The Evolution Of Wired Life 18
| The Evolution Of Wired Life | |
| author | Charles Jonscher |
| pages | 279 |
| publisher | John Wiley & Sons, Inc. |
| rating | 8.5 |
| reviewer | Cliff Lampe |
| ISBN | 0471357596 |
| summary | My analog dad could beat up your analog dad. |
The Scenario
There are actually two subtitles to this book, which is why we are not including them in the above summary. Both subtitles initially made us nervous about bringing this book to the attention of all. The first subtitle is "From the alphabet to the soul catcher chip" and the second is "How information technologies change our world." Both titles make one nervous. Cries of "Sweet melting pogo sticks, not another book about how technology is changing the way we live." This reviewer, in particular, was dreading this book after a summer chock full of such heady titles. It seemed from the titles above that the reader was being offered a watered down version of The Age of Spiritual Machines. Suprisingly, pleasantly, nothing could be further from the truth.The suprising part is that the answer to "How information technologies change our world" is "Not as much as you may think", and the pleasant part is that the treatment of "From the alphabet to the soul catcher chip" is as pleasing a description of the basic blocks of information theory that one could hope for. Far from an echo paean to Ray Kurzweil, Jonscher offers what most biologists could already tell us, that it is harder than one thinks to replicate a neuron. For example, the chemical signals between axons and dendrites are not as binary as most would lead you to believe. Neurotransmitters are of different flavors and varieties, and very analog. The author points out that each neuron itself is hugely sophisticated, more complex than most single celled organism, which are able to do many things on their own that computers are not able to.
This book points out that rather than analog being worse than digital, in many cases it is actually better, and no, not just for vinyl freaks either. After all, how much effort is spent trying to make the digital look or sound more analog? Consider when you sample a wave of sound denoting music to try and put it onto a CD, or into an MP3 format. Even with 44,100 samples of a single curve, the simple fact remains, you are not getting the entire thing. You are letting things go, because as it happens our ears aren't very good at detecting that difference anyway. The book takes a tour of those sensory limitations, and how it has affected a range of instruments we have developed to store and transmit information, literally starting at 8,000 B.C. with the start of the first crude alphabets and going to the idea of placing a chip behind the retina to record all of the events of a life and reconstruct that life from them. Which is a terrifically bad idea, but we'll not go into that now.
Jonscher cuts a wide swath through information science. He himself is an old time computer user, and affiliated with Harvard University's Program on Information Resources Policy. In other words, this is no Luddite. Chapters on the history of information, development of the chip, the difference between analog and digital and information economics are tight, with some notable exceptions mentioned below.
What's Good?
Particularly, the chapter on information economics, entitled "Computers and Economic Progress" is very good. Jonscher's current position as president of the investment firm Central Europe Trust Company lends him a particularly strong voice here. For instance, we've accepted we've moved past the Industrial Age, but think of the wonders our grandparents saw. Consider the progress between 1900 and 1950 compared to 1950 and now. As an example, most places in the world in 1900 still relied on horses for transport, whereas in 1950 the jetliner had been invented and transcontinental air travel was established. Those same jets have not really changed significantly in the past 50 years. The point being, that the Information Age has not changed our world nearly as much as did the age that came before it. If you read any chapter of this book make it this one.Which is not to say that there is not a lot of other great material here. Very rarely has a book delved as thoroughly, yet concisely, into some of the core principles of information science that we so take for granted today. The descriptions, whether they be mathematical, biological or organizational, are all quite clear and followed well with cogent examples and analysis.
Check out also the author's Further Reading section, which has some very good material in it, some of which has been reviewed here in the past. While some of these "sociology of information technology" books can be a pain in the fundament, this is as good a list as any for looking at this issue, with recommendations from those the author both agrees with, and those with whom he does not.
What's Bad?
Frankly put, the chapter on "Multimedia and the Internet." Take a Sharpie and just cross out the pages, it will be kinder than accidentally catching a phrase as you skip to the next chapter. If you do read this chapter, and want to unleash some whoop-ass because we recommended this book, please see either Hemos or Timothy c/o Slashdot.org.It really points to a question of audience for this book. This is a solid overview of the history, present and future of information technology taken from a solid, unapologetic stance, but for whom is it written? The terrible Internet chapter seems to indicate it was not meant for those already Net savvy, but it is hard to imagine Ma Kettle picking up this book and enjoying it. Like so many books these days, it mistakenly seems meant for that juicy middle demographic, people who have to use computers, but may not necessarily be thrilled about it. Ignore that though, and read this book.
So What's In It For Me?
If you've used computers for a good long time but have never stopped to consider how they did not appear out of thin air one day, then you should probably read this book. This book definitely has a place on the shelf between The Age of Spiritual Machines and The Social Life of Information as a good pointer to the way information technology works in a larger framework than the oft opened box sitting on your desk.It's also well written enough to be an easy, quicker read than some other books in the same genre. This look at technology and the overinflated opinion it has of itself is more thorough and complex than the recent articles by Bill Joy, while approaching the subject from a thoughtful, well informed perspective that you are sure to enjoy.
You can purchase this book at Fatbrain.
Retinal chips? (Score:1)
Nope, it'd be great. You can remember the best shag of your life, all in glorious technicolour, you can remember your first child being born, from your own perspective, and what the mountains looked like in winter.
And as a side bonus, you can check to see what kind of arse you made of yourself at the pub last night...
And just imagine what Quake would look like if these implants were two way!!!
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Slashdot's Leftist Agenda Shows Again (Score:1)
In protest I started reading kuro5hin, but that seems to be even worse in its leftist leanings. Is WorldNetDaily the only source of objective news left??
sounds like ... (Score:2)
Why this would happen has so many possibilities that I hestitate to speculate. I suspect that we will see more of this with people with politically correct holes in their education (among other things), but who knows?
Information is perilous (Score:2)
Just think, the frequency of war and of genocide has been increasing in step with the availability of information. The invention of the printing press engulfed Europe in the Thirty Years War through protestantism. The telegraph allowed empires to straddle the world. I can't help but think that the Internet will plunge us into a conflageration the likes of which we have never seen before. What form it will take I do not know. I only hope I am not around when it happens.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
Witness testimony, reporting and espionage (Score:2)
This would practically revolutionise both reporting and intelligence operations - there would no longer be any need for external equipment, and you'd really be able to get a view "as if you were there". For espionage, all you'd need to do would be flick through a set of papers and their contents could be taken from the camera's memory later on.
And let's not forget crime. If everyone had these in their eyes, then witness testimony would suddenly become a hell of a lot more reliable. I'm sure we've all seen studies about how completely unreliable eyewitness accounts of incidents are - people forget, change what they saw to fit their opinions and just plain make mistakes (IIRC, Carl Sagan's This Demon Haunted World has a section about this. Hell, even if it doesn't, read the book anyway).
With this technology you could obtain 100% accurate footage of what witnesses saw in digital format, allowing police to see what really happened. Identifying criminals may become as easy as running a computer search again a central photo database. Of course, this is perhaps a bit Big Brother for some, but it all depends on the tricky legal details in its implentation, and YMMV.
As for two-way implants where information can be added to what you see (an internal HUD), well the applications are enormous. Read Peter F Hamliton's Night's Dawn trilogy for some good ideas of what would be possible...
Re:Retinal chips? (Score:1)
Re:Retinal chips? (Score:2)
Lack of real understanding (Score:2)
This reminds me of a statement in the Dilbert Principle that says that if someone is smarter than you, it doesn't matter how much smarter he is. Because you cannot tell the difference anyway.
My feeling (mind you, I've only read this review) is that timothy knows about Multimedia and Internet and sees this for what is. But does not know very much about the rest.
The reason I've got this feeling is:
A neuron is a single cell, part of an organism. This alone is enough to expect that there are other single cells (part of organisms or not) that are less complex. Not knowing much about single celled organisms, the neurons has very complec tasks. First, when born it has to stretch its wires (dendrites, axons) through the body. Some neurons for tens of centimeters, finding their way through different paths in the body. Then they have to connect to a lot of other neurons or sensory cells. Then most of them have to figure out which connections are good, and which are to loose. And so forth.. Personally I would be surprised if you could fine many single-celled organisms that were nearly as complex as the neurons.
What does he know what computers can and cannot do. Computers are designed to work in a different way than neurons. But what computers can and cannot do is yet to be discovered. So far the biggest obstackle is the humans who are programming the computers. If/when we figure out how the neurons (or other cells, like single celld organisms) work, who says we're not able to program the computers to work in the same way. But he's got the main point right, it's a very difficult task.
Also I have problems with the analog, digital analogies. Digital method can in principle do all the same thing analog methods can do. It's just a matter of resolution and computing power. If the resolution is high enough, then there is no problem. Let's make a comparrison with newthonian physics. The resolution (or in this case accuracy) is high enough for most tasks. When higher accuracy is needed you have to start using different equations. Working digitally you simply increase the resolution of the numbers, and hopefully your computational power will keep up.
To me it looks like the author knows about a lot of stuff, and has put it together into a fine book. But from the examples above, it seems like he does not have a real understanding for what he's writing about. And this is what I'm trying to say in the beginning. I think timothy recognizes the same thing in the Internet and multimedia part.
Re:Information is perilous (Score:2)
Do you think the alternative is any better? The alternative being, of course, ignorance....
We live, whether we wish to or not, in a global age -- global economy, global lusts for market/power by "multinational" corporations, global awareness (albeit often with very biased perceptions of what's out there). That is dangerous, in the sense that the same evil that has always walked among us has a much greater scope now. The potential for disaster is indeed greater than it ever was, if we measure the possible results in terms of numbers of persons/species/cultures destroyed.
The point is, we can't go backwards; can't pretend we don't have ways to know what's going on; can't mandate that technology be restricted or reduced. So what should we do?
How about, as a species, we start to grow up? Let's investigate what humans cross-culturally agree are traits or characteristics or basic assumptions related to maturity and wisdom. Let's overhaul our local education systems (starting with our own kids in the family; or those we know or can talk to in person, or in forums such as this) to present wisdom and maturity as the most desirable values (rather than greed and power). Then we must educate ourselves (as well as the young ones) both with "knowledge" and practical campaigns. We can start small... get some experience, learn how it feels when we're doing the right things. Then, connect the grass roots groups... eventually we should be able to take on large-scale wrong-headedness, by setting clearly attractive expectations of how to live together better.
We can probably muddle through another decade or so, but if we are to cease destroying our habitat and ourselves, we must learn wisdom. Our power over the environment is growing (though we'll never have full control), which means our power to do ourselves great harm is growing. So even if we don't destroy ourselves in these little "wars," the danger is very high. But we should be very clear that the danger stems from the same greed, lust, anger, pride, envy, etc. that have been the primary cause of danger to us since we started to live in settlements.
Btw, if you're interested in how to get along with others who differ from us (given that we can't return to ignorance that they exist), this is an actual academic discipline (or at least a branch of one!). Although he is EXTREMELY difficult to read, way back in the late 70's a fellow called Richard McKeon (sp?), at U. of Chicago, was writing about how to negotiate agreements between groups with conflicting values (hint: ignore/prohibit all talk about values, and talk only of highly specific acts/behavior that will and will not be acceptable to both sides). Many academic folks in my own discipline (human communication) claimed Kissinger's success in diplomacy was based on his following McKeon's "rules."
Re:Retinal chips? (Score:2)
Read somewhere that some hospitals are refusing to vid-tape births because, ahem, should the Dr. make a mistake s/he certainly doesn't want it on tape.
Information: Peril or Power (Score:1)
While technology and the availability of information are critical to any form of warfare, this is not to argue that greater access to information will lead to greater horrors. The killings in Rawanda were coordinated over AM/FM radio and carried out with machetes. And the mass killings in yugoslavia were coordinated by radio and paper orders. Neither of these represents any sort of breakthrough in the availability of information.
And yet there are innovative uses of information technology that are fighting to make the world a better place. Amnesty International's Fast Action Stops Torture(usa) [amnestyusa.org] or Stamp Out Torture(international) [stoptorture.org] campaigns tie together pagers, cell phones, and your email to create a network of activists that can bring international pressure in a fraction of the time or cost of traditional media.
Failure to understand or engage "your enemy" will not lead to a safer world. It will lead to a world of victims who could have seen the horror coming and acted to stop it.
Re:Information is perilous (Score:1)
Re:Witness testimony, reporting and espionage (Score:1)
Granted it wouldn't be easy to do this, but with that kind of chip implanted how could you EVER be 100% sure that everything you were seeing was real?
Considering how incredibly insecure most software is these days, I think I'll pass on retina implants. I'd sure hate it if my sight depended on keeping up with and patching against the latest exploits.
(and yes this is exaggeration for effect -- but I am about 75% serious here)
Re:Slashdot's Leftist Agenda Shows Again (Score:1)
Re:Witness testimony, reporting and espionage (Score:1)
But I'm surprised, Jon. You didn't really bait anyone with strong opinions, so this can't be a troll. As a matter of fact, this is standard /bot technofetishism. You must be k-whoring for another big round of trolling fun. Hint: don't whore on the Book Report stories - nobody reads them anyway.
Re:Slashdot's Leftist Agenda Shows Again (Score:1)
Re:Lack of real understanding (Score:1)
Not really on topic, but...
We usually think of them as protoplasmic blobs, but single-celled organisms are exceedingly complex. Remember, they do as much as many multicellular organisms! The outstanding examples are the ciliates, which have such wonderful abilities as coordinating thousands of cilia ('hairs' for swimming), have a distinct mouth and sort-of digestive tract, and are able to find food and mates.
A fair match for any cell in a multicellular organism. Remember, by and large those things don't have to feed themselves or move about!
Re:Information is perilous (Score:1)
By the way, information is also a great way to help stop tyranny. You mention the printing press engulfed Europe in the thirty years war through protestantism, but what was protestantism a response to? At the time, the catholic church was fairly corrupt, and I think it is ridiculous to claim the best solution would have been to be ignorant of the problems. Someone has already mentioned the nazis as another (good) example.
Information changes what problems you are dealing with. To look only at the new ones, and ignore the old ones, is popular but an unfair treatment.