It's Deja Vu All Over Again
Friday, October 17, 2003
Per our discussion yesterday
It maybe possible (when we upload our consciousness into the machine ala Ray Kurweil ) that we can smoothly automate our cyborg bodies with NanoMuscle. If Kapper is right and Andy Clark's progression from man to cyborg ends in technologized consciousness this may be the beginning of the beginning, Dave.
Plus, a link to an article on Strong AI.
Thursday, October 16, 2003
Response to Jingfang: the mind=the brain (to Clark?)
I found it interesting that Clark used two terms in his discussion of the “ancient western prejudice”: “the mind” first, then “the brain” (as a piece of cognitive machinery) (26-27). In the title of the book, he used “minds.” I consulted several dictionaries and confirmed that “the mind” and “the brain” are not exactly synonyms. The brain definitely has traits of machinery, but one has to take a lot of other things into consideration (socialization, at least) when discussing “the mind”. Clark calls “the tendency to think of the mind as so deeply special as to be distinct from the rest of the natural order” (p.26). Where does that prejudice come from? Definitely not JUST from the cognitive machinery—“the human brain.” If Clark wants to present a convincing point, he needs to clarify his definition of “the mind” and “the brain.”
transparent technology and opaque technology
I relate so much to Clark’s discussion of transparent and opaque technology. Using computers to write (not just to type what I wrote on paper) to me had been an opaque technology for such a long time (probably from 1999 to early 2003). When I wrote directly on the computer, I was so aware of the keyboard. My typing was really bad. My “ongoing problem was to successfully deploy and control the tool” (p.37). For so long I was so frustrated that I was so aware of the tool that my ideas could not flow at all. Gradually, especially when I began to write my answers to the prelim questions this summer, I finally feel that the computer becomes more like a transparent technology! I was finally able to let my thoughts flow with some freedom when I wrote directly. Note here I said “like a transparent technology” because I still feel the tool and lack of control when I see typos on the screen. I believe I will have to wait more years till the computer becomes as transparent as the pen/ballpen/pencil to me.
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
within or without the "skin-bag": that's not the point
In advancing his argument that human beings are natural born cyborgs, Clark keeps reassuring his audience that the celebrated human-machine mergers do not necessarily involve "literal penetrations of the skin-bag." In fact, he devotes a large portion of his discussion to dispelling the "ancient western" illusion, namely, the belief that "there is something abosultely special about the cognitive machinery that happens to be housed within the primitive bioinsulation of skin and skull." He seems to believe that as long as he dispels this illusion, his audience would naturally accept the kind of "intimate harmony" between the "smart world" and the biological brain.
As compelling as his arguments are, I found the whole within or without the "skin-bag" debate quite off the point. What he needs to validate first is the major premise on which all his arguments are based: the notion that the human brain is fundamentally a "problem-solving" mechine (or part of a problem-solving machine consisting of brain, body, and technology). If we accept this characterization of the human brain, we are ready to accept the argument that we are all natural born cyborgs. On the contrary, if we find it problematic, his major argument falls apart. So this is the question I am posing here (a question that I think is more to the point than the debate about the skin-bag or about the boundaries of our human self): to what extent do you agree/disagree with Clark's characterization of the human brain as a "problem-solving" mechanism?
