Note: I had written and revised this whole post, and when I went to publish it, it reverted to an earlier form and I lost everything I had typed up since. Does anyone know why this would happen or how to avoid it in the future? I am not at all happy to have lost more than half of my post (so I apologize if I’m unable to recreate it as coherently). And this, friends, is one of the many problems with digital technology!
I know this is not on the topic of either of our prompts, but I watched a movie the other night that I think relates to what we’ve been talking about these past few weeks, and I thought it was worth bringing to the table for discussion.
The movie was Limitless, and for those who don’t know, it’s about a writer (played by Bradley Cooper) who takes this new drug called NZT which basically turns him into a super genius. He describes the drug’s affects thus: “My brain was just pouring this stuff out. Everything I’d ever read, heard, seen was now organized and available. Here it is. Here you go.” Suddenly, he is able to access every memory, every bit of information stored in his brain, whether the storage took place consciously or unconsciously. His brain, in effect, becomes kind of like a computer with a super-fast, intuitive search engine that synthesizes any and all information that may be stored in his brain relevant to whatever problem he is trying to solve.
I find this very interesting for many reasons, starting with my own response. While I have many reservations about the idea of being able to do something like this with the aid of digital technology – Pranav Mistry’s “sixth sense technology” and the possibilities of increased human/machine integration comes to mind – the idea of taking a drug to boost my own mental capacity doesn’t bother me at all. In fact, I’d probably be first in line if a drug like this actually existed (despite the fact that most people died of withdrawals when attempting to go off it).
Now, I know there is a huge difference between a drug that lets you access anything stored in your own brain and any project of the DH – but how big is that difference, really? Isn’t the underlying principle of free, unrestricted access to a knowledge base the same? Whether it’s the knowledge base of one person, or the knowledge base of all of humanity (and isn’t that one of the ultimate goals of the DH – to create and allow free and unrestricted access to all of humanity’s cumulative knowledge base?) – so why does one sound like a spectacular innovation while the other fills me with concern and trepidation? NZT, like all drugs formed by combining chemicals in a lab, is a form of technology itself, so that can’t be the part that worries me. Is it just the machine, then? It would be fine to turn my brain into a supercomputer that can access and synthesize everything that I’ve ever encountered in any format in my own life, but it’s scary to think about one day being able to “think” my way through cyberspace (which would be basically the same thing, but digitally mediated, and with a larger knowledge base from which to draw)?
I don’t have any answers, but it certainly left me thinking. Does anyone else have similar feelings? Or any other thoughts about the movie or any issues it brings up?
I haven’t seen the film, but I think your post poses a thoughtful paradox. I think it really hits home at a thought I had from another comment–to question what it means to be human. I wonder if the drug doesn’t bother you as much as the super-computer becuase of the fact that you feel like it will only be enhancing who you are (your human abilities), whereas the super-computer will be something separate from yourself, and thus has the potential to grow into something foreign, if it isn’t already. I postulate one feels more human to you only because in my analysis of my own thoughts (I would prefer the supercomputer over the drug), it seems that I would rather have something that doesn’t affect my humanity–I don’t want to have the qualities of a machine. In fact, part of being human to me is error or struggle. It is the ability to understand what is human–the very ability that might have made you feel an aversion toward the computer. If everyone lost these abilities, I fear it would make us lose our most valuable qualities–the potential to make mistakes, and to understand when others make them. Essentially, the drug feels a littel Promethean to me, whereas the computer doesn’t.
Kristin, do you have an email?
I have seen Limitless and I do understand the comparison you are making, although I feel that that NZT is beyond our years. I feel “fear and trepidation” towards both the drug and the idea of having supercomputers. I think they both belong to an unknown realm that we haven’t really fully grasped yet. The reason why NZT seems so innovating is because only one person in the movie has access to that power. When only ONE person has access to any power (whether super-hero, super genius or super strong) then that one power becomes something that EVERYONE wants. So lets say, everyone was able to take that super-drug, then it would become the norm and we would have this weird society of geniuses where everyone would be the same (kinda like communism, maybe a stretch).
I think EVERYONE having access to something is what some people do not like (whether it is “NZT” or the Internet). Both are means to more knowledge. Does this mean we don’t want knowledge to spread? Is this elitist? My problem isn’t that everyone has access to more books, articles or texts through the web, my problem is the danger of the internet. Internet stores passwords, history of the websites you visit, personal information, etc. The more we are involved with the WEB the more the web knows more about us, then we know about it. I think that is the scariest part of becoming dependent to technology.
Lots of stuff here. Some of the discussion compares the internet to a drug. I’ll add to it by suggesting that drugs have particular purposes. Traditionally, they are curative, but they are sometimes used in an “augmentive” fashion (I don’t know if I invented that word), especially since the 60s Counter Culture. In more recent times, we have frequently had to deal with their “addictive” qualities. Does this help to frame our thinking about the impact of technology on our lives?