Really curious about the last paragraph... I put a computer interface between myself and everything I do and exactly how am I training myself to think then? As if I am just an operator of a tool and not a fully realized human being???
You're training yourself to interact with whatever object is on the other side in context of the computer's restricted simulation of that thing, via its restrictive simulated affordances for that thing. Among other things you're at risk of slowly unlearning what the thing itself is, and what it might be possible for you to do with it sans the computer middleman.
For example if you had a hammer app that remotely operated a hammer, but via a cartoon hammer icon and a big button which would cause it to strike only a particular kind of nail, you might forget that hammers are useful for striking all kinds of nails, let alone any other applications you can think of for a hammer. In any case, you'll have given up your ability to use it for things other than the software is capable of simulating.
If you were raised from birth using only the hammer app, you might not even know a hammer can be used for anything else, or be able to conceive of using it any other way, or even know what a real hammer looks like, what it's made of, or how it functions.
Everything you do via an intermediary is like this. It's not restricted just to computer interfaces. Imagine you're a CEO and delegate all your tasks to specialists in some field via managerial intermediaries. You might be surprised to discover you weren't being given a full spectrum of options for what tasks they could perform or what solutions are available for a problem or what problems are occurring; only what the manager tells you about, which is limited by both the manager's personal motivations and his capacity to understand your goals and the specialists' abilities and working environment. You probably have no idea whatsoever that one of those specialists is also an accomplished pianist.
Anyway, what this means to you I suppose depends on you. Delegation, used wisely and appropriately, can be empowering. Done in excess or without thought about the consequences, it is disempowering. If someone is trying to get you to delegate something to a computer, and claiming this has no downsides for you, they're probably trying to disempower you. The purpose of a machine is what it does.
I don't think that Google, or any of the tech companies aside from Facebook and possibly Microsoft, *set out* to disempower people. Everybody is the hero of their own story, never the villain.
But they created a lot of machines that have that effect necessarily, by offering a trade between power and convenience. Once enough of these transactions takes place, someone ends up with a whole lot of power. If they had chosen not to wield it, it would have been wielded for them.
That's what the phrase "the purpose of a machine is what it does" means. Design intent and good faith are irrelevant.
"The purpose of a system is what it does" is something that came to mind too... Idealism and all that don't matter once you see the end result and from that perhaps we can judge where the real motivations came from...
This article makes me hearken back to a website I've perused called "The Information Philosopher", wherein the author basically says that, on a fundamental level, every material and immaterial thing in the universe is composed of information.
It seems like information based ideas are missing what Bergson called the Elan Vital. Sometimes it feels easier to argue against this type of thinking by using Bergson rather than theology.
I agree with the basic picture you give us here, but I think you're arguing against a weak form of mono-causal universalism. Basically, a mono-causalist doesn't need to argue A -> not-B. P is only an explanandum in light of B. So, if only-A, then P is no more than an amusing artifact of taking B seriously. Bakker goes into this in detail in "Alien Philosophy". And I think the Darwinian case gives you more trouble than you let on. It may well be the case that mono-causalism merely reflects one application of the principle of sufficient reason, and not how the world actually stands, but it remains the case that it's been out-competing 'B', despite centuries of counter-enlightenment protestations. This line of argumentation really only works to convince a few that they belong to an invisible aristocracy of the inner life because they play piano or something. I don't mean to be caustic, I like piano and all those things, I just think we should own up to our total hopelessness
The Picasso story, in which he charges a high price to a woman for a 5 minute sketch on the grounds that it took him a lifetime, hits deep. Are you putting in the reps? Are you putting in the reps for your tucking in your wife? are you putting in the reps for hosting your neighbors? Are you putting in the reps for your father and your son?
Computers would be vastly improved if in order to use them, you had to answer "DID YOU PUT IN THE REPS". Fortunately, I have programmed my computer to do this, and only this.
Really curious about the last paragraph... I put a computer interface between myself and everything I do and exactly how am I training myself to think then? As if I am just an operator of a tool and not a fully realized human being???
You're training yourself to interact with whatever object is on the other side in context of the computer's restricted simulation of that thing, via its restrictive simulated affordances for that thing. Among other things you're at risk of slowly unlearning what the thing itself is, and what it might be possible for you to do with it sans the computer middleman.
For example if you had a hammer app that remotely operated a hammer, but via a cartoon hammer icon and a big button which would cause it to strike only a particular kind of nail, you might forget that hammers are useful for striking all kinds of nails, let alone any other applications you can think of for a hammer. In any case, you'll have given up your ability to use it for things other than the software is capable of simulating.
If you were raised from birth using only the hammer app, you might not even know a hammer can be used for anything else, or be able to conceive of using it any other way, or even know what a real hammer looks like, what it's made of, or how it functions.
Everything you do via an intermediary is like this. It's not restricted just to computer interfaces. Imagine you're a CEO and delegate all your tasks to specialists in some field via managerial intermediaries. You might be surprised to discover you weren't being given a full spectrum of options for what tasks they could perform or what solutions are available for a problem or what problems are occurring; only what the manager tells you about, which is limited by both the manager's personal motivations and his capacity to understand your goals and the specialists' abilities and working environment. You probably have no idea whatsoever that one of those specialists is also an accomplished pianist.
Anyway, what this means to you I suppose depends on you. Delegation, used wisely and appropriately, can be empowering. Done in excess or without thought about the consequences, it is disempowering. If someone is trying to get you to delegate something to a computer, and claiming this has no downsides for you, they're probably trying to disempower you. The purpose of a machine is what it does.
I don't think that Google, or any of the tech companies aside from Facebook and possibly Microsoft, *set out* to disempower people. Everybody is the hero of their own story, never the villain.
But they created a lot of machines that have that effect necessarily, by offering a trade between power and convenience. Once enough of these transactions takes place, someone ends up with a whole lot of power. If they had chosen not to wield it, it would have been wielded for them.
That's what the phrase "the purpose of a machine is what it does" means. Design intent and good faith are irrelevant.
"The purpose of a system is what it does" is something that came to mind too... Idealism and all that don't matter once you see the end result and from that perhaps we can judge where the real motivations came from...
Curious that they avoided using it... I suppose they knew something we've long forgotten... Something about life I suppose
This article makes me hearken back to a website I've perused called "The Information Philosopher", wherein the author basically says that, on a fundamental level, every material and immaterial thing in the universe is composed of information.
https://informationphilosopher.com/
Methinks some of the ideas about virtual reality and artificial intelligence are founded on philosophies similar to that one.
I'll have to check out that link.
Your comment reminded me of an academic study I read recently that I didn't fully understand. The idea is called Assembly theory, which is summed up in this article: https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-theory-for-the-assembly-of-life-in-the-universe-20230504/
It seems like information based ideas are missing what Bergson called the Elan Vital. Sometimes it feels easier to argue against this type of thinking by using Bergson rather than theology.
I agree with the basic picture you give us here, but I think you're arguing against a weak form of mono-causal universalism. Basically, a mono-causalist doesn't need to argue A -> not-B. P is only an explanandum in light of B. So, if only-A, then P is no more than an amusing artifact of taking B seriously. Bakker goes into this in detail in "Alien Philosophy". And I think the Darwinian case gives you more trouble than you let on. It may well be the case that mono-causalism merely reflects one application of the principle of sufficient reason, and not how the world actually stands, but it remains the case that it's been out-competing 'B', despite centuries of counter-enlightenment protestations. This line of argumentation really only works to convince a few that they belong to an invisible aristocracy of the inner life because they play piano or something. I don't mean to be caustic, I like piano and all those things, I just think we should own up to our total hopelessness
I don't meant to imply b, I am a Wittgensteinian. I mean to imply Æ
"Writing code turns people into robots" I feel like there should be a word for this.
There is, it's called damnation
The Picasso story, in which he charges a high price to a woman for a 5 minute sketch on the grounds that it took him a lifetime, hits deep. Are you putting in the reps? Are you putting in the reps for your tucking in your wife? are you putting in the reps for hosting your neighbors? Are you putting in the reps for your father and your son?
Computers would be vastly improved if in order to use them, you had to answer "DID YOU PUT IN THE REPS". Fortunately, I have programmed my computer to do this, and only this.