"Ethics, Imagination, and the Method of Wittgenstein's Tractatus"
by Cora Diamond
in The New Wittgenstein
edited by Alice Crary and Rupert Reed
London: Routledge
2000
I've mentioned a couple of times that I'm not terribly interested in the nature vs. nurture debate. This is because I think it actually occludes the issue - people don't talk about what they mean to be talking about. This is because of the belief that what is produced by nature is immutable, and what is produced by nurture is within our control. And if something is immutable, it is off the table, in a way - there's no point in trying to change it, or having a value system that says it should be changed. It would also be unrealistic as a policy matter to try and change things.
Unfortunately this is false. That which is a result of nature, as well as that which is a result of nurture, is mutable. We can change it, if we know how. (Consider that it could be rather hard to figure out how to change something by raising people differently - perhaps almost as hard as figuring out how to change it by other means).
The real issue is different. The real questions we should be asking: what is in our reach, and in what sense? What sort of necessity is in play here - practical, physical, logical? What should we be trying to change?
To get back to Diamond: in her article, she discusses an idea of evil as an attitude towards the world that is something like frustration that it does not simply bend to one's whims. I would put the point rather differently: there are a lot of things that we're not, and never will be, in a position to change - like what I ate for lunch yesterday, or whether energy is conserved in a closed system. Getting frustrated by these things - indeed, getting frustrated by the very idea of factual necessities - is a problem. It means that you haven't really taken to heart the point that the business of human life is action. Part of that means coming to grips with being a finite creature. Part of it means getting a clear view of what can be changed - what it is in one's power to change - and deciding what to do.
Showing posts with label Transhumanism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Transhumanism. Show all posts
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
applied transhumanism
http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/a-commitment-pill/
"A Commitment Pill?"
by Olivia Judson
September 16, 2008
The New York Times
"In humans, the vasopressin receptor 1a gene comes in a number of forms. In the Swedish study, men who had two copies of one particular form of the gene — the variant known as RS3 334 — were less likely to be married, and more likely to report difficulties in their relationships, than other men. Their partners were also more likely to report relationship difficulties.
An experiment suggests itself. It would be fascinating to see whether inserting a “regular” vasopressin receptor gene into the brains of men who have two copies of the “difficulties” variant would ameliorate their problems, insofar as they have them. It would be fascinating to test the extent to which different forms of a single gene affect a man’s behavior."
One of many dissatisfied commenters remarks:
"A pill to promote male bonding behavior? A chemical solution to an ancient psycho-social conundrum? Please."
I mean, if anyone's got a better solution, now's the time.
On the other hand, it is worth pointing out that one could put this pill to a lot of questionable uses. It could be deployed as social policy: a way of ensuring that people not only toed a certain line, but wanted to toe the line. And that's more than a little scary. (But hey, the Party managed it without any fancy chemical tools). Equally, it could find surreptitious use in individual relationships.
What I think is wrong with these uses - what makes them the wrong application - is that they are not based on the choices and values of the individual. In other words, it would be reasonable of me, if I really believed in being very monagamous, and if I were male, and if I had reason to suspect that I was at risk of straying, to apply this method to myself (if you know your Parfit, this is meant to recall the Russian Nobleman). One interesting thought - maybe I'm just in love with the idea of monogamy? Maybe my deliberations have gone wrong already? This is why I say that scientific advances alone won't make us better people. This is another way of saying that the same things that can be wrong with using such a tool on another person could be wrong with using it on oneself.
"A Commitment Pill?"
by Olivia Judson
September 16, 2008
The New York Times
"In humans, the vasopressin receptor 1a gene comes in a number of forms. In the Swedish study, men who had two copies of one particular form of the gene — the variant known as RS3 334 — were less likely to be married, and more likely to report difficulties in their relationships, than other men. Their partners were also more likely to report relationship difficulties.
An experiment suggests itself. It would be fascinating to see whether inserting a “regular” vasopressin receptor gene into the brains of men who have two copies of the “difficulties” variant would ameliorate their problems, insofar as they have them. It would be fascinating to test the extent to which different forms of a single gene affect a man’s behavior."
One of many dissatisfied commenters remarks:
"A pill to promote male bonding behavior? A chemical solution to an ancient psycho-social conundrum? Please."
I mean, if anyone's got a better solution, now's the time.
On the other hand, it is worth pointing out that one could put this pill to a lot of questionable uses. It could be deployed as social policy: a way of ensuring that people not only toed a certain line, but wanted to toe the line. And that's more than a little scary. (But hey, the Party managed it without any fancy chemical tools). Equally, it could find surreptitious use in individual relationships.
What I think is wrong with these uses - what makes them the wrong application - is that they are not based on the choices and values of the individual. In other words, it would be reasonable of me, if I really believed in being very monagamous, and if I were male, and if I had reason to suspect that I was at risk of straying, to apply this method to myself (if you know your Parfit, this is meant to recall the Russian Nobleman). One interesting thought - maybe I'm just in love with the idea of monogamy? Maybe my deliberations have gone wrong already? This is why I say that scientific advances alone won't make us better people. This is another way of saying that the same things that can be wrong with using such a tool on another person could be wrong with using it on oneself.
Monday, December 8, 2008
transhumanism
http://dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_034.htm
"Rule 110"
by Aaron Diaz
February 2, 2007
Dresden Codak
The storyline is about the singularity and transhumanism and also stuff. In this installment, the protagonist remarks "To be more than human is to be human." I lead with this remark because I have, at times, evinced a pro-attitude towards science, and its ability to transform the way we live, that may at times seem unfounded. In defense of that, let me tell a story: once upon a time, alchemists spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out how to turn lead into gold. These days, they are roundly mocked for their efforts - a professor of mine once remarked that building a computer that can really do a good job with English semantics is as realistic as turning lead into gold. The funny thing is, we can turn lead into gold. We did it more than twenty-five years ago.
http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalchemistry/a/aa050601a.htm
"Turning Lead Into Gold"
by Anne Marie Helmenstine
About.com
Ok, that said: what exactly are we going to do with all this science? To get back to Dresden Codak:
http://dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_058.html
"The End"
October 22, 2008
by Aaron Diaz
Dresden Codak
In this final installment, our heroine is disappointed when the fellow from the first comic, about whom she had such high hopes, can't think of any better way to change people than to make them better at sports. To get closer to the things I'm interested in, let's take a look at Frankfurt.
Taking Ourselves Seriously & Getting It Right
by Harry Frankfurt
page 11
2006
Stanford: Stanford University Press
"However, the mere fact that a person has a desire does not give him a reason. What it gives him is a problem. He has the problem of whether to identify with the desire and this validate it as eligible for satisfaction, or whether to dissociate himself from it, treat it as categorically unacceptable, and try to suppress it or rid himself of it entirely. If he identifies with the desire, he acknowledges that satisfying it is to be assigned some position - however inferior - in the order of his preferences and priorities. If he externalizes the desire, he determines to give it no position in that order."
Unfortunately, sometimes our desires are insistent. Sometimes they make their way into the order of our preferences and priorities, despite our wishes; maybe we even become used to this fact and process. Sometimes we're not successful at ridding ourselves of the things we'd like to be rid of. On a level perhaps more insidious than Frankfurt discusses, we may find ourselves consistently overlooking certain possibilities for action; we may find ourselves consistently subject to certain cognitive biases. And so forth.
In other words: one of the things we can do with new tools is change the world. This is an important goal. But no matter how many tools we have, we'll never cease being finite creatures. In other words, new tools aren't a solution to that problem - though they may be solutions to more particular problems (e.g. smallpox). On the other hand, one of the other things we can do with new tools is change ourselves. Our desires and perceptions enter into our deliberations in a way that is different from the way that problems in the world do. It is problems with the former that are most worth being solved by transhumanism. (Put another way, one thing that new tools can do, though again, not merely by themselves, is help us have well-ordered souls).
Now, I don't mean to suggest that science alone will solve all these problems. That is, if we can't even see what the problem is in the first place, all the science in the world won't do a thing for us (except possibly accidentally). But there are situations in which we know what the problem is, more or less; we just don't know how to fix the damn thing.
"Rule 110"
by Aaron Diaz
February 2, 2007
Dresden Codak
The storyline is about the singularity and transhumanism and also stuff. In this installment, the protagonist remarks "To be more than human is to be human." I lead with this remark because I have, at times, evinced a pro-attitude towards science, and its ability to transform the way we live, that may at times seem unfounded. In defense of that, let me tell a story: once upon a time, alchemists spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out how to turn lead into gold. These days, they are roundly mocked for their efforts - a professor of mine once remarked that building a computer that can really do a good job with English semantics is as realistic as turning lead into gold. The funny thing is, we can turn lead into gold. We did it more than twenty-five years ago.
http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalchemistry/a/aa050601a.htm
"Turning Lead Into Gold"
by Anne Marie Helmenstine
About.com
Ok, that said: what exactly are we going to do with all this science? To get back to Dresden Codak:
http://dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_058.html
"The End"
October 22, 2008
by Aaron Diaz
Dresden Codak
In this final installment, our heroine is disappointed when the fellow from the first comic, about whom she had such high hopes, can't think of any better way to change people than to make them better at sports. To get closer to the things I'm interested in, let's take a look at Frankfurt.
Taking Ourselves Seriously & Getting It Right
by Harry Frankfurt
page 11
2006
Stanford: Stanford University Press
"However, the mere fact that a person has a desire does not give him a reason. What it gives him is a problem. He has the problem of whether to identify with the desire and this validate it as eligible for satisfaction, or whether to dissociate himself from it, treat it as categorically unacceptable, and try to suppress it or rid himself of it entirely. If he identifies with the desire, he acknowledges that satisfying it is to be assigned some position - however inferior - in the order of his preferences and priorities. If he externalizes the desire, he determines to give it no position in that order."
Unfortunately, sometimes our desires are insistent. Sometimes they make their way into the order of our preferences and priorities, despite our wishes; maybe we even become used to this fact and process. Sometimes we're not successful at ridding ourselves of the things we'd like to be rid of. On a level perhaps more insidious than Frankfurt discusses, we may find ourselves consistently overlooking certain possibilities for action; we may find ourselves consistently subject to certain cognitive biases. And so forth.
In other words: one of the things we can do with new tools is change the world. This is an important goal. But no matter how many tools we have, we'll never cease being finite creatures. In other words, new tools aren't a solution to that problem - though they may be solutions to more particular problems (e.g. smallpox). On the other hand, one of the other things we can do with new tools is change ourselves. Our desires and perceptions enter into our deliberations in a way that is different from the way that problems in the world do. It is problems with the former that are most worth being solved by transhumanism. (Put another way, one thing that new tools can do, though again, not merely by themselves, is help us have well-ordered souls).
Now, I don't mean to suggest that science alone will solve all these problems. That is, if we can't even see what the problem is in the first place, all the science in the world won't do a thing for us (except possibly accidentally). But there are situations in which we know what the problem is, more or less; we just don't know how to fix the damn thing.
oral sex, action, feminism
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200601/oral-sex
"Are You There, God? It's Me, Monica"
by Caitlin Flanagan
January / February 2006
The Atlantic
The article discusses the rise of young girls performing unreciprocated oral sex on young boys. Flanagan is not entirely happy about this. She remarks that it is bad that girls engage in sexual acts without any concern for their own pleasure; she is unhappy that they engage in them outside of the context of a romantic relationship.
Putting on my devil's advocate / philosopher's hat, I want to argue that the nature of acts is not written into the world. (I would make a more or less identical complaint about a lot of religious ethics, actually). The basic point is: are we even right to say that this is a sexual act? Flanagan writes,
"Instead we see a group of young girls who have in effect turned away from their own desire altogether and have made of their sexuality something that fulfills all sorts of goals, but not the one paramount to Katherine and her mother: that it be sexually gratifying to themselves."
Let's assume that this is right - that these young girls experience no sexual desire during these acts. (And let's assume that they're freely chosen, i.e. not rapes). Why say that their sexuality is in play at all? (Certainly the boy's sexuality is - one would expect - but that hardly indicates that, from the female perspective, what we have is a sexual act). Or recall Flanagan's earlier comment, regarding Patty Hearst, that she changed the nature of the act (a rape) by changing her attitude towards it (falling in love with her captor). In other words, Flanagan's objection to the practice is generated by combining her own conception of sex with the conception held by these teens - which probably is not the right way to go about things.
But this obviously isn't the whole story. Flanagan writes,
"I am old-fashioned enough to believe that men and boys are not as likely to be wounded, emotionally and spiritually, by early sexual experience, or by sexual experience entered into without romantic commitment, as are women and girls. I think that girls are vulnerable to great damage through the kind of sex in which they are, as individuals, as valueless and unrecognizable as chattel. Society has let its girls down in every possible way. It has refused to assert—or even to acknowledge—that female sexuality is as intricately connected to kindness and trust as it is to gratification and pleasure. It's in the nature of who we are."
In other words, maybe the nature of these actions isn't written into the world, but into our psychologies. We can't help but react to certain physical acts in certain ways. Whether this is true or not is a real question - an important question. But Flagan goes on to assert that this is "in the nature of who we are." Now, I don't mean to assert that we can change this merely by raising our children differently - merely through "nurture." But I will assert without hesitation that it can be changed; that if we don't know how to do it now, we'll know how to do it soon enough. So is this the way that we should deal with each other? Is this the sort of world we want to live in?
(One question which I have ignored is: if it's not because of their sexual desire, why are these girls engaging in these acts? This is another important question, and I doubt that it has a pleasant answer.)
"Are You There, God? It's Me, Monica"
by Caitlin Flanagan
January / February 2006
The Atlantic
The article discusses the rise of young girls performing unreciprocated oral sex on young boys. Flanagan is not entirely happy about this. She remarks that it is bad that girls engage in sexual acts without any concern for their own pleasure; she is unhappy that they engage in them outside of the context of a romantic relationship.
Putting on my devil's advocate / philosopher's hat, I want to argue that the nature of acts is not written into the world. (I would make a more or less identical complaint about a lot of religious ethics, actually). The basic point is: are we even right to say that this is a sexual act? Flanagan writes,
"Instead we see a group of young girls who have in effect turned away from their own desire altogether and have made of their sexuality something that fulfills all sorts of goals, but not the one paramount to Katherine and her mother: that it be sexually gratifying to themselves."
Let's assume that this is right - that these young girls experience no sexual desire during these acts. (And let's assume that they're freely chosen, i.e. not rapes). Why say that their sexuality is in play at all? (Certainly the boy's sexuality is - one would expect - but that hardly indicates that, from the female perspective, what we have is a sexual act). Or recall Flanagan's earlier comment, regarding Patty Hearst, that she changed the nature of the act (a rape) by changing her attitude towards it (falling in love with her captor). In other words, Flanagan's objection to the practice is generated by combining her own conception of sex with the conception held by these teens - which probably is not the right way to go about things.
But this obviously isn't the whole story. Flanagan writes,
"I am old-fashioned enough to believe that men and boys are not as likely to be wounded, emotionally and spiritually, by early sexual experience, or by sexual experience entered into without romantic commitment, as are women and girls. I think that girls are vulnerable to great damage through the kind of sex in which they are, as individuals, as valueless and unrecognizable as chattel. Society has let its girls down in every possible way. It has refused to assert—or even to acknowledge—that female sexuality is as intricately connected to kindness and trust as it is to gratification and pleasure. It's in the nature of who we are."
In other words, maybe the nature of these actions isn't written into the world, but into our psychologies. We can't help but react to certain physical acts in certain ways. Whether this is true or not is a real question - an important question. But Flagan goes on to assert that this is "in the nature of who we are." Now, I don't mean to assert that we can change this merely by raising our children differently - merely through "nurture." But I will assert without hesitation that it can be changed; that if we don't know how to do it now, we'll know how to do it soon enough. So is this the way that we should deal with each other? Is this the sort of world we want to live in?
(One question which I have ignored is: if it's not because of their sexual desire, why are these girls engaging in these acts? This is another important question, and I doubt that it has a pleasant answer.)
Friday, December 5, 2008
cyborgs among us
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/12/eye-spy-filmmak.html
"Eye Spy: Filmmaker Plans to Install Camera in his Eye Socket"
by Priya Ganapati
December 4, 2008
Wired
Ok, I don't have anything interesting to say about this, but it is seriously cool.
(anyone see Doomsday?)
"Eye Spy: Filmmaker Plans to Install Camera in his Eye Socket"
by Priya Ganapati
December 4, 2008
Wired
Ok, I don't have anything interesting to say about this, but it is seriously cool.
(anyone see Doomsday?)
gender and puberty
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16211-delaying-puberty-could-help-genderconfused-teens-.html
"Delaying Puberty Could Help Gender-Confused Teens"
December 5, 2008
by Linda Gettes
NewScientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426002.100-teenagers-trapped-in-the-wrong-body.html
"Teenagers Trapped in the Wrong Body"
April 20, 2007
by Alison George
NewScientist
The first article discusses how delaying puberty will help gender-confused teens mature and spend more time thinking about their decision before their changing bodies either make certain options more difficult (such as gender-reassignment surgery) or make them very unhappy. The basic idea is to give kids more time before a decision presses. (The second article discusses similar issues).
I find this rather interesting. What if the kid never wants to develop either way? What if they're pretty happy with their body as it is, and don't feel like becoming a full-fledged male or female? Or: it is funny that, while all these biological developments are showing that sex and gender are really a lot more fluid than they have once been thought to be, we're still only letting people pick one of two options: male or female.
(This is not to deny that there may be serious consequences of not going through puberty, and that twelve year olds may not be in the best position to consent to them. But what is a good age? 18 may, in fact, be a little arbitrary.)
Some more specific analyses (all from the second article):
"Even children with the most extreme symptoms of GID may later have a change of heart. "Despite doing very comprehensive psychological assessments, we find that around 20 per cent of young people who are convinced they are transsexual change their mind at puberty," says Viner."
The question may be: why do they have these changes of heart? Do they have good or bad genealogies - is it, perhaps, intense social pressure that results in it (whether or not that leaves behind psychological damage)? We might also ask: what does it matter how they'll feel about things in ten years? The individual is in front of us now. (This is complicated by the fact that they're teenagers).
As an example of genealogical concerns:
"On the other hand, it is possible that the drugs themselves could prevent some young people who are treated this early from changing their minds when they reach puberty. "We are unclear about the impact of pubertal hormones on gender identity development," says Di Ceglie."
On another note:
"It is still not clear how a "normal" sense of gender identity develops. We do know that children seem to develop an innate sense of being male or female very young, and by age 2 can identify which sex they belong to. By age 6, they have learned that gender is fixed - that they will stay male or female and won't change sex when they grow up. "Gender identity is not a matter of free choice," says Bern Meyenburg, a psychiatrist who runs a clinic for children and adolescents at the University of Frankfurt in Germany. "You are born with it or it is laid down in early life."
It is odd, in a way, to say that children learn that gender is fixed. First of all, one might want to say that sex is fixed. But what this article makes very obvious is that sex is not fixed. Given that we sort of know how to change these things - and perhaps soon enough we'll know a bit about how to chemically alter gender - it is very odd to say that these things are simply laid down.
"Delaying Puberty Could Help Gender-Confused Teens"
December 5, 2008
by Linda Gettes
NewScientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426002.100-teenagers-trapped-in-the-wrong-body.html
"Teenagers Trapped in the Wrong Body"
April 20, 2007
by Alison George
NewScientist
The first article discusses how delaying puberty will help gender-confused teens mature and spend more time thinking about their decision before their changing bodies either make certain options more difficult (such as gender-reassignment surgery) or make them very unhappy. The basic idea is to give kids more time before a decision presses. (The second article discusses similar issues).
I find this rather interesting. What if the kid never wants to develop either way? What if they're pretty happy with their body as it is, and don't feel like becoming a full-fledged male or female? Or: it is funny that, while all these biological developments are showing that sex and gender are really a lot more fluid than they have once been thought to be, we're still only letting people pick one of two options: male or female.
(This is not to deny that there may be serious consequences of not going through puberty, and that twelve year olds may not be in the best position to consent to them. But what is a good age? 18 may, in fact, be a little arbitrary.)
Some more specific analyses (all from the second article):
"Even children with the most extreme symptoms of GID may later have a change of heart. "Despite doing very comprehensive psychological assessments, we find that around 20 per cent of young people who are convinced they are transsexual change their mind at puberty," says Viner."
The question may be: why do they have these changes of heart? Do they have good or bad genealogies - is it, perhaps, intense social pressure that results in it (whether or not that leaves behind psychological damage)? We might also ask: what does it matter how they'll feel about things in ten years? The individual is in front of us now. (This is complicated by the fact that they're teenagers).
As an example of genealogical concerns:
"On the other hand, it is possible that the drugs themselves could prevent some young people who are treated this early from changing their minds when they reach puberty. "We are unclear about the impact of pubertal hormones on gender identity development," says Di Ceglie."
On another note:
"It is still not clear how a "normal" sense of gender identity develops. We do know that children seem to develop an innate sense of being male or female very young, and by age 2 can identify which sex they belong to. By age 6, they have learned that gender is fixed - that they will stay male or female and won't change sex when they grow up. "Gender identity is not a matter of free choice," says Bern Meyenburg, a psychiatrist who runs a clinic for children and adolescents at the University of Frankfurt in Germany. "You are born with it or it is laid down in early life."
It is odd, in a way, to say that children learn that gender is fixed. First of all, one might want to say that sex is fixed. But what this article makes very obvious is that sex is not fixed. Given that we sort of know how to change these things - and perhaps soon enough we'll know a bit about how to chemically alter gender - it is very odd to say that these things are simply laid down.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
science
http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/back-to-reality/
"Back to Reality"
December 2, 2008
by Olivia Judson
The New York Times
"In many respects science has been the dominant force — for good and ill — that has transformed human lives over the past two centuries.
In schools, science is often taught as a body of knowledge — a set of facts and equations. But all that is just a consequence of scientific activity.
Science itself is something else, something both more profound and less tangible. It is an attitude, a stance towards measuring, evaluating and describing the world that is based on skepticism, investigation and evidence. The hallmark is curiosity; the aim, to see the world as it is."
I am these days thinking that there is a real connection between logical positivism, their project of getting a grip on the nature of science, and what Cora Diamond calls "the realistic spirit," and what I tend to put under the heading "to see the world aright." The thought is, somehow, that it is science that provides us with the clearest view of the world.
On a related note, I suspect that many problems that we have can, in the end, be solved by science, and little else. That is, the problem is that we just don't know how to do something, and once science figures it out - things will change. Or at least they can. That is, I remarked elsewhere, "Sure it's true. But is it necessarily true?" And science is what, as far as we are concerned, often shifts the boundaries of what is necessarily true. And so if we want to change something, we had best figure out how. (how to change people themselves).
"Back to Reality"
December 2, 2008
by Olivia Judson
The New York Times
"In many respects science has been the dominant force — for good and ill — that has transformed human lives over the past two centuries.
In schools, science is often taught as a body of knowledge — a set of facts and equations. But all that is just a consequence of scientific activity.
Science itself is something else, something both more profound and less tangible. It is an attitude, a stance towards measuring, evaluating and describing the world that is based on skepticism, investigation and evidence. The hallmark is curiosity; the aim, to see the world as it is."
I am these days thinking that there is a real connection between logical positivism, their project of getting a grip on the nature of science, and what Cora Diamond calls "the realistic spirit," and what I tend to put under the heading "to see the world aright." The thought is, somehow, that it is science that provides us with the clearest view of the world.
On a related note, I suspect that many problems that we have can, in the end, be solved by science, and little else. That is, the problem is that we just don't know how to do something, and once science figures it out - things will change. Or at least they can. That is, I remarked elsewhere, "Sure it's true. But is it necessarily true?" And science is what, as far as we are concerned, often shifts the boundaries of what is necessarily true. And so if we want to change something, we had best figure out how. (how to change people themselves).
perception and embodiment
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/30/080630fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all
"The Itch"
The New Yorker
by Atul Gawande
June 30, 2008
There are some interesting things in here about how perception works, in a neurological and perhaps even philosophical sense. It's also about itching. But I'm more concerned with some more incidental comments about the relation between perception and embodiment.
The basic idea, perhaps, is that what we perceive as 'our' bodies is closely related to what we perceive ourselves to have control over - combined with sensory feedback of various sorts, especially visual feedback. This perhaps points towards how we would go about building extensions of the human body; how we would go about integrating entirely inhuman technologies into a person's experiences. Perhaps. (Of course, one might wonder: how far beyond the normal humanoid form can we stretch things?)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10579
"Virtual Reality System Combats Phantom-Limb Pain"
November 15, 2006
NewScientist
by Will Knight
"The Itch"
The New Yorker
by Atul Gawande
June 30, 2008
There are some interesting things in here about how perception works, in a neurological and perhaps even philosophical sense. It's also about itching. But I'm more concerned with some more incidental comments about the relation between perception and embodiment.
The basic idea, perhaps, is that what we perceive as 'our' bodies is closely related to what we perceive ourselves to have control over - combined with sensory feedback of various sorts, especially visual feedback. This perhaps points towards how we would go about building extensions of the human body; how we would go about integrating entirely inhuman technologies into a person's experiences. Perhaps. (Of course, one might wonder: how far beyond the normal humanoid form can we stretch things?)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10579
"Virtual Reality System Combats Phantom-Limb Pain"
November 15, 2006
NewScientist
by Will Knight
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)