| Home | About | Subscribe | Search | Member Area |
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 32, No. 271.
Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
Hosted by King's Digital Lab
www.dhhumanist.org
Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
[1] From: Henry Schaffer
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.269: in your genes/DNA? (99)
[2] From: Jim Rovira
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.270: in your genes/DNA (71)
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2018-12-16 20:35:35+00:00
From: Henry Schaffer
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.269: in your genes/DNA?
On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 3:02 AM Humanist wrote:
> Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 32, No. 269.
> Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
> www.dhhumanist.org
> Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
>
>
>
>
> Date: 2018-12-15 07:28:15+00:00
> From: Willard McCarty
> Subject: in your genes/DNA?
>
> A current habit of thought I find curious is the attribution of
> biological determinism in a language not that far from programming. This
> is the notion that we are determined by a core program in our
> genetic material, or alternatively that a society or social entity is
> similarly predetermined. There is, the thought goes, nothing to be done
> about a behaviour or characteristic because it is already unalterably
> programmed.
I haven't come across this type of thinking - is this something you've
encountered recently? As someone with a backgorund in genetics, it is
clear that some things are hardwired. E.g., eye and skin color are built
into the genes/DNA. It is equally clear that some things aren't
hardwired - such as which language is spoken.
> One curiosity is that the whole point of a programmable device
> is that what it does (within the constraints imposed by its architecture)
> isn't hardwired but can be programmed and reprogrammed indefinitely. It's
> like a complex board-game, such as chess or go, within whose limits is
> freedom.
>
Ahh - the language learned/spoken is governed by the brain - a (somewhat)
programmable device. :-)
>
> What gets to me is the passiveness this expresses -- the passiveness with
> which many (including our students) take to computing, that is, as users
> rather than makers. Here, it seems to me, is a very strong argument for
> teaching programming as a humanistic project. Students flood in nowadays
> to university programmes in 'digital humanities', and in some cases at
> least are taught only what I would consider the epiphenomena of computing,
> the effects predetermined by apps and applications. Meanwhile they are
> being unwittingly shaped, as we all are to some degree, by the cognitive
> structure of the stored-program computer. How can they understand this,
> and so be properly equipped, if they have not played the game rather than
> merely be played by it?
>
It's the easy way out whether one is just looking for enjoyment/fun, or
developing servants. It's more fun to play a digital game than to learn
how to construct one. It's more profitable to teach someone how to operate
a spreadsheet program/app, than to teach them how to construct one.
I'll go further - people won't understand the limitations of
programs/apps, and recognize errors in them without an understanding of
how those programs/apps are constructed. When I teach either in STEM or DH
areas, my motto displayed for the students is, "Computers do what you tell
them to do, not what you want them to do." (There are longer more complete
versions of that motto.)
>
> The tools are here, as one very wise computational linguist used to say.
> Should we not be developing in our students and colleagues a critical
> awareness of how these tools shape how we think and reason?
>
That is done in many fields, I believe it should also be done in DH.
--henry schaffer
>
> Comments?
>
> Yours,
> WM
> --
> Willard McCarty (www.mccarty.org.uk/),
> Professor emeritus, Department of Digital Humanities, King's College
> London;
> Adjunct Professor, Western Sydney University; Editor, Interdisciplinary
> Science Reviews (www.tandfonline.com/loi/yisr20) and Humanist
> (www.dhhumanist.org)
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted
> List posts to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
> List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org
> Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/
> Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php
>
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2018-12-17 01:16:42+00:00
From: Jim Rovira
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.270: in your genes/DNA
Willard --
I think for many people the point of the analogy is that the programmed
object, or computer, can't reprogram itself, at least in most people's
thinking (as it goes whether it is true or not). The programmed object is
at the whim of a higher order being, a programmer. So if human beings are
programmed objects, then we are subject to a kind of determinism defined by
our programming. However, the fact that we can program other objects and
reflect upon ourselves as potentially programmed or programmable objects
means to me that we aren't programmed, or if we are, that we're capable of
reprogramming ourselves -- which means the analogy doesn't work well.
Jim R
On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 1:02 AM Humanist wrote:
>
>
> A current habit of thought I find curious is the attribution of
> biological determinism in a language not that far from programming. This
> is the notion that we are determined by a core program in our
> genetic material, or alternatively that a society or social entity is
> similarly predetermined. There is, the thought goes, nothing to be done
> about a behaviour or characteristic because it is already unalterably
> programmed. One curiosity is that the whole point of a programmable device
> is that what it does (within the constraints imposed by its architecture)
> isn't hardwired but can be programmed and reprogrammed indefinitely. It's
> like a complex board-game, such as chess or go, within whose limits is
> freedom.
>
> --
Dr. James Rovira
- Reading and History
(Palgrave Macmillan,
May 2018)
- Rock and Romanticism: Blake, Wordsworth, and Rock from Dylan to U2
,
Chapter 12 (Northwestern UP, 2018)
- Blake and Kierkegaard: Creation and Anxiety
Editor: Willard McCarty (King's College London, U.K.; Western Sydney University, Australia)
Software designer: Malgosia Askanas (Mind-Crafts)
This site is maintained under a service level agreement by King's Digital Lab.