table of contents

07/15/2021

Mark C. Taylor on Technology, Cybernetics, and Intervolution

A conversation with Professor Mark C. Taylor on the topic of his new book: Intervolution – Smart Bodies, Smart Things (Columbia University Press, 2020). Mark C. Taylor is Professor of Religion at Columbia University and the Cluett Professor of Humanities emeritus at Williams College. Outro song: “Soliloquio” by Alusa Fallax

download transcript [vtt]
00:00:00.000
This is KZSU Stanford.
00:00:02.400
Welcome to entitled opinions.
00:00:06.700
My name is Robert Harrison.
00:00:08.400
And we're coming to you from the Stanford campus.
00:00:11.100
In titled opinions, most people call it a podcast.
00:00:23.900
I call it a radio show on KZSU 90.1 FM.
00:00:29.700
Nowadays, every third person seems to be starting up a podcast,
00:00:33.700
making it that much harder to hear the silence.
00:00:37.200
Remember our earlier theme song, "Silence Must Be Heard"?
00:00:41.700
Fact.
00:00:43.600
Apple added podcasting to his iTunes 4.9 music software in July 2005.
00:00:51.600
Fact.
00:00:52.600
Two months later, entitled opinions uploaded its first show on iTunes.
00:00:57.300
Before the word podcast had even entered the English language.
00:01:01.300
And here we are, 16 tumbling years later, still doing our thing,
00:01:07.300
still trying to make it real compared to what?
00:01:10.800
Still offering sanctuary to those who practice the persecuted religion of thinking.
00:01:16.800
Not the kind of thinking that goes into our handheld devices,
00:01:20.800
or into the software that enables this show to reach the uttermost ends of the earth.
00:01:26.900
But the kind of thinking that remembers just how thoroughly our world fosters the oblivion of being.
00:01:36.400
As Heidegger once put it, the growing and unacknowledged anxiety in the face of thinking no longer allows insight into the oblivion of being,
00:01:47.800
which determines the age.
00:01:49.800
[music]
00:02:14.700
There's nothing more difficult than to think your way into the oblivion that determines the age,
00:02:37.600
especially when that oblivion is so epidemic that we remain completely oblivious to it.
00:02:43.700
But as I say, the great thing about Alzheimer's is that you get to meet so many new people.
00:02:50.600
For the amnesiac, everything is new, original and novel,
00:02:55.600
but I'll stick with comrade Hoderlin who once wrote, "On no account, do I wish it were original?"
00:03:02.900
For originality is novelty to us, and nothing is dear to me than things as old as the world itself.
00:03:12.600
That's the challenge to think novelty through the oldest of the old, which never gets told.
00:03:18.500
[music]
00:03:48.400
The one thing one can say about the person who joins me on entitled opinions today is that he doesn't suffer from unacknowledged anxiety in the face of thinking.
00:04:11.600
Mark Taylor thinks in the face of anxiety, he responds to the call of thought from wherever it beckons.
00:04:19.600
Mark Taylor is a philosopher, an artist, a professor of religion at Columbia University,
00:04:25.900
and the author of more than 30 books, all of them deeply thoughtful.
00:04:31.400
In the past three years alone, he has published four major titles.
00:04:36.300
Last works, lessons in leaving, abiding grace, time, modernity and death, seeing silence,
00:04:46.600
and inter-volusion of book that came out this year 2021.
00:04:52.600
And if that were not enough, he has two more on the way.
00:04:55.500
Images, three inquiries into the technological imagination, and a friendship in twilight letters from the 2020 lockdown.
00:05:05.100
Both are connected to the topic of his most recent book Inter-volusion, which we'll be discussing with him today.
00:05:11.200
Mark Taylor, welcome to the program, and thanks for joining us on entitled opinions.
00:05:16.600
I'm delighted to be here, Robert, and delighted to be in conversation in this form.
00:05:22.000
I feel we've been talking to each other for many years with our shared interests in gardens and forests and even cemeteries.
00:05:29.600
That's true. Well, we've been in conversation through reading each other.
00:05:33.000
I've been reading you for a long time as well.
00:05:35.800
I finally managed to find a way to get the audio quality high enough that I can actually conduct a show with you, even though he was on the East Coast here.
00:05:47.300
So in a minute, I'll ask you what you mean by inter-volusion.
00:05:50.300
But first, let me mention your book's subtitle, Smart Bodies, Smart Things.
00:05:57.500
You raised some really provocative philosophical questions in these pages, like, "Where does my body begin? Where does it end? What is inside my body? What is outside? What is natural? What's artificial?"
00:06:10.800
Could you share with our listeners how and why your own bodily experience has led you to these insights into the boundaries of bodies as well as the nature of biological cybernetic and socio-political systems that inter-volusion your book deals with?
00:06:28.400
Sure. The philosopher Martin Hatter once observed that for the crafts, the craftsman does not become aware of the tool until it breaks.
00:06:39.400
About 40 years ago, my body broke and I became aware of my body in ways that I had never been aware of it.
00:06:47.200
Before I developed Type 1, insulin-dependent diabetes. And I did what I always do.
00:06:53.500
I tried to understand it by studying and that took me into a journey of exploring recent advances in biology and biochemistry.
00:07:05.500
And the more I learned, the more I realized how little I knew.
00:07:11.000
And over the course of the years that I've had this disease, the treatment has changed in extraordinary ways.
00:07:17.700
And as I studied the biochemistry of the disease and came to understand the various forms of the treatment I found that I had to begin to understand changing technologies in the relationship between the so-called natural and the so-called artificial.
00:07:35.800
So I gather that there's been a breakthrough recently in the technology where before you had administered many thousands of shots of insulin for your condition and all these blood tests and it was extremely
00:07:52.900
I mean, it's an effect of digital pancreas.
00:08:21.000
And it just seems like I've indicated that it's been enormous. And indeed, insulin was only discovered in 1922. So, you know, 100 years ago, I would have been dead a long time ago.
00:08:35.000
It's important to understand the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes.
00:08:41.100
What you read about is epidemic of diabetes that is going on in this country and it is extraordinarily important and it's not getting the attention that it needs.
00:08:51.100
But the major increase in diabetes is in Type 2, which is not insulin dependent and is not an autoimmune disease.
00:09:00.200
That is usually able to be controlled by diet and oral medication because the pancreas still produces some insulin but not enough.
00:09:08.200
And Type 1 diabetes, the pancreas, which is where insulin is produced in your body and insulin is needed to process all forms of sugar and carbohydrates, glucose, fructose, sucrose.
00:09:23.300
When the body produces no insulin, you have to introduce it artificially into the body to process the glucose.
00:09:37.300
The long term problems with diabetes are chronic disease. It's a tough disease. I always say the difficulty with diabetes is it never takes a holiday. It's 24/7, 365.
00:09:50.400
It's a constant process of monitoring and adjusting because you're trying to do for your body or to officially what the body or your body does naturally for itself.
00:10:01.500
As you indicated, when I first started, I had to test my blood three or six or seven times a day. I had to inject insulin as needed.
00:10:12.500
Gradually, they began to change this technology by developing an insulin pump. The search for the insulin pump goes back to the 70s.
00:10:23.600
When the first insulin pump was literally larger than a backpack you would wear on a long mountain hike, the device that I now wear on my belt that you mentioned is smaller than a deck of cards.
00:10:38.700
The initial pumps, you admit it rather than giving yourself the injection, you injured the number of carbohydrates and it would calculate how much you need and release it.
00:10:51.700
The other major breakthrough that has made these changes in treatment possible has been the introduction of continuous glucose monitors, which require sensors, which are injected into your body.
00:11:08.600
After it changes, the sensors are 10 days. The sensors test your sugar level subcutaneously, which is not quite as accurate as in the blood.
00:11:19.600
The sensor has on top of a transmitter that transmits the glucose reading directly to the pump using Bluetooth and registers it on the pump.
00:11:32.700
As you said, run by artificial intelligence, when you start on the pump you have to inload a lot of data about insulin sensitivity and this is that and the other thing. Once that is in there, the pump monitors your glucose level and it just insulin dosage automatically.
00:11:51.800
That is all done through an algorithm. It is a closed loop system. The efficacy of these pumps is extraordinary.
00:12:03.900
It has been a huge life-changer for you.
00:12:10.900
It also, through this personal experience, you have come to realize as you put it that you are in meshed in a technological revolution that has very broad implications for all of human society and for the future of humanity.
00:12:27.100
You mentioned that its revolution has all cut up with ultra high speed network computers, huge quantities of data, which are gathered from the internet and other sources, the expansion of wireless networks, the explosive growth of mobile devices and so forth.
00:12:49.300
This whole technological revolution is raising these questions of what do we mean by the human? What is a body? Is there a viable ontological distinction between natural intelligence and artificial intelligence and so forth?
00:13:13.500
What are the most philosophical implications? Would you like to elaborate on in terms of this realization of yours?
00:13:22.500
You are right. Much of Western thought, not just Western thought, it may be related to neurological structures in the mind.
00:13:33.500
Things in terms of binary oppositions. We structure the world as we say natural artificial nature, culture, inside, outside, up, down, north, south, east, west.
00:13:46.500
The implications of that way of structuring the world, and that is what it is, the question of whether the world is structured that way is another question and an important one.
00:13:57.500
But there are philosophical, I think there are actually religious and theological implications.
00:14:05.500
The psychological, the social, the political and the economic implications of that kind of dichotomous thinking, if you will.
00:14:15.500
Now, in terms of the immediate issue to which you point, what I began to see was, what happened was when I got this new close loop pump, I began to try to understand that.
00:14:29.500
As I tried to understand diabetes before, and we need to talk about diabetes because it is related to this question that you are raising.
00:14:39.500
But as I began to, and it proved to be more difficult than I thought, because it turns out that companies aren't all that eager to explain to you what's under the hood and how these devices work.
00:14:50.500
But the more I dug around with the help of my doctor, my doctors at the Mary Clinic at Columbia, I was able to get a pretty good handle on how these devices work.
00:15:03.500
And it does work as I indicated, and as you underscored through artificial intelligence.
00:15:09.500
But then, as I began to try to understand artificial intelligence, it became clear to me that even though we hear about this every day in the news and in the media.
00:15:19.500
We really, I did, and I think many people really don't understand what's meant, what is going on with this artificial intelligence revolution.
00:15:27.500
You know, we think in terms of robots, human-wide robots are too deep to do and something like that, or the simulation of human consciousness, that's all going on at one level or another.
00:15:39.500
Whether or not we're ever able to simulate human consciousness is another issue.
00:15:43.500
So, the more important and more influential revolution that's taking place now, isn't a function of this, but I call it a distributed artificial intelligence.
00:15:54.500
These networks that have proliferated in the last 20 years or so have created a new condition.
00:16:03.500
And this new technology that is not only running in pump, but what became clear to me was that if you get under it, if I can understand how this pump works.
00:16:12.500
I can understand the new world that is emerging in our midst.
00:16:15.500
So, the use of the pump is sort of a way to see what's going on in all these dimensions of our experience.
00:16:21.500
And part of what's at the heart of that is the emergence of neural network artificial intelligence, which differs in significant ways from what was called good old-fashioned intelligence.
00:16:32.500
The idea of neural networks, and obviously the connection that is made in between the way in which the brain works and the way in which these are so-called artificial networks work.
00:16:42.500
Because the idea goes back to the 40s, but it wasn't, neural network technology did not really become viable until the 80s and the 90s because-
00:16:52.500
What is it exactly?
00:16:54.500
So, in sort of good old-fashioned, what they call good old-fashioned artificial intelligence is basically talked about.
00:17:03.500
Many of us remember Gary Casparov playing the playing chess against the IBM computer and losing to that.
00:17:12.500
And lots of talk about the end of the human as you suggest.
00:17:18.500
But the way in which that form of artificial intelligence work was to give the computer rules or principles or program and then force-feed it a lot of data to which it would apply these rules.
00:17:32.500
Neural network artificial intelligence is self-educating, it's self-programming.
00:17:37.500
And so what it requires and the reason that it could not develop from the 60s to the 80s, they call it the neural network winter was because there was inadequate data.
00:17:52.500
With the advent of the internet and all these media and everything, there are massive massive massive amounts of data that's what's called big data.
00:18:00.500
And the way in which artificial networks, the way in which neural networks work is that you can either tag the data and let them educate themselves or you can just give the data to the network, set the parameters of what you want as the outcome.
00:18:17.500
And it will keep training itself and it has- it has a method by- it's a recursive method by which it corrects its faults.
00:18:25.500
So for example, one of the best known applications of this is image recognition, where you just give the computer massive massive massive amounts of data and it eventually educates itself in terms of the kinds of images, the ability to recognize those images.
00:18:45.500
So it's basically that kind of notion of artificial intelligence now that is informing, I mean not just my pump, but all the pop-up ads you get, I mean all of this targeted marketing, using politics as well as in commerce and the like.
00:19:07.500
I mean that's the way that, I mean that's the way that you combine those self-correcting algorithms with high-connecting the high-speed networks and it's doing all the stuff on the fly in this.
00:19:20.500
And this is one of the way in which financial markets are not running.
00:19:23.500
I mean 70 or 80% of the trades now being done on financial markets are algorithmic.
00:19:30.500
And those traders who are doing that, they have no idea what they're trading. All they're doing is making investments on nanosecond differences, seven seconds of long-term investment.
00:19:45.500
On price differentials, that have nothing to do with the company or whatever it's related.
00:19:52.500
It's all on autopilot. As is my pump.
00:19:56.500
So all that's fascinating from a one point of view, from another point of view given what I stated in my intro, can one really call that thinking.
00:20:07.500
I mean when the investment firms are not doing any kind of analysis themselves, they're not doing an expectation, they're just allowing algorithms to make decisions for them.
00:20:19.500
Isn't this the essence of what Heidegger saw as the complete thoughtlessness of the age of technicality?
00:20:28.500
It's tough question. Robert, I don't mean to duck it.
00:20:33.500
We have to make some distinctions where it's not always clear.
00:20:40.500
I think one has to distinguish thinking from cognition, from intelligence.
00:20:48.500
And there's not a clear and accepted definition on those categories.
00:20:55.500
But people in single disciplines let alone between and among them.
00:21:00.500
Let me begin by saying something about Heidegger.
00:21:04.500
I'm going to have to come back and I'm going to have to back fill in all this.
00:21:10.500
One of the extraordinary things about Heidegger that has always impressed me was his prescient recognition of the implications of certain technologies back in the post-war period.
00:21:27.500
He was very attentive to atomic technology, which is obvious reasons after the roshma.
00:21:34.500
But he saw more quickly than many of their philosophers, the importance of cybernetics.
00:21:40.500
Can you explain to our listeners briefly what is cybernetics?
00:21:44.500
So cybernetics basically developed during the war.
00:21:49.500
And it grew out of research for military applications.
00:21:54.500
But what was done with this cybernetics system was they were trying to figure out how to have projectiles and missiles.
00:22:01.500
They could guide, be guided towards certain targets.
00:22:05.500
And they had to create a system that, by the hand, a feedback loop.
00:22:10.500
It allowed it to have to be able to control itself.
00:22:15.500
So I mean it was a self-directed kind of model.
00:22:18.500
Now the cybernetic model is a negative feedback.
00:22:21.500
So the simplest example of this kind of system is to thermostat your house.
00:22:28.500
It gets too cold.
00:22:30.500
The furnace goes up to a warm and goes down.
00:22:33.500
It's a negative feedback.
00:22:34.500
It's a negative feedback system and that.
00:22:36.500
But what it does is to begin to break that.
00:22:41.500
Because one of the fundamental differences between the living and the non-living historically,
00:22:47.500
and this was crucial in the early years of modernity with Newton,
00:22:53.500
in a mechanistic universe.
00:22:55.500
You have a system of efficient causality with no,
00:22:58.500
I mean two kinds of causality, efficient causality in which A causes B and what's called final causality,
00:23:05.500
in which you interpret causality in terms of the gold toward which something is moving,
00:23:10.500
rather than that which was antecedent to it.
00:23:13.500
So that part of the revolution of modern science was to get final causality out of natural systems
00:23:19.500
and that only efficient causality.
00:23:21.500
The cybernetic system sets up a, it complicates that kind of structure.
00:23:27.500
Because it gives you a quasi-tealogical structure for a machine.
00:23:31.500
And so that begins to erode this whole distinction between the natural and the more,
00:23:38.500
the michenic and the organic.
00:23:42.500
So they began to emerge and at the same time all of this was going on and related to it,
00:23:48.500
you have the emergence of information theory in the 40s.
00:23:53.500
And what began to happen was that there came to be,
00:23:59.500
and beginning to understand, rather than having the opposition to the mechanism and organism,
00:24:07.500
that opposition began to erode as, as you had machines that were operating more like organisms.
00:24:15.500
It led to understanding organisms more in terms of these,
00:24:18.500
what they later were called auto-poetic or auto-telect self-organizing systems.
00:24:24.500
I mean the notion of self-organization is crucial.
00:24:26.500
Do you think Heidegger had a, a, a, a proleptic vision of what cybernetics would lead to?
00:24:33.500
Well, I think in some ways I think he was very present.
00:24:39.500
In other ways, I think the technologies about which he was worried lead in directions and correct what he was worried about.
00:24:48.500
But I'm trying to, I mean where, where I think,
00:24:52.500
Heidegger foresaw the point that you are pushing,
00:24:57.500
and Kierkegaard before, who's work after all he, he depends upon.
00:25:03.500
He saw the ways in which these technologies were,
00:25:08.500
as it were, taken human individual and the decisiveness of that human individual out of the group as it were.
00:25:14.500
That is, we're making, we're making human being a function of larger systems.
00:25:20.500
Right.
00:25:21.500
And again, I mean the whole debate, I mean my intellectual life and prompting my life has been torn between Hegel and Kierkegaard.
00:25:29.500
And this is the issue at stake in the two of them.
00:25:32.500
And for Hegel, the, the individual is a function of the system and for Kierkegaard, the individual was primary and, and the system is secondary.
00:25:40.500
Kierkegaard was the first to my knowledge to recognize the impact of modern mass media in a book he published in 18.
00:25:50.500
Kierkegaard from 1813 to 1855 in 1846 he published a book called the Modern Age, which is a critique of modern mass media.
00:26:00.500
He was thinking primarily of newspapers, but it's even more applicable to our social media and TV network.
00:26:07.500
And he's already misbeeciced the one that you're making that what happens in these networks here in the media networks was that people are programmed.
00:26:17.500
I mean these technologies that I was just talking about in terms of artificial intelligence in the life and targeted advertising.
00:26:27.500
Right.
00:26:28.500
What they're using these technologies to do is to program you to want what they want you to want.
00:26:34.500
Right.
00:26:35.500
So then rather than becoming an individual with your own decisions and this, that, the other thing.
00:26:41.500
Right.
00:26:42.500
You're running on a program somebody else wrote.
00:26:44.500
And increasingly, not even sure who wrote the program because one of the things that is happening now is that in these networks and with these algorithms, they're producing, they're, they're producing forms or artificial intelligence and algorithmic intelligence that are more complex and that are so complex and so fast that human beings can't intervene.
00:27:06.500
Not only that, these programs are now able to program themselves in ways that humans cannot program.
00:27:13.500
There's a cybernetic, if you will, relationship between the individual and the system in this or in this case between the organism environment or here between the human and technology.
00:27:26.500
Because it's a feedback loop.
00:27:28.500
It's going to be a positive feedback loop which is different.
00:27:30.500
We talk about that.
00:27:31.500
But in this feedback loop, we create the technologies that create us.
00:27:37.500
The whole division between mind and body or organism and about its species.
00:27:43.500
It's a species because, I mean, go back to Heidegger and the craftsman and the tool.
00:27:48.500
As soon as human beings picked up that stick, it began to change their brain physiologically.
00:27:54.500
Yes, but Heidegger's essential insight about authenticity is that when it's when the tool breaks down.
00:28:00.500
That you realize that you are not subsumed under the larger world of things.
00:28:06.500
There's something outstanding or existing in design which all of a sudden you realize, wait a minute.
00:28:15.500
Correct.
00:28:16.500
Correct.
00:28:17.500
And in that sense, he's clear recording.
00:28:20.500
And he's emphasis on the individual and the individual action intentionally.
00:28:27.500
I think there are problems with that notion of individuality.
00:28:31.500
I think there's an over-infices on the isolated and separate individual.
00:28:38.500
I think, if I can close the problem in terms of Hego and Kirk, because it's clear for me.
00:28:45.500
For Hego, the authenticity, and that's one of Heidegger's favorite words, comes with the individual standing alone in isolation from other individuals, making a free decision that constitutes his identity, if it will.
00:29:04.500
That's a clear cigar.
00:29:05.500
That's a clear cigar.
00:29:06.500
That's a clear cigar.
00:29:08.500
Yeah, that's a clear cigar.
00:29:10.500
It's Abraham out there away from Sarah and the family and the community.
00:29:16.500
On Mount Moriah, look at a God and the isolated from Isaac making that decision.
00:29:21.500
Right.
00:29:22.500
So for Hego, I mean, Hego sees that notion of individuality rather than being the culmination of particularity.
00:29:33.500
And it's completely abstract and indeterminate.
00:29:38.500
Because, for Hego, Hego sees all, if we look at this in terms of identity and difference, he sees the identity of any particularity as differential.
00:29:48.500
He sees it as a function of difference from otherness.
00:29:51.500
And therefore, as relational.
00:29:54.500
So for him, for Heidegger, it is the full participation in the social totality that constitutes the individuality of every singular individual.
00:30:06.500
Completely different.
00:30:08.500
Now, we need to talk about the Baoqimist or diabetes in a certain way.
00:30:14.500
Because the body itself is an information processing network of networks.
00:30:19.500
That's what I call an intran that.
00:30:21.500
All right.
00:30:22.500
I'll loop back your question in a minute.
00:30:24.500
But diabetes is basically an information processing mistake.
00:30:31.500
The way in which autoimmune disease works is that the systems that are supposed to protect the body from invasion by the other turn on the body and just itself and destroy it.
00:30:46.500
At mistake, mistake the self for the other.
00:30:50.500
Right.
00:30:51.500
Right.
00:30:52.500
And one of the major textbooks that he was in medical school for immunology is called self other disease.
00:31:00.500
That I mean, so each each cell in your body has a protein structure on the top that on on the surface that identifies it as self.
00:31:09.500
Right.
00:31:10.500
And the rhetoric of immune disease and autoimmune disease is all espionage warfare, coding, decoding, surveillance.
00:31:22.500
It's really very, very interesting.
00:31:24.500
I mean, we see some we you get some of this in the recent pandemic with COVID because basically COVID and then the vaccines which are done with messenger RNA all involved this kind of interaction.
00:31:40.500
And one of the one of the things that has made COVID so difficult as I understand it.
00:31:46.500
So difficult to deal with is that it is unusually capable of hiding of concealing themselves or of concealing itself during the earliest stages of the infection.
00:32:00.500
So that it gets going before the immune system can respond.
00:32:03.500
So it's all it's it's hide and seek.
00:32:05.500
So if you look at the immune system as this kind of communication or information network, but that that is only one network among all these other networks in the body which are communicating with each other and all these, you know, intricately complicated.
00:32:21.500
So it's not only that I'm that I'm interconnected in this and this is what you asked about inter inter pollution.
00:32:45.500
This is what I mean by right.
00:32:53.500
In other words, Nietzsche has a phrase in sort of toaster.
00:32:57.500
It's one of my favorite.
00:32:58.500
It always philosophy.
00:32:59.500
Everything is in everything is entwined in meshed in amort.
00:33:04.500
I think everything's entwined in master did not think everything is an amort.
00:33:08.500
But it's that notion of intertwining of inter relationship.
00:33:12.500
And it's trying to think of a way to describe this situation and that those inter relationship suits are both synchronic and diacronic that is to say those inter relationships that are constitutive of individuality as such are both a function of a relationship to all entities and other organs and at a given time and over a course over the course of time.
00:33:37.500
It's a developmental structure as well and they're all inter related.
00:33:43.500
I mean, social, biological, economic, the culture of the technological.
00:33:48.500
They're all inter related in a time.
00:33:50.500
So for that developmental, for the diacronic process, evolution wasn't quite the right word for me.
00:33:57.500
Because you think of evolution as the opposite of in pollution.
00:33:59.500
I mean, it's the unfolding rather than the folding into.
00:34:03.500
So the sort of the oaks and the acorn.
00:34:05.500
Coevolution, which was a popular word back in the 60s, right, suggests the two sort of parallel developments.
00:34:13.500
What I was trying to look for was the way in which these trajectories are interwoven.
00:34:19.500
And that's why I sort of came up with this notion of inter pollution and starting with the friend of mine.
00:34:25.500
We thought we made up the word.
00:34:28.500
I then checked the OAD and discovered that in fact it was Milton who came up with the word.
00:34:33.500
And Hawthorne uses it in Scarlet Library.
00:34:36.500
So that's a genealogy I can accept.
00:34:39.500
But it's a kind of relational and developmental notion.
00:34:42.500
So can I clarify for the audience that I'll just quote you.
00:34:48.500
You say that in contrast to evolution, which is an unfolding over time, intervolution is an intertwining over time,
00:34:55.500
a developmental process in which seemingly discrete bodies and things cooperate to weave mutually adaptive webs.
00:35:04.500
So the Internet of Things, which you've talked about earlier, and the Internet of bodies,
00:35:11.500
which your pancreas, artificial pancreas is, you know, an example of that.
00:35:16.500
It's a case study of this connection between the Internet of Things and the Internet of bodies.
00:35:22.500
And hence your subtitle, "Smart Things, Smart Bodies," are thus joined in an inter-volutionary network, which is gestating nothing less than the human being of the future.
00:35:33.500
So let's take a jump here into the speculative world historical destiny if you want to use a Hegelian term for what inter-volution, as you understand it,
00:35:49.500
So it means for the actual understanding, if not definition of the human species, because it sounds to me like everything that traditionally defined the human is now put into question and put into a condition of crisis by virtue of the emerging technologies and smartness of both artificial intelligence
00:36:18.500
and what we're learning about the way in which the body, the individual body and the larger organic body of the Earth are networks, the communicative networks of relationships.
00:36:31.500
So, you know, I don't want to say that we have to base our notion of the human on the individual.
00:36:38.500
I would rather maybe go back to the notion of mortality.
00:36:43.500
I think that's even more high to Gary in the Kirk-Gigardi, and that if the human is essentially the mortal being, then what does inter-volution mean for the future of what the Greeks call the mortals as opposed to the immortals?
00:37:03.500
There are several strands to this important question. One is sort of the status of what would mean by the human and its future of our future, there are probably several others too, and one is more calorie.
00:37:21.500
I'm related by one of the distinguished for the moment. On the former question, yes, I think that certainly as I had dug into this work of the biological and the technological, some of these distinctions are getting harder and harder to draw.
00:37:44.500
I teach a seminar called "After the Human." And I begin that class by asking the students, do you think human being is, as we now know it, is the last stage in the evolutionary process?
00:38:00.500
And of course they almost all say no. And then I ask them, well, what comes next? And of course they don't know.
00:38:10.500
None of us knows, but it's a question that they haven't asked. Now, I don't presume to say what comes next, but what I do firmly believe is that human being has emerged from pre-human forms of animal forms of life.
00:38:29.500
And I do not think we're the end of the process of this process. I think other forms of life will evolve from us. That we are the human being, as we now know it, is a passing phase in a much longer process.
00:38:44.500
It sounds to me from reading you on this, that our future evolution is quite clear. We're going to become the Borg collective of the scientific and the organic are going to fuse and merge.
00:39:02.500
But I think that the rabbit, they already have. I mean, do an extraordinary extent, that is to say, I mean, so think of writing as a technology.
00:39:17.500
I mean, you know, as well as I do, Plato was concerned about writing because he was afraid that if writing came, we would lose our capacity for memory.
00:39:28.500
But Mark, we have all sorts of these moments in the history of of human culture where you have new technologies that are introduced. Everyone is very pessimistic about them and then they get incorporated and they go on.
00:39:41.500
But I have a feeling and it's your book that convinces me that this is not of the order of what has come before. We are on the precipice of something that is really quite unprecedented.
00:39:54.500
And it's not just another kind of momentous technological or cultural revolution. It's some essential metamorphosis of the very species being of the human. I think I don't know.
00:40:11.500
I think that's probably so. But I think that what that will entail will be a much closer interfacing as it were of the technological and what we now call the human.
00:40:29.500
I mean, if you go back to what we didn't really talk about so what happens with this Internet of Things, we have all these smart devices. They're then all wired together your smartphone and you know, and with all of this, all of these sensors embedded in everything.
00:40:45.500
All those devices are coming to each other all the time. Right. And it's as if we are living within a computer simulation. Right. So you have what I call an expanded mind. Right.
00:40:57.500
You have distributed intelligence. It's an expanded mind, but I don't want to what to spice it up. Let me just say it's an expanded thoughtless mind.
00:41:06.500
Well, I mean, what do you mean by thinking that's the question from a high to very important view.
00:41:14.500
This is not thing as I say, I would want to at least make a distinction in cognition and thinking. I mean, and part of what is distinctive, I think I believe about human thinking is it's thinking about thinking.
00:41:30.500
And this is this is the topic for another conversation. It's thinking about that which cannot be thought.
00:41:41.500
Right. Now that's that's that's distinctive, but it, but I still I still would want to say that these technological prosthesis. Right.
00:41:52.500
We offload cognitive processes onto these.
00:41:56.500
Under these prosthesis to the extent that we become a prosthesis of the prosthesis.
00:42:03.500
All right. Our memories are downloaded in our iPhones or, you know, whatever, whatever these devices are that this happened is, you know, you've written another book on silence that we want to talk about it on another, on another show, but if you think about thinking as a listening.
00:42:21.500
And if you're thinking of you say the thinking that which is unthought, if you think of thinking as a listening to that which perhaps cannot either be calculated, it cannot be measured, it cannot be reified.
00:42:35.500
Then it's a that's a very different kind of listening, a thoughtful listening meditative listening, then the Borg who plug into the collective and are hearing the entire collective drone of the of the super organism and the super intelligence of a cybernetic feedback loop in their minds. That's that's a different kind of listening and a thoughtless listening.
00:43:00.500
Yeah, I mean, I do not disagree with that. And you know, when I wrote the silence book, I hadn't, I wasn't planning to write this book.
00:43:12.500
I mean, this one just sort of emerged when I got my new pump, but they complement each other in these ways.
00:43:21.500
But what I would say with respect to your point here and we can talk about that more later is that the kind of thinking that you're talking about, and that we both have been preoccupied with for a long time. That's passing away.
00:43:41.500
And, you know, and it's my new thing. So where I live here in the Berkshires and there's a woodland path that I go back all the time that connects where I live to art museum and Williams College.
00:44:04.500
And I frequently pass on that path of students or people walking with their iPhones and ear, ear things in walking to the forest.
00:44:18.500
Right. Again, this this topic for another time. There is an aversion to silence. There is an aversion.
00:44:27.500
No, they have to be plugged into the collective all the time. Right. Yeah. You know, they bring their human, they bring their secular world with them into the natural world and so that they they drown out the silence. And I know that now I've gotten a little bit more.
00:44:44.500
Let's say tolerant of when I see that myself because I imagine hopefully that maybe they're listening to entitled opinions.
00:44:52.500
Well, I was I was just going to say that because you know, I mean, here are the ironies. You and Victoria depend upon precisely the I mean, podcast didn't exist when you started this program.
00:45:06.500
And you know, and now I mean, I don't do social media. I don't deliver. I do email and that's it. But you know, but try to stay.
00:45:22.500
Well, you know, listen, I developed a certain following over the years. Otherwise, I would be the first one to stop podcasting because when I started that there were very few intellectual shows on the air. There was you know, our time and entitled opinions in the very first year or two.
00:45:39.500
And but now every, as I mentioned in the intro, every third person has a podcast and there's so much noise out there that I say why should I add to the noise by continuing you know to produce shows on entitled opinions.
00:45:50.500
But the reason I do it is because we can have thoughtful conversations like this one that are not that frequent in the end.
00:45:57.500
And you know, 20 years ago in 1998, I started a company with a man by name of Herbert Alton is a New York investment banker to do online education.
00:46:11.500
Because I had a moment of epiphany I done in 1992 I then of course using teleconferencing with Helsinki and then about mid 90s I started webcasting my classes.
00:46:22.500
And like you with your podcast, I had this vision the company was named global education network.
00:46:28.500
That the world would be a better place if everybody in the world can sit around a seminar table and talk about Hegel and Kierkegaard throw an Emerson right.
00:46:39.500
And we could have done it then but nobody would work and I wanted educators to be involved at that point because I knew of commercial if commercial.
00:46:52.500
I had a prize gotten involved it would not be what it and and the spring wheel we'll move into that world overnight some of its good some of it's not good but you know again with all of this stuff.
00:47:06.500
The technologies that are used for detrimental or nefarious purposes can also so for instance the the facial recognition that we that I mentioned as an example earlier on.
00:47:19.500
I mean that's being used for surveillance for all you know for all kinds of problematic and for commercial but it's also one of the most efficient forms of analysis of X-rays.
00:47:33.500
I mean radiology is you know and it can detect tumors five years before the human.
00:47:40.500
No I that's true there's there are blessings and I'm deeply grateful to all that I'm grateful to it for keeping you alive and I'm going through what you you had to do it before you know the the pump and so forth.
00:47:54.500
And essentially I'm not for or against anything except I'm for anything that will enhance or promote the cause of thinking in the meditative sense that we were talking about and I will always try to meditate against whatever promotes thoughtlessness and.
00:48:14.500
Well part of what responsible thinking requires is understanding what's emerging right in our and in my experience.
00:48:27.500
As a humanist within the academy there is an there has been enormous aversion to understanding these technologies their implications their possibilities and their downfall.
00:48:43.500
And I mean in certain ways I'm not a technological determinist but you're not going to stop.
00:48:53.500
Some of these development and so the question becomes you know how one intervenes to the answer is trying to look a little bit of education now or how one and that's what you do with your podcast.
00:49:04.500
How you could intervene or deploy these technologies that are being used for these other purposes for cultivating thought reflection and criticism I'm that's really have to be realistic about the kinds of you know the and the rapidity.
00:49:24.500
The rapidity with which these technological changes are taking place follows a mind.
00:49:32.500
And the distance between where political discourse is and and this is huge.
00:49:40.500
That's a great place to end our show mark and you know I think that it goes circles around that famous dictum of high digger that there were it's quoting the poet Hohlu Ling about there where the.
00:49:53.500
The same power also grows so let's hope then.
00:49:58.500
The dangers of the technological revolution that you're you're writing about has this kind of saving power somewhere within it and it's probably.
00:50:09.500
Has to do with the way that we we relate to it think it and.
00:50:15.500
I could not agree with you more that we that.
00:50:19.500
One of the most important tasks of thinking is to think about the emergence of these these new forms of being here.
00:50:27.500
I mean hope is hard one but hopelessness is too easy.
00:50:32.500
I agree with that as a teacher and as a parent we we owe you other people hope.
00:50:40.500
Well said we've been speaking with Mark Taylor on entitled opinions mark this is the first of more conversations to come I hope so.
00:50:49.500
I don't know where doing and thank thank you for your thoughtful engagement.
00:50:54.500
You take care and.
00:50:56.500
I want to tell our listeners we're going to be following up with Mark Taylor with a show on silence and how why and how silence must be heard.
00:51:05.500
Bye bye.
00:51:06.500
[Music]
00:51:16.500
[Music]
00:51:20.500
[Music]
00:51:24.500
[Music]
00:51:28.500
[Music]
00:51:32.500
[Music]
00:51:36.500
[Music]
00:51:40.500
[Music]
00:51:44.500
[Music]
00:51:48.500
[Music]
00:51:52.500
[Music]
00:51:56.500
[Music]
00:52:00.500
[Music]
00:52:04.500
[Music]
00:52:08.500
[Music]
00:52:12.500
[Music]
00:52:16.500
[Music]
00:52:20.500
[Music]
00:52:24.500
[Music]
00:52:28.500
[Music]
00:52:32.500
[Music]
00:52:36.500
[Music]
00:52:40.500
[Music]
00:52:44.500
[Music]
00:52:48.500
[Music]
00:52:52.500
[Music]
00:52:56.500
[Music]
00:53:00.500
[Music]
00:53:04.500
[Music]
00:53:08.500
[Music]
00:53:12.500
[Music]
00:53:16.500
[Music]
00:53:20.500
[Music]
00:53:24.500
[Music]
00:53:28.500
[Music]
00:53:32.500
[Music]
00:53:36.500
[Music]
00:53:40.500
[Music]
00:53:50.500
[Music]
00:53:54.500
[Music]
00:54:00.500
[Music]
00:54:04.500
(upbeat music)
00:54:07.080
[BLANK_AUDIO]