The decade of the 1950s is generally recognized as the beginning of the cognitive revolution -a shift in psychology from the behaviorist’s stimulus-response relationships to an approach whose main thrust was to understand the operation of the mind. Chomsky’s critique of Skinner was only one of many events in the 1950s that reintroduced the mind to psychology. These events provided a new way to study the mind, called the information-processing approach – an approach that traces the sequence of mental operations involved in cognition. One of the vents that inspired psychologists to think of the mind in terms of information processing was a newly introduced device called the digital computer.
-E. Bruce Goldstein, Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience, p. 12
I came across this quote early on in my Cognitive Psychology class this summer. It’s a good illustration of the principles of media ecology: technology changes the way we see ourselves – like Narcissus looking into the water. As early as the 50s, folks were already starting to see their brains (I will not say minds) as computers. It’s no longer about wisdom my friends; it’s all about the pentiums.
It’s a nice thought-provoking comparison between brain and computer but it might be a bit too far when people suggest that a normal computer being able to simulate human behavior properly *has* to be conscious. Several problems may arise here. A good example of the complex issues involved is provided by the chinese room thought experiment no matter what you think about it at the end.
I agree with you. My point was that our technologies influence the way we see ourselves; so my major concern in that respect would be that, since we see ourselves in our machines, we begin to see *ourselves* as less than conscious.
So the experience shaped the thought, which then shaped the world… People often say we need new ways of thinking, (usually) so that we may change our actions. But perhaps first we need new experiences to change the way we think, to then change the way we act.
I am often wondering how we can create tangible experiences to help support a shift of understanding away from the machine paradigm in how we view human life. This is very challenging, as daily people give up more and more of their lives to machines, in the name of “efficiency”, “ease”, and/or the multiplication of power, etc.
That’s a great point, and question. I don’t think we realize how much the machine metaphor has influenced how we talk about ourselves. My favorite example of this is the word ‘broken.’ Now, when we use this word, do we mean that Christians are broken like a branch, or like a car, or like some other machine? We just don’t typically ask those types of questions, and I think we should. Second, I think the church in particular has to find ways to subvert the metaphor through traditional forms of worship (but that’s a long discussion). Third, I wonder if you’ve read this:
http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/machines_18.htm
Ken Myers linked to it a while back on the Mars Hill blog. I thought it quite interesting. It certainly speaks to this issue.
Ah, no I have not read that yet. I will read it now, over the next day or so. (I really enjoyed your example with the word “broken” by the way.)
And now I am wondering if the new Mars Hill audio journal didn’t trigger this post, specifically his discussion with George Marsden.
Believe it or not, I’ve never subscribed to the Audio Jounal. I have bought a bunch of their anthologies and reports, but I’ve never subscribed (in other words, I didn’t hear the Marsden interview, though I have listened to him before).