DECEMBER 4, 2018 (CPE Reflection)

DECEMBER 4, 2018 BLOG POST
CPE Reflection

I approached the critical photo essay assignment with some apprehension at first. I attribute this to the fact that I hadn't yet found a topic that "fired me up," as the young people say. A few exceptions appeared here and there, with the Baron reading and, of course, the Wysocki article where she discusses Kant. Those two had a few sparks for me while reading, but nothing figuratively slapped me in the face with excitement. However, once I had a rough idea going, everything began falling into place. I essentially tossed out my annotated bibliography because of the topic refining and turned my attention to my three philosophers, Chomsky, Strawson, and Wittgenstein (who I intend to study more of over winter break, wish me luck!).

After I fleshed out the work of these philosophers, some feedback from Professor Downs implored me to dig deeper, which is where it dawned on me to explore Instagram. In all honesty, this arose from the fact that I was thinking about how freeing it was to be off of it for a whole month or so, at least at the time of my topic refining. To make a long story short, the process for locating my topic was long and bumpy, but once I found it the project went smoothly and my apprehension faded away.

This assignment was different from other writing projects in that I hadn't explored visual components heavily before in writing. An example would be in Professor Schlenz's class, where I used some basic, and I do mean basic, design functions to make an essay look somewhat more aesthetic for a journal or something other. I toyed with font and a border around the Word document. Nothing extensive, and I loathed people that put images in essays back in those days. It seemed like a type of distraction that hideously unaligned the text and off-put the vibe of reading the words. I avoided images and distractions like the plague to achieve a maximum level of "black-and-whiteness" with my academic writing. So this assignment was unlike any other I had attempted, and that too stressed me out to some extent.

Once I realized where I was going, I just had to think of a slick design, something relatively modern and relevant, not too flashy with an edge of class. I sketched some ideas down for how I thought the assignment should look. I've attached an image below of my sketches for reference.

It occurred to me that I should explore Instagram specifically for design and build off of what most people find familiar when using the app without thinking about it, like how modern psychology shows us that people associate certain colors or shapes with logos and designs that they see on a day-to-day basis. I thought it would be clever to utilize the familiar in that regard, and set up each screen like posts of an Instagram account. After I lined up all the pictures and did some swift editing, using Word, the Snipping Tool, and my phone's screenshot function. Not entirely "clever," but a decent demonstration of ingenuity at least.

The design moved along and I didn't find this particularly difficult. The information was the difficult part, that is, arranging it in an aesthetic way that readers enjoy looking at. In this regard, the group feedback from Kas, Amanda, and Jay was helpful for shoving those misinformed design ideas out the window. I quickly took their advice and developed something more appealing, and easier to read for that matter. By my second draft I was chunking all the pieces together and sifting through information at a productive rate. Then an obstacle appeared in my path.

Oh obstacle. Obstacle: connecting the dots. How was I going to connect the ideas of these philosophers with a modern invention like Instagram's communication? That was the tricky part, and I'd even argue that I didn't solidify that connection as well as I would have liked even when I turned it in and said goodbye forever. Professor Downs' feedback on my second draft was positive, but I wanted to listen to what he was saying about essentially "drawing a connection" between Instagram and the suspiciously specific philosophers. I was also lacking a research issue, as it turns out. This was certainly the case, but I knew that while writing the Wittgenstein posts, naturally, a strange type of thesis was born from how I was thinking about the decay of communication through Instagram. I wanted to build on that since, naturally, these things rarely seem to occur. At the end of the day though, I was ready to call the project and be done. My final draft edits were relatively minimal, some adjustments here and there, sliding around of shapes, etc. Nothing too drastic seeing as Professor Downs thought it was swell work to begin with. That was encouraging, but I knew it my heart that the amount of work had paid off. Without "tooting my own horn," it looks good, and if I was a random person, the design would catch my eye with its style.

NOVEMBER 26, 2018 (Clive Thompson 1)

NOVEMBER 26, 2018 BLOG POST
Smarter Than You Think by Clive Thompson

Thompson's book, "Smarter Than You Think," strikes me as interesting for a variety of reasons. The chapter I reflected on the most heavily was Chapter two though, which concentrates on memory and Thompson's concept of "digital memory." He writes, "The way machines will become integrated into our remembering is likely to be in smaller, less intrusive bursts. In fact, when it comes to finding meaning in our digital memories, less may be more” (37). Now I'd like to unpack this quotation from the book beginning with the idea of machines becoming "integrated" into our remembering. What kind of extensions can we make and infer from this idea? For me it brings-to-mind the idea that human memory has evolved to keep up with the developments and creations of mankind, that is, memory served as an extremely important tool of rhetoric in the time of Aristotle's rhetorical canon, but now most of the information that people would be required to remember can be Googled in an instant, and therefore, memory is much less useful with the world's greatest search engine at your finger tips. Observing this phenomena as adaptation might be too optimistic, which I am tempted to protest. The truth, relatively speaking, is that human memory has had to work much less hard as the times have changed. I would even suggest that memory has weakened significantly since the development of the Internet, and arguably even before that, with the development of books, where information people couldn't remember, because it was so plentiful, had to be recorded. I suspect this was why Socrates and Plato protested writing their teachings down.

Now what does Thompson mean by "...finding meaning in our digital memories..."? That's a somewhat more difficult idea to wrestle with, but I think that compromising the memory, by not employing it for anything, is dangerous for mankind. Thompson explores "lifeloggers," who, in the simplest terms, log every part of their banal, day-to-day lives on the web, or through some technological means. This allows them to, in many ways, forget what they "had" to remember. This seems to be quite a serious problem to me because people are given the opportunity to be lazy, and simply forget whatever they likely should remember. The old saying goes... "You don't use it, you lose it," and this applies to all functions of the mind, from memory to motor-function. The less people use their memory, the less active it'll be, but there's another issue with memory I haven't gotten to.

Limitations of memory. Think about it. Why would people want to "lifelog" anyway? What do they have to gain? I, perhaps rudely, assumed that these individuals were too "lazy" to remember things, so they just logged them, however, this may be a counteraction to the faultiness of the human memory, and all it's complicated misgivings, misunderstandings, and general haze. Perhaps these individuals are simply attending to the limitation of memory by logging their lives. But this limitation isn't detrimental as far as I'm concerned. Having a "human" memory doesn't entail perfection. That's something the memory doesn't promise, and this is okay, even though it's bloody inconvenient at times, sure. In all honesty, I'm just tempted to ask if people even find being people acceptable. I hope this makes sense for readers, but to rephrase, why do people have such an issue with their limitations? Why is a faulty memory, after hundreds, thousands of years, do we just now want to push back against our imperfect memories? Is it because we now have the technology to give us a piggy-pack ride while we try to remember? Technology and machines certainly make this process much less difficult for us, but in no way will it ever be authentic. Maybe I'm moving in circles here, since I'm also a firm believer in journaling, which is, ironically, a technology man uses to remember, or reflect, but the main problem I see here is that, whether it's through technology, logging, typing, etc., or down on paper, there's still the limitation of what our mind has retained and can spout off while "recording" the memories from our minds. No doubt something is lost every time. That can't be helped, but now I'm thinking of images and other forms of media, which capture image-by-image, the memory. How do we even think about memory? How do we define it? Here we go...

So memory is essentially "storing and remembering information." Does thinking about it this way help unpack Thompson's meaning in "digital memory"?

It seems that Thompson is essentially creating an argument in his book that man and machine can work together for mutual benefit. He begins this idea talking about man versus machine online chess games, and then continues through the next five chapters exploring, in a somewhat optimistic way, the workings of human tools and their connection to the human mind, how machine and man aren't all that different in terms of how they move through time and utilize one another, if that makes an ounce of sense.

NOVEMBER 12, 2018 (Farhad Manjoo 1)

NOVEMBER 12, 2018 BLOG POST
True Enough by Farhad Manjoo

Manjoo's book has inspired quite a bit of thinking from me over the last few days. Of course, plenty of what he's arguing I'd considered before in loose terms, but his extensions have proven to be particularly eye-opening and rewarding for the sake of pragmatic conversation. I was primarily focused on aspects and implications of globalization, which he discusses in the introduction. Along with that aspect, I found myself drawn to inherent biases, which he discusses in some depth between the end of chapter one and chapter two. Lastly, in chapter one, Manjoo discusses facts, the topic of the book, of course, and different versions of the truth as we've come to understand them. For me this brings about a few philosophical protestations circling what, conversationally, we've allowed to become the truth in relation to the Internet and the globalized connections we've established.

Globalization is a disturbing conception, I think, and although I am inclined to acknowledge how important it is that the globe be connected this way, I also fear it's consequences, the consequences of, how shall I say, "too many opinions." Think about science for a moment, and the importance of empiricism for proving that we've made a repeatable and consistent discovery. Globalization, in these terms, is essential for the success of mankind. The more thoughts on this matter, the more opportunities to compare notes for the progression of man, the better off one would think he would be as a species, right? Manjoo, in the introduction, addresses this point saying that people, closer together through globalization, don't debate and argue issues of the globe, but they actually just break down and argue over the facts. No headway can be made by arguing over the facts, and if it can, please tell me how that's possible.

But, back to my point that "comparing notes," so to speak, would be amazingly useful for mankind. The more minds the better, yes? No. Unfortunately, that's only theoretically speaking, that comparing notes would be helpful for mankind, kind of the same way people think about Marx's communism, where theoretically, it's a wonderful idea, but upon closer inspection and when the immoral people, as this is their nature, are added to the mix communism is a nightmare, depending on many factors, of course, but for the sake of illustration, I'm certain you're following me.

The problem with globalization is all about perspective and human nature, that is, pride, etc. Think about, for instance, an American scientist comparing notes with a German scientist. Let's say they both go about studying cellular meiosis using a different method but have a relatively similar result. According to Manjoo, rather than discussing the result and the factors utilized to achieve this result on either side, an argument would occur about the differing methodologies, and I'm certain this would be rooted in an element of pride on either side, that is, who developed the more effective method. Perhaps this is what Manjoo means, but this is how I've thought about it.

In philosophy, there are three "forms" of truth. They are coherence theory, correspondence theory, and consensus theory, which is the one I'll focus on this time. Consensus theory of truth probably explains itself. It basically suggests that because so many individuals observe the same thing in the same way, say a tree is purple, for example, then that must be the truth. Therefore, in that example, the tree would be determined to be purple, which seems unlikely if you ask me. My point in bringing up the consensus theory of truth is to address Manjoo's thoughts on information spreading through the Internet, and how those pieces of information somehow earn credibility for the sake of the "real-life" conversations that are occurring as a result of that information. So how do we decide the truth when we enter into these conversations? How do we discern fact from non-fact? Philosophers have been asking those questions since the dawn of time, but in relation to the Internet, it probably comes down to a few factors including persuasion, research, and perhaps, as I said before, consensus, ruefully misinformed consensus, ignorance.

Now! The problem of inherent biases, also popularly thought of in science, is mentioned by Manjoo is chapters one and two. He explains that despite globalization, the surplus of perspectives and opinions that differ from our own, we prefer to stay in our niche, where our own thoughts and opinions are reinforced, essentially, by seeking similar-minded individuals or opinions. He says that we basically read what we want to read to hear what we want to hear, and we'll stay comfortable in a global Internet community where every opportunity you'd have to branch away from your comfort to see from a different perspective is declined. So globalization... is it helpful? or is it simply reinforcing some notions of individualism by proving time and time again that it's "too loud" with opinion and it'll perpetually be rudely debating facts rather than solving any global issues.

NOVEMBER 5, 2018 (Eli Pariser 2)

NOVEMBER 5, 2018 BLOG POST
The Filter Bubble by Eli Pariser

The "filter bubble," according to Pariser, begins to seem somewhat inescapable in the last few chapters of his book. He implies that the steps of personalization stretch beyond just the internet into the "real" world, where it imparts itself by doubling reality with virtualization. This prospect, at least from my perspective, is again, somewhat alarming to say the least. Pariser is essentially informing us that the "filter bubble" has a mighty potential to be inescapable, the world of personalization and, like I mentioned in my last post, predictability. I find this confining, and Pariser would agree.

For fear of being identified as a "technological heathen," I'll avoid drawing any unreasonable conclusions about the dangers of the Internet. I'll leave that task to Pariser, who identifies that the internet is both a breeder of "new ideas and styles and themes," but also a place where fundamental communication, moral, and humanistic "rules" are tested. Please feel free to call me out for these observations, but I find that "rules" truly means something to "institutionalized" really, and for the sake of the argument I'll venture forth assuming that these "rules" are just standards, rules of the Consensus Truth from modern philosophy that "most" people agree on. Navigating the world of language is difficult enough without having its borders attacked by the Internet's tests.

Couldn't an individual argue that the Internet has rewired our minds? Couldn't that same individual argue that it's changed our moral systems? our systems of thinking? and our what define as my previously mentioned "standard" (if there ever was one)? The Internet, and "filter bubble," to tie Pariser into this conversation, is dangerous, a realm that should be closely monitored when looping back around to personalization. Think about privacy, the way filtering systems have an apparent "knowledge" of what we desire, and therefore confine us within the walls of what it "thinks" we desire, and need. We've gone from being free and desire-less to being confined in the prison of unnecessary desires and needs in the form of personalized Internet experience.

Alarming indeed...

If you're feeling adventurous, please continue reading. If not, please turn back. You've been warned.

Now I'm interested in dissecting our conceptions of reality in relation to this "filter bubble" nonsense, that is, I don't consider the theory nonsense, just the fact that it should exist in the first place boxing users in with their own desires, or needs, or greed, and so on and so forth, as Joyce would say.

Now I, for one, do not want to live in a world where that world is essentially "tailored" to me, and I feel that this is what the personalized Internet experience is generating for users. The burden of experiencing the unexpected or the "inconvenient" becomes an anomaly when your world has been composed for the sole purpose of pleasing you and making your life as simple and pleasant as possible. That is no life at all, in fact, that's stripping down life to some Nietzschean illusion, a pointlessly easy existence governed by you, the center of your apparent reality. I protest this on all levels of the argument, that is, the argument that personalization is "helping" people, or providing them with a "user-friendly" experience. These programs, and arguably virtual reality, paint life a certain, very unattractively easy way. It's like taking a notoriously unattractive image and putting make-up on it for the sake of making it seem more attractive. Unfortunately, life is a "notoriously attractive image," as I so aptly put it, and it won't grow any more attractive while we distract ourselves with a false sense of pleasure derived from an easy, personalized reality. Indeed, not only is personalization removing a fundamental component of life, the difficulty, but it's also swallowing users into the void of "ease," where problems, like having to Google a pair of shoes you like, don't exist, because that same pair of shoes is already being advertised on the side-pane of your computer.

NOVEMBER "4", 2018 (Poster Reflection)

NOVEMBER "4", 2018 BLOG POST
Poster Reflection

This reflection was supposed to be posted yesterday evening, but unfortunately I was still getting my footing from an adventure that occurred over the weekend. Sincerest apologies, Professor Downs.

The process of creating my (e-) poster was a laborious one, but one that I thoroughly enjoyed, as it assisted in further refining my critical photo essay topic. I wanted the poster to first challenge all notions of a poster that I had encountered before, and second, to truly reflect where my mind is at in relation to this class's final project. I mentioned in my previous critical photo essay post that I was interested in pursuing a connection between technology (technological communication) and philosophy, a subject near and dear to my inquiring heart. I began refining my critical photo essay topic per the advise of Professor Downs, who graciously pointed me to a particular facet of technology, that is, the communicative aspect. I further refined this topic, as I mentioned, through the process of composing my (e-) poster, which I hope went over well with audience members.

I identified a personal interest with the communication utilized on social media, more specifically, for Instagram, which I've been separated from for a little less than a month now. It's a liberating experience and I highly recommend escaping when you find the motivation. However, my fixation on Instagram did not decrease with the amount of time I spent away from it, the contrary, in fact, and I optimistically, and somewhat doubtfully, honed in my concentration on Noam Chomsky, Peter Frederick Strawson, and Ludwig Wittgenstein, philosophers that I had only scarcely encountered prior to the creation of my poster.

So, indeed, the composition process was a learning experience for me just like I hoped it would be for viewers after it was completed. My first order of business was setting a background that instantaneously suggest "PHILOSOPHY," and "The Thinker" statue provided that effect for me. Rather haphazardly, I was able to set the poster background on the word document. I then took to the task of determining which color was the most aesthetic for my "little information boxes." A light shade of red seemed pleasant enough, and then I supplemented a light blue to develop a contrast to go along with "The Thinker." I picked three pictures, one for each philosopher, and then used a filter widget on Word to make them slightly more "epic" looking. You  may notice that they all appear to be somewhat facing their quotes in the boxes to the right of them. This was, indeed, deliberate.

I thought I would tie in the Instagram idea visually, so I searched the Internet for a "like badge" and then proceeded to apply this in various places around the poster, as to congeal it. I'm uncertain if this was effective at accomplishing my purpose. Then I isolated some quotes from each philosopher and played the "close-your-eyes-and-point" game to choose the quotes. I followed each quote with an idea, a question, related to the communicative thought behind the quote.

Aside from these aspects of the process, it was somewhat enjoyable design-wise, and I admit freely and openly that I know little about design. I am, however, an "adept" eye for aesthetic. Enjoy.

NOVEMBER 3, 2018 (Poster)

OCTOBER 29, 2018 (Eli Pariser 1)

OCTOBER 29, 2018 BLOG POST
The Filter Bubble by Eli Pariser

Pariser's opening chapters seem to be more personal to him, recounting his experience with social media and reflecting on how the internet has become somewhat more "personalized" to his tastes, desires, and interests. This prospect I find absolutely alarming in the same way I find "predictive" texting annoying. It seems to me that computers, or individuals that generate computers and run them behind the scenes, are also influenced by businessmen, but that's not the point I'm chasing here. I'm thinking that, while having a personalized internet experience saves time and truly shows us what we "want" to see, it also limits us to our tastes, desires, and interests. Does this limitation strike anyone else as being somewhat odd? Doesn't being exposed to things we don't care for round us out more effectively than being surrounded by our predilections?

There is a strong possibility that my "GRE brain" is still operating at a high "argumentative" capacity, and I'm tempted to shred any argument that dares stand in my path. But back to Pariser's exploration on the personalized internet experience. Consider what this means for humanity. Reflect for just a second on what predictive functions in computers could mean for us. It means laziness, in short. It means we are given the opportunity to think less because the computer can predict what we would like to say or think or desire next. No need to take the extra step and free-think when "predictive" text already knows what word we're looking for among hundreds. The same goes for what Pariser is examining. Creating a personalized internet experience limits our exigency to think. Am I employing this word correctly? Continuing the project of expanding my vocabulary per the unintentional inspiration of the GRE.

Pariser goes on in Chapter three discussing issues with the filter bubble. He helps readers understand this phenomenon by creating an analogy with Adderall. This almost appears to me to be an examination of priority, in some ways. As in, he'd have us consider that the filter bubble, like Adderall, prevents users from growing distracted by honing in our attention on what could be considered, for the sake of simplicity, important. This sounds like an echo of priority, and the question becomes, what do we deem important? Pariser has an answer with an implication. He argues that either extreme has a poor outcome. Either results in some form of one-track thinking process that cancels out creativity, which in turn, closes down opportunities for the development of fresh, new ideas and insights.

Reflecting back upon internet personalization, I'm thinking about Pariser's terms, that is, the possibility that we should be more concerned with people than with the internet. It's easy to blame the internet for "personalizing" itself to our needs, and stripping us of the ability to think for ourselves, but the truth is that it's only designed that way with economic intent by people. I think Pariser delves into this a little in the last few chapters, skimmed them quickly, drawing from memory. So the problem of trust is not with the personalized internet, but with people, again. Predictable, perhaps. But the internet only serves as a powerful, intelligent functioning software that quickly jumps between extremes depending on who "possess" the software, or has influence over it. This may be leading into a dialogue about artificial intelligence, but I'll spare you reader. Look up Elon Musk and tell my your thoughts. We'll chat about it over coffee, although it may take a while.