On the Internet, Second Edition (Thinking in Action)
By admin • Nov 11th, 2008 • Category: Uncategorized •
•
On the Internet, Second Edition (Thinking in Action)
On the Internet, Second Edition (Thinking in Action)
By Hubert Dreyfus
Publisher: Routledge
Number Of Pages: 192
Publication Date: 2008-12-29
ISBN-10 / ASIN: 0415775167
ISBN-13 / EAN: 9780415775168
Binding: Paperback
Can the internet solve the problem of mass education, and bring human beings to a new level of community? Drawing on a diverse array of thinkers from Plato to Kierkegaard, “On the Internet” agues that there is much in common between the disembodied, free floating web and Descartes’ separation of mind and body. Dreyfus also shows how Kierkegaard’s insights into the origins of a media-obsessed public anticipate the web surfer, blogger and chat room. Drawing on studies of the isolation experienced by many internet users and the insights of philosopher such as Descartes and Kierkegaard, Dreyfus shows how the internet’s privatisation of experience ignores essential human capacities such as trust, moods, risk, shared local concerns and commitment. The second edition includes a brand new chapter on ‘Second Life’ and is revised throughout.
Summary: Being on the ‘Net
Rating: 5
Flat out: this is a short read that should be required of anyone attempting to understand the society/technology interface. Even if you disagree with Dreyfus’ theories, On the Internet provides an approachable exposition of what he considers some of the most egregious claims.
Dreyfus’ basic phenomenological context is similar to his arguments in What Computers Still Can’t Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason: humans are more than heuristic programs running on carbon-based computers. The essence of a human being (dasein) is more than the sum of it’s parts. No matter how you disassemble those parts and digitize them, the end result is far from human - be it simulated intelligence, distance learning, or tele-presence.
The book is broken into four chapters, each of which can easily be ready independent of the others. The first chapter deconstructs the most atomic element of what makes the World Wide Web unique: the hyperlink. According to Dreyfus, the hyperlink is a flat connection that cannot convey the semantics intended by the person creating the link. This is, in some ways, a real problem but efforts to enrich hyperlinks with meaning haven’t taken off to the degree that the meaningless hyperlink has. Interestingly, this flatness forms the basis of Google’s search engine which attempts to identify relative meaning without actually understanding the meaning. I really wish Dreyfus would take up this idea, either in a revision of this book or a new edition of What Computers Still Can’t Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason.
After hyperlinks, Dreyfus takes up the issue of Distance Learning. This chapter was especially interesting to me because I completed my Masters degree through an entirely online program. I find I agree almost wholly with Dreyfus’ critique except that he failed to mention how large university lectures aren’t much better!
I am currently pursuing my PhD in a traditional residence-based program. The PhD requires essentially apprenticing with ones advisor. As Dreyfus points out, it is this apprenticeship that results in expertise and eventual mastery. But the master’s degree involves more focused project work. The online courses I took focused on project work - encouraging the student to seek out local mentors. I think the future of education will be a blend of distance and local education. The student will work with a local advisor or mentor but will be able to complete “coursework” through online means. In fact, I used Dreyfus’ excellent lectures on Heidegger he makes available in MP3 to help me better understand the subject.
After learning, Dreyfus takes on tele-presence. This, again, is a subject close to my own heart. I mostly work via telecommuting. I defended my master’s thesis via a web conferencing system. But I “cheated”. Even though most of thesis committee was across the country, I had an audience in front of me. I was able to gain the bodily cues of the people in the room in front of me. As an advantage, my family in two other states got to watch my defense. But I also find in-person work to be more productive when collaboration is important. To this end, I probably travel about one week out of every month. The net result, Dreyfus is right: telepresence will never really substitute for in-body experiences.
Finally, Dreyfus takes on identity in the digital world. There was a great New Yorker cartoon that showed two dogs at a computer, one saying: “On the internet, no one knows you’re a dog!” What Dreyfus expounds upon here is not new or even particularly original. It’s probably the low point of the book. What Dreyfus should have done was turn the argument inside-out and consider how the struggle with digital identity has impacted the world around us. People are much more aware of the challenge of identity than they were 20 years ago. But, at the same time, identity in the real world has developed new challenges: identity theft, terrorism, etc. I think these real world problems are much more interesting.
But now that you’ve read my take, get the book and read Dreyfus’. Like I said: even if you disagree, it’s an easy ready and well-founded in classical philosophy.
Summary: Very interesting, provocative, little book
Rating: 5
Dreyfus is a Heidegger scholar who is also known for his books explaining “why computers can’t think.” This short (it can be read in an evening), provocative book discusses some of the problems of reliance on the Internet as a source of information and an educational forum, in a way that is interestingly informed by Dreyfus’s study of Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Merleau-Ponty. I highly recommend this book both to students of Continental philosophy (the author’s use of Kierkegaard to argue against Habermas’s notion of the “public sphere” as the locus of a meaningfully participatory democracy is especially provocative) and to anyone who has ever wondered whether the Internet really is making our lives better. Dreyfus explains why and how it may not be.
Summary: Kierkegaard surfs prodigiously…
Rating: 4
This is a very little book dealing with a very big subject: does the internet add or detract from meaning in our lives? Such a topic can be covered only in a cursory way within 107 pages, but the major issues are represented in this book, and provide valuable food for thought.
Some of the questions asked are: can the internet deliver us from our bodily selves? Can the internet be used to disseminate information more efficiently and more universally? Can the internet democratize education and produce experts? What is the effect of the internet on the real? And, lastly, what are the implications of meaning in our lives concerning the internet?
These are all good questions, and each one could fill a volume on its own. Nonetheless, this book is a survey on the topics, and each topic is dealt with in about 20-30 pages.
On the issue of disembodiment and the internet, Dreyfus goes out on a limb himself while accusing others of doing the same. Why rely on the vision of the ‘Extropians’ (whose website is still active as of this typing) for guidance about how people are using and conceiving the internet? The vision of the web as a disembodied non-physical realm where humans will no longer have to deal with intestinal gas is a vision shared by very, very few. Dreyfus gives this concept far too much validity, and the first section of this book creates a sort of ‘phantom threat’ of people wanting to release themselves from their bodies (he calls it ‘Cyberia’), and warnings about the consequences of wanting to do so.
The interesting part of the first section is the discussion of the failure of AI and the failing hope that cyberbeings will one day replace human beings. Those who are freaked out by the implications of ‘The Matrix’ will find comfort here.
Dreyfus’ best arguments concern the internet and distance learning. Anyone working in education can tell you about the dismal failure of trying to replace human teachers with computers. That’s not to say a certain amount of knowledge cannot be obtained from cyber-learning, but that knowledge has its limits. Expert knowledge is even difficult if not impossible from reading books (which has a certain amount of disembodiment in its own, but different, way). Face-to-face or body-to-body interaction is important, and will likely always be important, in mastering a subject or skill. That’s why those who can afford it still hire tutors.
Similar arguments are put forth concerning the internet becoming a ‘virtual world’ in which people can potentially get sucked into and lost. It’s true that this can happen, but the internet is not necessarily to blame. People can get sucked into drugs, television, reading, fantasizing, etc., and lose themselves in much the same way they can on the internet. Addictions take many forms, and the internet is but one. Still, a word of caution is justified here: the danger in the confusion of ‘telepresence’ - or, just because you see someone on your screen means that you’re having a ‘human experience’ - with actual human contact is real and needs to be noted. It is not as great a danger as Dreyfus presents, however. To some it may be, but an edpidemic of Cyberians seems unlikely at this point. Also, Dreyfus points out that using the internet does not involve risk on the human level. This is becoming less and less true. It’s not too hard to find out who is behind a pseudonym these days, and identity theft and monetary threat loom more and more. Not to mention that everything you type and look up on the internet is stored somewhere, and can be retrieved for purposes of marketing or otherwise. There are risks, on a fundamental human level, with internet use.
Concerning meaning and the internet, Dreyfus’ claims that the internet leads to nihilism are not wholly convincing. They’re based on the Kierkegaardian notion of the aesthetic and ethical life. Where Dreyfus sees problems, he defers to Kierkegaard.
Overall, the book presents a negative view on the present and future of the internet. Today it seems almost paranoid in places.The .COM burst gave us all a dose of reality, and there will likely be others to come as far as the internet is concerned. We’re not to Dreyfus’ distopia yet. Time may change that, or it may not. Likely more threateninig technologies will have to surface first.
This is a good place to start for exploring the philosophical implications of the internet. You won’t want to stop here if this book catches your interest.
Summary: From Plato to the net..The early fears.
Rating: 4
“On the internet”,written by H.L Dreyfus a professor at Berkley is one of the very few books on the market approaching the “net” from a philosophical point of view rather than a technical one.
This approach itself promises for some interesting questions and some very intriguing answers or theories.
Dreyfus touches both the obvious and the not so-obvious sides of the “information superhighway”. He emphasizes the fact that while the internet is basically the biggest storage of information we’ve invented so far, it doesnt possess artificial intelligence (yet?) and thus it is hopelessly still relying on humans to sort this information out, divide it into “important” and “unimportnat” information, and even then, it’s furthermore relying on the person looking for the information who has to know what he/she’s looking for and how to get it (evaluating the information for example)…
He points out the flaws as he tackles the weaknesses of the search engines which look for key words and not meaning and predicts that we’re not exactly close to solving this critical problem.
On probably the most interesting -and simoultaneously most controversial- chapter of the book, learning through online courses, Dreyfus argues that without personal involvement we might acquire the factual knowledge but not the skill since we are not physically “there” to interact with a teacher and to mimic what he/she does as far as the subject of learning is concerned, since, as he claims, this is one of the basics of learning.
He adds a rather strong argument on that, when he says that the fundamental way we “understand” reality is ba having a handle on it. He then goes on to conclude that the internet takes away exactly that: our connection to reality, and reasons that learning online compared to the traditional ways of learning is limited and inadequate, it inhibits proficiency.
With a world rapidly moving on to a digital existence, to functioning through the internet, a digital concious as it may, Dreyfus warns of the dangers. Predictably, alienation and new dimensions of loneliness are central themes of those warnings. We can talk to 10s of people online from different parts of the world without having any relationship with them. The passion is not there he claims, and that is probably the one indisputable point of his book.
Keeping in mind that the internet is still a relatively new medium, any conclusions we might hurry to make might be very flawed themselves. Dreyfus points this out himself when he reminds us of Plato (who seems to be a favorite of his) who 2.500 years ago warned the Athenians of the dangers of the written word. Yet, Dreyfus believes that the inetrnet is a more clear-czt case where we can see the dangers more clearly.
I disagree. We do not know how the internet will develop yet and to what direction. In Europe only a small fraction of the population actually uses it, other than to send or receive an email. This is far below the net’s capabilities and it doesn’t provide us with enough data about its influence on human societies yet. Most of Dreyfus’s observations come undoubtedly from the american usage of the internet (which is pioneering in that sector) but as more and more cultures get involved with the medium we are bound to see the medium take on more changes and uses.
When it comes to online learning i would have to agree with Dreyfus’s opinions with one main objection: up until recently learning the traditional way, whether in universities or schools, was going unquestioned and uncriticized. But especially in the 90s voices started abounding , especially from educators, that even that form of learning contains disembodiment. The west alone is filled with people with degrees who carry data but do not carry meaning in their data either exactly what Dreyfus is “accusing” the internet and its online courses of doing.
Learning in a school might provide with the all important human contact but how much of it is meaningful contact and to who’s interest is one big open question.
Schooling (universities included) distribute dogma and the process of learning in them is basically limited on absorbing the dogma proficiently. It would be a blatant lie to claim that this type of learning is “better” than the online courses. It would also be an interesting question and discussion what type of learning is then the most proficient one? Dreyfus doesn’t touch that question, indeed he seems to believe with no restrictions that the learning he’s involved in (in university) is “ok”..
I beg to differ.
All this, with objections and questions included, doesn’t mean that “On the internet” is not reccomendable. It’s in fact filled with interesting points and at worst it’s food for thought. As i said above , alone the fact that it’s a philosophical approach on the issue makes it intriguing enough.
But we shouldn’t be hasty. In 10-20 years time this book might seem terribly outdated and flawed. In fact, some might claim (and they might be right) that it already is…
Summary: Outmoded thinking - behind the times
Rating: 1
Dreyfus’ understanding of distance learning is quite limited. On page 39 of this book he defines distance learning as “the correspondence-course model of anonymous information consumers.” Distance learning has a lot more going for it than that, I have found that there is a lot of interactivity in online courses and a high level of communication with the professors. I took one of Dreyfus’ classes at Berkeley as an undergraduate and I never got to talk to him, there was no face to face learning. If you feel that the lecture method is the only way to learn, then the internet is not for you. If you want to feel like a “disembodied presence” go take a class at Berkeley as an undergrad.
Please Login or Register to read the rest of this content.
Related Posts
