This chapter seemed to look a bit deeper into technology and how in fact culture plays a role in the way that technology is used and therefore what it in fact is. The first section of the chapter shows that when cultures use a device for different uses it becomes something else altogether. There a few examples mentioned in the text. One being the sardine can that the Australians brought with them when entering the New Guinean highlands in the hopes of finding gold. The New Guineans found sardine cans left behind and then used them as a center piece for their headwear. By the look and shape of the object they did what they perceived it to be used for. An object is what it is culturally. Another example is the case of the clock. The clock as we use it today is for regulataing time and the Chinese clock was for an astrological calender than for telling hours, minutes, and seconds. As states int he book: "a contextless conclusion that the 'technology' as such is 'neutral' but takes its significance dependent upon different 'uses' (p.128)." An object is what it is in its cultural context.
The book then went into a bit of a different direction. Ihde started to discuss the difference in first and third world countries. A lot of what he said made sense. He discussed the fact that science education is essential in order to become an high-technological country. While we are one of the first world countries money for research and development and scientists and engineers, third world countries do not have this luxury. These countries want to develop but are not given the chance. One interesting point that he mentioned was the idea that children in Japan, China, etc. are exceeding United States' children in mathematics and science. This is something that should be recognized. Due to current technologies like the calculator, mathematics may have taken the back burner. Everyone can enter numbers into a calculator, but you still have to be able to read the numbers and comprehend the meaning. It seems as though we are falling behind a bit globally.
The last section of the book goes into the idea of controlling our technologies. There is no way to control something that you have not mastered. The whole idea of "controlling" a technology is a hard question to answer. Is any type of technology controllable? In order to control something you have to know every facit of it. It seems to me that nothing is truly controllable. Especially with things continually changing. This chapter's main focus seemed to be on the idea of connecting technology to our culture. Your culture makes an object what it is.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Brain scanning will be a very touchy subject in the near future if it is uses. However I see how it can be good to society in helping interrogations of criminals for our security and in education especially for the disables. Even though these are great attributes to this technology there are downfalls. What if we read ones mind and they were once thinking of doing a crime but would decide not commit it? This is proving them guilty on unfair terms. Criminals and minorites could also be labled much easier as criminals so there is a chance crime rates will go up. This type of technology also takes away some individual freedom of human kind. Our emotions, faith an thoughts are very personal and I would want that taken away from me. Its like having a car. You have the individual freedom to get in it and just go whenever you want. Its a good feeling and to take away my own personal thoughts and feelings from myself would be disturbing.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Read my Mind?
The idea of having people read my mind kind of frekas me out. There are many personal thoughts up in my mind that I don't want any one else knowing about. The idea of having the police read my mind to see whether of not I may have committed a crime or if someone else is thinking about committing a crime in theory is a good idea. They can stop someone from committing a crime or find out what exactly happened if that person did committ a crime, but thats good in theory. Our minds, to me is the most private part about me. It is the one place where I can think what I want because I know no one else can read my mind and see what I am thinking. If someone could read my mind, that would be a huge invasion of my privacy. I suppose that if the police could read of ours they would solve alot more crimes, and the crime rate would go down, but still the invasion of someone reading my mind, in my opinion, isn't worth the benefits. There is more downfall to reading minds than good. If there was a way the police could only read the information containing information about the crime and nothing else, then I would be all for it. But if everyone could read my every thought, that would be very unnerving. Reading minds is an invasion of the most intimate part of myself.
In the Year 2525... (Blog #6)
“Have you been scanned yet?” the petite, brunette woman impatiently asked as she grabbed her evening bag.
“No—not yet, Eva,” was the tall, flaxen haired man’s reply.
“This has been your answer for three months now, Rick. Is there something I should be concerned about?” Rick swiped the door for his indignant girlfriend and followed her out of the small apartment. She moved hastily down the hall, stopping at the imposing bulkhead door at the terminus of the corridor. She tore through her bag.
“Damn, I forgot my nano-key!” Rick finally caught up.
“We can use mine.” Rick swiped a small card in the door. Eva walked through, intentionally staying ahead of her consort.
This scenario, with minor variations, had played itself out a dozen times over the past three months. Eva was adamant that her boyfriend get scanned. The latest NeuroTrack Inc. product, “Nostradamus” was considered to be the most accurate predictor of human behavior since Microsoft’s “ThinkSuite 3.1”. It achieved an impressive 88% accuracy rate with up to a three year range. Unfortunately, though, ThinkSuite 3.1 could only predict basic thought patterns. It proved unable to discern between variations in emotion. The system malfunction of 2089 was also a great embarrassment. It took another ten years, and the founding of NanoTrack Inc., to rebuild the public trust in behavior predicting software. Rick, however, was still apprehensive.
“It’s not like I’m asking you to give up the internet Rick,” Eva saw that her silent treatment had sufficiently shaken up her companion.
“I realize that Eva, I’m just not convinced “Nostradamus” is anymore reliable than that old ‘mind shock’ thing was”.
“ThinkSuite, Rick, it was called ThinkSuite”.
“See, if my memory is that bad, how on earth will that scanner be able to predict how I might act in the future?” The two stopped in front of another door, this one leading to the subterranean, high-speed shuttle system.
“Would you do it for me? I would really like to know where this relationship is going. “Nostradamus” can predict behavior up to a five year span! It said I would remain committed to my current relationship.”
“Eva, how is that possible? What if I get abducted by aliens or something? Couldn’t be very committed then.”
“Stop being ridiculous. We both know that extra terrestrial life was proven a mathematical impossibility in 2093.” Eva sighed deeply. “If you won’t even get scanned for me, how can this relationship possibly work?” Rick finally conceded defeat.
“Alright, I’ll get scanned.” Eva smiled and took him by the arm.
“Great! We can go now.”
“Don’t you need an appointment?”
“I already made one.”
“If you can predict my behavior this easily, why do I need to get scanned?”
***********************************
“Hmmm.”
“Hmmm”? What exactly does that mean, Dr. Loveless?” Rick worriedly asked.
“Well, it means, that your scan is showing some erratic behavior signatures.” The doctor paged through the scan once again “hmmm”ing at least three more times.
“This is not something I would want to show my wife.” The doctor handed the portfolio to Rick who found it difficult to interpret. There were numerous images of his brain, he assumed at least, and each had different wave pattern graphs applied over the image. The tall, thin doctor looked wraithlike in the bright, sterile light of the scan-room.
“Why not? All I see are dots and something that looks a little like a Jello mold”.
“Jello?”, the doctor laughed, “what a quaint reference.” The doctor moved closer to Rick. “The Jello formation is actually an extra-marital affair about two years down the road by the looks of it.”
“What!?”
“Oh yes, we’ve seen it hundreds of times—and that was just during our CEO’s scan.” The doctor took the portfolio and tucked it under his arm. “This can remain confidential, of course.” Rick pulled himself out of the uncomfortable scanning chair and approached the doctor.
“That doesn’t mean anything. I wouldn’t do something like that.”
“No? How can you be so sure? Nostradamus has never once been wrong.”
“Maybe they’re self-fulfilling prophecies.” The doctor handed Rick the scan.
“Believe what you like, but facts are facts. Now please be on your way, I have five more subjects to scan this evening.” Rick exited the scan-room and handed his nano-key to the receptionist. The bill was exorbitant.
“Thank you sir,” the receptionist perkily responded, “please scan with us again.” Rick took his card back and slowly approached the patiently waiting Eva.
“How did it go?” Eva asked. Rick paused. “Well?” she prodded.
“This is absurd, Eva. There is no way that maniac Dr. Loveless could accurately predict that I will cheat on you.” Eva grabbed the portfolio.
“Cheat on me?!” She quickly reviewed the doctor’s comments. “More than once?”
“Eva, it’s all conjecture—“
“So how many times have you already cheated on me? This mathematical trend indicates that you must have at least once!”
“No, no I haven’t—“ Eva’s anger dissolved into tears.
“I knew something was wrong when you refused to come. My mother was right about you.” Rick reached for his sobbing girlfriend but she pulled away.
“Eva, it’s a computer. They can be wrong.”
“Rick, it’s science, it’s fact.” She handed the portfolio back to Rick. “I’m just glad I found out now.” Eva collected herself and walked away from her now ex-boyfriend. “I hope we can still be civil.” Rick followed her; she was sprinting towards the elevator now.
“Eva, wait come back.” It was too late, she was already safely aboard the shuttle elevator. He watched her speed down the tunnel. An elderly gentleman ambled towards the forlorn Rick, hoping to catch the next shuttle. The clever old man shrewdly inferred what had happened.
“Why can’t young people just go see palm readers anymore?”
“A what?” Rick confusedly replied as the two boarded the next elevator.
“No—not yet, Eva,” was the tall, flaxen haired man’s reply.
“This has been your answer for three months now, Rick. Is there something I should be concerned about?” Rick swiped the door for his indignant girlfriend and followed her out of the small apartment. She moved hastily down the hall, stopping at the imposing bulkhead door at the terminus of the corridor. She tore through her bag.
“Damn, I forgot my nano-key!” Rick finally caught up.
“We can use mine.” Rick swiped a small card in the door. Eva walked through, intentionally staying ahead of her consort.
This scenario, with minor variations, had played itself out a dozen times over the past three months. Eva was adamant that her boyfriend get scanned. The latest NeuroTrack Inc. product, “Nostradamus” was considered to be the most accurate predictor of human behavior since Microsoft’s “ThinkSuite 3.1”. It achieved an impressive 88% accuracy rate with up to a three year range. Unfortunately, though, ThinkSuite 3.1 could only predict basic thought patterns. It proved unable to discern between variations in emotion. The system malfunction of 2089 was also a great embarrassment. It took another ten years, and the founding of NanoTrack Inc., to rebuild the public trust in behavior predicting software. Rick, however, was still apprehensive.
“It’s not like I’m asking you to give up the internet Rick,” Eva saw that her silent treatment had sufficiently shaken up her companion.
“I realize that Eva, I’m just not convinced “Nostradamus” is anymore reliable than that old ‘mind shock’ thing was”.
“ThinkSuite, Rick, it was called ThinkSuite”.
“See, if my memory is that bad, how on earth will that scanner be able to predict how I might act in the future?” The two stopped in front of another door, this one leading to the subterranean, high-speed shuttle system.
“Would you do it for me? I would really like to know where this relationship is going. “Nostradamus” can predict behavior up to a five year span! It said I would remain committed to my current relationship.”
“Eva, how is that possible? What if I get abducted by aliens or something? Couldn’t be very committed then.”
“Stop being ridiculous. We both know that extra terrestrial life was proven a mathematical impossibility in 2093.” Eva sighed deeply. “If you won’t even get scanned for me, how can this relationship possibly work?” Rick finally conceded defeat.
“Alright, I’ll get scanned.” Eva smiled and took him by the arm.
“Great! We can go now.”
“Don’t you need an appointment?”
“I already made one.”
“If you can predict my behavior this easily, why do I need to get scanned?”
***********************************
“Hmmm.”
“Hmmm”? What exactly does that mean, Dr. Loveless?” Rick worriedly asked.
“Well, it means, that your scan is showing some erratic behavior signatures.” The doctor paged through the scan once again “hmmm”ing at least three more times.
“This is not something I would want to show my wife.” The doctor handed the portfolio to Rick who found it difficult to interpret. There were numerous images of his brain, he assumed at least, and each had different wave pattern graphs applied over the image. The tall, thin doctor looked wraithlike in the bright, sterile light of the scan-room.
“Why not? All I see are dots and something that looks a little like a Jello mold”.
“Jello?”, the doctor laughed, “what a quaint reference.” The doctor moved closer to Rick. “The Jello formation is actually an extra-marital affair about two years down the road by the looks of it.”
“What!?”
“Oh yes, we’ve seen it hundreds of times—and that was just during our CEO’s scan.” The doctor took the portfolio and tucked it under his arm. “This can remain confidential, of course.” Rick pulled himself out of the uncomfortable scanning chair and approached the doctor.
“That doesn’t mean anything. I wouldn’t do something like that.”
“No? How can you be so sure? Nostradamus has never once been wrong.”
“Maybe they’re self-fulfilling prophecies.” The doctor handed Rick the scan.
“Believe what you like, but facts are facts. Now please be on your way, I have five more subjects to scan this evening.” Rick exited the scan-room and handed his nano-key to the receptionist. The bill was exorbitant.
“Thank you sir,” the receptionist perkily responded, “please scan with us again.” Rick took his card back and slowly approached the patiently waiting Eva.
“How did it go?” Eva asked. Rick paused. “Well?” she prodded.
“This is absurd, Eva. There is no way that maniac Dr. Loveless could accurately predict that I will cheat on you.” Eva grabbed the portfolio.
“Cheat on me?!” She quickly reviewed the doctor’s comments. “More than once?”
“Eva, it’s all conjecture—“
“So how many times have you already cheated on me? This mathematical trend indicates that you must have at least once!”
“No, no I haven’t—“ Eva’s anger dissolved into tears.
“I knew something was wrong when you refused to come. My mother was right about you.” Rick reached for his sobbing girlfriend but she pulled away.
“Eva, it’s a computer. They can be wrong.”
“Rick, it’s science, it’s fact.” She handed the portfolio back to Rick. “I’m just glad I found out now.” Eva collected herself and walked away from her now ex-boyfriend. “I hope we can still be civil.” Rick followed her; she was sprinting towards the elevator now.
“Eva, wait come back.” It was too late, she was already safely aboard the shuttle elevator. He watched her speed down the tunnel. An elderly gentleman ambled towards the forlorn Rick, hoping to catch the next shuttle. The clever old man shrewdly inferred what had happened.
“Why can’t young people just go see palm readers anymore?”
“A what?” Rick confusedly replied as the two boarded the next elevator.
**********************************
Doctor Loveless was only half aware of the altercation that took place in his waiting room. They were quite commonplace in his line of work. How many times had he diagnosed the “cheating” signature…100, maybe 150? Or was it 250? It didn’t matter if he could remember, Nostradamus was always right….
Fin
Doctor Loveless was only half aware of the altercation that took place in his waiting room. They were quite commonplace in his line of work. How many times had he diagnosed the “cheating” signature…100, maybe 150? Or was it 250? It didn’t matter if he could remember, Nostradamus was always right….
Fin
Monday, February 19, 2007
This title has already been uploaded into your brain, so don't bother reading it.
In the future, telepathy is possible, so long as you are fluent in binary. There no longer exist any barriers to what one person intends to say to how another person interprets it. Every thought you intend to communicate is instantly downloaded, telecasted, and uploaded by your audience, who have the option of viewing your thoughts in high definition 3D and digital surround sound. Meetings convene, discuss, and adjourn before the commercial break of each person's favorite TV show is over. As ambiguity is eliminated it takes with it certain literary forms, like written poetry, and a large number of jokes and the entirety of puns. Not to mention the elimination of "foreign" languages; everyone's thoughts will be converted to unicode.
All of your thoughts are backed up on hard drives, your dreams are digitized, compressed and archived, your ambitions are compiled into lines of code dictating how you should live your life. You no longer read novels or textbooks or love letters, the underlying thoughts behind each are uploaded in moments into your consciousness, where you spend at most a millisecond pondering each of them. You don't talk to anyone, and nobody talks to you, at least not with their mouths, those archaic old things. You have too little time to move as slowly as people used to, but lucky for you, all this technology is saving you time. At least that's what the ads assure.
A convenient pastel light located on your forehead indicates when you are in a bad mood, or feeling tired, confused, happy, depressed, or any of the other 50 options available. This has thankfully lifted the burden from anyone to have expression on their faces. After all, if you can see the pale green light above my brow why would you need to see a smile?
Of course there will be a few problems for the brainwave generation. Everyone knows when you're daydreaming in church, and staring after attractive members of the opposite sex is considered a thought-crime. Your best friend knows that you really just forgot their birthday rather than "accidentally left their present at home." You have lost your ability to lie entirely, which some view as a great step forward to humanity. Of course, up until it is gotten away with no one realizes how often it is used. But it does allow you to never have to "swear" to do anything again; your real intentions are as visible as a read-out on a monitor.
Everyone in the brainwave generation will feel so lucky to possess this wonderful technology, and be amazed at how more primitive and ancient cultures ever survived without it. Perhaps a select few will resist the full integration made possible by brain-casting, but they will be the outliers and anomalies, regarded as weirdos and crackpots. Human thought will become an intricate amalgam of everyone's thoughts, with the minor drawback of destroying individual thought. But it's all for the best. Right?
All of your thoughts are backed up on hard drives, your dreams are digitized, compressed and archived, your ambitions are compiled into lines of code dictating how you should live your life. You no longer read novels or textbooks or love letters, the underlying thoughts behind each are uploaded in moments into your consciousness, where you spend at most a millisecond pondering each of them. You don't talk to anyone, and nobody talks to you, at least not with their mouths, those archaic old things. You have too little time to move as slowly as people used to, but lucky for you, all this technology is saving you time. At least that's what the ads assure.
A convenient pastel light located on your forehead indicates when you are in a bad mood, or feeling tired, confused, happy, depressed, or any of the other 50 options available. This has thankfully lifted the burden from anyone to have expression on their faces. After all, if you can see the pale green light above my brow why would you need to see a smile?
Of course there will be a few problems for the brainwave generation. Everyone knows when you're daydreaming in church, and staring after attractive members of the opposite sex is considered a thought-crime. Your best friend knows that you really just forgot their birthday rather than "accidentally left their present at home." You have lost your ability to lie entirely, which some view as a great step forward to humanity. Of course, up until it is gotten away with no one realizes how often it is used. But it does allow you to never have to "swear" to do anything again; your real intentions are as visible as a read-out on a monitor.
Everyone in the brainwave generation will feel so lucky to possess this wonderful technology, and be amazed at how more primitive and ancient cultures ever survived without it. Perhaps a select few will resist the full integration made possible by brain-casting, but they will be the outliers and anomalies, regarded as weirdos and crackpots. Human thought will become an intricate amalgam of everyone's thoughts, with the minor drawback of destroying individual thought. But it's all for the best. Right?
Scan Your Brain Today!!!!
The year: The not so distant future
The place: Could be your very own backyard
The what: Brain Scanning
The Who: YOU
A relatively painless procedure, it only involves hooking your cranial data port up to the mainframe's computers and about five minutes of your time. The data that they extract from your innermost sanctum is only used to: calculate what ads would work best on you, what you ate for dinner three months ago, why you broke up with your girlfriend of three years, your political and moral affiliations, find out that you really did cheat on that math exam, your secret gumbo recipe that you refuse to tell your son, and to determine if you are going to become a mortal enemy of the glorious earth empire. It is every person's patriotic duty to get their brain scanned. After your brain scan you will be treated to a never ending assault of advertisements directed specifically at you and you biases. Your neighbors will love you again, you'll get a raise, and you wont have to life a finger. The professionals at Brain Scan Tech will scan your skull for the low low price of $120.99. If you act soon you will get a complimentary subscription to Tech Weekly, a value of almost $40.00. Any shred of individuality will be replaced with complete obedience. You wont have to worry about catching up with the Joneses since they will be scanned too! Once everyone has had their noodle scanned crime will decrease by 200%, and people wont have to lock their doors at night. If you use your United Earth Express card you will earn an extra 6% cash back on your next bill. Reserve your scanning today. Space is limited to the first 1,000 callers. Call 1-800-555-5555. We have people standing by waiting to hear the sound of your sweet voice over the phone lines. Leave yourself defenseless and mindless. A society of automatons is the wave of the future, become one TODAY!!!!
Copyright 2045, Thought Controlling Casting Ltd. (TTC). The TTC is in noway affliated with the United Earth Government.
The place: Could be your very own backyard
The what: Brain Scanning
The Who: YOU
A relatively painless procedure, it only involves hooking your cranial data port up to the mainframe's computers and about five minutes of your time. The data that they extract from your innermost sanctum is only used to: calculate what ads would work best on you, what you ate for dinner three months ago, why you broke up with your girlfriend of three years, your political and moral affiliations, find out that you really did cheat on that math exam, your secret gumbo recipe that you refuse to tell your son, and to determine if you are going to become a mortal enemy of the glorious earth empire. It is every person's patriotic duty to get their brain scanned. After your brain scan you will be treated to a never ending assault of advertisements directed specifically at you and you biases. Your neighbors will love you again, you'll get a raise, and you wont have to life a finger. The professionals at Brain Scan Tech will scan your skull for the low low price of $120.99. If you act soon you will get a complimentary subscription to Tech Weekly, a value of almost $40.00. Any shred of individuality will be replaced with complete obedience. You wont have to worry about catching up with the Joneses since they will be scanned too! Once everyone has had their noodle scanned crime will decrease by 200%, and people wont have to lock their doors at night. If you use your United Earth Express card you will earn an extra 6% cash back on your next bill. Reserve your scanning today. Space is limited to the first 1,000 callers. Call 1-800-555-5555. We have people standing by waiting to hear the sound of your sweet voice over the phone lines. Leave yourself defenseless and mindless. A society of automatons is the wave of the future, become one TODAY!!!!
Copyright 2045, Thought Controlling Casting Ltd. (TTC). The TTC is in noway affliated with the United Earth Government.
When the Chief Leaves the Station
Ihde suggests that technology tends to recede into the back of people's minds when they use that technology. That we in a sense completely forget about that technology, or tool, while we use it. Ihde goes on to suggest that the only time that technology enters into our minds, while we are using it, is when that technology no longer functions that way it is supposed to function. Our pens that we use to take notes with doesn't seem to matter until that pen starts to write sloppily or it starts to run out of ink. Our computers don't really enter into our minds, until they freeze or get a virus (sometimes all to often). The glasses on my nose doesn't enter into my thought processes until the lenses start to dirty. We don't think about the bathroom faucet until it starts to drip. We hardly think about our cars that we drive everywhere until the "check engine" light starts to glow on the dash, at which point we start to panic and take it into the shop as soon as possible. All of this reminds me a another great Star Trek episode, this time it comes from Deep Space Nine. There was an episode in the 6th season in which Chief O'Brian goes on a secret assignment for Starfleet Intelligence. While the Chief is off the station everything seems to go wrong. The turbo-lifts stop 3/4ths of the way to their destination. All the station computers seem to go array. And to make matters worse for the crew of the station all the replicators go off-line making lunch time a real choir. I think that it is pretty interesting that this placing of technology on the "back burner" happens in our minds. I guess we get distracted with the task at hand, and the technology just becomes a tool that we unknowingly use to accomplish said task. Perhaps if we just give the technologies that we use a little more attention then our technology wont break as often. A good check at the amount of oil in our cars never hurt anyone. A virus/spyware scan of our computers never hurt either. Yes, doing these seemingly routine check-ups on everyday things may be time consuming, but in the long run is it worth catching and fixing a problem before it grows into a major breakdown rather than waiting for the breakdown to happen and being stuck with an expensive and even more time consuming repair job that could have been avoided in the first place.
Do you mind if I read your mind?
How beneficial would the technology be if a computer could scan the mind and predict people's intentions? One of the focuses conveys a positive outlook for applications of this type of technology. It is theorized it could be used to stop a crime that was to happen in the future as was the case in Minority Report. I have to admit that would be great. It might potentialy save my life from a person who wish to do me harm. However, this is based on the assumption that the human being will carry out the action no matter what, as if we are programmed for that specific function. We are not computers. One forgets the aspect of free will, "the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces." This personal choice stems from our process of thinking. Humans weigh out the goods and the bads of the choice they are deciding to make. They also have the ability to change their minds, from a change of conscience or in light of new information. What if the person saw it wasn't worth killing his fellow man? Oh well, because with the technology, he would probably be behind bars before he could make that decision. Furthermore, the technology might invade other areas of our lives. Consider academic classes. We learn information, and take tests to prove our knowledge. A technology like this could scan our minds for what we know, and assign a grade without our chance to prove our knowledge. Some knowledge is not straightforward, and requires delineating a path to the correct answer. For a very basic example, we might be given a triangle with two known sides, and we are asked the measurement of the hypotenuse. Well, we could not possible know the correct answer without using mathematical equations. That would require memorizing all the possible combinations of triangles, to which there are an infinite number of possibilities. So we would have to rely on facts of the triangle, see that it is a right triangle, and use the Pythagorean theorem to calculate the hypotenuse. One might say that the technology would pick up on the brain waves of the process of recognizing the triangle and using the appropriate equation. I say how is this different than the human performing the task on paper? Or one might ask you to prove the pythagorean theorem. Would it be right to mark you wrong for a technology to select the brain waves characteristic of proof number 1? How about proof number number 10, or any of the 72 proofs I came across on google? And I won't even get started on how it could reveal your personal feelings, your anxieties, secret company information, and other priviledged information. I don't know, maybe I am missing the point, but of course, this technology would have clearly revealed that? Or would it?
My alarm clock is trying to kill me.
Ihde's discussion of horizon effects and dreams for technological totality towards the end of his Phenomenology of Technics chapter were interesting. He points out that due to the advancements of modern technology, we are encountering new horizons that blur the boundaries between technology and self in ways never before experienced. That's not to say that horizonal phenomena didn't always exist, but that as technology has evolved it has introduced new horizons previously incomprehensible to us. Idhe mentions birth control pills and genetic alteration as examples of modern technologies that are difficult to separate very easily into the I-technology-world fashion that he did earlier.
I was especially interested when he talked about humanity's dream of totalization of technology. He mentions that it is a curious dream, because often we would prefer a real world over something artificial, and will only accept the artificial if it becomes necessary. Also, we have a certain fear regarding our own technology, a fear of what it could become. For example, the advent of nuclear weapons introduced a frightening new era that made it a very real possibility that humanity could be obliterated should the weapons ever be used in a full exchange. This fear could also extend to AIs or robots, as it does in many sci-fi thrillers. In this case, our technological progeny outgrows us and enslaves or destroys us. Or, in the more intriguing cases that Isaac Asimov delves into, they learn to take care of us better than we could ourselves, even if it is against our will. I agree with Ihde that a realization of a totally technological existence is probably something we will stop short of, but I don't think that will prevent future generations from fantasizing about how such an advanced world could potentially solve all problems.
I was especially interested when he talked about humanity's dream of totalization of technology. He mentions that it is a curious dream, because often we would prefer a real world over something artificial, and will only accept the artificial if it becomes necessary. Also, we have a certain fear regarding our own technology, a fear of what it could become. For example, the advent of nuclear weapons introduced a frightening new era that made it a very real possibility that humanity could be obliterated should the weapons ever be used in a full exchange. This fear could also extend to AIs or robots, as it does in many sci-fi thrillers. In this case, our technological progeny outgrows us and enslaves or destroys us. Or, in the more intriguing cases that Isaac Asimov delves into, they learn to take care of us better than we could ourselves, even if it is against our will. I agree with Ihde that a realization of a totally technological existence is probably something we will stop short of, but I don't think that will prevent future generations from fantasizing about how such an advanced world could potentially solve all problems.
Cruel Intentions (haha get it? Like the stupid movie! Yeah I've got nothing witty...)
From the way the article describes this brain scanning device, it would seem probable that it could eventually be perfected into an instrument that could even measure the truth to a person's words in addition to their intentions. This of course opens up a whole new world of possibilities.
In the world I imagine, people would use this device when they want to know the truth about something. This use stretches to people who are getting married to an employer wanting more than a background check, and even on the president (there is a political joke in there somewhere).
However the wide uses of this device would have to be controlled. There maybe laws that would protect the people's minds or the device would be mercilessly abused by the people in power. In our democratic setting, I would like to think that there would be judges in place that decide (on a grading scale perhaps...?) when this technology should be used. These laws would be in place to protect the innocent from, forgive my crude language, having their minds literally raped.
Strong enforcement would have to be in place in order to keep the world from going insane. I say this because a world with this device would become a world without secrets and a world without secrets would decay into a world with strange forms of trust, relationships, and dullness. There would be people that would abuse this technology in so many ways that it is almost impossible to conceive. Instead of unveiling the truth, they may take this technology and shroud us in distrust and false impressions.
In a closing statement, I would not like to live in a world that could be so dramatically affected by this device. I feel that this technology has the possibility would transform the people using it into tyrants capable of reducing our world to a place of hate and mistrust.
In the world I imagine, people would use this device when they want to know the truth about something. This use stretches to people who are getting married to an employer wanting more than a background check, and even on the president (there is a political joke in there somewhere).
However the wide uses of this device would have to be controlled. There maybe laws that would protect the people's minds or the device would be mercilessly abused by the people in power. In our democratic setting, I would like to think that there would be judges in place that decide (on a grading scale perhaps...?) when this technology should be used. These laws would be in place to protect the innocent from, forgive my crude language, having their minds literally raped.
Strong enforcement would have to be in place in order to keep the world from going insane. I say this because a world with this device would become a world without secrets and a world without secrets would decay into a world with strange forms of trust, relationships, and dullness. There would be people that would abuse this technology in so many ways that it is almost impossible to conceive. Instead of unveiling the truth, they may take this technology and shroud us in distrust and false impressions.
In a closing statement, I would not like to live in a world that could be so dramatically affected by this device. I feel that this technology has the possibility would transform the people using it into tyrants capable of reducing our world to a place of hate and mistrust.
Brain Scanning
In the future brain scanning could be a commonly used practice. It is possible that it could be affective enough to use within legal matters. If this technology does become used, it will be a great advancement that would be used greatly. This new technology would be greatly help in discovering if people were guilty of crimes. Along with everything in the world, it would have it's negative qualities as well. The human mind is a very complex and difficult thing to understand. People can have negative thoughts about something or someone, but this does not mean that they were acted upon in a negative way or followed through with. I feel that it would be next to impossible to be able to pick between the real and momentary upset thoughts that we have in our minds. I do not think we could declare the difference and i feel this could cause several false accusations about innocence people. If most of the legal system was based on such a technology it would have to 100% accurate or there would be a lot of people in jail for something they did not do. If this technology became 100% accurate, it would have great advantages within court rooms and would be better than the lie detection test that can be manipulated and may not give reliable results. We would not need a courtroom or trial because we could just scan the brain to find the truth. On the other hand, there would be a big invasion of privacy upon scanning someones brain. We would have to give up some of our own freedoms to secure the truth and safety of everyone. Would this be worth it?
Blog #6 Brain Scanning
If in the near future brain scanning is believed to be affective enough to use within legal matters it could be a great advancement that would be of great use. Although this new technology would be of great help in telling whether people were guilty of crimes and such it would bring with it negative quality's as well. The human mind is a very complex and difficult thing to understand and people have negative thoughts about something or someone almost everyday that are never acted upon or followed through with. In scanning someones brain it seems that picking between the real and momentary upset thoughts would be almost impossible to declare the difference which could cause several false accusations about innocence people that didn't mean any harm but just had bad thoughts briefly enter their brain. If most of the legal system was based on such a technology it would almost certainly be of erroneous qualities.
Some of the advantages of such a technology would be the use of it within court rooms and replacing a poly gram test that can be manipulated and may not give reliable results. If this new technology was of decent reliability it could be used to declare the truth of someones statement on the witness stand or rather it could tell if a person on trial for a crime was innocence or guilty. If anything such a technology could manipulate suspects into telling the truth because of them thinking the jury will know it no matter what, causing suspects to confess rather then trying to lie. As it is seen such a technology has its advantages as well as disadvantages, but if used in the proper way within the proper boundaries it could be of great importance within the technology world.
Some of the advantages of such a technology would be the use of it within court rooms and replacing a poly gram test that can be manipulated and may not give reliable results. If this new technology was of decent reliability it could be used to declare the truth of someones statement on the witness stand or rather it could tell if a person on trial for a crime was innocence or guilty. If anything such a technology could manipulate suspects into telling the truth because of them thinking the jury will know it no matter what, causing suspects to confess rather then trying to lie. As it is seen such a technology has its advantages as well as disadvantages, but if used in the proper way within the proper boundaries it could be of great importance within the technology world.
Blog 5
I found this section of readings even more difficult to understand. However i found the idea of emdodiment technology very interesting. Especially in the example of the eye glasses. I myself wear glasses sometimes and don't think twice about them. I do feel as if they are a part of me that help me perceive the world around me. If I didn't have them on I wouldn't be able to see certain things as they were farther away in distance. I don't notice them on my face or find myself thinking about them constantly. They have become a part of my embodied experience. However if something is flawed with them and they become a problem or hinder my vision I become very aware of the presence. If they are functioning properly they remain transparent. I think that this is very interesting and true. It also holds true for other pieces of technology such as the telephone and several other objects.
Blog 5
I found this section of readings even more difficult to understand. However i found the idea of emdodiment technology very interesting. Especially in the example of the eye glasses. I myself wear glasses sometimes and don't think twice about them. I do feel as if they are a part of me that help me perceive the world around me. If I didn't have them on I wouldn't be able to see certain things as they were farther away in distance. I don't notice them on my face or find myself thinking about them constantly. They have become a part of my embodied experience. However if something is flawed with them and they become a problem or hinder my vision I become very aware of the presence. If they are functioning properly they remain transparent. I think that this is very interesting and true. It also holds true for other pieces of technology such as the telephone and several other objects.
Blog 4: Ihde Readings
I'd like to start out by saying that this text is very hard to read. It takes a lot of effort and re-reading to understand what the philosophers and what Ihde are trying to say. They sort of beat around the bush and don't come out and tell you what they mean. They give you a lot of examples or circumstances without saying their main point. However in regards to chapter three i did find something understandable and interesting. Heidegger used the example of the process of hammering in a nail. He stated how the hammer as an object or as equipment disappears during the process because you are not thinking about the hammer. I found this very interesting because it is true in a lot of cases with different pieces of technology. We are not necessarily aware of the object we are using unless someting is wrong with it or it hinders the overall process. Then we become aware of the object, and the flaw it has and then how to fix it. Once the object is working properly again we begin to slowly but surely start to not notice the object anymore.
Blog #6- "A Futuristic World"
It is the year 2075, and life is radically different than the seemingly "olden days" of the beginning of the century. Society has become almost unrecognizable due to the infiltration of many new and complicated technologies. Most people would claim that the value of life has improved significantly as a result of the inventions of technologies, which make everyday activities quick and effort free. The United States has become the forerunner in the technological world, while other nations have attempted to keep up with the quick pace of modern life. The concept of being an American citizen has changed drastically, while personal freedom possess a whole new meaning. It is hard to believe that the invention of one single device would have so much influence on almost every aspect of society.
A brain scanning machine has been invented, which is capable of reading one's thoughts, intentions, memories, and innermost desires. It is now impossible to be alone in you own head. Everyone's personal thoughts have now become publicly available to anyone who has access to the program. This technology threatens the ethical/moral realm of life by hindering one's free will. The United Sates was founded on the principles that each person regardless of affiliation, or race should receive equal rights under the law. The Bill of Rights extends to every valid citizen the freedom of speech, press, and the right to bear arms. The fourth amendment offers a citizen security in effects, person, and actions, making searches or impositions unreasonable without just cause. This scanning technology most definitely defies these national beliefs and traditions which were so important to our founding fathers. Due to this technology, people have lost faith in the government because their personal freedom has been threatened. A new vision of the ruling body as a conspiring, evil government, which spies on people's every thought and intention, has become popular. Life is very uneasy, because one constantly feels like someone is watching their every move.
In the legal realm, brain scanning has allowed police and investigators to catch a criminal, before a crime is even commit, simply because they thought about it. Murder and robbery rates have declined, but with a consequence. Using this form of technology would require that the public service force be increased significantly, because there are so many people to monitor on a constant basis. In a criminal investigation, the search for the perpetrator of the crime is much more direct and less time consuming. One problem that has arisen from the technologies use is the rise in false accusations. Many people have been punished for crimes they didn't commit, only thought about. The idea of the courtroom, including the jury and the judge, has become a thing of the past. There is no longer need for interrogation or a search for motives, because the technology's results are deemed guaranteed. It has become virtually impossible for a person to lie under oath or to the law enforcement body.
With all positives, inevitably come negative consequences. While this brain scanning technology can be completely useful and beneficiary, it must be in the "right hands" to do good. It would be very possible that anyone could hack into the system or get a hold of the technology, and use it to spy on innocent people. With this modernization comes a new found fear that anyone could invade your personal privacy. However this is a risk that must be taken in order for brain scanning to be used. Like any other device, abuse can occur depending on the individual. In the long run, the invention of this and other technologies like this was inevitable due to the resources available in the modern world. As humans we must adjust to this change in our environment, and try desperately to protect ourselves from these negative consequences. The idea of embodiment has become virtually less and less possible due to this modernization and expansion of the technological realm of society.
A brain scanning machine has been invented, which is capable of reading one's thoughts, intentions, memories, and innermost desires. It is now impossible to be alone in you own head. Everyone's personal thoughts have now become publicly available to anyone who has access to the program. This technology threatens the ethical/moral realm of life by hindering one's free will. The United Sates was founded on the principles that each person regardless of affiliation, or race should receive equal rights under the law. The Bill of Rights extends to every valid citizen the freedom of speech, press, and the right to bear arms. The fourth amendment offers a citizen security in effects, person, and actions, making searches or impositions unreasonable without just cause. This scanning technology most definitely defies these national beliefs and traditions which were so important to our founding fathers. Due to this technology, people have lost faith in the government because their personal freedom has been threatened. A new vision of the ruling body as a conspiring, evil government, which spies on people's every thought and intention, has become popular. Life is very uneasy, because one constantly feels like someone is watching their every move.
In the legal realm, brain scanning has allowed police and investigators to catch a criminal, before a crime is even commit, simply because they thought about it. Murder and robbery rates have declined, but with a consequence. Using this form of technology would require that the public service force be increased significantly, because there are so many people to monitor on a constant basis. In a criminal investigation, the search for the perpetrator of the crime is much more direct and less time consuming. One problem that has arisen from the technologies use is the rise in false accusations. Many people have been punished for crimes they didn't commit, only thought about. The idea of the courtroom, including the jury and the judge, has become a thing of the past. There is no longer need for interrogation or a search for motives, because the technology's results are deemed guaranteed. It has become virtually impossible for a person to lie under oath or to the law enforcement body.
With all positives, inevitably come negative consequences. While this brain scanning technology can be completely useful and beneficiary, it must be in the "right hands" to do good. It would be very possible that anyone could hack into the system or get a hold of the technology, and use it to spy on innocent people. With this modernization comes a new found fear that anyone could invade your personal privacy. However this is a risk that must be taken in order for brain scanning to be used. Like any other device, abuse can occur depending on the individual. In the long run, the invention of this and other technologies like this was inevitable due to the resources available in the modern world. As humans we must adjust to this change in our environment, and try desperately to protect ourselves from these negative consequences. The idea of embodiment has become virtually less and less possible due to this modernization and expansion of the technological realm of society.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Blog 6: Brain Scanning
What could the future be like with the use of brain scanning? The possiblities are endless. Let's imagine it's year 2050 and the United States has completely developed and mastered the art of brain scanning or so they think. They use brain scanning as a way to catch the bad guys before they are in fact bad. All efforts have gone into developing this and enacting it.
There is one main building where all thoughts are filtered in Washington D.C., but each city has their own individual unit. Men are in the "office" 24/7, to make sure to catch all possible bad or violent thoughts that come through the program. There are also men on call to be sent to stop an act before it may occur. This could mean having seconds before someone is going to commit a violent act. If you don't make it in time, you are partly to blame for the crime that takes place. If this program spits out your name, you are then arrested and kept for what your sentence for what that crime would have been. There are no longer any courts or judges, all faith is put into this new technology. Do you therefore believe that this program will never make any errors? To put your entire legal system in the hands of technology. In the big piture this wonderful addition has been made to our legal system that allows people to be caught for crimes without the crime actually occuring. What if the program shuts down? With this type of development someone always finds a way around... would that be possible with this? How could the program decifer between thoughts that one intends to act upon and ones that they never plan on doing anything? There is no case here for innocence. We wouldn't have enough room for all these people. If our whole world was focused on this type of technology I think there would be complete chaos. Humans would fear to think at all. I believe that this would takeover all together. We would walk around trying never to have a bad thought enter our minds.
There is one main building where all thoughts are filtered in Washington D.C., but each city has their own individual unit. Men are in the "office" 24/7, to make sure to catch all possible bad or violent thoughts that come through the program. There are also men on call to be sent to stop an act before it may occur. This could mean having seconds before someone is going to commit a violent act. If you don't make it in time, you are partly to blame for the crime that takes place. If this program spits out your name, you are then arrested and kept for what your sentence for what that crime would have been. There are no longer any courts or judges, all faith is put into this new technology. Do you therefore believe that this program will never make any errors? To put your entire legal system in the hands of technology. In the big piture this wonderful addition has been made to our legal system that allows people to be caught for crimes without the crime actually occuring. What if the program shuts down? With this type of development someone always finds a way around... would that be possible with this? How could the program decifer between thoughts that one intends to act upon and ones that they never plan on doing anything? There is no case here for innocence. We wouldn't have enough room for all these people. If our whole world was focused on this type of technology I think there would be complete chaos. Humans would fear to think at all. I believe that this would takeover all together. We would walk around trying never to have a bad thought enter our minds.
The Phenomenology of MacGyver (Blog #5)
I'm hopeful this post is not as ridiculous as the title might suggest....
Don Ihde’s “Phenomenology of Technics” (Chapter 5) is an extensive (and quite long) chapter that approaches a wide variety of topics. In the first half of the chapter, Ihde outlines three major ways in which humans relate with technology, or as he calls them, as only Don Ihde can, “focal human-technology relations” (98). They are: embodiment, hermeneutic, and alterity relations. Ihde’s discussion challenges conventional understandings of technology and humanity’s relationship to said technology.
In the opening paragraphs of the alterity section, Ihde criticizes purely objective assessments of technology. He comments that a “naïve objectivist account would likely begin with some attempt to circumscribe or define technologies by object characteristics” (97). He admits that objectivist accounts have something to offer, but ignoring the relativistic properties of tools and technology is myopic. One only needs to watch MacGyver once to realize that technologies can be used for anything—not just what they are, by definition, supposed to do. The show is famous for the ridiculous, but mostly plausible gadgets the hero, MacGyver, creates. In one episode, he created a defibrillator out of candlesticks and electrical cord—you probably would
n’t want to trust your life to that device. For a more approachable example, MacGyver has, in more than one episode, used a gun as a wrench (partially because he is diametrically opposed to the violent use of handguns and partially due to the fact that MacGyver can’t do anything easily). I wonder if Ihde would still characterize this interaction as I-Gun-world (the general intentionality diagram) since Mac uses it as a wrench. This use involves a variety of other factors. Maybe it just requires an entirely new diagram, or it may fall into a different category.
If it is the embodied relationship, where the technology withdraws and becomes symbiotically linked to its user, this diagram would follow:
(MacGyver-gun)-world
This scenario is still lacking. It implies that the gun is applied in the world as a gun. Perhaps another focal relationship is more fitting.
The hermeneutic relationship involves the use of some interpretive schema, such as a map or, another example Ihde uses, a thermometer at a nuclear power plant which in turn refers to the world. Such a relationship is characterized generally:
I-technology-world
This becomes further complicated in a situation where the hermeneutic, let’s say a robot arm (controlled by a panel), is used to move rocks. In this case, the panel controlling the robot “is immediately perceived” (86) not the robot or the world itself. This is diagrammed in a different way:
I-(technology-world)
He quickly adds that this can become “enigmatic” (86). In embodiment relations, such as the use of a gun or a wrench, the fact that the technology and person can become “partially” symbiotic is due to the capacity of the technology to “become perceptually transparent” (86). In the case of any hermeneutic device, however, it is not entirely clear if the panel or the referent, whether it be the world in the case of the thermometer, or the robot arm in my previous example, is the focus of human attention. Ihde lists a few “enigma positions” that result from this confusion. Essentially, it is very difficult to define where the microperceptual withdrawal takes place, but the basic diagram for hermeneutic relationships is:
I-(technology-world)
At first glance, it seems this diagram would not fit the MacGyver-gun scenario, but perhaps it does. For MacGyver to consider using the gun as a wrench, he had to be aware of certain macroperceptual concepts; particularly science. Ihde does not specifically refer to scientific or personal beliefs (such as Mac’s aversion to guns used-as-weapons) as hermeneutic relations, but perhaps they should be. They provide a mediation through which we understand technology and the world, as much as any thermometer or panel might. In addition, MacGyver needs to objectively consider the situation, which in and of itself requires a hermeneutic leap, to decide what sort of object could be used as a wrench. In this case, MacGyver’s understanding of physics, knowing that the gun can be used as a wrench, and his aversion to shooting firearms serve as the hermeneutic through which he employs the referent, the gun, and affects the world:
MacGyver-(gun-world)
This diagram implies that more than the simple use of a firearm is happening. This is a strong way to diagram the gun-wrench problem, but Ihde offers yet another possibility.
The final possible focal relationships are “alterity” relationships. The term alterity, Ihde notes, is derived from Emmanuel Levinas’s Totality and Infinity. In the work, alterity refers to “the radical difference posed to any human by another human, an other (and by the ultimately other, God)” (98). Ihde, however, uses other to refer to technology. This sort of focal relationship has more in common with the “autonomy of technology” viewpoint.
Interestingly, Ihde identifies film as a technology that is in between hermeneutic and alterity relations. He notes that film appears more “life-like” than reading or writing which it “retains the functional features of” (105) so it becomes “quasi-other” at the same time. He quickly adds that its “quasi-alterity” (105) is not apparent in media footage since it serves as a hermeneutic transparency to other realties.
Ihde also indicates the computer as a quasi-other technology, referencing the fact that many users develop anthropomorphic relationships with their word processors. Like many other computer systems, he says, fail to successfully “mimic bodily incarnations” but they nevertheless display “a quasi-otherness within the limits of linguistics and, more particularly, of logical behaviors” (106). Dreyfus spoke at length about this feigned embodiment and the danger that posed to humanity. Ihde, however, classifies works such as 2001: A Space Odyssey as romanticizing “quasi otherness” because they transform technology into complete others which Ihde does not see as possible. He says it retains its “unique role in the human-technology continuum of relations” (106)/.
Ihde diagrams all of this as well:
I---->technology-(-world)
In this relationship, Ihde adds, the world, “may remain context and background, and the technology may emerge as the foreground and focal quasi-other with which I momentarily engage” (107). He further notes that this “disengagement of the technology form its ordinary-use context is also what allows the technology to fall into various disengaged engagements which constitute activities as play, art or sport” (107).
What does this mean for the gun-wrench example? Well, it is not as though the gun becomes a quasi other, or the focus of the activity, the gun is still a tool. However, it briefly does become the focus of activity as MacGyver searches to find something to fill the role of a wrench t. This diagram, therefore, is possible:
MacGyver---->gun-(-world)
This diagram is not entirely applicable, however. It would apply to the series of MacGyver as a whole, though, because it falls into the film category that Ihde believes can be considered an alterity relation; especially since I’ve essentially treated the fictional character as a living entity throughout this post. I will not open that Pandora’s Box at this time, because I’ve already rambled far too long.
I will conclude with an entirely new diagram explaining the gun-wrench paradox. It reverses the alterity relationship. MacGyver is focused on a problem within the world and seeks out a technology to surpass an obstacle on his quest—probably to save a wounded puppy. Here it is:
MacGyver---->world-(-gun)
The gun is in the background, its use isn’t even significant. The personal obstacle within the world faced by our hero is.
In conclusion, I think Ihde’s opening analysis is intriguing and provides a means of considering the complex realities of human-technology relations. Obviously, and Ihde admits to this, the three focal relations he outlines are not the only way of considering human-technology relationships. In a world where it’s possible to create defibrillator out of candlesticks, no one ‘focal relationship” will suffice.
In the opening paragraphs of the alterity section, Ihde criticizes purely objective assessments of technology. He comments that a “naïve objectivist account would likely begin with some attempt to circumscribe or define technologies by object characteristics” (97). He admits that objectivist accounts have something to offer, but ignoring the relativistic properties of tools and technology is myopic. One only needs to watch MacGyver once to realize that technologies can be used for anything—not just what they are, by definition, supposed to do. The show is famous for the ridiculous, but mostly plausible gadgets the hero, MacGyver, creates. In one episode, he created a defibrillator out of candlesticks and electrical cord—you probably would
n’t want to trust your life to that device. For a more approachable example, MacGyver has, in more than one episode, used a gun as a wrench (partially because he is diametrically opposed to the violent use of handguns and partially due to the fact that MacGyver can’t do anything easily). I wonder if Ihde would still characterize this interaction as I-Gun-world (the general intentionality diagram) since Mac uses it as a wrench. This use involves a variety of other factors. Maybe it just requires an entirely new diagram, or it may fall into a different category.If it is the embodied relationship, where the technology withdraws and becomes symbiotically linked to its user, this diagram would follow:
(MacGyver-gun)-world
This scenario is still lacking. It implies that the gun is applied in the world as a gun. Perhaps another focal relationship is more fitting.
The hermeneutic relationship involves the use of some interpretive schema, such as a map or, another example Ihde uses, a thermometer at a nuclear power plant which in turn refers to the world. Such a relationship is characterized generally:
I-technology-world
This becomes further complicated in a situation where the hermeneutic, let’s say a robot arm (controlled by a panel), is used to move rocks. In this case, the panel controlling the robot “is immediately perceived” (86) not the robot or the world itself. This is diagrammed in a different way:
I-(technology-world)
He quickly adds that this can become “enigmatic” (86). In embodiment relations, such as the use of a gun or a wrench, the fact that the technology and person can become “partially” symbiotic is due to the capacity of the technology to “become perceptually transparent” (86). In the case of any hermeneutic device, however, it is not entirely clear if the panel or the referent, whether it be the world in the case of the thermometer, or the robot arm in my previous example, is the focus of human attention. Ihde lists a few “enigma positions” that result from this confusion. Essentially, it is very difficult to define where the microperceptual withdrawal takes place, but the basic diagram for hermeneutic relationships is:
I-(technology-world)
At first glance, it seems this diagram would not fit the MacGyver-gun scenario, but perhaps it does. For MacGyver to consider using the gun as a wrench, he had to be aware of certain macroperceptual concepts; particularly science. Ihde does not specifically refer to scientific or personal beliefs (such as Mac’s aversion to guns used-as-weapons) as hermeneutic relations, but perhaps they should be. They provide a mediation through which we understand technology and the world, as much as any thermometer or panel might. In addition, MacGyver needs to objectively consider the situation, which in and of itself requires a hermeneutic leap, to decide what sort of object could be used as a wrench. In this case, MacGyver’s understanding of physics, knowing that the gun can be used as a wrench, and his aversion to shooting firearms serve as the hermeneutic through which he employs the referent, the gun, and affects the world:
MacGyver-(gun-world)
This diagram implies that more than the simple use of a firearm is happening. This is a strong way to diagram the gun-wrench problem, but Ihde offers yet another possibility.
The final possible focal relationships are “alterity” relationships. The term alterity, Ihde notes, is derived from Emmanuel Levinas’s Totality and Infinity. In the work, alterity refers to “the radical difference posed to any human by another human, an other (and by the ultimately other, God)” (98). Ihde, however, uses other to refer to technology. This sort of focal relationship has more in common with the “autonomy of technology” viewpoint.
Interestingly, Ihde identifies film as a technology that is in between hermeneutic and alterity relations. He notes that film appears more “life-like” than reading or writing which it “retains the functional features of” (105) so it becomes “quasi-other” at the same time. He quickly adds that its “quasi-alterity” (105) is not apparent in media footage since it serves as a hermeneutic transparency to other realties.
Ihde also indicates the computer as a quasi-other technology, referencing the fact that many users develop anthropomorphic relationships with their word processors. Like many other computer systems, he says, fail to successfully “mimic bodily incarnations” but they nevertheless display “a quasi-otherness within the limits of linguistics and, more particularly, of logical behaviors” (106). Dreyfus spoke at length about this feigned embodiment and the danger that posed to humanity. Ihde, however, classifies works such as 2001: A Space Odyssey as romanticizing “quasi otherness” because they transform technology into complete others which Ihde does not see as possible. He says it retains its “unique role in the human-technology continuum of relations” (106)/.
Ihde diagrams all of this as well:
I---->technology-(-world)
In this relationship, Ihde adds, the world, “may remain context and background, and the technology may emerge as the foreground and focal quasi-other with which I momentarily engage” (107). He further notes that this “disengagement of the technology form its ordinary-use context is also what allows the technology to fall into various disengaged engagements which constitute activities as play, art or sport” (107).
What does this mean for the gun-wrench example? Well, it is not as though the gun becomes a quasi other, or the focus of the activity, the gun is still a tool. However, it briefly does become the focus of activity as MacGyver searches to find something to fill the role of a wrench t. This diagram, therefore, is possible:
MacGyver---->gun-(-world)
This diagram is not entirely applicable, however. It would apply to the series of MacGyver as a whole, though, because it falls into the film category that Ihde believes can be considered an alterity relation; especially since I’ve essentially treated the fictional character as a living entity throughout this post. I will not open that Pandora’s Box at this time, because I’ve already rambled far too long.
I will conclude with an entirely new diagram explaining the gun-wrench paradox. It reverses the alterity relationship. MacGyver is focused on a problem within the world and seeks out a technology to surpass an obstacle on his quest—probably to save a wounded puppy. Here it is:
MacGyver---->world-(-gun)
The gun is in the background, its use isn’t even significant. The personal obstacle within the world faced by our hero is.
In conclusion, I think Ihde’s opening analysis is intriguing and provides a means of considering the complex realities of human-technology relations. Obviously, and Ihde admits to this, the three focal relations he outlines are not the only way of considering human-technology relationships. In a world where it’s possible to create defibrillator out of candlesticks, no one ‘focal relationship” will suffice.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Blog 6- brain scanning story
This article on brain scanning was very interesting
here's my story:
Imagine it's the year 2100 and by now hundred of advances have been made in neuroscience technology. the need for jails on the mainland has virtually been eliminated. A huge world jail/community has now been created on the island of Hawaii. It is equipped with state of the art security technology that allows people to go in but never leave. On the bright side these people get to live on hawaii for the rest of their lives.
Let me give you some background as to how this came about. Around the year 2010 a new technology began to be developed that could read people's minds and thoughts. The governments of the world first sought out this technology to gaining intelligence from high profile terrorist and criminals and others that refused to speak. This proved to be quite an undertaking but was working in preventing huge terrorist attacks and mass genocides from occuring. High profile terrorist and criminals were caught from the use of this technology leading to the eventual eradication of all terrorist cells throughout the world.
Later on with more applications of this technology laws were passed to include these scanners in all public places. You could no longer enter any public place without going through these things and even ordinary citizens began to put them in their homes as part of their home security systems. If when you went through these brain scanners your thoughts were seen to be malicious and criminal a signal would be sent to the local world security office. at first, you would be sent to the local jail but quickly these filled up and soon all the countries of the world were having problems of where to put thes malicious-thinking individuals. After thinking about it a lot, the United Sates stilling being a major world power, decided the perfect site would hawaii for a world jail/ community. It would be equipped with the highest form of security technology available. and all these malicious thinking individuals would be sent there away from their country.
This lead to no one any longer needing jails and turned most countries into a form of the long imagined utopia. but those malicious-individuals numbering quite a few million on that island started developing ways to escape. You see there was no brain scanner on this island and this concentration of like minded individuals was to bring about the end of the world as we know it.
Little did the good-willed humans know that this technology was about to turn on them more than they could ever imagine...
The End.
here's my story:
Imagine it's the year 2100 and by now hundred of advances have been made in neuroscience technology. the need for jails on the mainland has virtually been eliminated. A huge world jail/community has now been created on the island of Hawaii. It is equipped with state of the art security technology that allows people to go in but never leave. On the bright side these people get to live on hawaii for the rest of their lives.
Let me give you some background as to how this came about. Around the year 2010 a new technology began to be developed that could read people's minds and thoughts. The governments of the world first sought out this technology to gaining intelligence from high profile terrorist and criminals and others that refused to speak. This proved to be quite an undertaking but was working in preventing huge terrorist attacks and mass genocides from occuring. High profile terrorist and criminals were caught from the use of this technology leading to the eventual eradication of all terrorist cells throughout the world.
Later on with more applications of this technology laws were passed to include these scanners in all public places. You could no longer enter any public place without going through these things and even ordinary citizens began to put them in their homes as part of their home security systems. If when you went through these brain scanners your thoughts were seen to be malicious and criminal a signal would be sent to the local world security office. at first, you would be sent to the local jail but quickly these filled up and soon all the countries of the world were having problems of where to put thes malicious-thinking individuals. After thinking about it a lot, the United Sates stilling being a major world power, decided the perfect site would hawaii for a world jail/ community. It would be equipped with the highest form of security technology available. and all these malicious thinking individuals would be sent there away from their country.
This lead to no one any longer needing jails and turned most countries into a form of the long imagined utopia. but those malicious-individuals numbering quite a few million on that island started developing ways to escape. You see there was no brain scanner on this island and this concentration of like minded individuals was to bring about the end of the world as we know it.
Little did the good-willed humans know that this technology was about to turn on them more than they could ever imagine...
The End.
Blog 5
Even though I found this last chapter of Ihde a bit confusing, I was able to draw some conclusions. Such as the glasses he describes. when we first put on glasses we notice them as they reshape the world in which we have experiences. However, over time we embody this technology to the point we dont even notice them unless we lack the technolgy which is very much similar to Heidegger's hammer. Same thing with the telephone... when we use the telephone our bodies take on a sense of embodiment through the phone and it seems as though the person we are talk9ing with is rightt there beside us even though in actuality they may be half way around the world. Just like Ihde has mentioned before, our technologies relate us to our world by the I-technology-world or other times, I-(technology-world). but again I found this chapter very confusing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)