Napkin+Thought-Stream+19+October

Thomas Solley STSH 4980-01 Senior Thesis Costelloe-Kuehn 10/22/2014

Click here to return to portfolio.

__ Napkin Thought-Stream from October 19 __ 2014 ... In response to the SingularityHub article < http://singularityhub.com/2014/10/19/mindware-upgrades-will-make-humans-as-technological-as-we-are-biological/>, we begin as-follows. I'll also be attaching the voice-log I made after having finished the notes (it was my executive summary, whose points and thoughts I mentioned in my discussion with Jeremy Reece on Tuesday October 21).

6:30pm -- 7:40pm > __10/22/2014__ So, to clarify where I stand now... I have a bunch of knowledge and ideas about where the "disconnect" Feelings come-from, but still no idea of the H+ response, or of whether these feelings are part of an organized "movement."
 * "Fringe" TV show shows us how technology can be misused... used for murder, revenge, personal gain. And from my personal recollection, there is not much positive w/in that scope [granted, check the __premise__ of the environment]
 * (Thoughts on Integration SingularityHub article)
 * So... If we were to exist without "technology," we would be a less-advanced species?
 * "Man has been merging with technology since the beginning"
 * Speaks to my theory of "man has used technology to transcend evolution"
 * This idea speaks to the "Tide" novels of Sam's... "Man fears what they do not understand...", "all fears have their basis in death -- a child's fear of being alone without it's mother, ..."
 * We fear a world without "nature," without "natural biology," as we cannot envision or understand such a world -- a world... beyond us?
 * ... Does this mean that mankind is nearing its own end? Certainly, "Automata" could make such a claim... And Games have such parallels, too...
 * We fear a world without organics, as such an existence transcends our own (__"fishbowl" metaphor__) .... And so we seek to limit the spread of technology, to halt the advance... ("Automata")
 * Is this why we seek to limit smartphones? Unknown...
 * Holding-back The Singularity...
 * Yet... In our fear of a non-organic world (see Star Wars, Yuuzhan Vong War novels for contrast of "machines versus organics") are we doomed to die? To extinction? Or, as the "Jurassic Park" adage says, will "__life find a way__"??
 * ... A few odd things within that phrase, though...
 * Does organic life always have an [sic] cosmic immortality? Must it?
 * [From article video] Smartphones as "mind upgrades,"... (~ thoughts on this...)
 * ... Is there historical evidence that synthetic life can exist post-organic? (yes?)
 * ... There doesn't seem to be a "reason" for why humans should exist past the singularity -- aside from our primordial drive of self-preservation.
 * Yet, even in this -- "Automata" makes... poignant claim... Our machines carry-on our image (but as per The Matrix, for __how long__??)
 * There are connotations in the Media which claims that "machines will one day 'wake up,' and realize they no longer need us, that we are inferior and imperfect. And when they do, they will dispose of us."
 * Our search for "perfection," even our definitions of "flaws,"... As per "Tron, Legacy," there is the notion that organic life (also shared in the "Mass Effect" series) __IS__ chaos, __IS__ disorderly, __CONTAINS__ imperfection, and that machines can "move past" our human limitations
 * physical
 * organic
 * mental
 * behavioral
 * ... And while our "limits" are our own, WE SHAPE THEM __BECAUSE__ THEY EXPLAIN OUR SELF-WORTH...
 * WE CLAIM SOMETHING IS "LOST" IN VIRTUAL SPACE, BUT ONLY BECAUSE WE ARE DEFINED AS __ORGANIC__ BEINGS!!!
 * Our claims of "inhumanity"
 * media type="file" key="Extropian Vs. Organicist Ideas.m4a" width="300" height="50"
 * Self.... "humanity"... What is human... fishbowl... transcend evolution, use of tools, monkeys, inability to grasp what is outside our perspective, Extropian view of virtual-self as good, "hive mind" is ultimate physical-limits-remover....
 * Self.... "humanity"... What is human... fishbowl... transcend evolution, use of tools, monkeys, inability to grasp what is outside our perspective, Extropian view of virtual-self as good, "hive mind" is ultimate physical-limits-remover....

I still need info in these two fields before I can craft an "argument," for while I can POSSIBLY use the "tropes" I've come-up with in analyzing the "conservative" claims, I don't... Have an actual "argument" right now, except a lot of philosophical bantering about the fears people have -- still nothing that proves a negative-space in H+ thinking, still nothing to suggest a "united movement" against Smartphones and Social Networks.

As-per the 3 deliverables I mentioned in the Notes_All; 1) Are my assumed 3 groups correct, with regards to the Seattle Times article? So I guess I wasn't that far off with my analysis?
 * "Tech addicts" is separate from the three of mine -- addiction and dependency were not included in my categories. However, if any of three categories of mine maps to this, it would be the Salon article about "handheld communications [phones] are a distraction from your physical surroundings and are dangerous."
 * Yet, all the three categories I made -- and their related articles -- refer to "tech addiction" in some form. Yet "addicition" isn't the overarching theme here -- it may be a symptom/ a single "pointer" used by conservatives (and an easy/fast one to use, too), but is not the "root cause" of the complaints I see being-made.
 * "Tech discontents" maps to the "Tablets/computers/phones create more separated interpersonal communications," as-per the Elizabethany and Facebook-page.
 * "Tech hipsters" maps to the "resist the status quo, leave a tech-type behind completely, go back to Nature and more-profound interactions without technology," as-per the Ksl and Haaretz articles.

2) Are those "terms" I found -- slow-tech, disconnect, pushback, unplug -- are these part of a unified movement? 3) Humanity+ response to the three categories I mentioned, response to SlowTech, response to HiveMind...
 * Looking for "pushback movement" in Google Search --- nothing relevant within first page.
 * "... "deconnect movement," found this, , so a lot of associated posts and concerns but no "unified movement" yet. Just like the "anti FB" and "anti SN" searches.
 * "... "unplug movement," found a useful article on this, , so another social commentary without actual "unification." As with the "disconnect" results, there are some "events" associated with this -- national day of unplugging, #unplug, etc. 
 * "... "slow-tech movement," ... AND I FOUND THINGS!!!! So many results on the first page of GS!!! EXCELLENT.
 * HOLY CRAP I FINALLY HAVE A UNITED MOVEMENT I CAN COMPARE INSTEAD OF PERSONAL ARTICLES
 * , interesting view of "infiltrating technology," but nothing I haven't read before.
 * , great overview and general description of the movement, still not the "main page" though.. Might use as a "summary" if I can't find a primary source. Did mention the "slow food" is the most well-known offshoot.
 * , MAIN SITE!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D YESSSSSSSSSSSS. Their "About" page is, as the H+ page, rather "humble" in their goals -- "This site is an attempt to aggregate resources on the downsides of technology and it’s effects on human health and development. Whilst not at all against the use of technology, it is an attempt to explore and try to understand some of problems arising due to the continued (over)use of technology. Strategies to avoiding the downsides and enjoying a healthy balance between using technology and being able to ‘switch off’." So.... not openly "against" technology, but certainly seems... distant from the H+ movement. Both the H+ and Slowtech groups claim to seek greater understanding of the impacts of technology on humans -- H+ from an extropian-advancement POV, Slowtech from a minimalist-reductionist view. What I find fascinating is this idea that use of technology can "detract from natural human behaviors and patterns," which an inherently .... "traditionalist" POV (see Haaretz, KSL articles).
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * No response (concerted) in the public domain for the "anti slowtech," as per GS results, ...
 * No response to slow-tech movement on transhumanist front from GS results, 
 * ... Probably won't find a "transhumanist" response to these claims, will likely be a singular-entity if anything. Search under Humanity Plus, instead?.... Doesn't seem like it.... <https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS591US591&espv=2&q=humanityplus+response+to+slowtech+movement&oq=humanityplus+response+to+slowtech+movement&gs_l=serp.3...47920.59337.0.59752.83.49.0.0.0.7.465.6179.4j19j7j1j3.34.0....0...1c.1.56.serp..74.9.2318.0.iX89cjvQag8>
 * Maybe search under prominent authors? Bostrom, Carr, Kurzwheil... Apparently not for Bostrom, though for something so specific I'll move into Google Scholar (GSc) <https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS591US591&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=Bostrom%20response%20to%20slowtech%20movement>
 * Nothing under GSc for Bostrom... <http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Bostrom+response+to+slowtech+movement&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C33&as_sdtp=>
 * Found a student's thesis about what "internet connectivity is doing to the brain," which while.... interesting.... References two of Carr's books, only. <http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A631888&dswid=9052>, <http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:631888/FULLTEXT01.pdf>
 * Nothing under Kurzweil for GSc... <http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,33&q=Kurzweil+responds+to+slowtech+movement>
 * Pity, I was hoping to find something under those. How about... Agar? <http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Agar+responds+to+slowtech+movement&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33>, nope. Nothing. Damn. I don't know if he calls himself a transhumanist, but I thought it would be interesting.
 * How about James Hughes, publisher of H+ movement?
 * Nope, nothing directly <http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hughes+responds+to+slowtech+movement&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33>, though I did find a book by Amy Hughes with regard to the Slow Tech Parenting movement... <http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=o3Z-AgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=Hughes+responds+to+slowtech+movement&ots=1Z4vzUIoP3&sig=bpt5Xj9hKciLYzD3e9Cjf1qV2rA#v=onepage&q=Hughes%20responds%20to%20slowtech%20movement&f=false>... Book about something called "iRules," which I saw referenced in the JanelBurleyHoffman site...
 * How about Gregory Stock, author ["choice" technologies]?
 * <http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/JICES-11-2013-0051>, a paper about the Slow Tech movement -- does use three use cases? //__**WOULD BE USEFL IF I COULD ACCESS THE ENTIRE ARTICLE**__ **[ACCOUNT]**//
 * <http://bridgetharvey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/is-slow-design-a-viable-modern-production-method-2010.pdf>, in the actual document Gregory Stock is not mentioned by name (tried a line-search for his last name, did not occur)...
 * How about Ronald Bailey, journalist?,
 * Well, nothing still by name, <http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bailey+responds+to+slowtech+movement&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33>, though I did find this discussion of the "slow tech subculture," <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10714421.2012.674459#.VEgptvnF_6I>, however I also don't have access to this one either (another ACCOUNT access-only). Meh. Looks interesting, would be useful in charting the origins of the "slow tech" movement in the past decade (if I were going-down that path)...
 * How about Simon Young, closest I see in Agar's article w/ his "evolutionary humanism" stuff to my "tools as evolution" arguments?,
 * Nothing under <http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=30&q=Young+responds+to+slowtech+movement&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33>, however nothing else by including "Simon" in the search... <http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Simon+Young+responds+to+slowtech+movement&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33>
 * Ok, so we don't have any "official" paper-responses from the "big names" mentioned in Agar's paper. So no "official" papers responding to the "big movement" -- I guess that makes sense. Perhaps they feel the movement doesn't warrant any notice. Or perhaps they don't want to get involved...