Philosophy 101 Unit 1

When you post User Content to the Site, you authorize and direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in order to facilitate the posting and storage of the User Content on the Site. By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing. You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content. Facebook does not assert any ownership over your User Content; rather, as between us and you, subject to the rights granted to us in these Terms, you retain full ownership of all of your User Content and any intellectual property rights or other proprietary rights associated with your User Content.

Please post a comment by Tuesday’s class for participation credit for this week.

Prompts and Questions:

• “Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” - Ben Franklin. Is Franklin right?
• Dreyfus is attempting to combat the inflated hype surrounding the Internet. In what ways has the Internet been hyped? Does it live up to the hype, or does it fall flat?
• Dreyfus makes a big deal out of the failure of search. What similarities do you see between his arguments and Searle’s arguments against strong AI? Is search really a failure? If not, what does this imply about artificial intelligence?
• Dreyfus thinks the body is the source of meaning, relevance, and significance. Why are Dreyfus’ arguments for this view? What implications does this hold for our engagement with the Internet? Is Dreyfus right to be skeptical of the Internet?
• Dreyfus thinks that distance learning is necessarily deficient. Are his criticisms reasonable? If you have had any experience with distance learning, do his criticisms ring true?
• Dreyfus focuses much of his criticisms at the very notion of ‘telepresence’. He says “Whatever hugs do for people, I’m quite sure telehugs won’t do it.” Are interpersonal relationships over the Internet necessarily deficient? What might Clark say in response?
• Dreyfus thinks that the Internet is symptomatic of the nihilism of the contemporary age, and he sides with Kierkegaard in seeing this nihilism reflected in the press, the media, and the way people behave on the Internet. Is the modern age really nihilistic? If so, is this nihilism a product of the technology or does it reflect something deeper about contemporary culture, or perhaps about human nature?
• Does the internet represent an overload of information? Is this dangerous to our democracy, or to our individual freedoms? Is this something we are prepared to handle, or does the technology move too quickly for us to keep up?
• In the conclusion of the book, Dreyfus distinguishes his criticisms of the Internet from Plato’s criticisms of written language. What is Plato’s view, and why does Dreyfus think his criticisms are different?
• Should the network be neutral? Do the telecommunications companies responsible for building the infrastructure of the network have a legitimate claim to those pipes? Should the internet be a public utility like water and electricity, or is it a luxury item that is rightfully under the control of private interests?

Also, for those interested in the security issues we discussed in class, I strongly recommend watching the Frontline documentary Spying on the Home Front (which you can stream online). It is extremely well done, and goes in depth to both sides of the argument. 

Also, check the following resources on the NSA Wiretapping scandal:

NSA has massive database of Americans’ phone calls (USA Today, who originally broke the story)
NSA Warrantless Surveillance Controversy [Wikipedia]
AT&T Whistle blower’s Evidence [Wired]
Discussion of Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) [Wikipedia]

Net Neutrality:

Vint Cerf (Father of the Internet and Chief Internet Evangelist for Google) on Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality is about freedom of speech
Lessig on the Law

So I don’t know about you guys, but upon completion of On the Internet, I’m rather convinced by many of his arguments. I think it’s interesting that he cites various people that were convinced that differing forms of technology would replace the chalkboard and textbooks in the classroom. We still have chalkboards and textbooks for many of our classes. I believe what he says about the fact that the technological classroom can’t (for the time being) replace the experience of being seated in a lecture. In order to truly learn something, beyond the plug and chug degree, we need to have hands on access to the material. In addition, there are times during a lecture that a question arises. Since we are seated in class, we can ask the question when it is relevant and on the tip of our tongues. Asking questions post lecture/via e-mail just doesn’t fulfill that same need. Without a doubt, technology enhances the learning experience, but cannot replace it all together. You all are familiar with smartboards and even simple projectors or lazer pointers. Even microphones help with a sizable lecture. I never considered the perspective that Dreyfus takes in explaining the importance of a classroom setting. Everything lies in the risk. This element motivates the students as well as the teacher. This also ensures that the teacher will adapt per the mood of the classroom to ensure that a majority of the students are engaged. Such adaptability is not possible with an online class. This same risk comes into play with general interactions online. A level of trust is necessary in any type of relationship. Online, there is no way to gain a sense of trust. Sometimes, this is even hard to establish face to face. I agree with Dreyfus that communication involves much more than just verbal language. Gestures, intonations, expressions, and especially body language reports much more than mere words can tell. Spending a few days in a closed environment with a business associate is a good way to determine their integrity. Though, sometimes even with this people fail to distinguish whether or not they can really trust someone.

On page 21, Dreyfus claims that it’s important to acknowledge the importance of our bodies in making sense of the world. He cites that “our form of life is organized by and for beings embodied like us….that move forward more easily than backwards; that get tired…” I believe that this is a faulty argument against AI robots of sorts. I know that he’s harping on the notion that we can’t rely on machines to do the work that only humans have an understanding of, but what if we could program machines to accurately catalog and database everything on the internet per relevance? Isn’t it a good thing that robots don’t get tired? that they don’t act like humans in terms of our deficiencies?

What do you guys think about Dreyfus? Are you moderately convinced?

So I missed the Gehlen lecture(s). I have a ton of questions. Instead of meeting up with Daniel and talking to him individually, I figured I’d give y’all a chance to prove your stuff.

All of my questions will be directly from the text, as in I’ll be quoting each segment that confuses me (just a heads up). This is going to be rather nitpicky…but bear with me. I may bring up lines that don’t matter that much, but I just want to be sure.

Page 88

At the bottom of this page is a little portion to explain further the notion of us being “constitutionally embryonic through and through” based on a previous work by Gehlen. In the blurb at the bottom it states, “on evidence from comparative embryology…the human gestation period is too short (by several months) to bring the human fetus to the same level of maturity at birth as for the fetus of closely related species.” What is he trying to say here? Is this arguing that in order to correct our frailness/vulnerability upon birth, a few more months in the womb would be a solution? What other species is he talking about? This is the first time I’ve really noticed or translated what a philosopher said as suggesting that we are inferior to other animals from a biological perspective. It’s possible that he’s not even referring to our vulnerability though he does say we are “Poorly equipped as he is with sensory apparatus, naturally defenseless, naked….possessing only inadequate instincts, man is a being whose existence necessarily depends upon action.” I’m not really sure how these two concepts are connected (at least in how I’m translating the text).

Page 89

“It {I believe this pronoun refers to technique} truly mirrors man–like man himself it is clever, it represents something intrinsically improbable, it bears a complex, twisted relationship to nature.” I don’t really understand what is meant by a twisted relationship to nature. Is this what Dan kept talking about in terms of the mirror concept?

Page 91

“The tendency, which characterizes the progress of technique…is ultimately rooted in a mysterious law pertaining to the realm of the mind….Nonorganic nature is more knowable than organic nature.” Why is this? Is this because we “created” or rather “manipulated the creation of” inorganic substances? We still don’t know the consequences of the inorganic, and I thought that was one thing Gehlen was harping at earlier in the article.

Page 92

I don’t get the quote by Bergson. I understand the first part, but not the actual quoted material. As in I get this segment: “intellect can only be judged in relation to action, and its primary aim is the production of artifacts”

This is what I don’t get: “‘Therefore…we may expect to find that whatever is fluid in the real will escape (the intellect) in part. Our intelligence, as it leaves the hands of nature, has for its chief object the unorganized solid.’”

Page 94

What is meant by saying that “the natural sciences attained the modern configuration, that is, they become analytical-experimental” ? I think I’m missing this point because my knowledge of history is somewhat lacking. Is it just that now beliefs were open to be tested in scientific manners and questioned in the same sense rather than relying on religion, or rather, Gehlen’s notion of magic, to explain everything?

At the bottom, there is mention of the third factor that allowed for astonishing accomplishments of the modern era. What were the first two? I seem to have missed them in my hyper attention to the article. (I guess you could call that inattention) :OP

Page 95

Can someone elaborate on this point and explain how/what is meant by it?

“The notion that technique constitutes ‘applied science’ is obsolete and old-fashioned: today the three establishments–industry, technique, and natural science–presuppose one another.” How do they presuppose one another? Is this just a quick way to say that they completely overlap and rely on another?

Page 96

What is meant by “the capitalist mode of production” ? Is this suggesting that progress only occurs when it is financed? Is this a criticism?

Just two lines down, Gehlen makes a claim that seems very blanketed statement. I’m not sure where the foundation for this claim is, though I might just be missing the point entirely or doubting what I think it means.

“One cannot expect such historically unique and radical processes to remain without influence upon the consciousness of the men involved in them.”

Is this in relation to the claims made by either Clark or Dreyfus about the replacement that occurs because of technology with human relations to one another? As in, the whole notion that your in multiple places at once because of technology?

Page 97

What is meant by “technique proper” in this section?

“It is easy to see that this definition {an attempt to bring about changes to the advantage of men, by diverting things from their own path and toward our own service} can encompass both magic and technique proper, thus both supernatural and natural magic.”

Page 98

“This primary human interest in the regularity of the processes of nature deserves emphasis: It betrays a semi-instinctual need for stability in the environment” I feel like the word “betrays” is the opposite from what is meant in this article. If anything, what we are missing is that the only stability we can count on in life but especially in nature is instability.

As you all know, I get rather annoyed when philosophers speak of G-d or some type of G-d like figure. I feel that is the impact of their society (or their time) affecting their brilliant work. I may be mistaken about this next portion, but it seems like he’s referring to G-d getting involved or that humans have G-dlike abilities. If it is the latter, then he’s betraying his argument about magic unless I’m completely misunderstanding his point.

“Also, the magical forces with which the world is filled are neither arbitrary nor spontaneous;one can set them into motion by means of the appropriate, precisely repeated formulas, after which they operate under their own impulse, necessarily and automatically.”

Isn’t this what people believed once upon a time, or I guess you can argue that religious fanatics still believe in this? Hence the rain dances and other acts? Who is this one he speaks of? Anyone? That defies his argument per my understanding.

Page 99

What is meant by this phrase?

“The fascination with automatisms is a prerational, transpractical impulse, which previously, for millennia, found expression in magic..” Is this suggesting that before we were able to rationally explain certain things, we found answers in magic?

Can someone explain the “dumb process of nature?”

I’ll stop there, perhaps some answers to these questions will help me understand the rest that I’m questioning

Thanks All!

            Distance learning.  It feels more and more like a philosophy class when one must clarify the terminology involved in any question.  What is learning?  If we’re going to deconstruct what we know to be “education,” into a distant, media-based forum, then the definition and purpose of learning must be observed.

Online or correspondence courses sound great if their purpose is to learn a skill or specific, factually-based information. Learning something practical to put to use in the “real world” is a possibility with distance learning.  To a lesser extent, one could achieve the same goal by reading a book.  Maybe it’s easier to learn a skill (typing, gardening, simple algebra, locksmithing, etc.) with a teacher to help, but it’s not impossible to do it on one’s own.  Even learning the principles and details of certain subjects (history, grammar, languages) is possible without the traditional classroom atmosphere.  But can analysis happen?  Can one synthesize information in a vacuum, even if that vacuum contains all the world’s knowledge at one’s fingertips?  If education were all about vocation, then we wouldn’t bother with classes grounded in the liberal arts.  Distance learning can only accomplish specifics, it has no precedence over the realm of holistics.  It cannot make well-rounded students, much less well-rounded human beings.

It makes sense to have some sort of hybrid blend in teaching styles.  Just because we have the technology doesn’t mean it’s the best option in every situation.  But there’s also no reason for us to go Luddite and return to one-room schoolhouses and individual chalk boards.  Obviously what we talk about in class is all theory, but to talk about the internet like it’s the be-all and end-all of our lives is absurd.  We should work to separate ourselves from its all-encompassing nature.  Just because it’s big and just because it’s there (everywhere, that is) doesn’t mean it should dictate our lives.

I realize the argument goes down a slippery slope, but if being with other people doesn’t matter in the context of school and learning, then where does it matter?  Friendships can occur over the internet, dating as well.  What about family? Long distance family?  We don’t technically need companionship to ensure human survival, since we have sperm banks, right?  And if people are already looking into simulating sex, then we don’t need to be with others for pleasure, either.  But all these possibilities for us, as “cyborgs,” don’t take into account all the psychological studies about companionship.  Babies who aren’t touched don’t develop as fast or as wholly as babies who are touched.  What about the monkey who chose the surrogate mother made of cloth instead of the surrogate mother made of wire, even though the latter was dispensing milk?  While Dreyfus may make some claims that can’t be verified, Clark seems to ignore a lot of the facts that make us human.  He sees only the parts of humanity that can prove his theory.  The fact of the matter is that humans do need companionship, and no matter how much we utilize outside tools, no matter how much everything can be considered a tool, no one can survive without other people. 

I’m getting ready to post some links for understanding the internet, but in the meantime I suggest you watch Frontline’s documentary Spying on the Homefront.

Remember, screening this Thursday at 9pm.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I was rather spooked after watching this movie. I didn’t realize how widely used this font was. It has or rather it is a monopolized font. From now on, I know that a winning font for my course work is heveltica. In a way, one can argue that this type face has become it’s own utopia. We, willingly or unwillingly, submit based on a lack of alternatives. That isn’t to say that there aren’t alternative fonts, but rather that there aren’t alternative fonts that carry as much weight and meaning (varying) as this one solidary font has. The people in the film discuss the font as if it were revolutionary. For me, this concept of fonts carrying such importance and weight is odd. Examples from the film to demonstrate how widely used the font is include Metlife, Greyhound, Jeep, BMW, Toyota, Target, Tupperware etc. the list goes on. This is a font that truly has no boundaries. It isn’t limited to a certain category of items or genre nor is it limited to a geographic location. Does this notion scare anyone else?

Several lines from the film struck me as I rewatched it:

“…to clear all this horrible, kind of like, burden of history”

“Governments and corporations love helvetica, it makes them seem neutral and efficient. The smoothness of the letters makes them seem almost human. That’s a quality they all want to convey because they have the image they’re always fighting that they are authoritarian, bureaucratic, that you lose yourself in them, oppressive. So instead, by using helvetica, they can come off seeming more accessible, transparent, and accountable, which are all buzzwords for what corporations and governments are supposed to be today. They don’t have to be accessible, transparent or accountable, but they can look that way.” –Leslie Swan

Do these segments frighten you guys? Now, we’re talking about a font, which is arguably not a big deal. When these kinds of phrases are attached to anything else, skeptics start to question the situation. Why haven’t we? This font is used by the IRS on tax forms, the EPA, and even NASA. The beauty of this type face is that it can and does become whatever the used envisions it to be.

If anyone has delved into utopic novels of sorts, then you will agree that the most effective utopias are the one’s where inhabitants don’t notice the utopia they belong to. Sometimes, they may recognize and considerably appreciate the system they live in, but they don’t understand the complexity of the situation. At times, they don’t even know the TRUE history of where their system derived or what came before (sound familiar?). It also may be the case that they aren’t aware of any other options. Arguably, they may not care to know anything else. Heveltica is a prime example of this. So much is embodied in this typeface. As commented by Leslie Swan, “Heveltica has almost like a perfect balance of push and pull in its letters and that perfect balance is sort of saying to us…don’t worry, any of the problems you’re having or problems in the world, or problems getting through the subway or finding a bathroom, all those problems aren’t going to spill over, they’ll be contained, and in fact, maybe they don’t exist.” I return to my previous statement, with anything else, there would be an uproar if such a claim were made. The severe manipulation is just scary is it not?

I wanted to write a post on this movie screening because lately I have become very keen of the importance of awareness as it relates to conscious and subconscious ongoings. I rewatched segments of the movie to get the lines exactly as they were said. Some people, artists of sorts and typographers have launched their own rebellions; however, mainstream corporations still use heveltica. Everyone uses it. The end of the movie truly speaks to my grand, overwhelming point. Visual and graphic communication is so important to our generation. “They’re starting to see graphic communication as an expression of their own identity.” Facebook and myspace allow features for us to customize whenever we desire. Our identity can be changed in a matter of seconds. This customization includes altering fonts to express how we feel. All of this is in the effort to ensure that our profile can adequately represent who we are, or rather what we want to become.

Below the jump you will find the rubric for the Midterm. If you plan on doing a rewrite, or want me to regrade your exam, or have any question about the grading, let me know. If you want to know your current standing in the class, send me an email and I’ll send you what I have so far. 

Read Dreyfus through chapter 2 for Tuesday, and prepare to finish the book by next Thursday. 

Read the rest of this entry »

• Are we natural born cyborgs? Is the mind extended? Are our technological devices part of our (soft) selves?
• Does Clark’s revision of the old mind-body problem solve any of the Cartesian worries we encountered at the beginning of the semester? If so, which ones? If not, why not?
• Which examples in the text did you find especially convincing? Which ones were unconvincing? How does this hurt Clark’s argument?
• What similarities do you see between Clark and Gehlen? What are the differences between these two views?
• Clark boils down our interactions with technology to two fundamental dimensions: the transparency of the interface and the resulting expansion of our capacities. Are there any other ways in which technology might affect our cognitive abilities?
• Clark says the human brain is unique in its plasticity and opportunism. Is he right, or is there some other source of uniqueness? If so, does this fall into the Cartesian problem of dualism?
• Clark downplays the importance of the barrier between biology and technology. Is this barrier important? Why or why not?
• Clark says that language itself is an example of an external prop that not only extends our cognitive capacities but restructures the way we think about the world. Is language an example of an external tool?

In honor that people will be going to the polls in close to 8 hours, I thought I would write a lovely little post that ties in voter fraud to our discussions on Tech.

According to Gehlen, he believes that technology is in and of itself neutral. I would normally disagree with that statement. Afterall, I always argue that yes, the gun may not kill people, but it makes killing people much easier, and hence can make murders out of those who wouldn’t normally be. However, on this occasion I shall take a different approach.

We are all firmilliar with voting machines, either from the media or by actually using one. When one stops to think about, such machines were really designed to simplify the voting process. The ballots would no longer need to be hand counted, delaying election results. All one would need to do is talley up the ballots from each canidate. I worked as a judge of election during the primaries in Chicago. Their were two types of ballots, the electronic machine which would print out a copy of the ballot for you to check to make sure everything was ok, and a paper ballot which you would connect a line with a special pen. While the electronic machines is obviously…electric, the paper ballot would be run through a machine, which kept tabs on the votes and the number of ballots. At the end all the scores would be tabulated. The point I am really getting at is, this process in theory, makes things extremely simple.

But of course, even if the technology is indead neutral, people seem to like to like to fuck the system. Companies it would seem, have a vested interest in who wins. So then, is the technology neutral? In this case, I would say probably so. People have been trying to steal elections for years. Hell I should know, I’m from Chicago, the city where the dead vote! Voter fraud has been going on for generations. It is all about paying the right people. It just happens to have gotten much easier. All one needs to do is make sure that there is no paper trail, and that the machines are programmed correctly so that say a canidate doesn’t start out with 0 votes, but negative votes. But I digress.

Essentially I can this being interpreted either way. Yes, electronic voting had obviously been designed to easy the stress that comes along with counting ballots. They were invented with the idea of simplifying peoples lives. Unfortunately, greedy and corrupt people seem to not think that was good enough. So is this technology neutral or not? Have elections been getting stolen for years and this is just the new generation of it, or has this made it so much easier that it cannot be thought up as neutral? As much as I hate ending posts with questions, I feel it will at least generate discussion.

Technology has made living in the 21st century very convenient. It is amazing how technology brings people around the world closer together and has helped us achieve our every day goals in a fraction of the time that it took previous generations. Our cell phones, laptops, T.V.s, cars, and various devices have become natural extensions of ourselves. If you leave the house for the day without your cell phone you will feel like there is something missing. We heavily rely on modern devices. Modern technology is great, but it definitely has some drawbacks. The biggest drawbacks that stand out to me are how peace of mind and the ability to entertain ourselves (without technology) is slowly diminishing in today’s society. The iPhone is a great example of a device that has the potential of taking away peace of mind. You can send and receive numerous amounts information from the palm of your hand in real time. It keeps you up to date and organized. On the other hand, it is an awful device…not only is it a cell phone but it’s a computer too. It’s every form of communication and your day-to-day obligations all packed into a sliver of plastic that fits in your palm. This device can easily rob you of your peace of mind. You get every form of digital bombardment on the iPhone. If you receive an email on it and you don’t respond in a “timely” manor you will probably end up offending someone. Therefore you have obligation to always respond and check the your phone frequently. In general, cell phones (without all the added bells and whistles of an iPhone) rob you of your peace of mind. Have you ever been reading a great book or spending quality time with someone and the cell phone rings? You immediately shift your thoughts into what the call might be about and what your obligations that call are. This might change what you are doing in the moment for better or for worse, but it still took you out of the moment. Cell phones keep us always planning what’s next instead of living in the moment. Our generation is losing out on having some peace of mind due to our constant reliance on technology.

If you had a day with nothing to do, could you occupy yourself for the whole day (and not be bored) without using any modern technology? I think most of us would answer no. I’ve always heard stories from the “Old Timers” about how great it was to grow up in a generation without modern devices. The “Old Timers” say that life without some modern technology was more peaceful and people could entertain themselves by spending time with people or by engaging in other meaningful things. The landline phone for previous generations was just a means for communicating for a short amount of time. Today, it is more common for people to spend time communicating with each other though the internet and phone rather than actually being together. Many people turn on the T.V. or spend endless hours in front the computer to occupy their time instead of finding more productive ways to pass the time. The children of previous generations had to figure out how to entertain themselves with what they had. In today’s society parents just flip on the T.V. and it mindlessly entertains kids for hours. In previous generations little kids could run around and ring each other’s doorbell to play. Today, parents make phone calls to prearrange “play dates” for their kids to spend time with other kids. How strange is that? Technology is definitely a majority of the blame along with other things. Again, I’m not claiming that modern technology is bad, but that it has made a certain aspect of human interaction start to diminish.

With the study of genetics become so critical and the finishing of the Human Genome Project in 2003, we begin to wonder if we will soon be able to change a person at the molecular level that their DNA could be changed and naturally create a different person. The ethical and biological implications of genetic engineering could result in super soldiers, people with genetically enhanced vision, hearing, smell and other senses. People will be able to see the other’s senses, and make a squad work more effectively as a team. (When I think of this stuff, the first thought in my mind is the series of Metal Gear Solid games, especially the fourth installment in the series, so that’s where most of my references will come from and the examples that follow) The genetic modifications that soldiers go through in Metal Gear Solid 4 also come with the consequences of being constantly monitored and regulated by the system of AI regulating the battlefield, as there is a constant state of war in the world, as the war economy drives the world in this not too distant future.

The nanomachines that are inside all of the soldiers are a technological wonder if this future was only possible. They help regulate the soldier’s well being and their mental state by forcing the release of certain hormones to control their emotions in battle and keep the soldier calm. The potential of the soldiers in battle is increased by ridiculous standards. Their pain can be controlled and can fight through just about anything. The Metal Gear Solid games have always been questioning the validity of the enhancement of the individual since the first game when the human genome was first cracked. Even your own legendary hero, Solid Snake is a product of genetic engineering. He is created with the DNA from big boss, the greatest soldier of the early Cold War. Snake himself is engineered to experience an advanced aging process and die at an early age.

Is genetic engineering a form of technology? Or is it playing god? I think it is a beautiful technology that can have even greater consequences, and for that reason, we should stay away from it. We could end diseases and make the world a better place, but at the same time, there are lots of thing that can bring an end to what we know in the world now and forevor.

According to the ideology of Heidegger, he would most likely agree with the following statement: the Nazis didn’t murder millions of Jews, but rather, the fire from the pit burnings, the system of tubes that released the poison in the gas chambers, and high powered assault rifles killed them. This would contradict the supposed neutrality of technology that Gehlen suggests. Subtle knocks on Heidegger being a Nazi aside…

I think it is part of human nature to point the finger and inherently place the blame on anyone or in this case anything other than yourself, but to say something like the statement above or one that asserts that technology is the reason people are dying is very farfetched and a cop-out in my opinion (not that it really matters). These excuses are merely using technology as a scapegoat to camouflage the intent(s) of mankind. If a gun is lying around, I’m not going to start capping people. Just as if a knife were in my hand, helping me cut the turkey at Thanksgiving, I’m not going to be tempted to 180 it into grandpa’s throat. The people that perform heinous acts such as these are very motivated, and use whatever resources that are available to reach selfish ends such as the ones I suggest.

Heidegger also asserts that the mere presence of certain technology or even technology in general changes our perception of the world as we know it, so the presence of guns, bombs, etc. would influence us in a way that would persuade us to use them to achieve a certain means, but I wouldn’t say that it is solely the presence that changes our perceptive, but it is the intent in which they are designed and the technology’s purpose. We intend for guns, bombs, etc. to murder people just as some intend a baseball bat or a kitchen fork to murder people. We shape the purpose of certain objects by the way we go about using them or the way they are created to be used (people are creating weapons to kill, not bake cookies or sell bibles… although, that instance could possibly be argued otherwise). Some people have a plan and a design to kill more people faster and more efficiently, so we created things like guns and bombs. I wouldn’t blame all of this destruction and pollution and whatever else on the fact that artillery, nuclear power plants, etc. exists and are speeding these processes up, but rather certain people intend for them to be that way as to achieve some selfish goal.

Eh, I hope I didn’t miss the point regarding the neutrality of technology…

The differences between Gehlen and Heidegger are very pronounced, but I still have trouble siding with either one absolutely - both have very powerful arguments.  I’m going to analyze both in some detail in an effort to ally myself with one of them.  Here I go:

Gehlen claims that technology is not fully understood.  Humans, in his view, are a deficient race that alleviate their shortcomings through technological means.  The broadening of my definition of technology was initially difficult for me to deal with - I had thought of technology mainly by its secondary definition, “machinery and equipment derived from scientific knowledge,” not just as any application of such knowledge.  The argument that humans are overly dependent on technology is an easy one to make, but our relationship with technology is harder to clarify.  Just as we evolve, so does technology; the mechanism is similar - less efficient or desirable technologies are rejected in favor of more appealing advancements.  Ironically, the evolution of our technology can have an inverse relationship with our own - optical lenses, for example, eliminate the need to select for good eyesight while medicines reduce our ability to select against susceptibility to disease.  These are only two of the many ways technology has lowered the bar for survivability.  A possible future step would be the integration of humans with their technology - cyborgs.  We would no longer have any means through which to select superior mates, as we would approach a sort of perfection.  This junction would, perhaps, finally remove the “deficiencies” Gehlen observes in humans.  Man would, then, be “complete” by his standards - we would have transcended our natural deficiencies and formed an identity independently of nature.

Heidegger is much more difficult to comprehend, thanks to his relentless verbosity and seemingly unnecessary construction of new words.  He refers specifically to self-interpreting organisms classified as “Dasein.”  Our relationship with technology, according to this view, is determined by the function it serves.  Technology is not, according to Heidegger, part of man’s essence.  It is an active shaper of the way we view the world.  For both Gehlen and Heidegger, though, technology is a dumb process of nature - Gehlen claims that it bends natural processes and “forces nature open,” while Heidegger says that we cannot control when things are revealed.  Heidegger’s view, in particular, is hard to accept.  It’s a more ephemeral method of technological discovery that relies less on our ingenuity and more on seemingly random occurrences.  I dislike it, mainly, because it places less emphasis on personal achievement and could suggests that any particular scientist could make major discoveries, not just the elite.

After this, I still agree with an amalgam of Gehlen and Heidegger’s opinions.  I agree that technology shapes the way we view the world, but I cannot accept that we have no control over when things are revealed - surely a greater monetary investment in scientific research will make us more likely to make discoveries.  Gehlen’s concept of technology “evolving” along with us is also attractive.  We are, as Nietzche suggests, “undetermined,” and must compensate for our biological deficiencies through technological adaptation rather than biological adaptation.  We see some evidence of human adaptation to environments - sickle cells, increased hemoglobin concentration, and skin pigmentation all make certain environments more habitable.  Nothing, though, could prepare us for living in such extreme conditions as the arctic tundra as air conditioning, clothing insulation, and supply storage technologies have.

So, I’m still on the fence.  I emplore any of you to knock me to one side.

There has been a lot of discussion about whether technology is inherently good or evil, or if technology is dangerous, and most of us appear to be in agreement that it is only harmful when in the wrong hands or when used recklessly. However, I believe the most profound threat technology presents to our well-being has nothing to do with advanced weaponry, complete dependence on technology, or even cheapened interpersonal relationships due to minimized face-to-face contact, but rather, the sense of uselessness that comes from living in an overpopulated world that does not need the help of any more humans.

I touched on this in the R&L thread, and a couple of people disagreed with me on account of the fact that technology has “increased the expectations” of humans or can “make us innovative,” which I agree is true to a certain degree; technology is exciting and makes humans more powerful than we ever thought before. However, I think it is worth considering that the negative psychological effects of technology may outweigh the benefits, because it isolates individuals from the community and the sense of fulfillment that comes from working together to survive.

In an interview Kurt Vonnegut once said, “My basic politcs are built around the idea that human beings need extended families, as much as they need vitamin C or any essential mineral in their diet. So many Americans feel really lousy because they’re so alone– they don’t have extended families, and that’s an unnatural environment for human beings. We need the support system.” I completely agree with this assertion, and technology is responsible for the deterioration of both the support system from families and also from the community. Cars, trains, and planes allow us to move where we want when we want, but they also prevent building many strong lifelong relationships, because people rarely stay in the same place over long periods of time.

Similarly, I think we need the sense of working together as a community to survive in order to feel fulfilled. Working in the office of an insurance company doing paperwork all day, it is hard to understand how the work you do contributes to the greater good. You don’t know the people you’re helping give insurance to, and you can not really observe how this directly improves those people’s lives. Additionally, there are lots of people lining up for your jobs, and losing you would only mean a slight inconvenience to the company, because there are more people than jobs in the country. It’s a lot like the guy in Office Space. He did not feel as though he was benefiting anybody with his life, and as a result he felt like shit. Farming or building furniture for people in your community, I can imagine, would be infinitely more fulfilling than almost any career available these days, because you can easily see why you are needed and feel more connected to the comunity than you ever could with a laptop.

We could look at this as just a large scale version of the cell phone/facebook problem. We think technology makes us more in touch because we can be constantly in contact with others, but it ultimately isolates us by allowing society to be so huge that we do not know our next door neighbors. I believe it goes beyond that, though, because not only do we lose the sanctity of real-life relationships, but we can easily fall victim to feeling lost and useless in a world that considers many individuals as expendable or a burden instead of a necessity.

After reading the sections of Natural Born Cyborgs, it seems to me that the ambiguity one needs to accept in order to understand the concept of cyborgs might be detrimental to that concept. 

Just the act of thinking that his theories are true makes Andy Clark a natural cyborg.  Since he does not consider the outer membrane of the human body to be the extent of oneself, he is sending his idea beyond his physical self.  If I were to believe that my body is in fact the extent of myself, then my thoughts would be contained within my person.  It’s all a matter of semantics; there’s no way to prove this point one way or another.  He has given over his thoughts to the outer world, thus blurring the distinction between what is human and what is other. 

Although I understand that he tries to clarify his point with examples such as the pen & paper and cochlear implants.  Yes, there is a fine line between a human who uses technology and a human with technological enhancements.  But proposing the idea that we are all “natural-born” cyborgs is the same things as proposing that we are just natural-born people.  Is there really a significant difference in thinking of humans as part of the technology rather than just as users of the technology?  At some point, shouldn’t the physical facts of our bodies matter for something?  It seems like a lot of the theorists of A.I. go to a lot of trouble in trying to ignore the fact that humans have bodies and brains.  Yes, it is important to look beyond the obvious, but at a certain point venturing into such vagueness separates us from concrete meaning.

The language Clark uses is intended to make us inured to the idea of being cyborgs.  He dehumanizes us in his use of the words “skin bags” to convey the outer physical limits of the body, and “onboard wetware” instead of saying “brain.”  Instead of just supporting his points with evidence, he changes the wording to convey a different impression on his reader, making his theories more palatable in context.  It is something akin to propaganda, depending on one’s perspective.  It a subversive way of proving his point.  However, he calls the “tendency to think of the mind as so deeply special” as a western “prejudice.”  His language is very biased and that should be taken into account when reading his work.  If his readers are not aware of his rhetorical bias, we might agree with him for the wrong reasons.

Or would we?  (I hate that he does that.  It’s really lame.)

            According to Arnold Gehlen humans use technology to “force nature open”. With this claim he says that no technology ever created is neutral. Not by humans at least. In compliance with Gehlen’s views we are not adapted to any type of environment naturally, so we create, we build tools, unlike any other species so that we bend the environment to us. Gehlen says “…man lacking specialized organs and instincts is not naturally adapted to a specific environment of his own and thereby thrown upon his ability to transform intelligently any preconstituted natural conditions.” We are the inventive animal. Not only is this our offense and defense, it is our sickness. We tear and rip away at anything and everything moral or not to get answers.

            Use stem cell research for example. We use the embryo from unborn children to further our own knowledge of something that may POTENTIALLY better a society later down the road. Gehlen says how we can kind of step outside the box of nature and come up with ideas that are completely abstract. He uses the example of the wheel, or the friction of two sticks to create fire. He states how the tendency to replace the missing organs has become replacing the organic with the inorganic. We replace our lack of claws and fur with coats and guns. As humans, we can’t be left in the dark as far as technology is concerned.

            We have a need, a drive to have every possible question answered. This need has so far separated us from our ancient ancestors that if we lost all technology we’d be sunk. Right now if the internet crashed, electricity stopped flowing, cars and cell phones just shut off, where would we be? My guess is in a real hurry we’d de-evolve into a ghost of our past selves. We’d become animals, or at least barbarians we’d scratch, claw, steal and kill for our own survival. But if a cold winter or some event happened where some kind of natural defense was needed, that would be the end of the human race as we know it. We are the most fragile animal. You can take bears and lions out of their natural environment and place them elsewhere they will be able to survive. You take a civilized human and throw him/her out into the middle of the jungle they wouldn’t last the weekend. We need technology, it has evolved through us, and it is as much a part of us as our own beating hearts (sometimes more literally than others).

Is science dangerous? AND Is technology dangerous?

First I want to distinguish the difference between my meaning of science and technology. I am referring to science as controlled experimentation of a predetermined procedure such as one would perform in a chemistry lab. Technology I am defining as anything that makes tasks easier for humans and has moving parts (i.e. computers, machinery, robotics, etc.)

The question sounds like it is unsure of itself. Science has advanced humans in tremendous ways. Science has created an easy mode of transportation, the automobile. Science has given humans numerous cures to previously deadly diseases. Science has extended the life expectancy for people all over the world. Science has improved the quality of life for people all over the world by simplifying difficult tasks and reducing the risks that humans need to take. Currently scientists have been experimentation with stem cells and furthering stem cell research. Science is something that will ever continue to evolve and change lives in the future, but only if done correctly. Science can be performed safely with no harm to anyone. Science is roughly performing controlled tests in controlled experiments. Theoretically there shouldn’t be a way for things to go horribly wrong. If done properly with a meaningfully goal in mind science can be safe, but some information that scientists can learn could be dangerous. A scientist could for example learn how to clone a human…perfectly and use that information for the good of mankind. Or he could be inherently evil and clone himself a whole army of white supremacists who go out and perform murder and try to control the world. Obviously this is a drastic example but in the end makes perfect sense. Scientific principals learned from experimentation are neutral. The way I see it in order for science to become a danger, it would have to be in the hands of some sort of evil genius.

My stance on technology being dangerous is similar to my stance on science. Technology again has advanced exponentially in the last 20 years. As Dan Estrada said in class, the internet is actually younger than most of us. Try to think back to the first time you can remember using a computer. The first personal computer my family had was a very clunky monitor (that couldn’t display complex graphics) connected to a HUGE box containing all the mechanical components. In addition I believe we also had a dot-matrix printer. To be honest, I don’t even think that computer had internet. Now I look at the machine that is enabling me to type this post on. It is 1 piece, fairly small, has internet (obviously) and is very different. Advances in technology have allowed for this to happen. New technology comes out constantly whether or not everyone is aware of it. It can come in the form of a bug fix or a new type of advanced touch screen computer. Has any of this proved (at current) to be dangerous at all. Obviously computers have not. On the other hand there are different types of technology. Robotics are ever improving and are not dangerous at all. Certain robots, like those on a manufacturing line, have safety restrictions which don’t allow humans to enter their workspace but following safety procedures basically ensures that technology is always safe. Now as with science, if someone was able to construct a robot focused on eliminating people (think Terminator/Matrix movies) then yes technology could be dangerous. But one has to remember that movies are not the same as reality. All our machines are built to be safe and can in no way intentionally harm humans.

This started out as a comment but ended up fleshing out quite nicely.

Lihy wrote in her post that if you deleted friends from your facebook or decided to stop answering emails, people would get upset with you, and that this is caused by the fact that conversations and phone calls have been replaced by these social networking tools. Imagine for a minute, what if a phone call or a face to face conversation was the highest-tech method for communicating? If you suddenly stopped talking to people or stopped calling them, would they not be just as upset, if not moreso? The way I see it, the reason you are chained to facebook and email is not because they are technology, but because you are chained to social interaction. Man enters into definite relations, independent of his will, because it his nature as a social being.

You could also look at being chained to facebook and email as being chained to high technology in general. This addiction humanity has is not limited to social networking groups. You use facebook and email instead of face to face conversations and phone calls the same way you take a car or a bus or a plane home instead of walking or riding a horse. The new technology expands the rate at which you can accomplish whatever task you have at hand, be it communication or travel.

As for the heightened social awareness and self-centeredness that is so rampant on facebook? It is my view that there will always be people who are concerned overmuch with such things, and will meticulously construct their image as viewed by peers, be it on facebook or in real life. Again, facebook simply accelerates the entire process. If you’ve ever read The Sun Also Rises or The Great Gatsby, it’s clear that in these pre-facebook times, a person’s image can still be fine-tuned to the finest detail if a person so wishes. Hemingway’s Lost Generation is made up of the same people who would be on facebook to the wee hours of the morn, deciding what music to like and what pictures to display, in the hopes that all others would see and approve. The thirst for attention is inherent to all humans, and exists to varying degrees in all of us. Facebook doesn’t make us attention whores, it just makes it easier to express. A person who puts in effort to be fake on facebook will put in just as much effort in real life, and would have put in just as much effort fifty years ago. Just as the communication and travel examples, facebook is simply a higher-tech way of doing this, with more rapid and more substantial returns.