Energy / Information

It's interesting how a historical account of the development of these early computational machines raises in extremely clear fashion some of the main philosophical issues concerning modern, especially digital, technology that one might encounter in the theoretical literature. I'm thinking especially of the question concerning the nature of information, but also of the relationship between human and machine. These two questions seem to appear immediately the moment a human being – Charles Babbage – decides to translate meaningful logical or arithmetical procedures into mechanical processes, which in turn produce mechanical results that are nonetheless readable as information. This could be described as a circuit involving human and machine for the exchange of information into energy and vice versa. I am not sure how – if at all – this exchange between energy and information could be understood. But it seems clear that any account that reduces one to the other would be inadequate: one the one hand, if everything is viewed from the standpoint of energy, the machine is reduced to a meaningless set of cogs, and the human, who builds, programs, and reads its results, to a mass of organic matter; on the other, if everything is viewed from the standpoint of information, then the mechanical detour the machine performs in order to process the information remains totally opaque, like a kind of external prosthetic unconscious.

My Thoughts

When reading the excerpts from McLuhan, Stiegler, Wolf and Barzillia, and Carr, my last thought was "the machines are going take over." Though it may not be as catastrophic as James Cameron portrays it in "The Terminator," technology has left irreversible effects. Our relationship with technology is older than Methuselah, and from the first use of it our development of technology and dependency of it has increased. This is even more so with the dawn of the computer and the Internet. Wolf would say it altered our cognitive process.  This process is what allows for deep thought or reading.

In the excerpt Is Google Making Us Stupid? by Carr he explains how in the era of information our reading habits have changed. Due to the change in our reading the content created has changed, more summarized and shorter in length. This is so the reader can be more efficient when gathering info. The proliferation of information is efficient and like so we are become efficient. So efficient, Carr describes it by saying we are becoming machines. That's a scary thought. We have integrated technology so much into our lives it basically controls us to the point where we change.

Technology is dominant in our lives and its going to be like that for the future as well. However, here is where my hope lies, in education. Incorporation of tech in the educational system will allow for the cognitive process to grow and be put to use. This is where we can take control. As McLuhan says in order for education to truly by gained the old ways must be relinquished. That is a bit extreme. But being able to produce an effect rather than just have the effect occur would be more beneficial. Its important to keep our cognitive process intact, so we don't become mindless machines

Jonathan Hoon's post

Surprisingly, the origins of computers have never been addressed at any other time in a classroom. From elementary school until now, computer classes have always been focused on teaching skills so that I would be able to learn how to use the newest form of technology available. For this reason, the history of computers never seemed like an issue worth analyzing because its kind of hard to even imagine life before there was word processing or computer games. Babbage’s Difference Engine from the 1810’s seems just as revolutionary to read about now, as it must have been when it had just come out. Modern education seems to address technology only so far as the development of transportation from trains to automobiles to airplanes.

Whenever the computer is introduced, this is seemingly too contemporary to even worth addressing in the classroom. The mechanical background of figuring out how to make computations with the difference machines through the use of levers still seems revolutionary and beyond my own intellectual ability to grasp. However, Thomas Edison never had not even introduced the use of an electrical system for another 70 years, which seems even more astonishing when put compared with this high level of technological innovation.

When Babbage debates how to use a lever to actually predict the carriage of the 10’s place in the Analytical Engine, I have to remind myself that he must be thinking similar to a watchmaker or a mechanic. The transition of these “basic” publications helps to reflect how the theoretical notion allowed for the “automata theory” from the 1930’s to become even conceivable. To imagine making a machine that performs decisions based on a numerical order through the use of levers and electricity must have been a fantastical and purely intellectual endeavor even in the early 20^th century. I still find that the transition of these ideas to the modern computer to be a mystery more than a logical progression of ideas. These complexly layered discoveries probably explain why this type of technological history has always been skimmed over in all my history and science classes growing up.

Technology as Magic

Reading about Babbage’s Difference Engine and Analytical Engine, I was struck by how they were still purely mechanical machines but already seemed to be approaching the mysteriousness of later digital computers. Not being mechanically oriented myself, my eyes glazed over looking at the diagrams of the inner workings of the machines, but I got the impression that if I stared at it long enough, or had one in front of me to take apart and fiddle with, eventually it would make sense. However, the math that went into the conception was far more subtle and had the same fuzzy quality as explanations of exactly how the internet works. That got me thinking about how our relationship with our gadgets must have changed over the past few hundred years, how before, people really understood, or could potentially understand, exactly how their machines worked and could control them. Now, only the tiniest percentage of iPhone users know how their phone works, from the highest level of abstraction down to the mechanical details of how the touchscreen functions. As we talked about in class, almost none of us even remember life without computers, so we’ve never had a sense of total mastery over our tools, but I wonder how it must feel to someone a hundred years ago whose most complex piece of technology was a Model T.

Power Vested In Machines

As I read the article "Difference and Analytical Engines" I couldn't help but notice that everything that dealt with the development of a calculating mechanism was done in an effort to produce something that made calculating more efficient and accurate. If we think about it the ability to calculate "appears" only to be important to humans because it is a sense of control that we have over producing functions. Once we are taken out of our customs we become uneasy with new development or wary of putting focus on obscure things. One thing that stood out for me as I read the article "Difference and Analytical Engines" was not only the ability but willingness of the people developing the machines to step back and delegate certain human ability to machines. By allowing the machines to do complex calculations the human mind was freed up to concentrate on new ideas and developments.

As we can see the development of these new machines not only gave birth to the way one could calculate but to new ways of applying calculations on a grander stage. Not to mention new industries arose from the efforts to produce the mechanical engines. As stated in the article, the tool industry benefited because the development of the Difference Engine had an influence on the construction of standardized screw threads which lead to other applications of the screw.  This was in addition to making it easier and faster to calculate numbers.  In response to whether or not new development in contemporary machines and software are making us dumber, well that “appears” to be a generational conflict in away.  Should we ask if new generations are becoming dumber because of computers? Or are past generations not as smart because they did not have the access to the computing capacity available today?

Thoughts on the place of technology in education

 McLuhan said in his interview with Playboy: "From Tokyo to Paris to Columbia, youth mindlessly acts out its identity quest in the theatre of the streets, searching not for goals but for roles, striving for an identity that eludes them" (249). I was drawn to this, albeit overdramatic, statement - perhaps because it reminds me of the theme of disenfranchised youth as discussed by Bruce Springsteen in his album "Born To Run". In this section McLuhan is discussing the youth of the 60's and the technological chasm that separates them from their parents because of the youth's inundation in the cool medium of television - one that is more opaque and withdrawn and requires greater interaction - as opposed to the hot medium of reading/radio - mediums that hyper-stimulate one sense and are extremely available and not at all interactive - that their parents' generation grew up with. As a result of the cultural and technological disparity between these two generations, the previous educational model is no longer effective in teaching the youth and "today's child is growing up absurd because he is suspended between two worlds and two value systems, neither of which inclines him to maturity because he belongs wholly to neither but exists in a hybrid limbo of constantly conflicting values" (250).
As a person born in the internet and computer generation, another technological revolution, much like that brought on by the television, I feel that there is a similar chasm separating my parents and myself brought on by the introduction of the computer, arguably the coolest, most interactive medium yet. Following McLuhan's theory, this chasm separating me from my parents also separates me from my teachers (who regrettably still require me to read books - a scalding hot medium in comparison to the computer!). The agony!
Wolff's article on Educational Leadership offered a look into how technology is currently being incorporated into education to create a more technologically appropriate approach to learning for those children otherwise growing up absurd from being suspended between the old and the new. Under the section "The Distracted Reader", Wolff intones a hopefulness in digital text, allowing for a highly interactive and creative way to encourage deep thought for today's whippersnappers. The hope is that now with the internet and computers at a student's disposal, interest in a Shakespearian play can drive "a discovery process" that leads the reader to all sorts of related and enriching materials such as relavant historical information, videos of the play, discussion groups etc. Though I share Wolff's hope that such technological resources be incorporated in the education of the youth, I myself experienced none of these methods implemented in my elementary - high school education. Of course, I could have taken the initiative and used these resources on my own - and I suppose in researching for papers and the like I did in fact - yet there was never any coordinated effort on the side of the educator to incorporate the new technology in the classroom.

The Medium's Message and the Message's Message

Throughout our early lives, we are taught to focus on content. “What does this mean? What is the author trying to say?” We are instructed to write rhetorical analyses outlining the major meanings behind a text. Not once can I remember, before my time at Berkeley, an occasion in which the medium itself played any role whatsoever in these proceedings. Thus, I never bothered to consider what it really meant that I, or anyone else, read The Great Gatsby on the musty, yellowed pages of a book.

This is not to say that children are blissfully unaware that technology has gone through many changes in medium, but that they are never encouraged to look for importance in the media themselves. As McLuhan points out, children aren’t encouraged to do very much at all when they interact with technology. They are plopped in front of the TV just to give them something to do, to keep them quiet. Then society is confused as to why so many kids have difficulty with reading.

Although I do agree with McLuhan that the medium itself contains its own message, I don’t believe that we may say that content is secondary or unimportant. In the grand scheme of things, yes, the move from print to digital media has a bigger influence than if I choose to read a book or a Kindle. But at the individual level, I think that content plays a major role. I myself find that I have greater ease reading online than I do in books. But I’m not convinced that this is the case only because the media are different. I think that I am better able to find texts to fit my interests online, when I have search engines and decades of information at my disposal. In a book, there is only one text; it only goes in one direction. If it interests me, that’s great. But if it doesn’t, I’m out of luck until I find another physical text.

The one example that caught my attention was his explanation as to how television has caused to children to be more sexually open. He claims that “TV tattoos its message directly on our skins, it renders clothing obsolescent and a barrier…” Now, this might just be me, but I have never felt the need to shed my clothing while watching TV. I feel like this is a bit of a stretch and don’t see where the logic lines up. If I were to make a case for the explosion of sexual expression I would point to the adult content children are exposed to by TV that they never would have had access to before (something that McLuhan actually mentions in his interview).  I can definitely see how the medium has a message, but I will contend that the message has a message as well.

From the Beginning...

Having spent a great deal of my life tinkering with computers in one way or another, I’ve always wondered what the mechanical process underlying modern computers might look like. When I first learned programming, I realized that at some point there must be a sum of my coding broken down into mechanical actions or some other physical sequence. Although still a ways off from the modern computer chip, I find Babbage’s models fascinating as it begins to answer my questions about the functional origin of computers.  

It is made clear that Babbage was somewhat of a perfectionist, and placed high demands on himself and those around him. I find it interesting that Babbage would abandon his Difference Engine after having investing so much time and energy. Although the work he put into its design was somewhat transferrable to the Analytical Engine, it is hard to imagine someone that invested leaving a major task unfinished. I’m a bit surprised that something as seemingly trivial as a poor relationship with an engineer could be sufficient to derail the entire enterprise. What doesn’t surprise me is that he returned to the design of a new Difference Engine toward the end of his life.

The technical nature of the description of the designs in the work of Babbage and others is hard to understand, but it still gives an impression of the volume of time and intensity of concentration that went into these inventions. The foundational steps leading to Turning’s research and modern computing is an interesting read.

New technology helping us?

After reading most the articles, I’m surprised of how I never realized that the use of the computer/internet has not only benefited me, but also perhaps harmed me at profound level. Instead of the library, I depended on search engines for my resources. My reading ability drastically changed because I was so used to skimming through online articles that I started doing that as well in printed text pages for books. I see a tradeoff of our own ability to research and think deeper about an idea independently for various amounts of resources, ideas, and communication.

            Socrates might have been right to fear writing (new technology) because it did affect people. In our modern day, online media perhaps has a greater impact on people than writing did during Socrates time because it is faster and more accessible in general. I understand that companies like Google want to make an interface that is useful for its users, but with new technology it changes our own abilities. However, I don’t think it’s making us “dumber”, but maybe more creative in understanding our world.

The pleasure in technology

While reading through the assigned reading of the history of logic machines and the early computer, I found myself taking various breaks to check that all too important Facebook for new notifications, friend requests, and (I'll admit) stalking other people's Facebook lives. What would Babbage have to say if he knew just how important the computer would be in the 21st century? With the evolution of  different logic machines, It doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to say that in another 50 years, The Iphone 5 will have become a collectors item, and replaced with the Iphone 60 with a version of Syri that I can't even fathom. So, I can't help but ask- what is our obsession with technology?

This week's readings focused on the various early logic machines and Babbage's journey to creating the Analytic and Difference Engines. Prior to examining these articles, I had been under the impression that the world's obsession with technology was a relatively new trend. The truth is however, we have always sought to make our lives easier through the use of technology. Even Babbage was inspired to create the the difference engine because his mathematical calculations were becoming painfully tedious. Similarly, logic machines were developed by various people, all of whom saw the utility in creating such machines. These individuals set the stage for the invention of all of my tech-goodies that sometimes seem to rule my world. Moreover, the early logic machines not only reflect the mathematical or scientific knowledge of a particular time, but say something deeper about the human relationship with technology. What these machines reflect is the human desire to make their lives easier, more enjoyable, and fulfilling. In some twisted way, technology has a certain pleasure element that we can't seem to get enough of.

Is Google Making Us Stupid AND Smart?

In Nicholas Carr's essay "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" the question of human intelligence is challenged by our dependence on the Internet. His article inspired much research on the topic and some very interesting studies have been produced because of Carr's observations. An argument has been made that having information at our fingertips is not necessarily making us dumb, it is just making our brains process information differently. According to Science, we're not necessarily losing our ability to remember things, but the internet is changing how we remember. People are recalling information less, but instead they can remember where to find the forgotten information. Instead of knowing the answer to something right off the bat, a person is more likely to think about which key words they would type into Google to find the answer most efficiently instead of racking their brain to think of the answer themselves.

This was explored further in a study UCLA performed on how Internet usage affected memory and cognition. Participants of the study were split into a group of subjects between 55 and 76 years of age with either high or low Internet experience. An MRI scan was taken to see how their brains worked when reading books or searching the web. The more proficient Internet users showed an increase of brain activity, with more advanced decision-making skills and complex reasoning, while the inexperienced Internet users had less brain activity.

I thought this would be an interesting addition to the Carr essay and further add to the complication of how our brains have been affected by the invention of computers.

Machine-based Knowledge

The first two sets of readings seem to effectively pin us down to two ends of a progression of mechanized thought; starting from basic arithmetic and ending (now) in what is arguably mechanized memory storage, not just of fact but also, increasingly, of experience. While this could be characterized as a slippery slope, I think they may be quite analogous to each other, and this progression may not warrant the extremely negative view some take.

Comparing the difference engine to the arithmetical capabilities of clerks, few would deny the superiority of the machine. Increased accuracy and speed had the potential to vastly increase the utility of mathematics that were being used to explore the world and explicate geography and astronomy. But one can easily imagine some old clerk, hearing about Babbage's machine, and bemoaning the loss of intellect resulting from human reliance on machines to do arithmetic; a precursor to current fears about Google's effect on human memory.

A positive comparison may be more apt, however. Although the progress was delayed for a number of decades after Babbage's first desings; the advances of mechanical computing allowed for more complicated calculations than could be feasibly accomplished by humans with pen and paper; in the grand scheme of things, machines took over the "lower" math functions, enabling humans to focus on more advanced ideas, and fueling more rapid understanding of the universe by giving scientists much better mathematical tools. Similarly, the current migration of facts from the memory banks of neurons to memory banks of magnetic patterns on disks can allow minds to spend their resources doing better things. There remains a significant gap - the interface isn't ready yet, there's still a major difference in retrieval between the things we "know" and the things we can look up, and this gap translates into a gap in usability, assimilation, and ultimately into a failure of knowledge; but if this gap were to be closed, and the information from the vast pool of data to be integrated to our thought processes similarly to the way our memories are, "Human Knowledge" will have taken a huge step forward. This is not without problems, or risks, but fighting against change has seldom succeeded; while channeling and directing the change has a better track record.

Welcome to our blog! --Posting Guidelines--

Welcome to the Spring 2013 class discussion blog for Rhetoric 104, Before and After the Digital: Culture and Technology. Beyond your required posts and comments, please treat this online space as an open forum to air questions, engage in conversations, and generally pursue a greater understanding of our course materials and concepts. Because our class discussion time is limited, this is one additional way to iron out misunderstandings, get clarification, and highlight the points that interest you most. Discussion can spill over from class to blog, or blog to class.

Friedrich Nietzsche's typewriter, a Malling-Hansen Writing ball, model 1878. Photo taken by Dieter Eberwein. Copyright: The Goethe and Schiller Archive, Weimar, Germany

Here are some guidelines for posting:

• Keep the language professional. Observe the rules of spelling and grammar. (No "roflmao, imho, tyvm" action.)
• That said, you can employ a more casual and entertaining tone here than you would use in your paper assignments. Part of the art of writing for the Web is knowing your audience, having something worthwhile to say, and getting your point across in an engaging way.
• Say no to epic posts. Posts only have to be 2-3 full paragraphs (a paragraph is roughly 4-6 sentences, depending on how complex you make your sentences). Comments can be made in one paragraph.
• Use the affordances of the medium. Why have a web(log) instead of a paper-and-pencil journal? So you can link to other students' posts or online content, add relevant images, etc.

In terms of content, the blog posts should be responses to the assigned readings for the week. Don't feel that you have to tackle all of the readings, or even one reading in its entirety. Limit summary (unless it's useful to you), and instead try to pick out one point/claim, example, or comparison that you found interesting or controversial in some way. Feel free to refer to your own experience or previous readings to make a connection or draw out some subtext. In essence, keep the blog posts focused, well-written, and open to further input.

Finally, a word on online etiquette. This may be a relatively informal web-based resource, but it is class-related and we therefore ask you to maintain a high level of written expression and to be courteous and considerate in your posts and comments (though that certainly does not preclude disagreements or constructive criticism).

Looking forward to an exciting semester!