Doctors are keeping the patient in a sealed room and treating him with a robot that is equipped with a video camera, a microphone and a stethoscope. At the moment this is a wonderful way to care for a highly infectious patient, to give him comfort and keep him company, but to limit the danger he poses to the doctors and the public. This is an example of technology used a tool, but still operated by a human mind. It also represents the start of the mechanical minds that will leave human specialisms less in demand.
Many of us spend hours inside our virtual worlds of bits, bytes and avatars that can be customised with fantastical hairdos and clothing, virtual selves that can respawn if we die in the game. We may think of our online self is an extension of our physical self but viewing this video inspires a different viewpoint. If our physical self bounced around in real life like we do in the virtual world, it would seem completely bizarre and out of context. Skip to 7.20 on the timeline.
Sometimes it's nice to flip things around and view our actions a different way. Imitating GTA in real life…skip to 7.20 for a giggle! #mscedchttps://t.co/RYo3V4SjlL
Agency by William Gibson- this is a book review by the Guardian which describes an artificial intelligence called Eunice, who interacts with the human Verity. I found it interesting because the review describes a dystopian vision of cyberpunk literature which is trying to warn us against being lulled into a false sense of security by algorithms gently nudging us in the direction we don’t really want to go.
The AI (Eunice) wants to know how Verity knows thinks, why she does things, why Eunice herself has been switched on. There are tech barons, masters of the gig economy, algorithmic sub-Eunices, steampunk, alternate timelines, hackers, off-gridders and their networks – a chaotic gathering of characters, working for and against the algorithm, warring over the manipulation of our needs, our personal information and our appetites, by big data and gangster capital.
I think this seems like a good book about cultural studies, with a posthuman debate about what makes us human. It explores the benefits or disadvantages of technology and how technologies might be used, valued, imagined or represented by those involved.
Julia Alexander’s Blog Post is quite long but worth a read, touching on modern culture’s leanings towards binge watching, multiple subscriptions, and how the mind is over wrought by trawling through mountains of content and a meandering internet that is designed to distract. Here we have a description of how the digital world is changing what it means to be human. It brings to mind overtones of ‘technological determinism’– digital devices define and govern how people use them, (Dahlberg 2004), but also ‘community cultures’-the growing social dimensions of virtual worlds and the massive increase in communication and interaction on the web (Knox 2015).
The sheer size and randomness of this communication brings to mind the concept of Cousins (2005) Rhizome, which we learnt about in IDEL. It is reflective of our daily use online as well, very little is remembered when we flit from piece to piece and play youtube videos at twice the speed to save time.
What I liked from Alexander’s piece was the remembrance of mass media monoculture of the 1990’s and how it contrasts with what we have today. In the 90’s, people had to wait for the next episode of their favourite show, most likely together with their peers and at the same time as them. The show was dissected by the groups of pals and co-workers the next day after it aired. It was enjoyable aspect of 90’s culture, a chance to come together and break bread over common interests and comedy.
The TV was the tool that we watched, still separate from the human body. The interaction and dissection was done with physically present peers and not via the technology.
‘Friends’ the show
By contrast it is the propensity of modern day culture to view content and chat about it, via personal devices that are completely individualised, which can be physically isolating. The sheer volume of content viewed means less in depth thinking and pondering. Content depends on our demographic, our preferences, and our click history. Youtubers that are incredibly famous across the world are unknown by our friends within the same social circle. Individuals from any background can post something for free on Youtube, TikTok or a myriad of outlets and so there is a low barrier for entry to access our devices.
I would rather find the hope in this though. Yes we can be physically isolated but our online self will use the internet to find the people that are ‘part of the tribe’ (social determinism) . I would hope that we learn to break down the volume of good and bad content so that we can usefully educate ourselves. Who is to judge what will constitute a ‘useful’ education, when each graduate will need a different preparation and a variety of graduate attributes depending on their life context? But I hope that analytics and more seasoned members of our online tribe will play a part; helping us to filter towards our natural leanings and personal strengths, to tailor our education along individualized trajectories through teeming repositories of art, entertainment and knowledge. The danger of course is who is writing the analytics, but I hope we can overcome that too.
References
Cousins,G, YEAR; Learning from Cyberspace IN Roy Land and Sian Bayne (eds), (2005) Education in cyberspace, London: RoutledgeFalmer. 8, 117
Dahlberg, L (2004). Internet Research Tracings: Towards Non-Reductionist Methodology. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 9/3., as quoted by Knox, J (2015) chapter1. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00289.x/full
Knox, J 2015, Critical education and digital cultures. in M Peters (ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. Springer, pp. 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_124-1
An example of the influence of culture and technology on education. Sustainability and environmental protection are part of today’s culture and maybe this immersive VR headset can be used by governments to protect delicate sites like Pompeii from over tourism whilst being funded by the visitors who get to see, hear and learn about the sites and sounds of the old city through VR. Here we have blurred boundaries between the living and machinic. A virtual environment, which is “grounded in the idea of an alternative domain, capable of fostering individual aptitudes and characteristics, unfettered by the constraints of the physical body or the restrictions of the institution” Knox 2015
Explore how technology, culture and entertainment can turn museum visitors into caring citizens via immersive giant-screen projections and #VR experiences. https://t.co/uTRYkuCFoc#SXSW
By contrast it is the propensity of modern day culture to view content and chat about it, via personal devices that are completely individualised, which can be physically isolating. The sheer volume of content viewed means less in depth thinking and pondering. Content depends on our demographic, our preferences, and our click history. Youtubers that are incredibly famous across the world are unknown by our friends within the same social circle. Individuals from any background can post something for free on Youtube, TikTok or a myriad of outlets and so there is a low barrier for entry to access our devices.