Applying Aristotle on interactions between humans and computers: it can be done. Just read Brenda Laurel about The Six Elements and the Causal Relations between them (in the New Media Reader, MIT, links and documentsÂ here) as we did in the Digital Awakening course.
Aristotle talks about drama as an organic whole. He distinguishes six qualitative elements: action, character, thought, language, pattern and enactment.
Iâ€™d like to pick out just one nugget out of this text: how weâ€™re humanizing our tools. Once computers were being considered as big, clunky, intimidating and often maddening machines, a kind of dumb administrators.
Visionaries such as Vannevar Bush, J.C.R. Licklider, Doug Engelbart and Ted Nelson saw very early on that computers could be much more.
Itâ€™s not just that the entertainment and social aspects of computers (in all their forms) prove to be so appealing. Itâ€™s that something in our relation with those devices is changing dramatically.
In her discussion of the element â€™Thoughtâ€™ Laurel mentions the familiar conundrum:â€™can computers thinkâ€™ and the answer is surprisingly easy: â€™computer-based agents, like dramatic characters, do not have to think (in fact, there are many ways in which they cannot); they simply have to provide a representation from which thought may be inferred.â€™
When you double-click on a folder of your Mac and it divulges its content, it seems as if it understood what you wanted. Does it actually understand anything at all? It does not matter; â€œThe real issue is that the representation succeeded in getting me to make the right inferences about itâ€™s â€œthoughtsâ€. It also succeeded in representing to me that it made the right inferences about mine!â€
This idea of making inferences about the â€œthoughtsâ€ of devices spreads of course as our computers become slick, small, nigh-powered devices we carry all the time with us. Increasingly, weâ€™re no longer limited to double-clicking folders, but we can speak to those devices – humanizing them even more.
This may seem self-evident, bit itâ€™s obvious this is a vast project and weâ€™re just in the initial phases. Just think about how we deal with news media. Instead of searching desperately in unwieldy online newspaper archives, your smartphone – as your personal assistant – will alert you when there’s breaking news about, let’s say, Occupy Wall Street (OWS).
You’ll enter into a conversation, you’ll ask a question to get more details, a background question about someone who is mentioned in the report. Your personal assistant will use lot’s of sources, narrating the answers to your questions, indicating sources or taking into account the reputations stats of the sources. Chances are it will not be some mainstream media company developing such an assistant, but yet another young tech company.
The GigaOM Roadmap conference discussed this kind of evolution. Om Malik reports onÂ GigaOm:
Mathew Ingram.Â The thread I was most interested in that came out of RoadMap was what Jack Dorsey called â€œthe arc where technology meets humanness.â€ The Twitter and Square founder talked about using technology to help us connect more with what makes us human, Tony Fadell of Nest talked about making devices that respond more intuitively, and Mark Rolston from frog design was really passionate about getting the computer out of the way, to the point where we barely even realize there is a computer at all. Put together, all those make for a very powerful message that I wish more technology companies would pay attention to.
InÂ Natural Born Cyborgs?Â by Andy Clark the author says:
Understanding what is distinctive about human reason thus involves understanding the complementary contributions of both biology and (broadly speaking) technology, as well as the dense, reciprocal patterns of causal and co-evolutionary influence that run between them. We cannot see ourselves aright until we see ourselves as nature’s very own cyborgs: cognitive hybrids who repeatedly occupy regions of design space radically different from those of our biological forbears. The hard task, of course, is now to transform all this from (mere) impressionistic sketch into a balanced scientific account of the extended mind.
So the computer becoming human-like is not something external, which happens “out there” and involves just one of the many tools we humans use. It actually is another evolution of our extended mind, our becoming increasingly cyborg-like.
It also has implications for our perceived identity. This could be an aspect of this remark in Clark’s above mentioned text:
In addition it may soon be quite important (morally, socially, and politically) to publicly loosen the bonds between the very ideas of minds and persons and the image of the bounds, properties, locations and limitations of the basic biological organism.
The nice thing for my course-program this Fall is that these texts and discussion allow me to “connect the dots”: Clark and his thinking about the extended mind is an important part of a previous course facilitated by Howard Rheingold (Introduction to Mind Amplifiers) which is not unrelated to his other courseToward a Literacy of Cooperation, while the discussion about Brenda Laurel and the Six Elements is part of the above mentioned Digital Awakening course. Next Wednesday we’ll meet Howard in that course (in Second Life), and we’ll discuss Sherry Turkle’s text Video Games and Computer Holding Power (documents, program and practical detailsÂ can be found here). One of the aspects of Turkle’s research is about role-playing and the exploration of “aspects of the self” and seems to fit very nicely in the context of the previous discussions.