I ended part 8 by asking three questions:
- What’s the problem that digital technologies attempt to solve?
- What’s the “distance” aspect of this problem?
- Are solutions being brought about through greater levels of abstraction?
In this part, which I am calling “8A”, I’d like to take a first pass at answering these questions before continuing on with my summary of William Powers’ book Hamlet’s BlackBerry: Building a Good Life in the Digital Age. If I had to give this part its own title, it would be the following:
“Trying to Get Body When Body Is Otherwise Not Getable”
As fate would have it I’m about two thirds of the way through Mario Livio’s 2009 book Is God a Mathematician? I’m at a place in the book where Livio talks about an interesting battle of worldviews: the battle between Euclidean geometries versus non-Euclidian geometries. As kids we learn about Euclidian geometries: “Between any two points a straight line may be drawn,” “All right angles are equal,” etc. (quoting Livio here). As kids, we learn about the Cartesian coordinate system. That’s Euclidian geometry too. As a matter of fact, Livio credits Descartes with bridging the two worlds of geometry and mathematics by introducing us to his coordinate system. Livio points out that the German philosopher Immanuel Kant went so far as to put forward the idea that we innately experience the world in Euclidian terms. Livio states:
Kant believed that Euclidian geometry provided the only true path for processing and conceptualizing space, and that this intuitive, universal acquaintance with space [see my August 14th, 2012, post for more on biological intuitions] was at the heart of our experience of the natural world. In Kant’s words: “Space is not an empirical concept which has been derived from external experience…. Space is a necessary representation a priori, forming the very foundation of all external intuitions….
I’ll spare you the details (grab a copy of Livio’s book) but a bunch of theorists came along and said essentially, “Heck no, there’s nothing innate about Euclidian spaces: I can just as easily imagine non-Euclidian spaces or geometries like saddle-structured spaces and large globe-structured spaces.” Here’s how Livio describes this conflict of worldviews:
The fact that one could select a different set of axioms and construct a different type of geometry raised for the first time the suspicion that mathematics is, after all, a human invention, rather than a discovery of truths that exist independently of the human mind.
So, who’s right? Well, the answer depends on what level of a system you are looking at. Let me see if I can explain.
Over the last ten years or so I have been very influenced by the work of cognitive linguist George Lakoff (and his various collaborators), the team of Fauconnier and Turner (who have written extensively about mental spaces and conceptual blending), and neurobiologist Antonio Damasio. In their own ways, the above researchers have said effectively,
Whereas the physical body can only go in one direction at one time, the so-called “mental body” (what Damasio calls an “as if” body) can go in many directions at the same time.
Fauconnier and Turner (in their book The Way We Think) talk about how we can conceptually or mentally meet ourselves on the same path. (Go ahead and imagine this possibility.) In contrast, Lakoff argues (in his book Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being) that the body forms the conceptual foundation upon which all mathematics is based. As a quick example, Lakoff argues that parenthetical mathematical statements (i.e., 3 x (2+6)=24) can only be conceptualized by reference to the body and the body’s ability to give us a sense or intuition for what it means to be bounded, to have boundaries, to be embodied, to be enclosed. In other words, it is our sense of body and “going in one direction at one time” that allows us to conceptually imagine going in multiple directions at the same time. Looked at another way, it is our Euclidian core intuition that allows us to imagine non-Euclidian spaces. My “bottom line”: “It is our core sense of body that allows us to imagine non-body or non-Euclidian worlds.” Ideally there should always be some type of coherent and consistent bridge between “body possibilities” and “mind possibilities.” (In an earlier post in this series I talked about the mid-brain “elephant” (body) getting along with the upper-brain “rider” (mind).) When there isn’t this bridging, we experience states of what psychology types call “dissociation”—the feeling of mind leaving body or body leaving mind. Bowlby argued that early safe and secure attachment relationships between mother and infant (if all goes well) are the royal road toward effective mind–body bridges. Think about it; when the attachment behavioral system is activated, it causes us to “think about” moving toward (building a bridge to) a safe and secure body (or what Bowlby’s longtime collaborator, Mary Ainsworth, called a safe base). (As a side note, during an Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) it’s not unusual for an interviewee to stop or have difficult talking when the attachment relational field becomes charged as the interview process brings up emotions associated with past trauma experiences, not unlike nightmares where we are not able to move or talk.)
Before leaving Lakoff, allow me to mention one interesting idea from his work: it is our physical body moving through physical (Euclidian) space that conceptually structures written language. Think about it; a well constructed sentence is like a walk in nature: there’s a beginning, an ending, subjects, objects, movement, a goal, a purpose, a certain comfortable linearity, etc. In other words, Lakoff suggests that the body experience of walking along a path in one direction at one time allows us to properly embody words within written language. I think Powers gets this idea when he writes the following in Hamlet’s Blackberry (at page 97): “By taking a walk, they [Socrates and a companion, Phaedrus] become less connected to the crowd and more connected to each other—and the scroll [e.g., written language] helps it all happen.” Even Bowlby imagined infant–mother movements within a secure attachment field in this way (as mentioned above). These movements are then moved to the oral tradition as mother (or father) reads to her young child. And then all of this is translated to actual movement within physical space, like walks in the woods (i.e., moving out to explore and then returning to a safe base). All of this gets upended as kids and adults spend hours, even days not moving, just staring at screens. It is no wonder that written language has been reduced to almost indecipherable “tweets” that are all over the place, unbounded except for the machinery that embodies them. I would suggest that sending copious amounts of texts, emails, and tweets represents an attempt to get body when body is otherwise not getable. (Witness the fact that recently the FBI found between 20,000 and 30,000 pages of email communications between social liaison Jill Kelley and Gen. John Allen, both characters in the unfolding Gen. David Petraeus scandal—that’s a whole lot of emails.) Even Richard Louv in his book Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our children from Nature Deficit Disorder, talks about how kids are now afraid of going into the woods and other natural environments because there’s no place to plug in a computer or get a cell signal. Consider this headline:
“Teen steps into snake nest while searching for cellphone signal”
Here’s what the teen told reporters:
If you’re in the desert, for one, wear boots. And two, don’t bring your cellphone or go searching for reception, because you probably won’t find it anyways. And you might step into a pit of rattlesnakes.
We have entered a digital age where the mind is all over the place while the body remains effectively motionless. This has to play with our sense of body, our sense of space. Maybe the non-Euclidian theorists were on to something.
OK, what does all of the above have to do with our three questions:
- What’s the problem that digital technologies attempt to solve?
- What’s the “distance” aspect of this problem?
- Are solutions being brought about through greater levels of abstraction?
Allow me to build a few bridges.
I would suggest that the problem that digital technologies attempt to solve can be framed as a body–mind problem. In my opinion, digital technologies express a desire to do away with any concern for body–mind bridges. Digital technologies wish to distance mind from body. In doing so, digital technologies allow mind to go in as many abstract directions as it wishes to without concern for the “one direction at one time” limitation of body. Today it is not uncommon for people to spend hours, even days, in front of a computer screen—flying, killing, gender-swapping, identity-swapping, age-swapping, spouse-swapping—all with very little input or bounding coming from the body. I’ve written this entire post so far while seated and effectively motionless. Carried to an extreme digital technologies express a desire to separate body from mind. Yes, this is functional dissociation at the level of society. And this would be a “natural” first step along paths such as postmodernism (“you can go in any direction at any time”) and posthumanism (“you can leave behind biological body and take up residence in a mechanical or cyborg body, or maybe no body at all—pure spirit”). If you will recall from part 1, I suggested that any discussion of the analog–digital divide will bring up the following continuums:
- human–posthuman
- modern–postmodern
- natural evolution–manmade evolution
- natural intelligence–artificial intelligence
- therapy–enhancement
- human care–mechanical care
OK, I know what you’re thinking: “Rick, my friend, you have lost it.” Before you write me off, consider the following article, which, I would argue, maps the very dissociative process I outline above:
Experts Raise Concerns Over Superhuman Workplace
The above article comes from the London Associated Press. Here’s how the article starts out:
Performance-boosting drugs, powered prostheses and wearable computers are coming to an office near you. But experts warned in a new report Wednesday [11.07.12] that too little thought has been given to the implications of a superhuman [or posthuman] workplace.
Recall that in my February 24th, 2012, summary of Nicholas Carr’s RYOL Lecture I mentioned that during lunch Mr. Carr commented along the lines of, “We often embrace new technology before we have a chance to assess its implications in terms of intellectual ethics. Often once we do reflect on the implications of new technologies, it’s too late.” And it’s not just a superhuman workplace that we need to be concerned with; the superhuman concept has gripped the military for decades now. The military has tried to create a superhuman soldier—brain boosters, wearable computers, sophisticated exoskeletons, bionic limbs, smart weapons, etc.—since the early days of cybernetic research (back in the 1940s and 50s). Cybernetics is from the Greek meaning to “steer” or “navigate” (thank you Wikipedia). Essentially, cybernetics is the field that studies how to turn humans into controllable or steerable machines. And, yes, John Bowlby was very aware of and influenced by the cybernetic thought that surrounded him in the 1940s and 50s. Fortunately he picked the “good” version of systems theory (often attributed to Ludwig von Bertalanffy) to guide his efforts.
To sum up, here’s how I would answer the following three questions:
Q -What’s the problem that digital technologies attempt to solve?
A – Mind is too connected or bridged to body, to one place at one time.
Q – What’s the “distance” aspect of this problem?
A – Digital technologies wish to distance mind from body, to liberate mind from body or biology.
Q – Are solutions being brought about through greater levels of abstraction?
A – Yes. We are privileging mind and its ability to go in multiple directions at the same time while at the same time discounting the “one direction at one time” limitation of body or being biologically embodied.
So, if you wish for a bit of a respite, try reducing the crowd of the digital world by having a face-to-face conversation, reading to your kids, reading a book, or taking a walk in the woods. But remember, leave your screen of choice behind. Your screen IS your crowd. For an interesting take on the above, consider this article (sent to me by Andy Carroll—thanks Andy). Believe it or not, it features Powers’ book Hamlet’s BlackBerry:
“Hurricane Sandy Reveals a Life Unplugged”
In my next post I’ll get back on track by presenting part 9 of my blog series wherein I summarize Powers’ book Hamlet’s Blackberry. In all likelihood part 9 will not come out until after Thanksgiving. So, have a great Thanksgiving everyone!
