Ran pointed me out to a short quality essay about technology and science replacing human experience. Here’s a nice excerpt of it. Simply replace the word “golem” with “technology” and you’ll see what he’s saying.
Science is a system of observations and facts and theories that do not come from experience humans have had or ever can have, but from experience Golems have in the worlds where Golems go, which they describe to humans. Or, the human experience that builds our science is the experience of being told stuff by Golems. The very expansion of human consciousness becomes the expansion of Golem consciousness, as the worlds beyond ordinary experience, into which consciousness may expand, are defined as — or limited to — the worlds into which Golems go.
To paraphrase Ran seems to be saying that science isn’t based so much around human observations as it is around the observations of technology. For instance, we can’t see in the infrared spectrum. But we can make technology that helps us to see into that range. Without the technology though, we can’t personally experience it. The more we rely on technological displacements, the less we rely on or trust our own personal experience.
- END -
ASSOCIATED CONTENT @TMBCHR (Auto-Generated)
- Personal Science & Party Science
- Source of authority in religion
- Scientific Funding
- God, the Anomaly
- Science & Technology, It’s Fun You’ll See!
3 Comments
Rulers and clocks are just as artificial as infrared film. Our subjective experience of time and distance is certainly variable relative to these technological measures. Rectangular city blocks and straight roads are a side effect of this reliance on artifice instead of our natural perceptions. Do you use rulers? clocks? odometers? You’re already part golem.
I don’t see a problem here, not for the working scientist. I wear glasses and I see very differently with or without them. In my experience I see better with them and yet they are a technology that lies between my ordinary unaided seeing and my better seeing.
The same goes with instruments for “seeing” the IR spectrum. If you want to see it well, you’ll have similar feelings about the technology to what I have for my glasses.
It’s a nonsense to say that my glasses are doing the seeing for me. Only I (a consciousness) can do any seeing. Similarly it’s a nonsense to imply that advanced technological instruments are doing the experiencing. It is the human beings who understand how to use these instruments that are doing the experiencing.
I understand that the instruments have become expensive and not accessible to everyman. However, there is a pathway to the experience that is accessible to any person who is interested enough and in that sense, it is not truly elitist. And even if you can’t access the grandest telescopes there are good amateur ones on the market that are far superior to what Galileo had. If, through them, you see all those extra moons around planets, well, to my mind you are indeed experiencing something and it is special and marvelous to boot. So … why bag it?
Obviously I use computers and everything else, and I’m not trying to absolve myself of responsibility or set myself apart somehow. I’m simply examining my basic assumptions about how things work.
What pathway is that?
I’m not trying to “bag” anything. I’m not trying to get rid of science or say that it’s not worthwhile. I’m trying to find out what is really important to me by examining ideas in new ways, some of which may be negative.
2 Trackbacks
[...] be verified objectively. This feeds back into the idea I’ve been discussing about science diminishing the role of personal experience. The author above explai [...]
[...] ier discussions on the nature of reality as perceived by us, as compared to how it’s augmented by instrumentation. I suppose you could either look at this as som [...]