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.

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.

OCTOBER 18, 2018 (CPE Proposal)

OCTOBER 18, 2018 BLOG POST
Critical Photo Essay Proposal & Annotated Bibliography

The subject of my critical photo essay assignment, although not pinned down fully, circles the interwoven nature of philosophy and technological literacy. My research question is framed somewhat broadly, but will narrow as I begin research for this project.

RESEARCH QUESTION:
How does technological literacy engage classical and modern philosophical thought?

This conversation is interesting to me for a variety of reasons, but the largest is that the philosophical components of technological literacy have direct implications with human cognitive function. Technology is essentially rewiring our brains, and with it our conceptions of philosophy in the ways it had always been thought of previously. From writing to pixels, as Bernhardt wrote, technology has impacted human thought and the method by which we think. I'd like to examine what kind of problems this could mean for society, culture, and humanity in general. I'd also like to criticize theories about possible positive and negative effects of technology on philosophical thought. At the base-level though, I'm most curious about how philosophy and digital rhetoric play together.

To study this research question, I'll begin broadly by reading and exploring a variety of mediums through which scholars and theorists have already engaged this idea. My reading will catch me up with research that's already been done in relation to this pair, philosophy and technological literacy.

Beyond that, I'm uncertain about what forms of research I could investigate. Perhaps I could simply reflect on my experiences with technology, and consider ways that it has shifted or altered the states of my mind when theorizing or making decisions. Self-reflection is a particularly powerful tool when exploring research possibilities, although not excessively.

Annotated Bibliography

1. Feenberg A. (2006) "What Is Philosophy of Technology?". In: Dakers J.R. (eds) Defining Technological Literacy. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

This source, as is indicated by the title, focuses on the major themes apparent in technological studies, not to be confused with scientific studies, that pertain to philosophy. The authors examine technology from a philosophical standpoint, highlighting the important metaphysical and epistemological details that circle technology utilization and development in terms of humanity.

2. Hickman, Larry A. (2001) "Philosophical Tools for Technological Culture: Putting Pragmatism to Work". Indiana University Press, 2001. Indiana.

Engages philosophical thinking methods in response to a modern age of technology, where its usage has been embedded in society's culture with philosophical implications. This source focuses on culture and philosophy, where technology and culture are tied together firmly, and technology is somewhat depended on for culture, where this is viewed as a serious problem.

3. Kateb, George. “Technology and Philosophy.” Social Research, vol. 64, no. 3, 1997, pp. 1225–1246. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.

Although somewhat outdated, this source focuses on defining technology in relation to philosophy more than the others. Again, I suggest that it's indeed, outdated, but the perspective is valuable, from a standpoint of 1997, when technology, at least computer technology, was still being determined and future applications were mostly uncertain. Kateb also ties in philosophy by exploring modes of philosophical thought from humans of the time, during the exploration and application of technology, before a certain level of dependency was acknowledged or even existent. 

4. Mitcham, Carl. "Thinking Through Technology: The Path Between Engineering and Philosophy". The University of Chicago Press, 1994. Chicago, 1994.

Another dated perspective, but Mitcham wrote an entire book on the subject of weaving technology, in its many components, to philosophy. Considering the building blocks of technology, this book seems to fall into the agreeable notion that philosophy and many other "cogs" make up technology as a whole influence on mankind and our development. Thinking about it this way, back in 1994, was effective for thinking ahead, when the philosophy piece of the technology puzzle was still seemingly positive in nature.

5. Winner, Langdon. "Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding It Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology". Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 18 No. 3, Summer 1993 362-378, 1993.

To keep the perspectives and lenses on this subject broad, I thought it best to extend application of these two subjects into the social realm, where societal and cultural impacts could have the most severe consequences for the separation of philosophy and technology, although the only reason the two are paired here is because it's a case for social constructivism rather than for why philosophy and technology are married. It's an examination of technology through a philosophical lens to better understand what social impact it may be having on humanity.