Monday, February 26, 2007
Recently I watched Kevin Kelly (an expert in digital culture) talk about the similarities between the evolution of biology and technology. But there was one question he asked that I think relates to Rosters article, that is, what does technology want? What is technology’s ultimate goal? Roster states, “the technological universe is impervious to the here and there. Rather, the natural place for its operations is the entire human environment.” Does this mean that technology wants to be apart of the entire human environment? Does technology strive to become the human environment? If technologies natural place is within the human environment, what are the effects of technology becoming the human environment? On some level technology has already succeeded in becoming the environment as in the case of CAVES and other virtual reality interfaces. I think that technology’s prime objective is to organize and simplify life so that to get to Z from A you no longer have to go through the entire alphabet of processes. Keeping this in mind, does that mean technology has the capacity to simplify the processes of life to the degree that to live is to die?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
“Does technology strive to become the human environment?” –Judith
To answer this question I think you have to question the notion of real. I wonder if a simulation can be more real than the actual. Such as, learning how to fly through the use of a simulation room. Are they both in the human environment? Are they both a form of technology? I think they are for sure.
Over the weekend I played Wii Nintendo at my friends house. Wii Nintendo is a video game that allows you to engage in tennis, bowling, baseball, etc. through the use of a censored remote control. The movement of the controller (in relation to your body) relays a message to the systems that than inputs your movement into the TV screen. I feel this technology creates a temporary human environment. I was able to insert myself into the space projected by the game, which allowed me to feel part of an environment. It was a temporary human environment but it existed. A human environment must have the following guidelines in order to exist: sense of time, place, and in which you physical and mental body are one.
I question the linkage between the speed at which you figure out the technology and the human environment in which it exists. Over time you start to develop a greater understanding of your positioning with in the human environment that is created by the technology but what does this mean? For example I understand how to bowl a strike now but I was unaware in the first ten minutes of the game…. does the human environment no longer exists when you start to decode the technology? Get a better understanding of the environment created? Or is it by creating these relationships between body, mind, space, time, place, and technology that the human environment is created?
http://www.wiinintendo.net/
Judith - Can technology want to do something? I don't think so. It's a human-construct; a tool. It would have no purpose without us. People construct virtual environments through technology, possibly in pursuit of pleasure, which, if I remeber correctly, exists only in the brain. Virtual environments cut past physicality and stimulate the brain in a more direct fashion; is this why people are beginning to crave them, to desire them (perhaps in the future, to 'need' them)? I don't understand your final question - what do you mean by 'to live is to die'? Do you mean that through technology, it is possible for us to continue 'living' beyond death, through videos, blogs, past online interactions etc?
Regarding Roslar's comparison of constant availability with being incarcerated: making myself perpetually 'available' is a fate of my own will, so I cannot accurately relate it to being forcefully 'tagged' with electronic surveillance. I choose when and which media with which to connect myeself; it is more of an addiction, a pseudo-voyeuristic one, especially in the case of facebook, through which (or rather, whereby, if you consider it a 'place), you can browse your friends' profiles and see what they're up to. I start to feel a sense of.... not panic, but something like it... 'aloneness'??... when I disconnect myself from the phone, msn, email, skype, etc - as though I might miss something important. I wonder if that is common, or if it just has to do with various personal events? Regardless, I am now having issues with being 'by myself,' which is fascinating for me, since in the past I've been terribly introverted! What is the value of being disconnected from 'technology'? Is it even possible to do so, unless you're naked in a cave? One of my favourite sayings, from my sociology of science and technology professor is 'today's nature is yesterday's technology.'
By want I mean what is its purpose, but its purpose from its perspective, although we design technologies with certain purposes there are still inherent things in its structure and program which make what technology wants and what we want from technology two separate things. For example the generic solar powered calculator ‘wants’ to solve mathematical problems with the input of numbers and relaying those answers onto a screen. It wants to receive data and relay data, with no underlying principles. Lets say we want to know how many animals result if adding 4 ducks plus 4 cats. We want to know there are eight animals but the calculator it does not want to know how many animals there are, the calculator wants to know 8, That’s it. So on a more complex level we write programs and create virtual environments instilling in them certain parameters which ultimately give us what we want, but what the program and virtual engine want are separate things. The virtual environment does not know what is real so it does not ‘want’ to create something that is ‘more real’ we want it to create something more real. I don’t know if that clarifies it for you, I think I am confusing myself. HA!
The idea that technology will defeat B through Y is kind of frightening, I know that A and Z seems to be the key positions (the destination is all that matters?), however what then replaces the interstitial zone that is left out? I am reminded of process and the notion that within architecture it is the process that is the most valuable, not necessarily the end products. Although we live in an end product world, our lives are lived out in the process part. What will our lives be like with extreme immediacy of actions and reactions? I often feel that it is the negotiation between wanting to do something, doing it and then getting it done that stimulates us the most. I heard a quote once, (from a movie I think), “life happens while we are making grand plans for it”, and I find that to be very true. How will things occur in our life if technology absorbs a high percentage of our actions? If all we are left with is the final product will it still be as valuable? This may sound vague, but this is just my understanding of the discussion.
Judith, in response to your clarification of the original post, I think your rationalization makes sense. However, I think you are trying to personify a technological mechanism, which can be difficult for others to accept. On the other hand we personify technology all the time. I don't know about you but I certainly have a relationship and a dilogue with my computer. When its angry I am angry and vice versa. You are trying to imply that a technological device has some sort of goal, which we have defined for it.In a sense technology is just an extension of ourselves, it is our digital mirror. My mom always used to tell me that the computer is only as smart as the person using it, (however I think my computer has got me beat).
Post a Comment