Week 11

As previously confessed, I am a science fiction fan. So I’ve thought about the future, as in, the misty, far-off, flying cars future more than a few times. I’ve also thought about my future, future career, future living location. What has seemed more difficult to think about is the broader, more global and nearer future. Perhaps because everything is changing all the time, and those changes lead us in the direction of faster, closer and more. We are getting closer and closer to the point where we can do almost anything, we have amazing resources at our fingertips, so I think what is really going to matter in the future is intent (insert famous Spiderman quote).

We have been given the tools to construct and influence our own reality, to choose what real future we want to see from the virtuality of possibilities, and each of us has a responsibility to work towards this. “As we spend more and more time in virtual space, there will be a gradual ‘migration to virtual space’, resulting in important changes in economics, worldview, and culture” (Anon, n.d.)  and this is true, but I think the opposite is also happening. In a huge event of transversality, the virtual is also migrating to the real, and that as the future becomes the present, this will only increase.

I think this is what Jane McGonigal is talking about, in regards to gaming and its ability to be a positive force in the world. Virtual worlds “consistently fulfill genuine human needs that the real world fails to satisfy” (McGonigal 2011), because “reality isn’t engineered to maximize our potential or to make us happy.” (McGonigal 2011) She is not suggesting that we need to walk around with video screens over our eyes, this is not augmented reality, but rather we need to realize the positive feedback that comes with virtual nature of gaming and bring it into the world as a way to affect things positively. I think that it’s easy to get lost up in the wonderful technology and lose sight of what we could really be doing with it, and intent, or motivation, is a way to combat this, and the “game layer actually traffics in individual human motivation.” (Future Tense 2011). Video games are a perfect example of what’s written off as a time-wasting, anti-social past time can be actualised as a force for positive change.

We need to remember that we are more than our technologies, and, I’m going to get a little mushy because this is probably my last blog, that it is the human element that is really driving the types of social media and technologies that are around today. “it’s time for a new approach, an approach that utilizes the creative energies of the global population” (Knife Party et al. 2010) and gaming may be one way to do this, there may be countless others. I don’t want a future like Bladerunner’s or Neuromancer’s, as cool as they might seem, so for me the future of media means keeping one foot in the real and one in the virtual, and a clear head about what media can do for me and for my world, rather than the other way around. Is that terribly culturally materialistic of me?

Anon. (n.d.) ‘Virtual Reality’, Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality> [accessed 15 May 2011]

Future Tense (2011) ‘Gamification: why shouldn’t life be a game?’ ABC <http://www.abc.net.au/rn/futuretense/stories/2011/3171734.htm> [accessed 15 May 2011]

Knife Party and Rayner, Tim and Robson, Simon (2010) Coalition of the Willing <http://coalitionofthewilling.org.uk/> [accessed 27 April 2011]

McGonigal, Jane (2011) ‘Be a Gamer, Save the World’ Jane McGonigal <http://realityisbroken.org/2011/01/22/wall-street-journal-be-a-gamer-save-the-world/> [accessed 15 May 2011]

Advertisements

Week 10

Well, this week’s focus corresponds nicely with my chosen field of study. ‘I’m interested in science communication, science media, bringing the scientific community closer to the public’ is the answer I always give when, after telling someone I’m majoring in media and genetics, I’m met with a quizzical look and the statement ‘that’s an…interesting combination.’ Thank you, Week 10, for giving me some more evidence that these two areas are not so far apart.

Even so, it’s clear to see there is a general lack of communication between the established, traditional scientific community and society. In an era where knowledge is so easily transferred, this seems unacceptable and this is one of the main points being made by Seed, that “If reliable ways are found to increase the speed and efficiency of such “science transfer,” the results could not only be increased prosperity and knowledge but also increased stability and wisdom.” (Seed 2011) Science is not stagnant, theories are being revised and tested all the time, and new results are turned up from the same experiments. I saw this just last week in my ecology lab. The flexibility is there, it just needs to be brought out into public domain so that “the publication of research serves as a distributed commons of knowledge, as the beginning of millions of research cycles, not one where a short set of “pages” represents the end of a research investment.” (Wilbanks 2011) One could say we need to mix Nature with Wikipedia.

However, taking this too far would be, I believe, detrimental. “Science publishing isn’t just an industry. It’s also the core factory for knowledge transfer in the world” (Wilbanks 2011) and reliability is a huge factor. Everything that is published is reviewed and scrutinised and before you even get to the editing stage, experiments, ones that could take months or years, must be checked and repeated. I love that fact that the Internet means almost everyone can have a voice, but in the scientific field, due to its very nature and its importance to society, standards of accuracy must be upheld. Blogs “cannot replace the peer-reviewed paper – however painful that publishing process might be.” (Schmidt 2011) It is a slow and painful process, and one of the challenges we face is how to speed it up to match the pace that the digitalised world moves at, without losing any rigour or accuracy. One way may be the sharing of data, an idea being embraced by a range of organisations (Pisani 2011), as it could mean result in less need to repetition, quicker processing of results. Two brains and eyes and hands are faster than one.

So there is hope. As Kelly points out, “The scientific method, like science itself, is accumulated structure. New scientific instruments and tools add new ways to gather and organize information” (2010) and if the scientific community is smart, and that’s the impression they give, they will embrace the easy transfer and remixing, editing and adding to of knowledge. And if the general public is a little more patient, science will be able to do this without compromising its principles. I don’t know exactly how we will reconcile these two speeds but the challenge is, quite frankly, something I’m willing to devote my career to.

Kelly, Kevin (2010) ‘Evolving the Scientific Method: Technology is changing the way we conduct science’, The Scientist <http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/57831/> [accessed 8 May 2011]

Pisani, Elizabeth (2011) ‘Medical science will benefit from the research of crowds’, The Guardian, January 11, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/11/medical-research-data-sharing> [accessed 8 May 2011]

Schmidt, Gavin (2011) ‘From Blog to Science’, RealClimate <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/from-blog-to-science/> [accessed 8 May 2011]

Seed (2011) ‘On Science Transfer’, Seed <http://seedmagazine.com/content/print/on_science_transfer> [accessed 8 May 2011]

Wilbanks, John (2011) ‘On Science Publishing’, Seed, <http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/on_science_publishing> [accessed 8 May 2011]

* Week 9 – Social Organisation

Every now and then when my friends and I arrange to meet up, one of us is late and has to call to find out where we are. Often, this prompts a discussion of what life would be like without mobile phones and wonderment at how our parents did it – being on time, agreeing and sticking to a plan, and, seemingly, existing in only one plane of reference. To me, that’s what mobile phones offered: the ability to immediately connect with someone not only in a different physical location, but one that wasn’t fixed or concrete. To maintain a dialogue whatever the movements of the body. And now the proliferation of the Internet means this is happening on a massive, global scale, with dialogues happening between people not only on different continents, but people who change continents monthly.

It’s easy to say we’re connected like never before, and it’s true, but the more challenging aspect of this, and something I think this week’s readings address, is what we are going to do with these new tools and opportunities now that “the world is shedding yesterday’s skin” (Bauwens 2011). We need help channelling and directing the chatter, but must walk the fine line between enough direction and too much. I think this is where P2P and Coalition of the Willing have the right idea in offering the structures, whether this be a computer program, social media platform or something completely different, something to base your ideas off and concrete your thoughts but lacking any heavy handed control. With all the structures that are becoming available, “the possibilities are only limited by the software you run and your ability to learn how to use it.” (Anon 2009a) When you think about it, the Coalition’s knowledge trust, innovation centre and catalyst system (Knife Party et al. 2010) could be applied to almost anything, and surely, considering the nature of their project, they wouldn’t mind sharing?

Because “information is a nonrival good” (Anon 2009b). It is there to share. The problem is we have so much of it that it can be hard to know where to start. Once again, this is where structures come into it. Ostrom states that “if the community doesn’t have a good way of communicating with each other or the costs of self-organization are too high, then they won’t organize, and there will be failures.” (Anon 2010) It doesn’t matter if the information is there is no one is doing anything with it. However, at the same time these structures need to be flexible because it is the fluidity and dynamic nature of the system that gives this new social organisation its power, it is the “aggregate result” not of the machines but of the interactions between them (Terranova 2004, p. 101) that will shake the foundations of traditional networks and organisations.

Anon (2009a) ‘A Revolution in the Making’, P2P Foundation: Researching, documenting and promoting peer to peer practices <http://p2pfoundation.net/A_Revolution_in_the_Making> [accessed 29 April 2011]

Anon (2009b) ‘Economics of Information Production’, P2P Foundation: Researching, documenting and promoting peer to peer practices <http://p2pfoundation.net/2.3_Economics_of_Information_Production> [accessed 29 April 2011]

Anon. (2010) ‘Elinor Ostrom’, p2p foundation <http://p2pfoundation.net/Elinor_Ostrom> [accessed 27 April 2011]

Bauwens, Michel (2011) ‘Book of the Week: Umair Haque’s New Capitalist Manifesto’, P2P Foundation: Researching, documenting and promoting peer to peer practices <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/book-of-the-week-umair-haques-new-capitalist-manifesto/2011/02/13> [accessed 27 April 2011]

Knife Party and Rayner, Tim and Robson, Simon (2010) Coalition of the Willing <http://coalitionofthewilling.org.uk/> [accessed 27 April 2011]

Terranova, Tiziana (2004) ‘From Organisms to Multitudes’ In Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age London: Pluto: 101-106

Week 8 – Big Politics

I thought I would try my hand at a mindmap. There are a few quotes from readings that apply to certain sections, follow the numbers…

I hope that if you can understand Andrew's mind maps, this one shouldn't be too much of a problem

1. The tricky part is knowing all the options (Styles 2009)

2. Horizontalism has become endemic because technology makes it easy: it kills vertical hierarchies spontaneously (Mason 2011)

3. The naked transparency movement marries the power of network technology to the radical decline in the cost of collecting, storing, and distributing data. Its aim is to liberate that data, especially government data, so as to enable the public to process it and understand it better, or at least differently. (Lessig 2010)

4. Fielding, Nick & Cobain, Ian (2011) ‘Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media’ The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks> [accessed April 18 2011]

5. This new relation between bloggers and other media forms has now become standard: not only do many of the opposition newspapers rely on bloggers for their stories; news stories that journalists can’t print themselves without facing state persecution (Hirschkind 2011)

6. But in many arenas, a lack of traditional leadership is giving rise to powerful groups that are turning industry and society upside down. (Brafman 2010)

7. Certain events depart from news events, and instead become ceremonial occurrences that are treated with reverence by broadcasters (Usher 2011)

Well, it has quite a lot going on, but isn’t that the truth? Everything seems connected to everything these days, drawing on and influencing everything else. I did find the idea of transparency particularly interesting, especially considering I had no idea the Australian government was adopting it as a policy (Tanner 2010). It reminds me of the moral debate that always arises at the beginning of disasters movies: do you tell everyone the world is about the end and incite mass panic? Or do you keep it a secret until the last possible moment? Obviously, this is an exaggeration and doesn’t strictly apply to today’s world but it is interesting to think about when it might be better to keep a secret. When is it truly a case of ‘what they don’t know won’t hurt them’, and who decides this? It would appear to be whoever has the information, and with the easy sharing offered by technology that’s often a lot of people, meaning keeping a secret is hard.

Personally, I am in favour of transparency – even if the news is bad, I would prefer to make an informed decision. However, I find that sometimes I have no idea whether my opinion is informed (hence the purple apathy/lack of awareness line) and this is where I think transparency plus social media, and how its ability to act as a personal filter, could have a huge impact. Lessig’s worries about the ambiguity of data (Lessig 2010) are, I believe, legitimate, but I still think it is better for the information to be there, so that someone with the motivation to sort through the data can come to an opinion and blog about it. And for someone else to disagree and post an opposing view. And for others to comment on both. It’s strange to think that the Internet, long thought of as a place where one can act anonymously, is engendering a move towards transparency. “People just know more than they used to” (Mason 2011) and they want to talk about what they know, and I think the really great thing is that (mostly) they also want to hear what other people have to say about it. Where this will take government I am not entirely sure, but I can’t help thinking about what might have happened in Iraq in 2003 had all the information be readily available to the public.

Sources:

Brafman, Ori and Beckstrom, Rod A. (2010) ‘The Power Of Leaderless Organizations: Craigslist, Wikipedia And Al Qaeda All Demonstrate How Absence Of Structure Has Become An Asset’, National Journal <http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/the-power-of-leaderless-organizations-20100911> [accessed April 18 2011]

Hirschkind, Charles (2011) ‘From the Blogosphere to the Street: The Role of Social Media in the Egyptian Uprising’,  Jadaliyya <http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/599/from-the-blogosphere-to-the-street_the-role-of-social-media-in-the-egyptian-uprising>  [accessed April 18 2011]

Lessig, Lawrence (2010) ‘Against Transparency: The perils of openness in government.’<http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/against-transparency?page=0,0>  [accessed April 17 2011]

Mason, Paul (2011) ‘Twenty reasons why it’s kicking off everywhere’, Idle Scrawls BBC, <http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2011/02/twenty_reasons_why_its_kicking.html>  [accessed April 18 2011]

Styles, Catherine (2009) ‘A Government 2.0 idea – first, make all the functions visible’ <http://catherinestyles.com/2009/06/28/a-government-2-0-idea/>  [accessed April 18 2011]

Tanner, Lindsay (2010) ‘Declaration of open government’ Australian Government <http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/2010/07/16/declaration-of-open-government/> [accessed April 18 2011]

Usher, Nikki (2011), ‘How Egypt’s uprising is helping redefine the idea of a “media event”’, The Nieman Lab <http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/02/how-egypts-uprising-is-helping-redefine-the-idea-of-a-media-event/>  [accessed April 17 2011]

Week 6 – Data

This weekend I went to the rally for action against climate change at Belmore Park, and knowing that on the other side of the city a protest against the carbon tax was taking place I wondered why people were so reluctant to address the issue of anthropogenic global warming. Is it the money? To me, $16 dollars a week seems like a small price to pay for the planet. So I drew another conclusion: many people do not understand, or choose to ignore, the gravity of the situation. For scientists, the data is indisputable, they receive the message clearly, but most do not. The data remains of mass of impenetrable numbers and figures.

 

Climate change is an excellent example of both the importance of data in our lives, and our fear of it, but Edward’s introductory chapter (2010) is also interesting in that much of what he says about climate change and it’s modelling is generally applicable to other infrastructures and data sets. He states that “conceiving weather and climate as a global phenomena helped promote an understanding of the world as a single physical system.” (Edward 2010, p. xix) This realization occurred through the use of data and data modeling systems. We feel the sense that everything is connected to everything these days, and are often overwhelmed by it, but through the use of data perhaps we could make sense of it.

 

Because there is evidence that people are willing to use data (Quilty-Harper 2010), especially in a personal context. We are fascinated by ourselves. I cannot count the number of times someone’s ‘most used word in status’ has come up on my Facebook news feed. Though my immediate thought is, ‘I don’t care’ I find myself thinking about data I do care about. To continue with the climate change theme, how much time does everyone spend on Facebook? How much electrical energy is required for this and how much fossil fuel is required for that? In other words, what is our Facebook usage costing the planet? And how do we make the data that doesn’t relate to us interesting?

 

Dr Rosling seems to have the right idea with his IKEA boxes (Brain Scan 2010). I feel like there should be a slogan about the three E’s: making data easy, engaging and ex-ccessible (yes, I cheated on the last one), and that’s what exactly he’s doing, turning “dusty figures into convincing illustrations.” (Brain Scan 2010). He says  “I produce a road map for the modern world…Where people want to drive is up to them.” (Brain Scan 2010) Maps are very visual tools and visualization does seem to be the key in achieving the three E’s, an idea expressed by Manovich and his theory of cultural analytics, “a new paradigm for the study, teaching, and public presentation of cultural artifacts, dynamics, and flows,” (Williford 2011) where the ability to see patterns is key. And it appears that we are slowly coming around to this view, of analysing the data in our lives to determine patterns in our world. Where the use of everyday data was thought to be strange (Wolf 2010), the use of data, and not only everyday data, is gathering momentum. IMB and Google have both jumped on the wagon (Evans 2011; Garber 2011) and data is shifting into the artistic realm (Mosher 2011).

 

The question is though, how can media devices help with this? Apps for representing archives on the go? A way of reading your email using pie graphs? It’s a difficult question, but what is visualization if not an extension of data’s mind? Numerical, statistical data is taken into the visual realm. Perhaps the haptic could be next, a way of integrating visualisations of historical, social data into the world around and accessing them at any moment.

 

 

Sources:

 

Brain Scan (2010) ‘Making data dance’ The Economist <http://www.economist.com/node/17663585?story_id=17663585> [accessed 3 April 2011]

 

Edwards, Paul N. (2010) ‘Introduction’ in A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: xiii-xvii

 

Evans, Lisa (2011) ‘Many Eyes: what data do people want to visualise?’ The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/17/visualise-data-trends> [accessed 3 April 2011]

 

Garber, Megan (2011) ‘Dataviz, democratized: Google opens public data explorer’ Nieman Journalism Lab <http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/02/dataviz-democratized-google-opens-public-data-explorer/> [ accessed April 3 2011]

 

Mosher, Dave (2011) ‘Data as Art: Striking Science Maps’ Wired <http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/03/best-science-maps/?pid=1053> [accessed April 3 2011]

 

Quily-Harper, Conrad (2010) ’10 Ways Data is Changing How We Live’ The Telegraph <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/7963311/10-ways-data-is-changing-how-we-live.html> [accessed 3 April 2011]

 

Williford, James (2011) ‘Graphing Culture’ Humanities <http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2011-03/Graphing.html> [accessed 3 April 2011]

 

Wolf, Gary (2010) ‘The Data-Driven Life’ The New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/magazine/02self-measurement-t.html?_r=2> [accessed 3 April 2011]

Week 5 – Reality

I am a science fiction nerd. I admit it. I’ve read Ender’s Game and Neuromancer and therefore I am familiar with the concept of the virtual, virtual reality technologies and their affect on the world. Or, I thought I was. This week’s readings, mainly those by Andrew (both on the course outline and his The World As Clock) certainly changed my mind.

I was relieved to see that what I had traditionally considered the virtual, that is “computer-simulated environments that can simulate physical presence in places in the real world, as well as in imaginary worlds” (Wikipedia, n.d.) still applied to some degree, and after exploring a little bit I was amazed to see how far things had come from the clunky video arcade headset. For example, the experiment where men were (virtually) placed inside a woman’s body, opening “up another avenue for virtual reality, which is not just to transform your sense of place, but also your sense of self” (Sample, 2010) What a brilliant idea, finally you are able to literally walk in someone else’s shoes. Considering the power the mind has over the body, and vice versa, perhaps eventually we will see a massive shift from sympathy to empathy in social interactions. Surely, if we can empathise with a WoW avatar we can do the same with each other (Callaway, 2009)

Now I turn to Andrew’s definition, where the virtual is “an excess over the actual expressions of this individuation”, rather than being “reducible to technologies such as VR.” (Murphie, 2004, p. 5) That made my head spin a bit, but the idea of the virtual as potential (Murphie 2011) really struck a chord with me. I imagine the virtual as a sort of diaphanous cloud floating around me, from which I constantly pluck concrete thoughts and actions, perhaps with the help of a medium or technology, to create the actual. In some ways, it’s another type of archive, a way to thinking of insubstantial, dynamic things in a collective manner.

So how does augmented reality fit into all of this? Somewhere in between? I found that the Chris Grayson reading (2009), while being full of amazing examples, never fully explained what it was, and as I only have a vague idea about the term I turned to Wikipedia, which told me that it is “a live direct or an indirect view of a physical, real-world environment whose elements are augmented by computer-generated sensory input. ” (Wikipedia, n.d.) So does the augmentation occur through the actualisation of the virtual? Or the virtualisation of the actual? I confess I am still getting my head around this concept. Something that occurred to me however, was that by augmenting reality you are almost making it into the virtual. You are increasing the potential as you exist are in the “ongoing movement” (Murphie 2011), as you are able to experience that moment on several different levels.

When I first thought about virtual reality I considered it the opposite of externalization, the area I am considering for my research paper. Externalization involves bringing the mind out of the body into the world, whereas virtual reality is bringing a world into the mind and onto the body. I can still see this as a possible way of viewing the issue but it is not the most sophisticated and would hinder research into interesting areas. A more flexible, open way to think about it would be to consider how externalization affects actualisation, and how our extended minds and technologies that live on our bodies allow use to channel the virtual into the actual. Further research is needed, as I have no idea how it would.

 

Sources:

Anon. (n.d.) ‘Augmented Reality’ Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_reality> [accessed 27 March 2011]

Anon. (n.d.) ‘Virtual Reality’, Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality> [accessed 27 March 2011]

Callaway, Ewen (2009) ‘How your brain sees virtual you’ New Scientist <http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18117-how-your-brain-sees-virtual-you.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=brain> [accessed 28 March 2011]

Grayson, Chris (2009) ‘Augmented Reality Overview’, GigantiCo <http://gigantico.squarespace.com/336554365346/2009/6/23/augmented-reality-overview.html> [accessed 27 March 2011]

Murphie, Andrew (2004) ‘The World’s Clock: The Network Society and Experimental ecologies’, Topia: Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies, 11, Spring

Murphie, Andrew (2011) ‘Is The Virtual Real?’ Advanced Media Issues <http://arts3091.newsouthblogs.org/course-outline-and-readings/#weekfive> [accessed 28 March 2011]

Sample, Ian (2010) ‘Virtual reality used to transfer men’s minds into a woman’s body’ The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/12/virtual-reality-men-woman-body> [accessed 28 March 2011)

 

 

 

Week 4

I study both science and arts and I am actually taking an ecology course this session, so the topic of media ecologies struck a particular chord with me. Though several definitions were offered, the one that made the most sense to me, perhaps because of my scientific background, was media ecology “as the study of complex communication systems as environments” (Media Ecology Association, date unknown). As media become more woven into our everyday lives this definition seems particularly relevant, and an area worthy of study. Media follow us home, to the bathroom and live on our bodies almost constantly, so the idea of this being ecological, something looking at the relationships of organisms to each other and their environments, is not so outlandish.

I feel like this point relates closely to this week’s theme, the extension of the mind and the externalization of memory – but then again, is it really externalization if that technology is part of our memory? (Chalmers, 2009) It seems to me that the main hypothesis of the Anamnesis and Hypomnesis reading (Stiegler, n. d.), that “We exteriorize in contemporary mnemotechnical equipment more and more cognitive functions, and correlatively we are losing more and more knowledge which is then delegated to equipment” and that of David Chalmers and co. – “when parts of the environment are coupled to a cognitive system in the right way they become part of the mind” (2009) – are at odds in attitude, if not completely in logistics. I think it’s important to note that Chalmers says mind, not brain. We are not yet at the stage of plugging USB stick into our skulls, but perhaps we are moving to the point where we can be more flexible about where thinking happens and how we think and use media on our bodies and media ecologies to do so. I feel like this was the reason for the inclusion of “Does Thinking Happen in the Brain,”  and it’s something I have always taken for granted, that my self is lodged firmly in my brain, so the idea that “We make consciousness dynamically, in our exchange with the world around us” (Noë, 2010) was fascinating. Have we all become intellectually schizophrenic, bouncing ideas off the media that surround us like they are another person? Perhaps we are proving Plato wrong, and thanks to the dynamic abilities of new media writing is finally able to argue back. Even if it’s only an argument with yourself.

While I am still trying to wrap my head around the fact that my iPhone could be considered part of my mind, I think it is the better attitude, opposed to the slightly doom and gloom of “ [we are losing our] know-how-to-live-well.” Also, I love Chalmer’s (2009) term “internalist chauvinism.” He gets points for that. I think this might be an area I would like to conduct further research into, this move away from the internal to the external, how this is facilitated and what is means for how we relate to each other and our environment. Which actually sounds a lot like ecology, doesn’t it?

Sources:

Stiegler, Bernard (n.d.) ‘Anamnesis and Hypomnesis: Plato as the first thinker of the proletarianisation’ <http://arsindustrialis.org/anamnesis-and-hypomnesis> [18 March 2011]

Chalmers, David (2009) ‘The Extended Mind Revisited’ <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S149IVHhmc> [18 march 2011]

Media Ecology Association (date unknown) ‘What is Media Ecology’ <http://www.media-ecology.org/media_ecology/> [18 March 2011]

Noë, Alva (2010) ‘Does thinking happen in the brain?’, 13:7 Cosmos and Culture <http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/12/10/131945848/does-thinking-happen-in-the-brain> [18 March 2011]