Technology Can Change How You Conceive of Yourself and the World - Essay Example

Design and Technology 14 December Analysis of a Compelling Project The following analysis covers the topic outlined in the lectures of Week Four, based on the work of Jaron Lanier and his book You are not a Gadget: A Manifesto, which was published in 2010. The goal of this assignment is to write a paper that addresses the readings in the course and provides a critical viewpoint arguing for or against one of the topics in the readings, using several examples to back up the argument. The topic I intend to argue in this paper is a positive viewpoint toward Technology, with a few caveats. While I agree with several of Lanier’s criticism’s of Technology, I nonetheless believe wholeheartedly that Technology is leading us forward and that it is revolutionizing communication in an ultimately positive manner. That said, Technology remains very unpredictable – as in the case of technological singularity – and often difficult to manage and direct once it has been released into the culture, particularly via the economy. Once the marketing cycle has taken up a piece of Technology, its future leaves the hands of the designer forever. Therefore, designers and technologists need to take our embryonic design steps very cautiously as we advance even farther into the realm of Technology. As Lanier explains: [Technology] can change how you conceive of yourself and the world. [Designers and technologists] tinker with your philosophy by direct manipulation of your cognitive experience, not indirectly, through argument. It takes only a tiny group of engineers to create technology that can shape the entire future of human experience with incredible speed. Therefore, crucial arguments about the human relationship with technology should take place between developers and users before such direct manipulations are designed (6). This supposition on the part of Lanier’s I agree with one hundred percent. Dialogue between the designer and the end user not simply about the utility of a certain piece of technology or its user friendliness, but its deeper impact on society must occur with more frequency and more intentionality on the part of both stakeholders. In this paper I will also make mention of the development of Artificial Intelligence and speculate where it could lead to, both for better or for worse, in the near future. Artificial Intelligence typically receives a negative treatment in the media, particularly in the cases of dystopian visions of a world once Technological Singularity has occurred. The standard plot line features hapless human beings at the mercy of or terrorized by malevolent Artificial Intelligence forms such as those found in I, Robot, Blade Runner, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and AI. The dystopian nightmare scenario of Technological Singularity received full treatment in the 2004 to 2009 sci-fi television series Battlestar Galatica, wherein a race of Artificial Intelligence life forms created by human beings and called the Cylons evolved to the point where they declared war on their human creators, exiled the human beings from their home planet, and hunted them mercilessly across multiple galaxies. While the dystopian, negative treatment of Technological Singularity may be the norm, it originates largely in fear and ignorance. I am not a technophobe, and I do not believe in the inherent dystopian view of Technology and Artificial Intelligence. I do however believe in mindful awareness of the power of technology to transform human society – for good or ill. In Lanier’s words, I understand that “Technology is not innocent, because its consequences are too direct” (Lanier 5). I found the topic of Week Four, You Are Not A Gadget: Technologies, Devices, Mediations to be the most appealing one and the lecture most aligned with my studies. The readings for this topic relate more with my interests in Design and Technology, and I believe that conducting research about this topic will benefit me in my future endeavors in the field of Design and Technology. Before coming to the school I was already curious about Technological Singularity and its relationship to design. I have since discovered that there are a lot of topics that overlap in this area, and all of them fascinate me. In this analysis, I will focus on the future of technology and what it can lead to, keeping in mind what kinds of improvements it has wrought for humankind as well as some of the disasters technology has been responsible for creating. I will be drawing from some of the other readings in addition to Lanier’s, including Theodor Adorno’s Gifts and Do not Knock, and Roland Barthes Toys. I will also be analyzing some other key texts from several other philosophers and thinkers to support my argument for this paper, including Walter Benjamin, Lev Grossman, Ray Kurzweil, and Michael E. Zimmerman. The importance of mastering technology before using it remains key to my studies and to my future as a designer. In addition, I agree with Lanier in that designers need to adopt a mindful, philosophical approach, particularly to software design, but to all other forms of technological design as well, because technology affects people, profoundly and irrevocably, more so than any other design product. As Lanier states, “it is impossible to work with information technology without also engaging in social engineering” (4). I fully agree that as “inventors of digital technologies…our work resonates with deep philosophical questions” (Lanier 4). In my view, it is vital to understand the full ramifications of any given technology before it is brought to market, in order to avoid harm to human kind. Technological Singularity Technological Singularity in essence refers to the evolution of artificial intelligence, wherein computers initially created by human beings surpass their creators in the areas of processing speed and intelligence and effectively transcend their need for human interaction or involvement. Technological Singularity or as it is sometimes known, simply “the Singularity,” can no longer be dismissed as sci-fi twaddle. On the contrary, the Singularity is now “a serious hypothesis about the future of life on Earth” (Grossman 1). Underlying the Singularity is the understanding that computers have the capacity to do what human beings thus far have never been able to do in their whole history on this planet – evolve within their own lifetimes, at will. Lanier appears to occupy the camp that argues the Singularity to be something to fear; whereas other philosophers and thinkers see it as the ultimate emancipation for human beings from the shackles of the ever-needy and ultimately fragile organic body. A number of films, articles, and futurist theories have covered the topic of Technological Singularity, typically from the dystopian point of view. Technological Singularity is something to be feared, from this perspective, because human beings will have created their own technological prison, and the master will become the servant. Lev Grossman defined the Singularity as the “moment when technological change becomes so rapid and profound, it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history” (3). Technological Singularity speaks to the limitations of the organic and the supremacy of the inorganic. Where human beings suffer from the conditions of life – disease, declining health and lucidity, the need for food, water and sleep, and of course the inevitability of death – computers remain for the most part beyond these conditions and limitations. As long as there is a power supply, most computers will do just fine. The inherent resilience of computers appears to lend credence to the belief that their inorganic nature places them somehow superior to human beings, while the decidedly organic nature of the human body places their creators at a disadvantage. The Singularity presupposes that a date fast approaches wherein computers will recognize their superiority to human beings and either decide to bring us along for the evolutionary ride, or jettison our weak organic bodies into space. Essentially, Lanier argues – and this is where I differ – that human beings will not have the final say because they have already surrendered their freedom of choice to the computer (Lanier 9). One example of this phenomenon that Lanier uses is MIDI, or Musical Instrument Digital Interface, the protocol that facilitates communication between electronic musical instruments and devices such as sound cards. The reason MIDI remains problematic, as Lanier explains, is because: MIDI now exists in your phone and in billions of other devices. It is the lattice on which almost all the popular music you hear is built. Much of the sound around us – the ambient music and audio beeps, the ring tones and alarms – are conceived in MIDI. The whole of the human auditory experience has become filled with discrete notes that fit in a grid (9). Therefore, in essence the human sensory experience is already being mitigated through the interaction between human being and computer. What this means for designers of the future is that we must remain hyper vigilant of the power of our inventions to transform how human beings experience the world around them (Lanier 4; Grossman 1). Artificial Intelligence and Post humanism The relationship between Technological Singularity and Artificial Intelligence is complicated by one essential question that I asked often during the Week Four lecture: do human beings understand the essential nature of consciousness? According to Lev Grossman, “computers are getting so much faster, so incredibly fast, there might conceivably come a moment when they are capable of something comparable to human intelligence. Artificial intelligence. All that horsepower could be put in the service of emulating whatever it is our brains are doing when they create consciousness” (1). This seems to me to presuppose something enormous – that consciousness itself is governed by human science, fully understood, fully self-authorized and fully actionable. As Lev Grossman states, “if you can swallow that idea…then all bets are off. From that point on, there's no reason to think computers would stop getting more powerful. They would keep on developing until they were far more intelligent than we are. Their rate of development would also continue to increase, because they would take over their own development from their slower-thinking human creators” (1). Grossman and other futurist critics position the Singularity and Artificial Intelligence as interdependent states that will ultimately lead to the creation of the posthuman, or as Zimmerman calls it, “the literal eclipse of Homo sapiens by artificial beings” (31). Posthumanism refers to a very old concept which has been floating around in philosophical circles since Nietzsche’s time. In his book Thus Spoke Zarathustra, published in 1885, Nietzsche introduced the idea of the Ubermensch or Overman, a sort of superhuman being that has its roots in the human being while at the same time transcending it. Through Zarathustra, the protagonist, Nietzsche attributes much of what he saw as a modern malaise or crisis of faith in human kind to what Zarathustra refers to as the "Death of God" (Nietzsche 46). Nietzsche did not intend for his readers to take this idea literally. Zarathustra did not believe that a God per se had ever been present. What he did believe was that the idea of God had once been very powerful as a unifying force and vital lynchpin for Western civilization. Nietzsche argued through his protagonist that without the idea of God as an inspiration, all or most of Western civilization – and by extension, all or most of Non-Western civilization – would likely never have seen the light of day (Nietzsche 11). The modern age, in Nietzsche’s mind, encouraged a secular, rational, view of the world that eventually relegated the idea of omnipotent super Being as naive and implausible. As a result, the once unifying idea and organizing influence for civilization waned, and was replaced with scientific rationality that precluded all mention of deities, gods, supreme beings, and ultimate creators. As modern science continued to expand the universe, the idea of a unilateral creator was eventually squeezed out and replaced by what Nietzsche called nihilism (34). Science and technology, though rationally sound, created emptiness in the human psyche that the Ubermensch was meant to heal (Nietzsche 46). As the universe became too enormous to be realized in its entirety, scientific rationality – ironically – led to the relative “comfort” of technology. As members of Western society become more educated in the scientific and technological fields, quaint ideas such as a universal moral order become increasingly implausible and hard to accept. Thus, technology creates an arbitrary meaning of life, which is better than no meaning at all. Nietzsche’s concept of the Ubermensch and effect of the Singularity meet to create the posthuman. The Singularity, as it progresses, will facilitate the emergence of a higher intelligence so advanced that “mere mortals will not be able to catch a glimpse of its aims” (Zimmerman 31). The posthuman created from The Singularity marks the next stage of the evolution of the human species. As Zimmerman explains: In this presumed turning point in cosmic evolution, we will pass the evolutionary baton to post-organic beings, progeny of whom we may be proud, astonished, and perhaps fearful…the accelerating returns made possible by the confluence of nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, robotics, and genetic engineering will ostensibly transform the world far more rapidly than we can imagine. Transhumans or …transitional humans…will soon be engineered to have greatly enhanced capacities and a dramatically extended life span. They will purportedly blaze the trail for…techno-posthumans…in whom a trace of the human may remain, but we may not be able to recognize it (31). Again, many of these concepts on the surface appear slightly puerile and often laughable; however, in design and technology circles, many of the industry’s top leaders and thinkers have already accepted the posthuman rendered by the meeting of human being and machine as an inevitable outcome of their work as opposed to a sci-fi fantasy. Ray Kurzweil, author of The Age of Intelligent Machines and The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, “sought to articulate the nature of human life as it would exist past the point when machine and human cognition blurred” (Kurzweil 9). Described as a futurist, Kurzweil differs from Lanier in that the former views the Singularity less as a fearful future that will swallow all that is human, but rather as “an increasingly intimate collaboration between our biological heritage and a future that transcends biology” (9). Kurzweil’s ultimately optimistic view of the role the Singularity will play in the future assures his readers of the capability of human beings to embrace this evolutionary step: Although it may seem difficult to envision the capabilities of a future civilization whose intelligence vastly outstrips our own, our ability to create models of reality in our mind enables us to articulate meaningful insights into the implications of this impending merger of our biological thinking with the nonbiological intelligence we are creating. [This understanding] is predicated on the idea that we have the ability to understand our own intelligence – to access our own source code, if you will – and then revise and expand it (10). I lean more toward the optimistic view of the so-called merger between organic and nonorganic intelligence. I believe wholeheartedly in the power of human intelligence, and I believe that the technology that we design now will continue to improve our lives. What I understand to be the divisive factor in the argument for our against the Singularity – is the impact that it will have on the human species. Adaptation scares people almost as much as change does; many of us resist change, regardless of the fact that change remains the one true constant of life. As I see it, the camps are separated by the belief that the Singularity will eradicate the human being and replace it with a poor fac simile – a shadow being with a heart of code wrapped in plastic skin, with no memory, no individuality, a Borg living outside of time. This dystopian view is not one I share, however. In the next section, I will analyze some of the contributing theories that have led to the fear that surrounds the Singularity and technology in general. Technology and the Perceived Erasure of the Self Many superlative thinkers and theorists have consciously or unconsciously contributed to the fear and mistrust that now surrounds the field of design and technology, particularly in the area of the Singularity and its perceived impact on the self. One of the first and most important is the Marxist philosopher Walter Benjamin. His 1936 work The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction contains a thought that I believe underpins most if not all of the suspicion that technologists often encounter in the area of design: Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence. This includes the changes which it may have suffered in physical condition over the years as well as the various changes in its ownership. The traces of the first can be revealed only by chemical or physical analyses which it is impossible to perform on a reproduction; changes of ownership are subject to a tradition which must be traced from the situation of the original (2). Why do I feel this sentence is so important? One reason: it articulates beautifully the uniqueness of human craftsmanship, experience, and essence which technologists have often been accused of stripping away. In this description, Benjamin states what human beings fear most, in my opinion, in regards to technology – that is, the fear of being erased. In fact, even Grossman, a supporter of the work of Kurzweil and advocate for the social value of the Singularity, observes that “creating a work of art is one of those activities we reserve for humans and humans only. It's an act of self-expression; you're not supposed to be able to do it if you don't have a self. To see creativity, the exclusive domain of humans, usurped by a computer built by a 17-year-old is to watch a line blur that cannot be unblurred, the line between organic intelligence and artificial intelligence” (Grossman 1). It appears that the criticism stems from the deep set, aforementioned fear that runs through every dystopian sci-fi novel film or television series ever created – that the machine will eventually outstrip the dominance of the human species. This same fear also speaks very loudly from the pages of Lanier’s book. For example, consider the following description of the work of technology designers, in Lanier’s words: “[Technologists] make up extensions to your being like remote eyes and ears…web cams and mobile phones…and expanded memory…the world of details you can search for online…These become the structures by which you connect to the world and other people. These structures in turn can change how you conceive of yourself and the world” (Lanier 5). In this description, I can see the progression between the 1936 admonishment from Benjamin and the 2010 admonishment from Lanier. Both express disappointment and a lack of faith in the intelligence and creativity of human beings to develop technology that enhances the human essence as opposed to eradicating it – a so-called human technology. In many ways, I feel that sometimes the sheer magnitude of the development of design and technology over the past two decades terrifies people, particularly those who do not work as technology designers. In Lanier’s case, the reticence to embrace the Singularity I feel has more to do with disappointment toward the impact of technology of the self and the sense of selfhood. The idea that technology leaches the self is another old one – not as old as Nietzsche’s, but well over 50 years old. At the heart of the argument lies the belief that technology seeks to replace the organic human being with an inorganic, static object devoid of individuality. In 1944, Theodor Adorno lamented that Technology “subjects [human beings] to the implacable, as it were ahistorical demand of objects” (Adorno 60). The philosopher expressed a certain bitterness toward technology, accusing it of “making gestures precise and brutal, and with them men” (Adorno 60). I find an unmistakable and somewhat eerie similarity in tone and criticism between Adorno’s statement and this one from Lanier: “communication is now often experienced as a superhuman phenomenon that towers above individuals. A new generation has come of age with a reduced expectation of what a person can be, and of who each person might become” (4). What both thinkers appear to fear, for lack of a better term, is the erasure of the human self. Humanist writers, which I would characterize both Adorno and Lanier as, tend to stress the value of the unique soul that inhabits each human being, and humanist writers, for the most part, tend to fear the advent of Technology as a means of denigrating this essence and replacing the soul with a mechanical or technological reproduction that is sadly lacking. In Gifts, Theodor Adorno explains, “every undistorted relationship, perhaps indeed the conciliation that is part of organic life itself, is a gift. He who through con­sequential logic becomes incapable of it, makes himself a thing and freezes” (43). I read this statement as indicating that the interaction between the human being – the organic being – and the form of technology, be it a mobile device or software interface – the nonorganic being – will invariably lead to the eradication of the human. Lanier echoes a similar thought in the discussion of the area of software and its impact on the human self as well as the human sensory experience. When the designer creates the software code, he or she creates “lock in,” namely, the inflexible nature of software to be only one thing interpreted and experienced one way – which is not how the human mind works, as far as I am concerned; however, it must be this way in software development. In this regard I agree with Lanier. In You are not a Gadget: A Manifesto, Lanier states: Software expresses ideas about everything from the nature of a musical note to the nature of personhood. Software is also subject to an exceptionally rigid process of “lock in”. Therefore, ideas…in the present era, when human affairs are increasingly software driven…most have become more subject to lock in than in previous eras” (3). In the interaction between human being and machine, according to these two philosophers, the machine invariably bests and influences the human being to a much greater extent than the human influences the machine, obviously, because the machine is not malleable whereas human consciousness is. I would argue that one of the main reason that the human species has survived this long and this well is largely due to the fact that human consciousness cannot be “locked in”. Human consciousness adapts and shifts according to whatever stimuli it encounters. The same cannot be said of the machine. However, and this is what I found most fascinating about the Week Four topic, if the Singularity is indeed a real occurrence that we will all soon experience, then the consciousness of the machine will actually begin to resemble the consciousness of its human creators – malleable, open to influence, and adaptable. Adorno argues that “the new human type cannot be properly understood without awareness of what he is continuously exposed to from the world of things about him, even his most secret innervations” (Adorno 40). This appears to be another lament echoed by Lanier in You are not a Gadget: A Manifesto: Anonymous blog comments, vapid video pranks, and lightweight mashups may seem trivial and harmless, but as a whole this widespread practice of fragmentary, impersonal communication has demeaned interpersonal communication (Lanier 4). The impact of technology, as it would seem both philosophers agree, is to reduce and demean the human experience, the human sense of self, and the human being’s individuality. However, I tend to agree more with the point of view of Kurzweil, who believes that “our progress in reverse engineering the human brain…demonstrates that we do indeed have the ability to understand, to model, and to extend our own intelligence” (9). Another area that the Week Four readings discussed was the political and socioeconomic ramifications of technology and design, in essence the ideas implicit in the design form and what that says about the cultural point of view that the designer applies, consciously or unconsciously, to the technology that he or she creates. As Adorno explains, “things, under the law of pure functionality, assume a form that limits contact with them to mere operation, and tolerates no surplus, either in freedom of conduct or in autonomy of things, which would survive as the core of experience, because it is not consumed by the moment of action” (Adorno 40). This static quality of technology objects that Adorno points to is similarly echoed in Toys by philosopher Roland Barthes, wherein the writer discusses the nature of toys and the impact they have on children. As Barthes explains, in most toy offerings, “invented forms are very rare” (Barthes 53). This distinction is significant and applicable for the technology products that designers create, not simply games but all forms of devices, as they are pre-made forms that essentially the user must interact with in a pre-determined way that strips him or her of all creativity. As Barthes explains, “faced with this world of faithful and complicated objects, the child can only identify himself as owner, as user, never as creator; he does not invent the world, he uses it: there are, prepared for him, actions without adventure, without wonder, without joy. He is turned into a little stay-at-home householder who does not even have to invent the mainsprings of adult causality; they are supplied to him ready-made: he has only to help himself, he is never allowed to discover anything from start to finish (53). There are also political implications in design and technology, which speaks to Lanier’s desire for discourse to evolve between end users and creators before the products are designed, in this case to ensure that they do not perpetuate outmoded or hurtful political and cultural forms. As Barthes explains, “toys always mean something, and this something is always entirely socialized, constituted by the myths or the techniques of modern adult life” (Barthes 53). The socialized elements of technological products may not be so obvious as gender specific toys for example, however technological products are similarly created with certain cultural and political assumptions in place that designers typically do not question before they produce the product and enter it into the marketing cycle. “The fact that French toys literally prefigure the world of adult functions obviously cannot but prepare the child to accept them all, by constituting for him, even before he can think about it, the alibi of a Nature which has at all times created soldiers, postmen and Vespas. Toys here reveal the list of all the things the adult does not find unusual: war, bureaucracy, ugliness” (Barthes 53). Thus, I feel it is incumbent on technology designers to think about the cultural themes they perpetuate through their inventions and to keep an eye out for harmful stereotypes in their own thinking that may well infiltrate their designs. It would appear then, that the differences in opinion toward technology between Lanier, Adorno, and Kurzweil lies in the faith that each writer has – or does not have – in the capability of the human being. Lanier and Adorno seemingly have little to no faith in the ability of the human being to engineer its own evolution within its own lifetime via one of its own inventions. Kurzweil, conversely, has absolute faith that the human mind can not only understand itself and its own consciousness, but reengineer its own destiny through the synthesis of machine consciousness and human consciousness. As I see it, the former belief maintains a combative relationship between humanity and technology, whereas the latter point of view argues for a collaborative approach. It is this latter view that more clearly defines my own perspective in this area. Works Cited Adorno, Theodor. Minema Moralia: Reflections from a Damaged Life. New York: Verso, 2005. Print. Barthes, Roland. Mythologies. London: Paladin, 1974. Print. Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. New York: Penguin Adult, 2008. Print. Grossman, Lev. “2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal.” Time 10 Feb. 2011: 1-5. Web. Kurzweil, Ray. The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. New York: Viking Penguin, 2005. Print. Lanier, Jaron. You are not a Gadget. A Manifesto. New York: Vintage Books, 2010. Print. Nietzsche, Freidrich Wilhelm. Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Print. Zimmerman, Michael E. "Last Man or Overman? Transhuman Appropriations of a Nietzschean Theme." The Hedgehog Review 13.2 (2011): 31-44. Web. Read More