phenomenological in nature. In fact, Dreyfus claims that an overwhelming problem that humans working with technology have to face is the embodiment issue.
For instance, Dreyfus asserts that because we, in a very psychological sense, ‘leave our physical bodies behind’ while we surf the Net and explore cyberspace, the Internet disembodies us, in a way. Why is that so horrible? Some people do not think it is. Groups such as the Extropians believe that the Internet has the potential to allow us to transcend our bodies and have eternal life through technology. They and other groups like them believe that this disembodiment is a good thing. It cannot be denied that the Internet, in all it allows a person to explore and discover, holds so much promise. Dreyfus even calls it the "perfect technological devise" because it makes everything easily and readily accessible. Talking on instant messenger, checking facebook statuses, and reading blogs seem to be connecting us more fully and completely to society around us. However, none of these activities (and, indeed, no activities one can do on the Internet) involve bodily perceptions or interactions. Again, why should this concern us? Dreyfus says that this disembodiment is harmful to human mental health because, as sentient, embodied beings, we need physical interchange. From the time we are born, we give meaning to everything we see, touch, taste, hear and smell by examining how our bodies react to each new substance. Dreyfus supports his idea with a study done by researchers from Carnegie-Mellon University that indirectly claims that increased time spent on the Internet leads to increased "depression and loneliness." So, in fact, the Internet is not fulfilling its promise so well as we might believe it is. Instead of feeling connected, the Internet makes us feel more alone than ever.
I found Dreyfus’ discussion of embodiment to be the most fascinating and relevant aspect of the first part of his book because I have seen the effects of disembodiment in my own home. For example, I am a self-proclaimed Facebook addict. Everyday, I feel like I have to get on Facebook to be caught up with everything that is happening with my school and my friends. Yet, after I’ve spent hours online being ‘socially connected’ through Facebook, I feel more stressed than ever. After all that time, what have I done? I’ve procrastinated when I don’t have a second to spare with my schoolwork. I’ve neglected to say one word to my family. I haven’t even physically spoken to any of my friends (and writing to them via email just isn’t the same as being with them face to face). In a word, I’ve gotten nothing accomplished and I’ve been a recluse up in my room for several hours. Because of this, I feel saddened. I feel isolated and disconnected with everyone and everything in my world. Dreyfus would probably tell me this is because I’m allowing myself to become disembodied by technology and its king, the Internet.
Knowing this, today I did an experiment. With the time I usually spend online, I went downstairs and sat in the living room talking with my dad for a few hours. I still didn’t get any homework done, but all the feelings of disconnection and isolation never once threatened to dampen my mood. Rather, I felt happy, glad that I could spend time with my father. Because of this, I attest that what Dreyfus is saying is at least partially true in my own life. I cannot say that I believe the Internet to be an evil monster with a mind of its own, but at the same time, I think Internet use should be monitored, limited and used moderately, because the pull to stay online for hours is just too strong.
For instance, Dreyfus asserts that because we, in a very psychological sense, ‘leave our physical bodies behind’ while we surf the Net and explore cyberspace, the Internet disembodies us, in a way. Why is that so horrible? Some people do not think it is. Groups such as the Extropians believe that the Internet has the potential to allow us to transcend our bodies and have eternal life through technology. They and other groups like them believe that this disembodiment is a good thing. It cannot be denied that the Internet, in all it allows a person to explore and discover, holds so much promise. Dreyfus even calls it the "perfect technological devise" because it makes everything easily and readily accessible. Talking on instant messenger, checking facebook statuses, and reading blogs seem to be connecting us more fully and completely to society around us. However, none of these activities (and, indeed, no activities one can do on the Internet) involve bodily perceptions or interactions. Again, why should this concern us? Dreyfus says that this disembodiment is harmful to human mental health because, as sentient, embodied beings, we need physical interchange. From the time we are born, we give meaning to everything we see, touch, taste, hear and smell by examining how our bodies react to each new substance. Dreyfus supports his idea with a study done by researchers from Carnegie-Mellon University that indirectly claims that increased time spent on the Internet leads to increased "depression and loneliness." So, in fact, the Internet is not fulfilling its promise so well as we might believe it is. Instead of feeling connected, the Internet makes us feel more alone than ever.
I found Dreyfus’ discussion of embodiment to be the most fascinating and relevant aspect of the first part of his book because I have seen the effects of disembodiment in my own home. For example, I am a self-proclaimed Facebook addict. Everyday, I feel like I have to get on Facebook to be caught up with everything that is happening with my school and my friends. Yet, after I’ve spent hours online being ‘socially connected’ through Facebook, I feel more stressed than ever. After all that time, what have I done? I’ve procrastinated when I don’t have a second to spare with my schoolwork. I’ve neglected to say one word to my family. I haven’t even physically spoken to any of my friends (and writing to them via email just isn’t the same as being with them face to face). In a word, I’ve gotten nothing accomplished and I’ve been a recluse up in my room for several hours. Because of this, I feel saddened. I feel isolated and disconnected with everyone and everything in my world. Dreyfus would probably tell me this is because I’m allowing myself to become disembodied by technology and its king, the Internet.
Knowing this, today I did an experiment. With the time I usually spend online, I went downstairs and sat in the living room talking with my dad for a few hours. I still didn’t get any homework done, but all the feelings of disconnection and isolation never once threatened to dampen my mood. Rather, I felt happy, glad that I could spend time with my father. Because of this, I attest that what Dreyfus is saying is at least partially true in my own life. I cannot say that I believe the Internet to be an evil monster with a mind of its own, but at the same time, I think Internet use should be monitored, limited and used moderately, because the pull to stay online for hours is just too strong.
Journal 1: The Internet
The internet has become a greatly used tool over past years. It has both pros and cons. In the Dreyfus reading the pros and cons of the internet are discussed. The example used in the book was library browsing. You can search a library and interestingly browse for material pertaining to a certain topic. When you use the internet you can search for key terms and get tons of hits but none of them maybe relevant. This idea of believing we are getting great results from the internet even though they are not relevant is called the fallacy of abundance. Yet, when you go to a library you rely on hierarchal organization to find what is relevant to your search.
It was said,”[that the] internet is not another tool…but that it expresses the essence of technology.” The main goal of this technology is to gain a lot of information with ease. All of this information suggests the idea of disembodiment. That when we search the internet our mind actually leaves our body. I know personally that I can spend an hour or two on the web and not realize how much time has passed. The body is the main starting point for human experience. This is why computers will never have the same common sense as humans, our frame of reference differs greatly from a computer. The idea of a computer having the same common knowledge as a human is an impossible goal. A goal that is not to far fetched is that the Extropians believe that eventually humans will gain eternal life through technology by having us downloaded. The idea of eternal life is great, but I believe dying a natural death is the circle of life.
Some of the pros of the internet are it helps people communicate across great distances, it is a good source of information, you can store tons of data and it can be used for professional networking. The internet does have some drawbacks to it. The information you receive from it may not always be valid, there is spamming and pop-ups and there are time consuming sites that don’t let you accomplish much i.e. facebook.
Personally I believe the internet is a great tool. I could not go from having the internet to not having all of the technology and information it offers.
It was said,”[that the] internet is not another tool…but that it expresses the essence of technology.” The main goal of this technology is to gain a lot of information with ease. All of this information suggests the idea of disembodiment. That when we search the internet our mind actually leaves our body. I know personally that I can spend an hour or two on the web and not realize how much time has passed. The body is the main starting point for human experience. This is why computers will never have the same common sense as humans, our frame of reference differs greatly from a computer. The idea of a computer having the same common knowledge as a human is an impossible goal. A goal that is not to far fetched is that the Extropians believe that eventually humans will gain eternal life through technology by having us downloaded. The idea of eternal life is great, but I believe dying a natural death is the circle of life.
Some of the pros of the internet are it helps people communicate across great distances, it is a good source of information, you can store tons of data and it can be used for professional networking. The internet does have some drawbacks to it. The information you receive from it may not always be valid, there is spamming and pop-ups and there are time consuming sites that don’t let you accomplish much i.e. facebook.
Personally I believe the internet is a great tool. I could not go from having the internet to not having all of the technology and information it offers.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
The Old Days and Today
Technology has come a long way and continues to grow and change everyday. The lives from when my parents were kids are very different than kids today, in which a central element was technology and its constant improvement. There are many positive and negative aspects that are brought about because of technological advances. For instance when my parents were growing up staying inside the house was not an option because there was nothing to do! As kids they wanted to go outside and go to the park to play basketball or explore the woods to see what they could come across. Today many kids are choosing to stay inside and take advantage of technology by wanting and playing the newest video game systems, such as the Wii, watching HDTV, or playing on the computer downloading songs onto their IPODs. The new technology contributes to the rate of obesity in kids along with not being as physically active. This is a serious problem that the world has to deal with and has tried to fix by setting an amount of time for exercise during the school day. Kids fifty years ago were very social and developed long lasting relationships with their neighbors and family. It seems today people are becoming more isolated and new technologies have had a profound contribution. Many kids today and adults can’t fathom life without the internet or cell phones. So what happened to kids who played kick the can or capture the flag with their neighborhood friends, will these games that have lasted generations be lost soon, forever??
Can technology be purely good or bad? Since the beginnings of the computer and internet there have been many useful features. When one is unsure of what a word means or wants to know what the weather will be like five days from now that information can be quickly accessed through the computer and without much effort. Most people would look at this as remarkable. E-mails can be sent to family members or friends that are across the world in order to stay in touch by the click of a button. Information can be shared from one scientist to another which can aide in finding cures. The internet can also help make life easier and more comfortable for people who are disabled or sick. These people can order almost anything imaginable online that they may need without much effort and with no need to drive to the store.
The internet also brings up a point about less human interaction. Instead of making a phone call to order pizza and going to pick it up, one can get online order pizza and have it delivered with almost no interaction with humans. Another example is internet shopping. One can shop for almost anything from clothes to furniture with little to no human interaction. Will this lead one day to a complete loss with direct human contact??
In conclusion the internet is neither good nor bad, but depends on what you use it for. If you use it to assist in acquiring knowledge this provides positives qualities, but when you become so assumed with the internet and just sit on the computer to play games this may become a negative attribute. There needs to be limits set so one doesn’t become so involved to the point where less human interaction occurs.
Can technology be purely good or bad? Since the beginnings of the computer and internet there have been many useful features. When one is unsure of what a word means or wants to know what the weather will be like five days from now that information can be quickly accessed through the computer and without much effort. Most people would look at this as remarkable. E-mails can be sent to family members or friends that are across the world in order to stay in touch by the click of a button. Information can be shared from one scientist to another which can aide in finding cures. The internet can also help make life easier and more comfortable for people who are disabled or sick. These people can order almost anything imaginable online that they may need without much effort and with no need to drive to the store.
The internet also brings up a point about less human interaction. Instead of making a phone call to order pizza and going to pick it up, one can get online order pizza and have it delivered with almost no interaction with humans. Another example is internet shopping. One can shop for almost anything from clothes to furniture with little to no human interaction. Will this lead one day to a complete loss with direct human contact??
In conclusion the internet is neither good nor bad, but depends on what you use it for. If you use it to assist in acquiring knowledge this provides positives qualities, but when you become so assumed with the internet and just sit on the computer to play games this may become a negative attribute. There needs to be limits set so one doesn’t become so involved to the point where less human interaction occurs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)