On the Internet [Paperback]

Some of the questions asked are: can the internet deliver us from our bodily selves? Can the internet be used to disseminate information more efficiently and more universally? Can the internet democratize education and produce experts? What is the effect of the internet on the real? And, lastly, what are the implications of meaning in our lives concerning the internet?

These are all good questions, and each one could fill a volume on its own. Nonetheless, this book is a survey on the topics, and each topic is dealt with in about 20-30 pages.

On the issue of disembodiment and the internet, Dreyfus goes out on a limb himself while accusing others of doing the same. Why rely on the vision of the 'Extropians' (whose website is still active as of this typing) for guidance about how people are using and conceiving the internet? The vision of the web as a disembodied non-physical realm where humans will no longer have to deal with intestinal gas is a vision shared by very, very few. Dreyfus gives this concept far too much validity, and the first section of this book creates a sort of 'phantom threat' of people wanting to release themselves from their bodies (he calls it 'Cyberia'), and warnings about the consequences of wanting to do so.

The interesting part of the first section is the discussion of the failure of AI and the failing hope that cyberbeings will one day replace human beings. Those who are freaked out by the implications of 'The Matrix' will find comfort here.

Dreyfus' best arguments concern the internet and distance learning. Anyone working in education can tell you about the dismal failure of trying to replace human teachers with computers. That's not to say a certain amount of knowledge cannot be obtained from cyber-learning, but that knowledge has its limits. Expert knowledge is even difficult if not impossible from reading books (which has a certain amount of disembodiment in its own, but different, way). Face-to-face or body-to-body interaction is important, and will likely always be important, in mastering a subject or skill. That's why those who can afford it still hire tutors.

Similar arguments are put forth concerning the internet becoming a 'virtual world' in which people can potentially get sucked into and lost. It's true that this can happen, but the internet is not necessarily to blame. People can get sucked into drugs, television, reading, fantasizing, etc., and lose themselves in much the same way they can on the internet. Addictions take many forms, and the internet is but one. Still, a word of caution is justified here: the danger in the confusion of 'telepresence' - or, just because you see someone on your screen means that you're having a 'human experience' - with actual human contact is real and needs to be noted. It is not as great a danger as Dreyfus presents, however. To some it may be, but an edpidemic of Cyberians seems unlikely at this point. Also, Dreyfus points out that using the internet does not involve risk on the human level. This is becoming less and less true. It's not too hard to find out who is behind a pseudonym these days, and identity theft and monetary threat loom more and more. Not to mention that everything you type and look up on the internet is stored somewhere, and can be retrieved for purposes of marketing or otherwise. There are risks, on a fundamental human level, with internet use.

Concerning meaning and the internet, Dreyfus' claims that the internet leads to nihilism are not wholly convincing. They're based on the Kierkegaardian notion of the aesthetic and ethical life. Where Dreyfus sees problems, he defers to Kierkegaard.

Overall, the book presents a negative view on the present and future of the internet. Today it seems almost paranoid in places.The .COM burst gave us all a dose of reality, and there will likely be others to come as far as the internet is concerned. We're not to Dreyfus' distopia yet. Time may change that, or it may not. Likely more threateninig technologies will have to surface first.

This is a good place to start for exploring the philosophical implications of the internet. You won't want to stop here if this book catches your interest.

On probably the most interesting -and simoultaneously most controversial- chapter of the book, learning through online courses, Dreyfus argues that without personal involvement we might acquire the factual knowledge but not the skill since we are not physically "there" to interact with a teacher and to mimic what he/she does as far as the subject of learning is concerned, since, as he claims, this is one of the basics of learning.
He adds a rather strong argument on that, when he says that the fundamental way we "understand" reality is ba having a handle on it. He then goes on to conclude that the internet takes away exactly that: our connection to reality, and reasons that learning online compared to the traditional ways of learning is limited and inadequate, it inhibits proficiency.

With a world rapidly moving on to a digital existence, to functioning through the internet, a digital concious as it may, Dreyfus warns of the dangers. Predictably, alienation and new dimensions of loneliness are central themes of those warnings. We can talk to 10s of people online from different parts of the world without having any relationship with them. The passion is not there he claims, and that is probably the one indisputable point of his book.

Keeping in mind that the internet is still a relatively new medium, any conclusions we might hurry to make might be very flawed themselves. Dreyfus points this out himself when he reminds us of Plato (who seems to be a favorite of his) who 2.500 years ago warned the Athenians of the dangers of the written word. Yet, Dreyfus believes that the inetrnet is a more clear-czt case where we can see the dangers more clearly.
I disagree. We do not know how the internet will develop yet and to what direction. In Europe only a small fraction of the population actually uses it, other than to send or receive an email. This is far below the net's capabilities and it doesn't provide us with enough data about its influence on human societies yet. Most of Dreyfus's observations come undoubtedly from the american usage of the internet (which is pioneering in that sector) but as more and more cultures get involved with the medium we are bound to see the medium take on more changes and uses.

When it comes to online learning i would have to agree with Dreyfus's opinions with one main objection: up until recently learning the traditional way, whether in universities or schools, was going unquestioned and uncriticized. But especially in the 90s voices started abounding , especially from educators, that even that form of learning contains disembodiment. The west alone is filled with people with degrees who carry data but do not carry meaning in their data either exactly what Dreyfus is "accusing" the internet and its online courses of doing.
Learning in a school might provide with the all important human contact but how much of it is meaningful contact and to who's interest is one big open question.
Schooling (universities included) distribute dogma and the process of learning in them is basically limited on absorbing the dogma proficiently. It would be a blatant lie to claim that this type of learning is "better" than the online courses. It would also be an interesting question and discussion what type of learning is then the most proficient one? Dreyfus doesn't touch that question, indeed he seems to believe with no restrictions that the learning he's involved in (in university) is "ok"..
I beg to differ.
All this, with objections and questions included, doesn't mean that "On the internet" is not reccomendable. It's in fact filled with interesting points and at worst it's food for thought. As i said above , alone the fact that it's a philosophical approach on the issue makes it intriguing enough.

But we shouldn't be hasty. In 10-20 years time this book might seem terribly outdated and flawed. In fact, some might claim (and they might be right) that it already is...