The Metaphysics of Limited Efficacy - On Being a Drop in the Bucket

schopenhauer1

It is quite near impossible to know every single aspect for how technology such as the "internet", "networking", and "computing" in general work. There are specializations, there are generalized understandings of the important aspects.. everything from binary/machine code down to the encryption, and every jot and tittle in between. Rather, most people's efficacy with the technology they used comes down to small chunks of interaction such as:

Being an end user of the technology
Being a consumer of the technology
Being an amateur technician of the technology (creating your own circuit boards or networking your own site, for example)
Working in some professional capacity with the technology..

None of these aspects can grasp the whole of the technology.. We are a drops in the bucket of much larger networks of infrastructure and information far beyond what we can ever know fully.

There is an alienating aspect to this. We can never mine enough minutia to know all the aspects (only in theory perhaps but not in reality). Why would we bring people into a world of such limited efficacy of possible knowledge of what makes the "modern" world run?

Of course people are geared towards hedonism.. One can only do what is limited to the scope of survival in the economic hierarchy, finding comfort through the technology and entertainment through it. Keep on pushing the rock.. Keep the daily routine going...Just more existentially negative reasons to not bring more people into this.

Tom1352

Why would we bring people into a world of such limited efficacy of possible knowledge of what makes the "modern" world run? — schopenhauer1

Because each person's individual limited efficacy is necessary to achieve the much greater overall efficacy of everyone combined. The different perspectives you draw attention to should not be considered in isolation; combined, the overall knowledge is causally efficacious. Whilst each component is individually insignificant to the overall effect, each is necessary to achieve that purpose. In terms of the first point, I think it is perfectly possible in reality for an individual to know all the factual information about a particular technology. Sure, there are certain perspectives as stated which there are individually relevant facts towards but in terms of how a particular technology works itself it is evidently possible for one person to know how a technology works.

Pantagruel

None of these aspects can grasp the whole of the technology.. We are a drops in the bucket of much larger networks of infrastructure and information far beyond what we can ever know fully. — schopenhauer1

Interesting. There is an additional question as to the instrumentality of knowledge in general. Machines somehow transform and inject human knowledge into the natural order. And yet we don't actually require that knowledge (in some cases) to utilize the instrumentality. I read a passage in Levi-Strauss this morning which nicely described this in the context of driving an automobile:

It is neither men nor natural laws which are brought exactly face to face but systems of natural forces humanized by drivers' intentions and men transformed into natural forces by the physical energy of which they make themselves the mediators. It is no longer a case of the operation of an agent on an inert object, nor of the return action of an object, promoted to the role of an agent, on a subject dispossessing itself in its favour without demanding anything of it in return; in other words, it is no longer situations involving a certain amount of passiveness on one side or the other which are in question. The beings confront each other face to face as subjects and objects at the same time;

One of the most fascinating descriptions of the interaction of mind and matter that I have encountered, the junction point of symbolic instrumentality and instrumental symbolicity I guess you could say.

schopenhauer1

Sure, there are certain perspectives as stated which there are individually relevant facts towards but in terms of how a particular technology works itself it is evidently possible for one person to know how a technology works. — Tom1352

Yes that's why I said in theory.. but I don't know about that.. Even engineers and professors of technology (let's say networking) usually specialize and cannot possibly know every avenue in every part of that field, but they know enough. For example, I doubt the networking expert knows how to create a microprocessor from scratch, and if so, doubtful the kind for modern computing (in other words, knows the general concepts.. but not everything).

Also, I am not arguing that the millions of individual efforts don't contribute to the whole. Rather, it is more the alienation for a large percentage (and I can argue even the experts) from knowing all of what sustains them. This is championed as progress, and we are told similar themes to your posts, that this is a good thing that we all have our place, but it is simply one more aspect of "modern" reality that is actually alienating for the individual who must navigate the modern world.

schopenhauer1

One of the most fascinating descriptions of the interaction of mind and matter that I have encountered, the junction point of symbolic instrumentality and instrumental symbolicity I guess you could say. — Pantagruel

Can you define those terms in layman's speak :D? I have not read prior definitions that would make me understand it any better than if I just made it up and nodded my head..

That's another thing about any new piece information.. It's a good idea to scaffold using prior knowledge to get the other person to understand fully what you mean, otherwise talking past each other will ensue.

Pantagruel

Can you define those terms in layman's speak :D? I have not read prior definitions that would make me understand it any better than if I just made it up and nodded my head.. — schopenhauer1

Yes, the anthropological perspective is a little bit...messy I guess you would say. It is like philosophy wrapped up in flesh and blood, simultaneously highly theoretical and yet with all the layers of culture, tribalism, organicism.

I was hoping the description would be evocative. It really just speaks to the way that human ideas are instantiated though symbolic media, and how technology is just a very advanced manifestation of this. Per my comment, we don't need to understand technology to use it - and yet technology is really a kind of hypostatization or reification of knowledge, knowledge made tangible.

schopenhauer1

Per my comment, we don't need to understand technology to use it - and yet technology is really a kind of hypostatization or reification of knowledge, knowledge made tangible. — Pantagruel

But then you are just a captive of either your own ability to survive on your own or the structures of all these networks of technology. You are a captive either way.

And I would like to emphasize "captive".

Tom1352

Even engineers and professors of technology (let's say networking) usually specialize and cannot possibly know every avenue in every part of that field, but they know enough. For example, I doubt the networking expert knows how to create a microprocessor from scratch, and if so, doubtful the kind for modern computing (in other words, knows the general concepts.. but not everything). — schopenhauer1

We need very clear definitions and the boundaries of the particular technology or field before claiming what constitutes knowing everything in that field. Even in this example though, I would not consider the knowledge of creating a microprocessor as within a networking expert's field. But others whose field it concerns will know such information and yet both are necessary to the much broader field of computing.

it is more the alienation for a large percentage (and I can argue even the experts) from knowing all of what sustains them — schopenhauer1

I certainly agree this can have an alienating effect, but thinking as such is by no means rational, given my earlier point.

Pantagruel

↪schopenhauer1

But Is that really so? People throughout history have climbed the ladder of culture. An individual does not have to comprehend culture in its entirety to benefit from it, or contribute to it. Your description suggests a schism between the individual and the (social) world (s)he inhabits.

"You imply disparity where none exists"

schopenhauer1

knowledge of creating a microprocessor as within a networking expert's field — Tom1352

Yet its quite necessary for that field and they don't know how it works to the same degree :).

But others whose field it concerns will know such information and yet both are necessary to the much broader field of computing. — Tom1352

Right.. and my point is not to stick to one domain.. but quite the opposite that we never have the full picture nor really can we.

I certainly agree this can have an alienating effect, but thinking as such is by no means rational, given my earlier point. — Tom1352

Not sure what would be rational or not in this context.

schopenhauer1

But Is that really so? People throughout history have climbed the ladder of culture. An individual does not have to comprehend culture in its entirety to benefit from it, or contribute to it. Your description suggests a schism between the individual and the (social) world (s)he inhabits.

"You imply disparity where none exists" — Pantagruel

But there is.. I clearly explained the disparity between what one uses and what one knows about what one uses. "It works!" just doesn't end the story of how one is interacting. One is precariously relying on some much superstructure that one only tangentially and in a surface level knows. Akin to "knowing" a person or an animal, you would have to be with it for many days, listen to it, get its background, how it operates, etc. But you can never know modern technology fully. Minutia builds walls of more minutia and minutia and minutia.....It's a game of minutia built for others to use, or fix, and the realm of what one knows how to fix or create, is limited, let alone just the user who works with it as a final product.

Pantagruel

But you can never know modern technology fully. — schopenhauer1

Exactly. And that is why you need to comprehend the use of technology within the scope of society as an organic whole. It is all about interdependence, and it applies to everyone. No man is an island.

LuckyR

No need to invoke the Interweb, this sort of "dilemma" could have been made when agriculture was invented. Did every town dweller understand what went into the food they ate? Likely not. But that isn't the point. Tools free up time for folks to think about things other than sustenance, such as art, culture etc.

schopenhauer1

No need to invoke the Interweb, this sort of "dilemma" could have been made when agriculture was invented. Did every town dweller understand what went into the food they ate? Likely not. But that isn't the point. Tools free up time for folks to think about things other than sustenance, such as art, culture etc. — LuckyR

↪Pantagruel

Yes, this is true. The principle is the same in regards to human limited efficacy.

_db

↪schopenhauer1

Yep. I work in tech and have grown weary of a lot of it, mostly because of how I feel like a drop of water in an ocean. There is also just so much useless tech, so much energy wasted on complete rubbish. And of course the social and moral problems with privacy, security, corruption, etc.

Recently I have been reading a lot of philosophy of tech, like Ellul, Mumford and Kaczynski. Your post is a bit serendipitous in that regard. Tech has this nasty habit of introducing more problems than it solves. It has turned into this quasi-reality of its own, where the needs of technical progress are fulfilled despite the consequences this has on humans and the rest of the world. There is no alternative, it's just technology solving problems that were introduced by technology. Humans are clever but we sure aren't very wise.

Caldwell

There is an alienating aspect to this. We can never mine enough minutia to know all the aspects (only in theory perhaps but not in reality). Why would we bring people into a world of such limited efficacy of possible knowledge of what makes the "modern" world run? — schopenhauer1

Because there is such a thing as brain optimization! And optimization is a good thing! I don't need to know everything, just what I need to carry out a task at the moment till the next moment and so on.

Our anatomy is a complex web of connected organs, tissues, chambers, and network of veins -- do we really need a complete knowledge of how each and every organ fails besides the 'graphic user interface' that we have now? -- I go to a doctor for treatment.

schopenhauer1

↪darthbarracuda

↪Caldwell

Copper/metallic wires pulsing up and down, off and on, the harnessing of this...Electrical power stations, all that..

Caldwell

Copper/metallic wires pulsing up and down, off and on, the harnessing of this...Electrical power stations, all that.. — schopenhauer1

By the power of clear talking, please make your post easier to understand. Please explain.

Benj96

↪schopenhauer1

I would say that the drop is essential to the fluid. A molecule of water does not make water. Multiple individual units interacting is the Fluid. How you interact with the world or society surrounding you does make a difference albeit a small one. But is a small change better than no change at all? I would say yes.

I often feel the same lack of potency in the world. Ineffectual. But just think of it this way “all chain reactions have a first link in the chain.” Potential has to begin somewhere. It’s up to you to be a sheep or a Shepard. A leader or the lead.

On the point of whether to bring more humanity into the mix ... I am opposed to more. Humanity is spreading/populating at a rate hitherto unseen. But my reasoning is not based on whether one should introduce more life but that simply put, ones influence is directly proportional to the population at large. The smaller the population the more significant the actions of one individual.

When humanity was only 1 million humans 1 human has quite the charge/ potential to make changes. In a population of 8 billion and rising... not so much. But always will your decisions have a rippling out effect on others. The best thing one can do for the collective is decide how they wish to live. And then live by that mantra. Change comes from within not externally

The Metaphysics of Limited Efficacy - On Being a Drop in the Bucket

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions