The future of intelligence

This is Part 3 in a series of blog posts on the future of learning and technology. In my previous blog post I examined the debate about whether we are becoming more intelligent or less intelligent as a result of our prolonged and habituated uses of technology. I believe that if we are to fully apprehend the many issues and nuances of our relationship with future technologies, we first need to begin to appreciate the complexity of human intelligence(s) and the problems associated with trying to model these digitally.

Many commentators express concern about the negative impact technology may have on our ability to think critically, construct knowledge and read/research more deeply. The argument is that we are becoming increasingly dependent on search engines and other tools, that trivialise knowledge and simplify what we learn. A secondary argument is that there is a large amount of content on the web that is spurious, deceiving or inaccurate, and that user generated sites such as Wikipedia and blogs undermine the authority of professionals and academics.

Futurologist Ray Kurzweil's argument looks beyond these issues, holding that the tools we have available to us as a result of networked social media and personal devices, actually enable us to increase our cognitive abilities. He argues that we are becoming more creative and have the potential for endless cognitive gain as a result of increased access to these technologies. His position is reminiscent of the work of American cognitive psychologist David Jonassen (1999) and his colleagues, who proposed that computers were mind tools, and that our cognitive abilities could be extended if we invested our memories into them. Others, such as George Siemens and Karen Stephenson hold that we store our knowledge with our friends, and that connected peer networks are where learning occurs in the digital age. British computer scientist and philosopher Andy Clark, is of the opinion that we are all naturally aligned to using technology. In his seminal work, Natural Born Cyborgs (2003), Clark sees a future that combines the best features of human and machine, where we literally wear or physically internalise our technologies.

There are examples of how such cyborg existence might come about. Recently, demonstrations of Google Glass, eyewear that connects you via augmented reality software and gestural control to information beyond your normal visual experience, and Muse, a brain-wave sensing headband, have veered us in the direction of cyborg experience. I predict that other devices, wearable, natural gesture based, and sensor rich, will appear in the next few years, and these will be affordable to many. And yet, as science fiction writer William Gibson intoned, the future may be here already, but it's just not evenly distributed. He is right. A persistent digital divide exists between the industrialised world and emerging countries. Mobile phones may be proliferating rapidly, but Divides are also evident within western digital society where some invest in new technology, and a whole spectrum of other responses, from mildly enthusiastic to outright rejection are present in the population. There are even divides between those who can use the technologies and those who can't. Technology remains unevenly distributed, and will be for some time to come. But the digital divide will not stop the march of technology. What might wearables and non-touch interfaces achieve for us?

It is debatable whether wearable and invasive technologies will increase our intelligence. What such tools might be able to do though, is free us up physically, enhancing our visual capabilities, and enabling us to control devices hands free. They will also enable us to free up cognitive resources, by distributing our thinking and memory, enabling us to focus on important things such as creativity, intuitive thinking, critical reflection and conducting personal relationships, while the wearable computer navigates, searches, discovers, stores, retrieves, organises and connects for us. It will not make us smarter, but technology will enable us to behave smarter, work smarter and learn smarter. That's if we accept that ultimately, the success or failure of such tools is really down to us and us alone.

References
Clark, A. J. (2003) Natural Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies and the Future of Human Intelligence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. and Wilson, B. (1999) Learning with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Photo by Jussi Mononen


The future of intelligence by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Human 2.0

Post human. Such a strange concept, and one that many people struggle to understand. At its simplest, being post-human is a state closely aligned to the cyborg, or cybernetic-organism - part human, part machine. In other words, the post-human condition emerges when humankind and technology merge to the point where they become a part of each other. We can understand cyborgs - and for many, the idea of a half-man, half-machine evokes deep seated fears about how far technology can go. Donna Haraway (2004) makes a point of singling out Rachel - a replicant character in the sci-fi movie Bladerunner - as 'the image of a cyborg culture's fear, love, and confusion.' We have seen many other popular culture examples of the cyborg, from the six-million dollar man to Robocop - and each is endowed with superhuman strength, or enhanced senses. We recognise them because they are on their own, isolated, lost in a world of otherwise normality, unnatural, freaks of non-nature.

No-one really knows exactly if or when a post-human phase emerged, it is all theory and supposition. But we can trace the history of prosthetics and reflect on the incorporation of various kinds of technology into the human body. Replacement limbs may not strictly be accepted as a merging of technology and humanity, unless they are robotic limbs. Heart pacemakers, valves and other forms of technology implant or merger might be. Computer scientist and philosopher Andy Clark, in his 2003 book Natural Born Cyborgs, argues that humankind has an innate need to interface with technology: 'What the human brain is best at is learning to be a team player in a problem-solving field populated by an incredible variety of nonbiological props, scaffoldings, instruments and resources' (p 26). Essentially, when wetware (biological entity) meets hardware, the software can be interoperable. Clark sees the merging of mind and machine to be unstoppable and inevitable. He believes it's not a matter of if, but when. Some would argue that the transient phase leading to post-humanism is the non-invasive but just as powerful welding together of human and computer, as seen in the addictive video game playing of geeks, or the smartphone ultra-dependency of our current youth generation.

So are we now on the verge of a new phase in human development? Are we at the cusp of the incorporation of technology into the human body because we have such a desire to enhance our senses, increase our physical and mental performance, or otherwise extend the capabilities of what is considered to be 'natural'? Are we about to embark on a post-human phase in human development? Some would affirm this, citing several notable 'real examples' of cyborgs in recent years. Meet Kevin Warwick, a professor at the University of Reading, probably the world's first true cyborg. Professor Warwick is interested in how technology can enhance human senses and improve performance. In the foreword to his book I Cyborg, he writes: 'Humans have limited capabilities. Humans sense the world in a restricted way, vision being the best of the senses. Humans understand the world in only 3 dimensions and communicate in a very slow, serial fashion called speech. But can this be improved on? Can we apply technology to the upgrading of humans?' In essence, Warwick is asking: Can we become Human 2.0?

In a famous experiment in 1998 Warwick had a chip transponder surgically implanted into his arm. A computer was then able to track Warwick as he moved around the university campus, and allowed him to open doors, turn on lights, and operate computers without touching them. Other phases of the experiment involved more advanced transponder implants that monitored Warwick's internal condition, such as his emotional responses, stress levels and even thoughts. The speculation was that if others also had similar transponders implanted, people might then be able to communicate their thoughts and emotions to each other via computer mediation.

More recently, Tanya Vlach made headlines with her plans for a new prosthetic eye. She has a dream to transform herself into an 'enhanced human being' after being involved in a serious car accident in which she lost her left eye. She is now planning to have an 'eye-cam' - installed inside her prosthetic eye, complete with zoom control, infra-red and ultra-violet capabilities and the facility for face recognition. The eye-cam would interface with a custom made app, housed in a standard smartphone. She is currently waiting for technology to catch up with her vision, and one day soon, hopes to be able to hard wire the eye-cam directly to the vision centre in her brain, and in so doing become a truly enhanced human being - a cyborg - a post human. Scary, fascinating, challenging stuff - the cyborg becomes the iBorg.

Computer scientist Jaron Lanier's keynote speech at Learning Technologies in London recently served to illustrate several of the dangers and caveats of the post-human condition. Jaron Lanier vehemently rejects Ray Kurzweil's vision of a future where computers can exceed the capabilities of humans. 'You have to be somebody before you can share yourself', he warns. He suggests that we already have expanded memories (search engines of the web) and remote ears and eyes (mobile phones and webcams). Lanier sees no techno-eutopia in the future, but warns instead that we are in danger of dystopia. Indeed, he advised the makers of the movie Minority Report on what might be expected from a technology dominated future in which people were manipulated like chess pieces. The data mining capabilities of the social networks alone can enslave us by owning our purchasing habits, internet search preferences and all other personal data he suggests. He sees Facebook and other social networks undermining and devaluing friendships. The technology should work for us, not us for the technology. Lanier is a contentious, thoughtful character. In just a few minutes of conversation with him in the speaker's lounge, my impression was that he opposes anything that involves a 'hive mind'. 'Why are you wearing a Creative Commons badge?' he asked me as we gazed out over West London. I explained that I believe in giving all my content away for free and that to me, that is the essence of the future of learning. 'I'm going to speak against that today', he warned. It's clear that generally, Jaron Lanier holds a somewhat more pessimistic view of our possible cyborg future.

In the final analysis though, it is mind amplification that is the ultimate goal for humankind's future enhancement. The ability to distribute knowledge beyond the confines of the human brain, and the capability to extend the mind through and across networks does not demand or require any co-joining of human and computer. We have already achieved much of this through mind tools such as social media, which according to Karen Stephenson enable us to store our knowledge with our friends. Do we really need a post-human future? iThink not. 

Top image by Elif Ayiter

References

Clark, A. (2003) Natural Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies and the Future of Human Intelligence. New York: Oxford University Press.

Haraway, D. J. (2004) A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s. New York: Routledge.

Lanier, J. (2010) You are not a Gadget. London: Penguin.


Human 2.0 by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Social enzymes

Learning has rarely been a solo activity. I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I have learnt something significant without the help or influence of others (and counting on my fingers wasn't learnt without help, believe me). No, we are not isolated learners, but learn our most important lessons whilst in conversation with others. Conversation is of course often technologically mediated in this digital age. You and I no longer need to occupy the same location to converse. We can use text, audio or video in a number of modes and through a mind dazzling range of technologies. And there is a record - an archive - of our conversation if we want one.

This is how the current tools and services found on the Web are being used in so many new ways to connect, share and converse. Wikis, blogs, podcasts, social bookmarking, RSS feeds, microblogs, social networking... all are very powerful tools for people to use to make connections with each other... and to learn.

Formal learning is not the only type of learning possible, you see. More often, we are learning informally, while playing a massively multi-player online role playing game for example, or listening to a podcast about a news item. You are learning something new now by reading this blog post, and I learnt something new while I was writing it. We are aware of each other. When we search for an item on the web and get sidetracked down one or more other routes because they look more interesting... we are informally learning something new. When we eavesdrop on Twitter conversations, and simply 'lurk', we are learning informally. When we watch a YouTube video because several thousand people have already given it 5 stars .... we are learning informally. You may see this as serendipity - a kind of happy accident - and you may be right. Informal learning, more often than not, is unplanned. But that does not make it less worthwhile than formalised methods of learning.

The rhizomatic nature of Web 2.0 is making it easier for all of us to connect together, and to learn informally within a socially rich environment which is strewn liberally with the digital footprints of those who have gone before us. We are in effect, constructing our own informal learning pathways simply by following what others have done before - and here is the neatest trick. When we take what others have created (thanks to creative commons and a loosening of the grip or ownership and copyright) and we repurpose them for our own use, our own informal learning... we are creating new footprints for the next informal learner to follow. And on it goes. Informal learning and Web 2.0 need each other. They have synergy and we should not forget the social dimensions each relies upon for their success.

Andy Clark provides a very evocative metaphor when he talks about snail trails in his book 'Natural Born Cyborgs'. Clark shows that snails and slugs lay down slime trails that are rich in enzymes as they seek food sources. The second gastropod that follows the trail expends less energy and enzymes to reach the food, and so on until by the time the tenth snail slides down the pathway, the journey is almost effortless. In the same way, as we travel down digital pathways we leave a trail - perhaps a social bookmark, a Delicious tag, a Stumbled Upon note - which points the way for others to find your nugget of information. WE are in Michael Wesch's terms 'teaching the machine'. But we are also teaching each other. The more we lay down these pathways, the more we are building the community of practice that is Web 2.0.
Right. That's this blog post finished. I'm off now to lay down some social enzymes.

This article was first posted 11 January 2009

Image source



'Social enzymes' by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Cyborg nation?

Here's a continuation of my post-publication review of the highlights of 'Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures' - the book on cybercultures in online learning released last week by Information Age Publishers, USA.

Chapter 12 is called 'Cyber Theory and Learning' and was written by Vasi van Deventer of the University of South Africa. Vasi has written an engaging and stimulating account of how humans integrate new technologies into their lives, thoughts, and in some extreme cases, even into their bodies. The cybernetic organism, or 'cyborg', Vasi claims, is something we are all a lot farther down the road to becoming than we think. Adopting Andy Clark's 'natural born cyborg' thesis, Vasi argues that Net Generation people have a mindset that is:

...a way of engaging with the world that is distinctly different from the mindset of those who grew up in the industrial age. In this mindset, computers are not experienced as technology, but form an integral part of what the world is all about (p 178).

van Deventer also argues that it is the Internet and not TV that becomes the primary source of information, and that the cyborg generation need to create through consumption, even if it is merely copying and pasting from multiple sources to create a new mashup text. There are controversial views here - harking back to Marc Prensky's digital natives and immigrants theory, Mark Bullen's rebuttal, 'net generation nonsense' and even a challenge to the rules that govern what we currently consider to be plagiarism, copyright and intellectual freedom. This chapter is not hard to read, because it is written in an accessible style, but some may find it hard to come to terms with - that we are probably irrevocably marching down a long road which will lead to symbiotic relationships between human and computer that may not only be indistinguishable, but also inextricable. What are your views on this position?

(image source: blog.wired.com)

Natural born cyborgs?

Coming through security at Ljubjana Airport yesterday, I had to remove my belt (no, my trousers stayed up) and my watch. On the other side of the all-seeing eye, having triggered no terrorist alerts or alarm klaxons, I retrieved my belt and wrist watch and put them on again. I grabbed my bag and laptop, and walked off.

It took me approximately 12 seconds to notice my watch was not on my wrist (I can't be certain of course, because my watch was not on my wrist). I retraced my steps and under the stern eyes of the security staff eventually found my forlorn watch - calling out to me from under the conveyor belt. This got me thinking. It doesn't take long for us to notice when something is missing - technology that we wear - that enhances our senses or extends our cognitive abilities. So are we becoming cyborgs?

Strolling across a bridge in Venice on Saturday, during our social event after ICL 2008, I encountered the fellow in the picture above. He was making a point. Posing as a cyborg, bedecked with wearable technology (but ironically, clutching a quill). Is this the future? Will we all walk around in 10 or 20 year's time interacting through technology. I can see the appeal, but I can also see the inherent dangers and hear the howls of protests from those who would rather see a future where we use technology sensibly, sparingly, appropriately. But in 10 or 20 years time, what will be the appropriate use of technology? Andy Clark, chair in logic and metaphysics at the University of Edinburgh believes we are all naturally akin to technology - 'Natural Born Cyborgs'. Is he right? And will cyborg living become more acceptable? Your views are appreciated...

Our cyborg future?

Last Thursday I dragged the family off to see a new interactive exhibition at the Discovery Museum in Newcastle entitled ‘Our Cyborg Future’. It’s on until 27 October, with free entry into the show and it’s well worth a visit if you are in the area. The blurb for the show reads: ‘Where does the me end and the machine begin? This exciting exhibition features body parts, smart textiles, wearable computing and much more. Come and see, come and think, come and discuss: is this the future we want?’

Well, there was plenty to think about, but no-one to discuss my ideas with, as the only people in attendance were the security guards who made sure you didn’t walk off with the exhibits. It would have been nice to talk to a computer scientist or a cybernetics expert, because many of the ideas on show demanded a dialogue of some kind. Perhaps the most significant exhibit for me was the computer-brain interface device, which is worn over the head Petr Cech style, as rubber helmet, replete with EEG sensors that are patched into the computer (pictured). All you do is ‘think’ your cursor around the screen and it follows your every command. Sounds neat and very useful (particularly for quadriplegic users) but also just a little bit scary. It’s not that new an idea either, but it was nice to see it in action, even if only on a video. Bio-clothing was also on show, where fabric changed shape and colour (or even disappeared!) on wearer command. There were numerous computer controlled protheses, some of which appalled my young son, until I told him you didn’t actually have to have your leg amputated to wear a bionic leg – but you could wear one if you were unlucky to lose your leg in an accident.

I also enjoyed getting the remote sensor robot angry – the closer you get to him the more animated he becomes, and I got close enough to get him thrashing around on his pistons like a demented Johnny Rotton. He came within a hair’s breadth of braining me at one point (the robot, not Johnny Rotten).

Oh….and to answer the question in the exhibition blurb – is this the future we want? Well it’s the future we will get, whether we want it or not.