Close reading: "Disembodied Telepresence"
Choose a sentence or passage from Hubert Dreyfus's essay "Disembodied Telepresence" that you think is significant--striking, provocative, or otherwise worthy of further investigation--and quote it (include the page number).
Then tell us in your own words what you think Dreyfus is saying in the passage, including clarifications to any unfamiliar concepts, phrases, or words that might be confusing, and why you think it's interesting and significant. You might consider how the passage operates in the larger scope of the essay or how it relates to any of the films or other readings we've covered.
posted by Irene Chien @ 6:55 AM
11 comments
11 Comments:
A passage I find especially interesting is the second paragraph of page 67. In this passage, Dreyfus discusses the pros and cons of medical interns observing an operation through a camera mounted on a doctor’s headband. What is interesting about this passage is the idea that this digital presence is only able to see the focus of a situation, and this idea extends to almost all forms of telepresence, not just the camera on the doctor. Dreyfus states, “The teleintern would surely learn something from the televised image of what the doctor pays attention to, but he or she would always remain a prisoner to the doctor’s attention setting.” In his choice of the word
“prisoner,” Dreyfus clearly attaches a negative connotation to this condition of telepresence. Just as in a business teleconference or family snapshot, the viewer is only able to see what the cameraman is focusing on, and thus looses much of the moment being expressed.
"Whatever hugs do for people, I'm quite sure telehugs won't do it." (Dreyfus, 69)
Though simple, this sentence struck me as a densely insightful embodiment of many of the discussions that have gone on in class. Most of our discussions have been about the "technology vs. humanity" theme, and how interactions between the two create a connection and a divide simultaneously between the identities of each entities.
In this quote, Dreyfus skips the question of "What do hugs do for people", implying that no one really knows, and makes the (probably true) statement that "telehugs" will never be the same thing. But why not? Do we just want contact? Then why not someone touching our arms, or head, or a robot giving us a hug? Dreyfus made me feel that this was pivotal in the distinction between technology and humanity, and might lend one answer to the questions brought up in our discussions--the distinction between technology and the body is ultimately about presence, and our innate ability to detect real presence, from the things that simply exist without presence.
"For the time being, however, investment bankers know that in order to get two CEO's to trust one another enough to merge their companies, it is not sufficient that they have many teleconferences. They must live together for several days interacting in a shared environment, and it is quite likely that they will finally make their deal over dinner." (70, Para 2)
Finally, a reading that I can fully agree with - something practical and not "Donna Haraway" loopy.
The reason I find this quote so striking and relevant is:
A - it's relevant to the business
world.
B - But most importantly, what is wrong with these wackos who could even fathom the idea of online dating?
If you develop an emotional connection and get hooked, who's to say you're going to have the same connection on all the other sensory levels. When you learn to function with someone in one environment, you may too readily find that you're completely dysfunctional in another. And when you commit in the first environment, it's going to be that much harder to find out in the long run after an attachment that the whole engagement was wrong.
This is what Paris and Nicky Hilton have had to learn the hard way.
But if you get to know someone initially in the context of all your senses, you can make an immediate informed decision before you escalate into something attaching and serious. The main concept is trust, and it can most easily be established through interpresonal contact.
And also related to the quote, people should live with each other before they get married - a trial run of trust and personal interaction. Forget Hollywood's politics, I'd like to just see the average marriage last for more than two weeks.
And on a related subject, I hear they're hiring to replace Dr. Phil.
"So, perception is motivated by the indeterminacy of experience and our perceptual skills serve to make determinable objects sufficiently determinate for us to get an optimal grip on them." (Pg. 56 bottom of the page)
I found this as a very challenging quote to me because of the words used in this sentence. I think what he is trying to say is that we want to have this grip on objects that we may make up but we want to have them. We perceive these thoughts or ideas and they may not be real but our skills or brain make these ideas real. I think that is what he is trying to say. The movie i thought of was Blade Runner. The androids want to believe that all their memories are theirs espicially Rachel. She just could not get over the fact that the memories were not hers. She cried and was upset when she was with Deckard. We perceive these things and after a while we just believe them and want to make them real and we trick ourselves into thinking they are.
“What is lost, then, in telepresence is the possibility of my controlling my body’s movement so as to get a better grip on the world.” (65)
In this sentence, Hubert L. Dreyfus attempts to explain why using a computer or television screen to interact with another human being or to learn a concept this way can be insufficient or inadequate. Dreyfus says that the reason this type of interaction is not the same or the reason that it lacks the same effect that face to face interaction causes is that it does not provide the ability to control one’s body movements. It also does not allow a person to achieve a full understanding of the mood of a situation or to understand the surroundings present where an event is really taking place. According to Dreyfus, if the ability to control one’s body movements is lost, then one loses the ability to react to another person’s movements or emotions. This also does not allow a person to get a full grip on the world because it doesn’t allow them to absorb the whole situation; it doesn’t give them the chance to take in everything that might be present at a real interaction or location.
Some of the concepts in this particular sentence that were a bit unfamiliar or confusing at first were the words “telepresence” and the phrase “a better grip on the world.” I had never heard of telepresence before, so it took a little bit of further reading into the essay to deduct that it means to be present at a location through a television or computer screen. This is possible by having a camera film your face or body and then have a computer or television screen show your image at a distant place where your presence is required. This could also mean having the image of another person or just the real location where you wish to be also shown on a screen in front of you, so that you will also be able to see where your image is being broadcasted. The phrase “a better grip on the world” I later thought to mean to absorb as much as possible from an event as possible. This would mean that cyber or telepresence does not provide this because you miss out on the actual reality of being present at the real location.
I think this essay relates to some of the themes seen in the movie Family Viewing. The theme of having an actual occurrence recorded so that you can be present at the real place for the first time or once again through a television screen is explored in both this essay and in this movie. As seen in the movie, recordings or images through a screen are not the same and are certainly not sufficient enough to convey the same effect that the ability to be present at the actual location at the time when the event is taking place will have on a person.
Sorry...this is the same comment I posted on the other place, which I don't know the name of. Is it called the other "blog," "entry," etc.? But I thought it might be easier if I posted it at the "place" where the assignment was also posted.
"So when we are in the real world, not just minds but as embodied vulnerable human beings, we must constantly be ready for dangerous surprises. Perhaps, when this sense of vulnerability is absent, our whole experience is sensed as unreal..."
I believe that Dreyfous is claiming that the distance the digital world has created between us and danger has made our lives a little less "real." For example, through the internet we can literallly go to the top of Mount Everest or watch the Great White sharks without any danger. This complacency is a threat to our wellbeing because there would be no balance of power. Throughout history countries have manuevered in and out of danger in attempts to overcome the uncertainty of their futures. These movements helps provide a more balanced world.
"Merleau-Ponty points out that, when we are looking at something, we tend, without thinking about it, to find the best distance for taking in both the thing as a whole and its different parts.” (Dreyfus 55-56)
I think Dreyfus is saying that it is our bodies, not our minds, which are always trying to find the perfect position to view an image in order for the mind to take the most from it. Our bodies from experience intentionally seek a “maximum sharpness of perception.” So the fear that in this age of increasing telepresence, our bodies will become irrelevant and our minds will take over doesn’t consider that our bodies allow us to use our minds more efficiently. If our bodies didn’t seek the best position to examine things from afar and close up, our thoughts would not be as easily flowing. For instance, looking at a painting from too far away, one might have to question what is in the painting, not being able to see what it is comprised of from so far away. On the other hand, looking at a painting from 2 inches away, one would only see strokes of paint and not be able to tell what the entire painting is comprised of. But standing at an optimal position in which one can see brush strokes and can also see the entire painting, allows the person to begin to think about the subject matter and interpret the painting, instead of wasting time thinking, “What is it?” We may be losing social interaction in place of communication over the internet, but even though someone reading an e-mail can’t see our body, our bodies are not irrelevant. From experience, our bodies automatically do things allowing our mind not to have to think about it and focus on less trivial things.
“Furthermore, it seems that to trust someone you have to make yourself vulnerable to him or her and they have to be vulnerable to you. Part of trust is based on the experience that the other does not take advantage of one’s vulnerability. I have to be in the same room with someone and know they could physically hurt me or publicly humiliate me and observe that they do not do so, in order to feel I can trust them and make myself vulnerable to them in other ways.” (Pages 70-71)
This passage really stuck with me when I first read it because it’s completely and absolutely true. I didn’t even think about how big of a risk we take each and everyday with our friends. In one instance the people that know us the best have the capacity to easily expose the depths of our pasts and make our innermost feelings and secrets known to the world. When you tell your secrets in confidence to your friends, you are not only entrusting them in that moment, but for all the other times they’ll be able to expose you. The greatness of being able to trust another person that much and have someone you can depend on that greatly is something quite valuable. Intimate connections like that rarely come cheap and the risk of embarrassment and ruin are always possible. It seems this is a reoccurring theme throughout most things in life. With great reward comes great risk… sometimes the only way you can get an upper hand in things is if you take a chance and put yourself out there. To experience the amazing feeling of connection, understanding, and closeness with another human being, you have to take a risk and make yourself vulnerable in the process.
"What would be gained and what, if anything would be lost if we were to take leave of our situated bodies in exchange for ubiquitous telepresence in cyberspace? We can break up this question into two: how does relating to the world through teletechnology affect our overall sense of reality? And what, if anything, is lost when human beings relate to each other by way of teletechnology? (52)"
When I read this passage I immediately thought of video games, more specifically the ones of the online multiplayer variety. Dreyfus is posing the question of what would happen if a world were created entirely in cyberspace, but this has already happened in massively-multiplayer online games. I'm not as hardcore as some people out there, but I've played enough games to know what it's like online. In response to Dreyfus's first question of how telepresence affects how we relate to the world and our sense of reality, I can see in most gamers that they all understand that it's just a game. But some gamers would be at risk of what Dreyfus fears: that these virtual worlds would consume their lives. Such is the case with several gamers addicted to MMORPGs like Everquest. There have been reports of people dying because they ignored their body's need for sleep and food, all to spend more time with their avatar in this virtual world. Then there's this guy who killed someone in the real world because that someone stole an item from him. This is an erie possibility of what the world could be like is we spend our entire lives in this telepresent world.
The actual interactions between humans could also be adversely affected. In most games I've played, I found that some people make racist, sexist, and downright rude comments. In the real world, this generally doesn't happen (unless they're just jerks) because there's someting about actually being there that prevents us from doing something like that. We want to look good in front of each other, but in these games there's no need to look good. Gamers are just anonymous people who just happen to remind you of how much you suck. Interacting with people solely in games doesn't teach us proper social skills.
"Others worry that if we stay in our rooms and only relate to the world and other people through the Net we will become isolated and depressed..." (pg. 51)
This concern of being isolated as technology requires us to experience real situations less and less is a very real problem today. People nowadays can take classes online, make purchases online, do their finances online, and so forth without making any real contact with other people. I find this rather disturbing, as part of being human is developing relationships and experiencing situations and emotions with others. Although limiting one's contact with the outside world may not necessarily cause depression (it very much depends on a person's preferences and personality), I do believe it has an affect on one's social and emotional life. Living one's life through the internet causes one to lose touch with what is real. Like what Dreyfus wrote, reality encompasses a sense of danger and vulnerability. Although going out into the real world does cause risk, this risk is what helps us develop the skills to make the right choices and develop relationships. Those who never go out lose these skills and are extremeley isolated. In a way, this reminds me of agoraphobics. Their fear of the world feeds off of their dependency on "telepresence" until they become so afraid that they are unable even step outside their home. The internet and other technologies today allow us to live inside, like agoraphobics, without ever having to leave our comfort zone.
“This full-bodied presence is more than the feeling that I am present at the site of a robot arm I am controlling from a distance through real-time interaction. Nor is it just a question of giving robots surface sensors so that, through them as prostheses, we can touch other people at a distance. Even the most gentle person-robot interaction would never be caress, nor could one successfully use a delicately controlled and touch-sensitive robot arm to give one’s kid a hug. Whatever hugs do for people, I’m quite sure telehugs won’t do it.” (69)
What I find interesting about this passage is that it shows the fact that technology cannot completely replace the daily activities of life. In this passage Dreyfus talk about how a robot cannot fully represent the presence of a human. He uses an example of a simple hug to explain this. He shows that a hug between a human and a robot is pointless in that a hug is supposed to represent the encounter of two people who have a bond; there is an emotional impact to a hug. If a robot were to take representation of any of the people then the bond disappears and so does the emotion. If this is the case then one might as well, just send a letter. I find it significant that although technology provides more efficient and convenient ways to approach daily activities of life, it is still not highly regarded over the natural way of living. It seems technology makes it boring and peer encounters make life more exciting.
Post a Comment
<< Home