Free will as a trick of perspective

Just back from the fair cities of Vancouver and Amsterdam (surely lovely twins in some other life), where I spoke at Vidfest and Picnic.  But whether I'm in British Columbia or the Netherlands, it's the same question that everyone is asking me. Why am I the only critic of Web 2.0, people want to know? Why aren't there other voices being raised against the utopians of Silicon Valley?

My answer is that I'm not the only voice. There are others warning about the corrosive consequences of our metaphysical faith in technology. But these voices certainly aren't coming from within either the traditional technology or digital media communities. One incredibly important voice is John Gray, professor of European thought at the London School of Economics, whose stunning Straw Dogs is a full frontal attack on the hubris of modern, technological man. In Straw Dogs, Gray argues against "humanism"  -- the absurd idea that we, as humans, control our destinies, that we are in charge of our lives, that we are different from all other life forms on the planet:

"Most people today think they belong to a species that can be master of its destiny. this is faith, not science. We do not speak of a time when whales or gorillas will be masters of their destinies. Why then humans."

At Picnic this week in Amsterdam, I debated David Weinberger, the author of Everything is Miscellaneous. The Wall Street Journal's Walt Mossberg moderated our discussion. Weinberger gave a classically "humanist" speech about the liberating possibilities of information technology. He ended in a climax of vulgar optimism, promising the Dutch audience that Web 2.0 technology could bring all of us "out of alienation" (what are we alienated from, I wonder). Weinberger wants today's Internet to reflect what he calls the "complexity" of human existence. I responsed that the purpose of media is both simple and simplifying -- to inform and entertain. Media isn't philosophy, I argued, it isn't supposed to liberate us from anything (except ignorance, of course). But instead of getting all philosophical, I should have simply read Weinberger a couple of sentences from Straw Dogs:

Technical progress leaves one problem unsolved: the frailty of human nature. Unfortunately that problem is insoluble.

Gray nails Web 2.0 humanists like Weinberger. Technology, these utopians believe, allows us to realize our "humanity". Oh dear. When will they learn that technical progress only compounds the frailty of human nature? When will they learn that -- to quote Gray again -- "free will is a trick of perspective"?

Comments

[Seth Finkelstein]

Regarding: "Why am I the only critic of Web 2.0, people want to know? Why aren't there other voices being raised against the utopians of Silicon Valley?"

Because the blog-evangelists will drive out anyone critical in their own community, which leaves only people like you, who have a different, opposing, power-base.

It's a bit like countries where there's (literal) fascist and communist factions at war with each other. Power is gained by being more extreme and belligerent to other factions, not by being moderate and thoughtful.

[Jon Husband]

I have a sense that there's a narrow and perhaps mis-interpretation here.

The technology is just technology, an enabler (and yes, some or indeed much of what it enables is fluff, meaningless or ill-articulated verbal and visual dander) .. and sure people can write to each other and use the mail, or use the telephone, to connect with each other and ware .. whether it is information (which mat lead to insight and a search for more info and then knowledge) or just more dander.

But people can connect, converse, collaborate in ways that were not available or accessible to them before, and some of these way are becoming very useful and have capabilities that enhance or amplify useful effects.

Let's take blogging, for example. Weblogging is essentially keeping a journal, online. Many people involved in guiding adult development and learning in one form or another (therapists, artist teachers, writing coaches, and so on ... people that would support generally the deepening and enriching of talent and culture) have advocated or prescribed keeping journals as a means for people to intensify their learning and development. That, in my experience, can and does happen quite often .. it may not be in a way or with content that appeals to (say) yours or my taste, but it does happen - regularly.

Let's go further ... where it becomes a regular activity and a small or medium sized, or even large circle of people get involved in commenting and passing links to other material back and forth (and yes, sometimes or even often that can resemble or a circle jerk or to use a more polite euphemism, an echo chamber), there are several cognitive elements that come into play.

There is the mere act of getting thoughts (good, bad, well articulated or not, genius or just more dander) out of one's head and onto something (paper or screen .. some bloggers I know write things out on paper as a draft, then compose using keyboard and screen as a second draft and then edit and / or polish .. not every monkey does that, though). As a writer I assume you will know something about that process, and how it can help you learn, about what you are thinking and writing about and about yourself.

Then, there is the process of receiving and (maybe) responding to comments. I think, but may be mistaken, that several things come into play here. Because of the asynchronous nature of exchanges online, and the fundamental fact that it is user / reader controlled (lots of lurkers never comment, and they can always choose to go to a blog and read, or not), there is time for contemplation, returning to comments, thinking before responding, etc. Or not ... lots of people just flip off comments, intelligent or goofy or scabrous and scatological, and everything in between .. just like humans do in conversations on the street, in the pub, at home, at the office and everywhere else that they intermingle and interact.

Some comments get you thinking, I find, and people return to conversation threads a day, two days, a week later to flesh something out, argue, complain, support, add more into the mix, etc. Anything that gets people thinking is by and large not bad. I suspect that you would agree with that statement, as I believe that has been one of the core arguments you have offered in support of your main premise ?

But if one becomes aware of this process, there is (and it's only my opinion) significant opportunity for learning available. I have been blogging for quite a while, believe that on balance the blogs I read regularly are by serious, intelligent, earnest and honest people who work at it, and I get as much or more from the comments that appear as I do from a given blog post. I respect them.

May i assume that you, too, read some blogs in some areas to keep informed, as well as just (say) the Financial Times, the NY Times, the San Fran Chron, The Indepent or Daily Telegtaph, The Guardian, The Economist, HBR, Forbes, etc .. or whatever it is that you use to remain informed on a daily or weekly basis ?

I'd be surprised if you did not ... and I'd be suspicious that you were lying if you said you did not.

Anyway, I could go on (ways that organizarions are using the online capabilties to greater effectiveness as more is learned about possibilities, methods and processes and resistance is overcome) but I won't. It's not just the technology, it's what humans are doing and will do with it. More importantly - and just one man's opinion - because of the different and distinctive latent potential of the capabilites of the digital infratructure it's what what we will learn over time and choose to do with it (which is likely to be lots more dander and some real genius and breakthroughs) that provides grounds for optimism - and of course, pessimism. But it's probably not either / or.

[Stephen Smoliar]

Andrew, Gray has been attracting a lot of attention over on Truthdig for his new BLACK MASS book:

http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/20070916_book_review_hedges_black_mass/

Much as I appreciate the quotes you invoked (for both their semantics and rhetoric), it is hard for me to avoid being suspicious of a card-carrying philosopher who is as sloppy with the world "realism" as Gray is. Check out the quotations in the Truthdig review, and you will see what I mean.

On the other hand, I rather liked your attention to the careful use of language during your NEWS HOUR interview!

[Bill Ross]

>> Why am I the only critic of Web 2.0?
>> My answer is that I'm not the only voice. … But these voices certainly aren't coming from within… digital media communities.

Well, Andrew, here's one more small voice adding a harmony to your tune. Ironically, I first came across your thoughts in a blog (socialmediaclub.org, covering your debate with Weinberger at Supernova), and I'm going to back up my claim of being on record agreeing with many of your main points by quoting my own.
But where did I go for an overview of your thesis? By following the links in your sidebar to the New York Times and PBS online. And I'm about to proudly point to being quoted on the subject in the Boston Globe last year. Oh, the paradoxes don't simply abound -- they are bounding around seemingly out of control.
Why did I go to NYT for their summary? For the same reason I mostly start my Web reading there and at other major papers, the original "portals" -- they have a reputation to uphold, they're big and public and are held accountable for their statements, and employ (ever-shrinking numbers of) editors and fact-checkers to back that up. Come to think of it, it's for similar reasons of accountability that I never considered using an "Internet bank."

That's the part about trusting their accuracy. Then there's that sticky issue about plain old quality.
The Globe's Business Filter author Maura Welch wrote, "Bill Ross admits he's a 'wicked music snob,' and writes with a great little rant about my post about a site (with) contests like American Idol online. 'The Web 2.0 version of American Idol says it perfectly about where, IMHO, all the social networking sites are ultimately headed. And that's to the place called The Lowest Common Denominator, a plane where I have seldom if ever found anything of value.'"
http://www.boston.com/business/blog/filter/2006/07/friday_link_har_11.html

I keep coming back to the subject in my little blog -- which, in terms of its value to me, has had the effect of both making some connections and energizing my writing -- because I agree that this is a urgent and under-examined issue.
After the Democrats' YouTube debate, I weighed forth with, "Note that the user-generated debate still had the Gatekeeper: CNN picked which of the thousands of video questions submitted actually got on the air (or rather, on the cable). It’s a good thing, too – can you imagine what kinds of amazing incomprehensibilities would have been heard if they’d picked the questions at random? Kind of like the variety of comments one finds in unmoderated forums."
http://rosswriting.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html

In June, I wrote to the bloggers covering your debate, "Here's the main point: user-generated content is not really free (for the publisher), because you've got to have editorial oversight, and that still means humans who are hopefully(!) being paid a living wage to make the user's stuff Ready For Primetime. This is a significant but underreported issue with building social media based sites."
http://rosswriting.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html

So, Andrew, congratulations on using your "bully pulpit" to brandish these issues in the (inter)face the wired world, and keep up the good work. The Web fundamentalists need shot of the misnamed "Keenian Gloom" -- if we must have such a handle, how about the welcome Keenian Realism?

[Vladimir]

Is it possible to hate Web 2.0 and be a humanist at the same time? I don't know, but I'll try.

Anyhow, for the moment I'll just say that I don't find anything immediately absurd about the idea that humans control their own destiny. After all, we are conscious, self-aware, rational, knowledge-using beings, aren't we? Whales and gorillas can't even think about the kinds of things we do. I think that in itself speaks volumes.

[Nick]

How is it possible that Mainstream media is okay...in any context.

Read anything by Jacques Ellul or Digital Matters by Paul A. Taylor. Even Langdon Winner, would blow your brain apart.

What you explained on The News Hour just doesnt work out in my mind.

[Bill Ross]

(Sigh...) Boy, do I wish I'd sat on that one -- my previous, quite overlong post --
http://www.typepad.com/t/comments?__mode=red&user_id=635628&id=84527940

and taken a look at it with fresh eyes a couple hours later, at least. That's just too loud, way over-promoting, there. I got all carried away, and it leaves me ardently wishing this blogging system included an edit button for comments.

But let this be a lesson to me, again, to Look (it over again later) before you Leap to publish.

[Ulicar]

Will Andrew Keen ever post a reply to a comment? He will not, because his arguments are completely wrong, misguided, (put your adjective here) and he would be stupid to try it AGAIN after the Colbert debacle (I laughed so hard...).

However, I would still ask him, what is his take on UC Berkeley publishing their lectures on the YouTube? That must be wrong? Isn’t it? After all, that is what Andrew would like you to believe : ) http://www.youtube.com/ucberkeley

He will tell you that this move will kill universities that did not do this, or more likely, don’t want to do this (am I right Andrew), but MIT did similar thing with OCW http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm and they still exist, Berkeley still exists… If the university gets closed by this move, that university would get closed anyhow.

Fun and games!

[Dick Vestdijk]

"When will they learn that -- to quote Gray again -- "free will is a trick of perspective"?"

Dear Mr. Keen, currently reading your thought-provoking "The cult of the amateur" - and agreeing with your warnings, I suggest to leave out the word 'trick' in the Gray quote - then you get free will is a perspective, which doesn't sound so bad.

[Vinicius NP Anghel]

I have read "The Cult of the Amateur" and my opinion is mixed:
--On one side the author is right about the application on "ex nihilo nihil" or GIGO in modern terms.
--The decay of culture is also something on which is right; but I do not think the fault is with allowing the public as authors, but with the fact that the system(s) of education, which all require a long time and substantial investment are dealt with summarily by the market forces. In a way, modern culture, whatever that is, is more alike to Alexandrian science, a group of experts knowing it and no one besides, which contributed to its downfall when politics turned against it.
--At the very end he comes to the reasonable accommodation of experts and the audience in "moderated" projects. If I am remembering right, L. Lessing, who gets a bit of a short send-out in the book, proposes something similar.
--The substitution of the virtual versus real is right on the money. I lived in a more traditional society. Friendships were taking years to really form and lasted a long time not like the instant on the web. To do real social interaction, not team-building exercises, is really hard and takes a long time. That time and resources are lacking now. Speaking in technical terms, robustness and optimality are at loggerheads.

On the other side he gives an exalted place to the expert and to the owners of information.
There are several objections to this:
--Like everyone else, even great experts can be bought: for example R.A. Fisher and the statistical association of cancer and smoking. It is harder to buy a whole country.
--Experts can be grievously wrong. Look at the forecasts scientists make in their own area and compare to writers or philosophers: Rutheford versus Kapek on mass-to-energy conversion.
--There is also something I call creative ignorance. One stumbles into a field knowing only something from an entirely different area, does not care about the authorities there because he/she knows nothing about them and finds there things no one knew were there.
--Copyright limits are grievous, almost 100 years and most companies enforce them strictly.
There are some decent ones out there like Springer, but most want an arm and a leg for any piece of information. Various colors of copyright transition to no copyright should be mentioned.

[David Sehat]

Another prominent voice criticizing technological utopianism way before Web 2.0 came alone is Wendell Berry. See his provocative essay, "Why I am not Going to Buy a Computer" in his 1991 book, What are People For? As you note in your "authentic luddite vacation" post, there is a long tradition of people resisting the more outrageous promises of technological enthusiasts. But their voices are usually drowned out by the often-powerful promoters of technological change.

David Sehat

[Eric Gauvin]

I enjoyed watching this video from picnic:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1702560622380359525&hl=en

I thought Walt Mossberg did a nice job of moderating the discussion. I continue to be amazed at how inarticulate David Weinberger is about his ideas. I can't believe people buy into his stammering, whining wacky professor persona.

[Seth Finkelstein]

@Eric - The persona is like Woody Allen. There's film-goers who can't fathom what people see in his movies either.

[Eric Gauvin]

@seth - I like your observation. You are absolutely right! However. I love Woody Allen, and I can't stand David Weinstein. What do you make of that?

[Steve Consilvio]

It is truly amazing that you have gotten so much press Andrew, since you are as well, "an amateur." How do you escape the paradox? Why is your drivel any more valid that the humanist or technologist drivel? And professionals? Good God! They are the one who dragged us into this mess.

What is missing is a discussion of content. Only the most extreme views are presented, BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN INHERENT STRAW-MAN, in their argument. Your straw-man is the amateur, for St. Augustine it was "the Barabarian," for Bush "the Insurgent or Terrorist," for the Commusint "the Imperialist," for the Abolitionist "the Slave-Master." Everyone has a straw-man, because that is what "reason" requires. How can anything be "improved" without first having a problem to be solved? A straw-man is a method of making errors.

If you think beyond the constraints of reason, and reason with faith instead, then the errors people make are quite logical within their context. You sell a book, Gates and Jobs sell computers, etc., and so on. Everybody believes that money is "real." With such a huge mistake as a baseline of humanity, everything naturally flows from there....
....but what would I know? I'm just an amateur. :-)

You are plowing well toiled ground, but the status quo won't allow you to plant a seed. Faith and reason are "separate but equal."

A tool will never be wiser than the hand that yields it. The problem isn't in the tools, but what we do with them. I suspect you know that much.

peace,
steve

www.behappyandfree.com

[Seth Finkelstein]

@Eric - Context matters. Maybe you wouldn't love Woody Allen's screen/stand-up character if he was a conference keynote speaker instead of in a movie.

[Eric Gauvin]

@Seth

you're right.

Also, correction, I didn't mean to type "Weinstein" above. It's David Weinberger of course.

[JohnS]

I got a chance to glance at John Gray's Straw Dogs and to some extent I agree with his point about humankind's illusory progress. The art critic Sister Wendy had a similar view view when she visited the paintings on the walls of the Lascaux caves - "Art doen't get better, it only changes." But what of the question of free will? If it's true, that free will is an illusion, then why are we doing all of this work? (I could be surfing!)

One of the problems in reading a book written by someone far away, is that I don't get a chance to ask the author to clarify their definition of words. I don't use words such as "humanism" and I don't exactly know that there is some ultimate "truth". Rather than talk about "progress" as a motive, I could talk about "survival", or instead of talking about the word "truth", I could enter a discussion on "useful information". But useful toward what end? To quote a previous responder, (Eric) - "How can anything be imporved without first having a problem to be solved?"

John Gray might say that life is not a problem to be solved. But I would add that within life there are many problems to be solved, both by individuals and groups of people. This is especially true if the environment is changing rapidly.

There has always been a tension between self and society. We spend a lot of time trying to get children to do things for others, partly because we know that the rewards can be wonderful. Even more important than the survival of ourselves is the survival of the group. That seems to me to be the basis of morality. There seems to be a paradox here - that although survival of the group is most important, it depends on the strength of bonding between individuals. Even John Gray, in his "Acknowledgements" at the beginning of the book, states that his book is "dedicated to Mieko, without whom it would not have been written." This is a clue to the strength of the bonding between him and some significant other person.

It may be that when relationships between nations are doing poorly - like going to war - that individuals pick up the slack and find cause for their lives. John Burns, the war correspondent from NYT, was amazed at the courage and resoursefulness of common everyday people who were asked to serve in Iraq. He said that even those people who were against the war "would be proud of them." It's a reaching outside the self that gives the individual purpose and allow the individual to "progress", even though the nation isn't.

I suppose my first point is this, that if one wants to get something done, you still have to look at where the power lies. It doesn't always pay to go to Washington. Look at the strong bonds that give us our purpose for being. They are not always where one might expect. The ability to define words or to ask questions is power, but only in some process of working toward some goal.

The second point is that I would agree that technology is a tool, just like democracy is a tool for organizing groups of people. It can greatly enhance our search for information. But if we are not careful, technology can remove us from the family and neighborhood community where we really care whether or not people are gambling their lives away on the Web.

There are many who would love to give us some job to do - like put on a uniform and fight a war, or do something for a corporation for very little pay. But we are the ones who must find a specific problem to address, and in a way that allows us to ask the questions and find results that are trustworthy. Blog forums such as this one, allow an exchange of ideas and criticisms, but specific problem solving is difficult to do online, especially when there are people from disparate interest groups with seemingly incompatible goals. That was one of the main take-home points of a "Politics Online" conference that I attended in the mid-1990's.

Human problems remain the same. I suppose that's what John Gray meant by "human frailty". But environments change and so tools might change too. It will be this generation's task to learn how to re-connect the Internet and Web back to the family and neighborhood community so that those groups can solve their problems. It's a way of creating a reliable feedback loop. All the successful systems (that I know of ) have developed a good feedback system, information from the right place and right time that is trustworthy information. It would be unwise to throw away a tool like the Internet, and maybe the Web too, but by itself the Internet can't tell you whether or not the information is useful or trustworthy. Neither can it give you the motivation to search in the first place. How do we create that interface tool? That, to me, is the more intriging question.

John S

[Richard Stacy]

Andrew,

I am confused as to what you have a problem with - social media / web2.0 or "the corrosive consequences of our metaphysical faith in technology". Obviously many of the people with a metaphysical faith in technology are likely to be fans of web2.0 but this doesn't constitute evidence that the two are the same. One is a philosophy, the other (social media)is a thing. And as you rightly point out media is not a philosophy.

As a fan of social media, I nonetheless appreciate the need for critical attention - especially in the area of mediation. We need some contrary voices - but they need to be coherent ones. Have a go at the philosophy, by all means or have a go at social media - but don't get them mixed-up.

[Petteri Laine]

Dear Andrew,

Respect for your endavour in challenging hyper-optimism of the web 2.0. However a word of warning or two is in order here - Micheal Moore.

I am sure we can agree on that cultural realism is a matter of debate. I wonder if monkeys and dogs are more advanced in their communication? Communication is the key here. Technical advancement in communications has throughout the history of known civilization spearheaded cultural development from hieroglyphs, art-of-printing to the web 2.0.

In the words of the early 20th century Russian science-fiction writer, whose name I always forget, "A man can not fly to the moon before first dreaming of flying." In this sense we do also need technical optimism in order to create new. Bringing the dreams into the sphear of shared realism is a matter of communication - enhanced communications. In this day and time we can use all the development we can can get to change the current destructive cultural realism into something more healthy and constructive.

Web allows two ways communications instead of just reading or viewing the public discourse that the ivory towers produce. I hope that the still very young web will allow us to take more responsibility along the freedom it provides. I guess it can be argued that generally a man who is concidered to be trustworthy in creating and sharing knowledge takes his responsibilities more seriously, than a man who's concidered to be untrustworthy in creating and sharing knowledge. As a medium web enables a level of communication never seen before - the debate about it shapes what the web will become. Respect and let us use our optimism!

[Edward Vielmetti]

re twopointopian

http://wordie.org/words/twopointopian

[Andy Havens]

You are right that technology is not a key to our humanity. Only humanity is the key to our humanity. But humanity is expressed through a variety of means, many of which involve tools. Simply put, more tools often (not always) give us more means to express our humanity.

On the most basic level, one can not be human and express/improve one's humanity if one is dead. Many tools are therefore concerned with preserving and improving the quality of life. Technology in the form of modern dentistry, for example, is a key to humanity in that it preserves the life of those who would otherwise die of systemic infections brought about by abscess. Brush your teeth, see the dentist once in awhile, add 30 years to your life in which your humanity can be expressed. So while dentistry is clearly not a key to humanity in and of itself, its practice enables enhanced human expression.

Where it gets tricky, of course, is when technology provides us with very different choices in terms of our lives. Is a life lived alone, in a state of contemplative study, more "human" than one spent snorting coke at a disco? There's certainly more of a sense of Thoureau about the former. But the fact that two equally human people could choose to spend their lives so differently begs the question: which is better? A life spent in quiet, studious isolation... or one spent in loud, destructive commune?

Technology will not "save us" in any kind of philosophical or moral way. But technology can provide choices. And sometimes the choices involve life or death; in which case, technology *does* save us, at least to the point where we can then make more choices. Dead men tell no tales, amateur or otherwise.