Dualism

What is the difference between a digital object and a physical object? Sometimes, a digital object seems to be more real and of better quality than a physical object, although you can never actually touch it. Basically, we are talking about a “real” object that cannot actually be touched. Is that really possible? According to physics, it may not. However, the new culture of technology has made it possible.


Having expanded the idea into a broader perspective, we are entering into a phase of reality in which two versions of anything can exist. Jaron Lanier refers to it as “the dreaded path of dualism.” One version is associated with the more mechanistic or deterministic side, while the other is characterized by digitalization (or, using Lanier’s term, “computationalism”).

I do not object to dualism if it yields the option of choice to people. However, with the new culture, the digital versions of most things often force people toward using it. For instance, a few years ago, paper, books, notebooks, pens, chalk and blackboards were the essentials tools of learning. However, with the new culture and expansion of the Internet, students are now forced to buy not only a PC, but a personal laptop, as well (which is now referred to as a “notebook”). These days, without having a laptop and access to the Internet, a student cannot sufficiently follow his/her education. All the lecture notes are online, many assignments require the use of computers and teachers no longer accept handwritten work. As a result, a new wave of distance education is becoming more popular—a student no longer needs to physically attend school in order to obtain educational credits. It is obvious that the new culture is systematically changing the culture of education. The dualism won’t allow people to contradict the standards of this new culture after it has expanded its root and been sufficiently adapted to. It is becoming a strong, dominant force. I feel its danger because of its powerful effect on contemporary society.

According to the words of Lanier, with regards to computationalism, the world can be understood as a computational process; its inhabitants are sub-processes. In my opinion, however, that’s not the definition of a real world to me. I believe that a real world is characterized by its inhabitants, who interact and live with each other on the basis of their own feelings and emotions. This is a luxury that computers have never had.



http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/

http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad93.symb.anal.net.searle.html