Strategy by Eilina

Heidegger’s issue with technology is that he believed humans were not inclining their definitions. Regarding technology, we needed more capture of the different essence it conveys. This aspect ties into technology in healthcare and how controversial we believe it to be. More specifically, in the field of surgery, there is a patient and the surgeon only. The trust and connection between the two allow for a smooth surgery. Now, some fear that the introduction of robots having the capability to replace surgeons with skills has changed the idea altogether. Nevertheless, will surgery still have the same respect when we go to a hospital for a human doctor to treat us? Heidegger has done a remarkable job reshaping how we view technology, primarily how it negatively affects our healthcare system today. 

In his essay, Heidegger mentions the idea of losing control and how this will develop due to humans’ desire to master. Once the idea of wanting to take control over technology is threatened, we will see the idea of control eradicated. There is always a risk when it comes to technology, especially the concept of power and control, which some might describe as the same. Either the human will succumb to the means of technology in fear of degrading civilization. Alternatively, on the other hand, there is a risk of allowing technology to replace everything. 

Moreover, Heidegger dives into the idea of revealing technology. Some even consider all technology to have a sense of vulnerability. However, when it comes to the outside of technology, there are factors that will expose people, secrets, locations, and many other things that should not be revealed. Heidegger mentions that technology has become influential in the western part of the world. One that encompasses the truth that can be unpredictable at times. 

Aside from the everyday concerns about technology, many speculate about the rise of Artificial Intelligence. The creation of AI (Artificial Intelligence) initially aimed to benefit human resources with special tools. David Norman argued that “computers are tools and should be treated as such” Norman did not want to give these tools too much credit because humans should be given credit. One example that supports his argument is Microsoft website programming originating from AI research that provides structured intelligence. In some AI programs, the user can take control of the programming; however, the user still has to abide by the spreadsheet and rules that the AI provides. 

Returning to Heidegger, there is another side to technology where it opposes the idea of revealing. From the Greek perspective, they defined technology as a way to exemplify the best handicraftsman instead of the modern definition we give it today. They connected technology more to the material and arranged things together instead of the wires and wifi we associate with. One reason the definition of technology is entirely different is that modern physics defines it. They are defining it as modern, and the experience that comes from experimenting with technology builds upon that relationship that allows today’s definition to hold weight. 

On the negative side, the advancement of technology has introduced materialism. Philosophy describes materialism as a monism that holds weight in the essential substance of nature and mental states. The idea of monism is a doctrine that consists of a single substance, stating there is no crucial difference between mental and physical events. Technology can become more accessible when it does the same with media today. Due to this, the more affordable it is to produce media, the more competitive it is, necessitating the use of more and quicker production methods. As previously mentioned, this view is one of the strongest arguments in the materialism viewpoint. 

To put it differently, in our world today, where technology has grown and become ingrained in our lives, we have seen first-hand psychological damage. Firstly, it creates a sense of isolation because teenagers and children are not limited by screen time. This allows them to always turn to social media and all forms of electronics. Secondly, there has been a link between people with more positive social media interactions and lower levels of depression and anxiety. On the contrary, Medical News Today has also discovered the opposite. Where there has been a positive link to social media, there have been harmful and more severe cases of depression and anxiety. 

In addition, there has been a report on the physical damage of technology today. Smartphones, laptops, and tablets damage your hands when held for long periods. Especially for students who are typing or writing on their electronic pads to curve their fingers for extended periods. Along with, the risk of eye damage with the strain that comes with staring at these screens. It has also been reported that physical activity has gone down. Many people are changing their lifestyles due to technology because it has consumed so much of our life, and people rely on it for their jobs. 

Equally important, the idea of technology has always been ambiguous in its own right. The uncertainty in explaining what it is shows how mysterious the truth could pertain to defining technology. In the western part of the world, they have always viewed technology as a means to an end. It served one purpose: to advance from a place where people used their hands. Today in our society, more in the eastern part, they view technology as the key to almost everything. 

We are then introduced to the idea of Enframing. Heidegger explains Enframing as “gathering of that which sets upon man compels him to show what is true, in the form of ordering, as standing reserve,” which explains a radical view. Unlike the other definitions and explanations for technology, enframing blocks most views that reveal the essence of truth. 

There are so many ways we see technology. One side views it as a way to solve problems and create a new pathway that has yet to be explored. On the other hand, there is that perspective of the essence and determining what technology has the potential to be and what it means as a whole.

Bostrom’s original thesis stated that the vast majority of people’s minds don’t belong to the original race. They belong to our descendants who had advanced technology and the time along with resources to create a simulation. He sums up his thesis by making a claim that it would only make sense that we are living among other people who have had their minds stimulated instead of their original ones. I did once follow up on this idea due to the fact it’s puzzling to wonder if one life is truly a simulation. The idea that we are being controlled by some group or high power and have no memory or sense is frightening as well. But I do believe it is a possibility. 

In addition to Bostrom’s claims, he mentions the inclusion of the environment and how that plays into the notion of our simulation. He believes that if we truly are in one then the group of people simulating would require an absurd amount of power. With the environment comes gravity, oceans, animals, and culture, and to stimulate down to the very atoms and core of the universe would be almost like a new discovery. Bostrom delves into the topic of virtual reality and discusses how it would appear. He considers that it would be more realistic for visitors. The group in charge of the simulation would have an understanding and conceptual grasp of human life and be able to mimic that accurately to appear real. 

Moreover, the idea of us living in a simulation becomes more straightforward in Bostrom’s essay. He mentions that it’s very uncertain that humans would reach a posthuman stage. The idea that we might go extinct is more common than reaching that stage in life and advancing as species. There might be societies that have advanced civilizations but their technology will be their downfall according to Bostrom. 

The significance of ethics and morals on humanity as a whole makes up the majority of how we live our lives and what meaning we give them. Ethics is defined as a well-founded standard of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do in obligations according to Santa Clara University. According to the Cambridge English dictionary, morals relate to the standards of good or bad behavior, honesty, and fairness. Morals and ethics go in hand in hand when it comes to determining bad from the good and what’s wrong and right.

Yet, ethics refer to specific behavior and rules while morals are just guided principles individuals give themselves and others. In terms of humanity, I believe that morals play a crucial role. What we allow ourselves to do and what we think just might not be to another one. The idea of morals is a bit skewed, so therefore everyone has their interpretation. With that slightly different idea of what is just and right, it’s difficult for humans to coincide and come together at certain times. Ethics in terms of humanity as a whole I believe is simply an understanding we all universally know. The basic laws of what’s right and wrong, being altruistic.

Parfit believes there is no real way to answer what personal identity is. I do believe to an extent there is some truth to his belief. The very idea of what it means to be a person and have an identity are the same. Identity is what differentiates us from other human beings and animals as well. Then to say we have a personal identity is saying you have these private, differences about what makes you. Parfit claims how we project emotions could play into the difficulty of explaining personal identity. I do support this claim by the reason of how easy it is for people to project what they’re truly feeling. It’s mostly a defense mechanism so they can forget just for a moment how terrible their situation can be or already is. The concept of me now and later is the same. People tend to forget the true parameters of time, it’s linear and set.

The notion that our identity is not right or true is simply a fallacy. Who one is now and was and will be are the results of life choices. Parfit mentions if we question personal identity but then don’t believe in the answers it loses value. He makes a correlation between the division of our brain’s hemispheres. By doing so, he brings light to the fact that if we’re able to consciously split our mind into two just like blinking then we have complete control. Overall, I do support Parfit’s claim about how personal identity can be defined to a certain degree, but it has to be a choice. One common idea that was consistent in his essay was the question aspect and I do think how we answer can tell everything there needs to be known about a person.

It was during high school when I had the time and discipline to take breaks from social media and my phone as a whole. A time before, we were isolated within the comfort of our homes and would gravitate towards social media. It was easier to have a balance for everything in my life without any risk of stress for something as simple as going on Instagram. Every month during the first week and the last, I would take either a phone break or social media. Before the breaks, I would do a small experiment for myself to see how happier I was or not and if I sensed a change within my mental health and physical as well. These breaks started during my junior year when reality hit me about applying to colleges and figuring out what my goal was for life very soon. I found turning to my phone was not providing clarity or comfort. It did the exact opposite. Ludicrous ideas of what was potentially possible. I had a good flow for about two years until my first year in college.

Unfortunately, now I spend almost all my time on my phone. It would be difficult to return to the good habit I adopted in high school but not entirely impossible. I would simply have to be more disciple with myself and realistic. In a time of posts covid, I believe social media has become a crutch for many and the only source of income. Before, we would diminish the worth of social media and attribute it with negative connotations. Despite most of our efforts, some still have those feelings. Thankfully, a balance has been provided for all social media platforms. Limiting yourself to the apps.

According to the text, Marcuse is explaining the difference between false and true needs definition truly. He goes about this when discussing what false needs mean to individuals and the way in which we give it meaning. These supposed false needs are given to people by society and its interests. Marcuse doesn’t agree with this idea due to the fact is gratifies the individual making them believe that they have to maintain what society has deemed true. This isn’t a right way to give people the impression of needs due to its negative connotation. Instead, Marcuse mentions that it allows for this unfortunate assumption of trying to uphold a certain standard which will inevitably breed misery and aggressiveness. It’s not anyone’s job besides oneself to figure out a way to maintain sanity and happiness. Another downfall of false needs, they allow room for external powers that people have no control over. Then there are the vital needs that humans need to survive such as: food, shelter, protection these are true needs as Marcuse explains. Moreover, onto our true needs, Marcuse states that they fall under the category of priority standards. The standards that are set are optimal development to the individual. This means that their subjective to their own ideas and beliefs which they set. With these needs the individual understands there’s a universal concept with these true needs. 

Heidegger issue with technology is he believed humans were not inclining their definitions. Regarding technology, we lacked the ability to capture the different essence it conveys. This aspect ties into technology in the healthcare and how controversial we believe it to be. More specifically, in the field of surgery there is a patient and the surgeon only. The trust and connection between the two are what allows for a smooth surgery. Now some fear with the introduction of robots having the capability to replace surgeons with skills has the idea changed completely. Will surgery’s still have the same respect in the sense that we go to a hospital for a human doctor to treat us. Heidegger has done a remarkable job reshaping how we view technology especially how it negatively affects our healthcare system today. 

According to Heidegger the Latin definition of the word essence means, what something is. I like to think of essences as something more abstract and subjective. From a more formal perspective what something is has value. We have definitions for almost everything, especially sentimental items we hold dear. The idea of something can also be subjective what I view as a simple painting brush could be another’s whole essence of who they are. I do believe it also comes down to what see value in as well. This concept is a challenge because it’s difficult to tell humans what they have is worthless and doesn’t have value. We’re not able to objectively make those decisions so when we do its either on impulse or a lie. Everything alive and not has its own unique form that we all categorically see differently. Why can’t we call it essence there? The classification of essence can be categorized as well. On the other hand, we can differ typology and categorization as diverse meanings. Essence within typology is broader and people are able to give their own meanings making it more significant. With categorization it doesn’t have the freedom with its meanings so its placement into groups and classes will specific. For an example, essence can be put into a group of emotions and auroras if thinking abstractedly. It could also be classified as quality of something or meaning when discussing on a formal level. Consequently, this whole idea of essence I believe is a two-way street leading to the same conclusion. 

Computers, hardware, software, and physical electronics are what I thought defined technology for my whole life. From kids up until most of our adulthood we’ve been conditioned to believe there is no other aspect to technology. This reveals another issue with society, the inability to balance ambiguity about topics and things that should be seen from various perspectives. In grade school, kids are blessed with the perspective of openness they never close any form of ideas off. This allows some of us to grow up with a more well-rounded education. It wasn’t until I even signed up for this class did I consider technology could have more to it than the physical. Val Dusek went further into the issue of technology and discussed our definitions and what they convey. One person’s definition of technology could be another’s a subjective opinion. Unless we can first decide on the terms of defining technology there will be continuous confusion with this question, what is technology even? After reading Dusek’s mini-essay I believe technology is an outlet to figure out things along with the advancement for society.