I haven’t updated this blog in a while, mostly because of simply being to busy with all kinds of tenure requirements and other stuff. One of the things that have taken much of my time recently is a Podcast I’ve just started, and which I will launch in about a week’s time. The podcast is called SuchThatCast – Philosophers’ podcast, and it’s an idea I’ve been toying around with for quite some time. SuchThatCast is a podcast dedicated to getting to know some of the most influential philosophers (broadly speaking) of today. It seeks to provide an alternative to most other philosophy podcasts (many of which are excellent), by taking the form of a face-to-face conversation (I will never do a phone/skype interview) where the guest is free (and encouraged) to share information about themselves that may not be appropriate in other forums: this includes stories about their unique and often unconventional career paths, seminal events and figures in their lives, undeveloped ideas and generally whatever they are passionate about.
Call for Papers: Well-being in Contemporary Society
International Conference on the Philosophy and Science of Well-being and their Practical Importance
Location: University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands
Date: July 26-27, 2012
Philip Brey (University of Twente)
Johnny Hartz Søraker (University of Twente)
Pak-Hang Wong (University of Twente)
Jan-Willem van der Rijt (University of Amsterdam)
Jelle de Boer (University of Amsterdam)
About the Conference
In recent years, well-being has enjoyed a renaissance in philosophical discussions, as well as in fields like psychology, economics, development studies and sociology. Although these approaches share a common goal – to better understand what well-being is and how it can be enhanced – these developments have led to a great diversity in philosophical and scientific approaches to the analysis of well-being. Despite the increasing amount of research, most of the work on well-being is also performed at a highly abstract level. This is especially true in philosophy, but relatively little work has been devoted to the application of theories of well-being also in other fields, in particular when it comes to an understanding of life in contemporary society. Developments such as globalization, consumerism, and the rapid innovation and use of new and emerging technologies, all exert significant impact on the well-being of people living today, and we need a better understanding of their consequences for well-being.
Contemporary society requires that well-being researchers examine these problems – and, if possible, propose solutions to address them. This international conference aims to bring together researchers from various disciplines, including, but not limited to, psychology, economics, sociology, philosophy and development studies, in order to examine the practical role of well-being in contemporary society.
We are looking for contributions that examine the notion of well-being in the context of contemporary society. The conference particularly welcomes papers that employ a notion of well-being to address social, political and ethical issues in present-day society. Suggested topics for the workshop include, but are not limited to:
- Theoretical developments and approaches in the philosophy and science of well-being in relation to contemporary society, culture and life.
- Well-being in social and political philosophy and/or in policy studies
- Positive psychology (and related research fields) and its practical applicability
- New and emerging technologies and well-being
- Intercultural and interpersonal comparisons of well-being
- Reliability, validity and applicability of well-being measures
- Other specific practical issues pertaining to well-being in contemporary society
The workshop will include both invited papers and an open call for papers. For the open call, we invite extended abstracts (1500-2000 words). Please anonymise the abstract, and include title, name and address in the accompanying email. The abstract, and any questions you may have about the conference, should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org. Your abstract should be submitted before February 15th 2012, and will be subject to blind peer review.
Following the conference we aim to publish the papers, subject to a blind review process, in either an edited volume or a special issue of a relevant journal. We did so successfully with our previous conference, Good Life In a Technological Age, from which select papers were published as book in the prestigious Routledge Studies in Science, Technology and Society series, and will be available in February 2012.
Abstract Submission Deadline: February 15. 2012
Notification of Acceptance: March 1, 2012
Conference Dates: July 26-27, 2012
The official web site is under construction. Don’t hesitate to contact us on the email address above if you have any questions about the conference.
I delivered this rant as part of a panel entitled “New Directions for Information Ethics Scholarship” at the CEPE (Computer Ethics Philosophical Enquiry) conference 2011. It was given as the last of four rants, in the early morning of the last day of the conference so I’m not sure many attendents really got the main message, and it seems to have been interpreted as more controversial than it really was. Sorry about the typos, but parts of this was written down in a hurry
Let me start by saying a little bit about the background for this rant. Although academia doesn’t seem to be a harsh existence when we exchange ideas with friends and colleagues at these gatherings, it often requires you to go in directions you didn’t plan, to tackle issues that are placed in front of you rather than chosen by an act of volition. I think we all can relate to the fact that the research we’ve done seems to be a chaotic network determined in large part by chance or external pressure, rather than careful elaboration of a coherent system. Because of this, it came as a surprise to me when I recently realized that there was a red line running through my various ramblings. The common denominator, and this is what I want to emphasize today, was something that seems to have fallen into disrepute; the common denominator was nothing less than what distinguishes us from physical reality, what distinguishes from brute facts – that which makes us into something more than extended matter. I am of course talking about the mind, our consciousness. It is my firm conviction, and I find this almost as indubitable as Descartes did back in the day, that mind is not only that which sets a small subset of matter apart from everything else, it is also a necessary condition for ethics. Without mind, there is no right and wrong, no good or bad, no beautiful or ugly. More related to this conference, without the mind, there would be no privacy, no intellectual property, no values-in-design, no professional responsibility, no identity theft, no cultural differences – in short, without mind, nothing would matter. Before moving on to some of the implications of this view, I want to clarify that this is not anthropocentric, it is anthropogenic; conscious beings are the origin of value and morality, but this does not entail that we are the only ones worth caring about. Quite the contrary.
I want to continue by addressing a few implications from this emphasis on mind.
First, and please do not misunderstand this point and please apply the principle of charity, the important and enlightening effort to question the sharp dividing line between subject and object, is sometimes taken to extremes that leave the mind out in a concerning manner. I am talking about attempts to ascribe moral rights and personhood to non-sentient beings, to propose the extension of mind while forgetting about the locus of the mind, to regard ‘the human condition’ as independent from subjective contingencies, to regard synthetic emotions as equivalent to felt emotions, to disregard the importance of the subject’s context in understanding embedded values, to evaluate technology’s impact on well-being as independent from conscious experience, to regard syntax as exhaustive of semantics (let alone pragmatics), and to regard interaction between conscious beings as equivalent to interaction between non-conscious nodes in a network. The dividing line between these phenomena can be seen as ontological, epistemological or pragmatical, but ignoring this dividing line is, in short what has been known in philosophy of mind as feigning anaesthesia. Anything that requires mind to exist, such as our ideas, emotions and deliberations, have a mode of existence that is fundamentally different from everything that is non-conscious. I don’t think any of us genuinely think that mind can be removed from the equation, but I do think that we are all pushed in that direction for a number of reasons. Paradoxically, one reason is that bracketing the mind doesn’t immediately conform with common sense, common sense being a term that has gotten the unfortunate connotation of equalling lack of reflection. That taking emotions, deliberations, subjective desires and personal preferences into account, is seen as tantamount to basing your evaluations on gut feeling – tantamount to lack of reflection. Another reason why mind is being ignored is that the move towards neglecting the complexity of our mental states is a natural movement of the pendulum, as a response to placing too much emphasis on the mind, and too sharp a distinction between subject and object – but common sense should be the gravity that pulls the pendulum towards a golden mean. Yes, mental states muddy the water, and they introduce ambiguities and complexities that makes any analytically minded philosopher cringe, but that in itself is not a reason to bracket those concerns. As I tried to argue in yesterday’s talk, I applaud methods that allow us to conceptualize the complexity and subtlety of mental states in a way that lends itself to analysis. But, I feel compelled to emphasize that this can only be one approach in a necessarily pluralist computer ethics. To put it in Wittgensteinian terms, we do not have to uphold Western philosophy’s contempt for the particular case, a contempt rooted in philosophy’s traditional equation between objective truth, on the one hand, and stability, observer-independence and universality on the other. As John Searle has made clear, ontological subjectivity does not entail epistemological subjectivity. If you don’t believe that this is a one dollar bill, you are wrong, even though this truth that is made possible only by consciousness – indeed, only by collective consciousness. In a similar manner, emphasizing the importance of subjective consciousness does not entail ethical relativism. It should not be necessary to remind you that even the strict objectivity of Kant’s deontology –if you allow me to put it crudely for the sake of this short talk – is grounded in self-consciousness. Consciousness is not only emotions and qualia and the ephemeral what-its-like-to-be, it is also self-reflection, autonomy and rationality.
Another reason why I emphasize mind, is that the mind is a form of magic, in the strict sense of the word. It is a reason for awe and wonder that can’t be seen as equivalent to non-conscious processes. I believe that this is something we can all agree about, across religious and cultural backgrounds. When God is dead, the only thing that brings telos and value to this world is consciousness, so even atheists can marvel at the splendour of the mind, and regard the mind as the origin of value, and the anchor we need in order to avoid nihilism. As such, and this is one of my main points, mind and consciousness can form a common denominator for pluralism and cultural sensitivity – a common denominator that does neither presuppose nor exclude religious beliefs or culturally rooted beliefs.
Finally, and less sermon-like: If the best reason for downplaying the importance of mind is methodological, we need to consider the range of methods available to us. That is, if we want to take the mind seriously, we ought to take the science of mind more seriously. For a long time, I have been baffled by the lack of cooperation between philosophy and psychology. Let me emphasize that I do not, as the dreaded referee #2 once accused me of, claim that empirical research should have the final say in philosophical matters. Rather, questions that cannot be settled a priori, should be informed by empirical research. We cannot presuppose a priori that violent video games make us anti-social, that globalisation flattens cultural values, that reduced privacy is an evil, that virtual relationships cannot be meaningful, that intellectual property is necessary for innovation, or that workplace surveillance leads to efficiency. There is psychological research on these topics, research that should play a much larger role in our analyses. Related to this, I want to mention the field of positive psychology in particular. When Martin Seligman became president of the American Psychological Association in 1998, he opened his inaugural speech by saying that psychology should not only be concerned with bringing patients from -.5 to 0, but also to bring humans from 0 to 0.5. That is, psychology should not be concerned only with curing illness, but just as much with leading people towards more fulfilling lives.
In a similar manner, I think we need to start paying more attention to how technology can improve our quality of life. We should pay as much attention to the promise of technology as we pay attentions to the threat of technology. However, and this brings me back to my earlier point, being optimistic about technology and looking for ways in which technology can enrich our lives is often seen as naive and unreflected – there is a reason why this attitude is dismissively referred to as Pollyannaism. In the original children story, Polyanna looses her legs, and her optimism disappears. What brings it back it the encouragement of the townspeople, letting her know that her optimism improved their lives. It’s time for Polyanna to walk again. If we want to do the same, there is a large and untapped source of empirical research in positive psychology, findings that enable us to look for new ways in which technology can improve people’s lives. At the same time , this research is riddled with methodological problems, biases and limited validity. This is why philosophy and ethics – and philosophy and ethics of computing – is the natural meeting point. The place where we can make all-things considered evaluations – and where all-things-considered does not undermine the importance of mind.
I’ve always enjoyed teaching computer ethics to engineers, partly because it’s such a challenge to make the material inspiring and relevant. Part of this challenge came from the textbooks I’ve used in the past. Although many of them are well-written, balanced and gives a good introduction to computer ethics as a field (I still think Tavani’s is the best out there), I often find them lacking when it comes to “why should I learn this?”- and some of them spend too much time explaining technicalities when the computer science students already know all about this (CS students, especially graduate students, don’t need an explanation of worms, data mining or encryption techniques – they will know this better than both the authors and the lecturer). With this in mind, I decided to design my computer ethics course from scratch, using only the ‘creme de la creme’ of papers and chapters, from the best journals and anthologies. Continue reading Designing a computer ethics course from scratch
I’ve written before about creativity online and the failure of companies trying to stifle this creativity, but felt encouraged to do so again after having looked into the elegant events in the wake of a Stephen Colbert interview with well-known blogger and Stanford professor of law Lawrence Lessig – which quickly evolved into one of the more interesting displays of Internet creativty, through which Lessig’s point became even more clear. Continue reading A series of furtunate events: The beauty of Internet creativity and hybrid economy
No, not that kind of music tagging, the kind where you add tags/labels to your mp3 collection. What I want to discuss is a phenomenon that I’ve tried to be conscious about for quite some time: the act of deliberately forming strong associations between certain pieces of music and a particular place. Continue reading Music tagging — or, voluntary involuntary auditory memories
The phenomenon that prompted the headline is called “Take-Away shows” and is being done to perfection at La Blogotheque. The concept is easy; pick up a camera and a cheap microphone, convince a band that this is the new cool, and shoot an improvised, raw, dogma-like music video on the fly. As the web site states, “what makes the beauty of it is all the little incidents, hesitations, and crazy stuff happening unexpectingly”. The results are mixed, as can be expected, but it can be pretty awesome. Continue reading Internet killed the video star
So, I came across this listing the other day (can’t find the link right now) about the top ten comedy sketches of all time. It covered pretty much only US comedy (a lof of Saturday Night Live), and missed some of the best sketches ever — the ones that literally made me roll on the floor laughing. So here it is, my collection of the best comedy sketches, from the five best comedy shows of all time:
5. Arrested Development; The Chicken dances
Arrested development must be the best sitcom ever, yet for some idiotic reason got canned. Although I loved it for its intelligent humour and intricate plots, those are difficult to present as a clip. Luckily, good olf fashioned slapstick and body humour was also a major part of it, and nothing made me laugh harder than the Bluth family’s somehwat original takes on the chicken dance, nicely captured in the montage below.
4. The Fast Show: Arse and coughing
Although I simply love The Fast Show and can’t get enough of the recurring characters, it rarely gives me tears in my eyes. This little bit featuring some unfortunatte tourette-like characters did the trick.
3. Monty Python: Tinny words
Well, I could’ve mentioned so many by Monty Python (the fish slapping dance is another one of my favourites), but this one is relatively unknown, yet so darn funny. Graham Chapman at his very best!
2. Saturday Night Live: Chris Rock as rapper with toe fetish
Ok, let’s admit it. SNL is 95% crap, which might be the reason why the 5% times they get it right, it makes it into comedy history. Again, I could’ve mentioned many of the familiar ones (I think “more cow bell” was one the top 10 list I mentioned above), but this is also a rarely seen one, featuring Chris Rock as the most puny rapper ever. When he hits the chorus towards the end, I literally fell of my chair (The vid below is unfortunately the only copy I could find, and the joke is kind of lost in the poor quality).
1. Reeves and Mortimer: Mulligan and O’Hare
Weird is the only word for British duo Jim Reeves and Vic Mortimer. Often it becomes so surreal that you’re left with a smile, albeit a confused and slightly disturbed one (you can see some of this in the intro to Mulligan and O’hare below). Sometimes, they just hit the nail on the head, and there’s just no beating their amazing and surreal portrayel of singers Mulligan and O’Hare. Enjoy!
Please let me know if any of the videoes have been removed.
I went to a conference the other day, about intellectual property in cyberspace and all that. The experience turned out to be quite surreal.
When I entered the building, there were only three people standing around. One of them were shouting commands, seemingly to a technician that I couldn’t see; as with all conferences, Murphy’s law was upon them. This went on for a while. I was quietly sitting at one end of the auditorium. I didn’t really know anyone there and wasn’t in the mood to network, so I decided to just wait for the show. On stage, nothing was happening, though. Continue reading The strangest conference
In various email lists etc. there have been a lot of discussion about the future of paper journals and the superiority of open access on-line journals. Although I agree that information should be widely accessible and that many (especially independent) researchers are left out of the loop due to the cost of subscribing to journals, the solution is not to just move access-restricted journals into the public domain, nor to abolish paper journals. Sometimes there’s made a connection between the seemingly inevitable demise of other physical media (e.g. cd’s and similar will be entirely replaced by digital downloads) but this is a very misleading analogy. The most important thing about scholarly research and academic journals is that they have to be subject to a quality control, usually in the form of a peer review. Although there’s nothing difficult about doing this with open access journals, the main problem is that it is difficult for the reader to know the extent and quality of peer review. The reason is that with open access journals, there is often no discernable body that puts its reputation at stake. If a journal is rumoured to not take the peer review process seriously, then no respectable publisher would let that continue. Blackwell, Springer etc. have a reputation at stake. With online journals, there is often no such stakes involved. I’m not saying that this is foolproof (there are probably many instances of shoddy journals hiding behind a respectable publisher), but at the very least it is a more reliable indicator than anything found on the Web. Thus, the alternative to the current system cannot bypass the important role of the publishers. The alternative, in other words, is not to start up a host of independent, ad hoc journals, but rather to sway the publishers to find alternative and more accessible means of publishing their journals. The reason why the analogy with record companies does not hold, is that there is no such requirement for peer review and quality control in music. Research is not a matter of the taste of the consumers, but the quality of the research; and currently the best way we have of controlling the latter seems to be peer-review and to have it done through a publisher with a reputation at stake. In more constructive terms, I think the sustainable road to more open access journals is to sway the publishers, not to simply set up alternatives whose scientific quality is difficult to assess.