I can’t remember if it was in this blog or another, but I’ve said in the past that the phone in your pocket is only as good as everything else it lets you do. We don’t just want to make calls, we want a phone the takes pictures, plays music, acts as a GPS, can scan QR codes, process word documents, check emails, read the newspaper, tweet, update Facebook *deep breath* and text. Ultimately, this means everyone is living in their own little time-space bubble. A physical object is made digital by connecting us online. So for brief periods, whether it’s 30 seconds as we text, 10 minutes as we Facebook, or an hour as we play a game online, we’re living in a bubble defined by online time.
With physical objects now being connected, they cross onto to the realm of being able to communicate. Are we using a device to communicate, or is the device itself communicating?
But before looking specifically at inanimate objects going online, the relationship between people and “things” needs to be addressed. This has been analysed through the “Actor Network Theory”; a social theory, which analyses the relationship between both material and semiotic entities. Not only does Actor Network Theory analyse the objects that interact, it analyses the actual communication (i.e. the intangible) and it’s relationship with the tangible. This is a complex theory, much to in-depth to detail here, but is definitely worth looking at.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5pTKqKaElA
I wanted to embed that video, but Blogger and YouTube won't let me at the moment :(
Hey Chris, I would have to agree with you and your idea of a bubble of online time... but i think i would call it something like technological time? Individuals are using their objects and technologies in a myriad of intricate ways, which makes it difficult to define their means... blurring the line between time and space.
ReplyDeleteI think you picked the absolute BEST video for this weeks topic though, I think theres just something about Big Bang Theory and its ability to help us understand... Great post!
Are we using a device to communicate, or is the device itself communicating? I really like this question. Not only does it make you think, but I still haven't come up with an answer! I think at the present time we are using devices to communicate, particularly through our phones and social networking etc. But after seeing things like the Toyota cars talking to each other and sending messages to drivers that's a whole new story. Interesting times ahead indeed.
ReplyDeleteHi Chris!
ReplyDeleteI actually think that we already are using both options: we use the device to communicate with other people but the device is also sending information all the time, for example, about where we are (there's an iPhone application that can tell you if your friends are close-previous acceptance of the friend). That already exists with mobile phones, tablets or laptops. But I must also talk about Toyota social network: it is interesting how much information can a car send through these developments but...still...cars talking to cars...I don't see the point.
By the way, The Big Bang Theory...such a great series.
Great final blog Chris, I wanted to make a small comparison with what Ted discussed in the lecture and the term technological determinism. It seems we are coming closer and closer to allowing our objects to control what we do and say. This is the argument that is put forward by technological determinism. For a small example, sending an sms allows only for a certain amount of characters so therefore the sms language was born. If this was their stage one then how much should we expect from stage two if this continues happening...?
ReplyDeleteGreat blog post.
Hey Chris, I think we all have a healthy amount of concern about the Internet of Things- although we like the convenience, we are also worried about giving up control. However in answer to your question of whether we are using the device to communicate or if the device itself is communicating, I have to answer yes. We are doing both. We have taught the devices to imitate us and communicate, but they are doing it on our behalf also... and would not be able to do so without us. Although many sci-fi movies suggest a time when our machines become sentient and end up taking over the world... and I am usually up for a bit of paranoia... I just don't see this happening. I think stuff may get out of our control occasionally- like a car whose breaks don't work, but even as we move toward the Internet of Things, I still think we won't be able to remove that human element.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Dimi (above) has said about our objects controlling us. I actually thought that as technology evolves (even more) it would slowly build itself into our daily lives, and I don't mean your simple phone or laptop, I mean everything from your appliances right through to your bed. Imagine every item in your house is synchronised to ensure that communication is consistent with you.
ReplyDeleteWe also saw during the lecture that the guy in the video had actually resorted to the company of his household objects because his date cancelled on him. He later ignored her phone call and continued to chill out with his house (yes WITH his house). I think there are so many implications associated with the way technology is controlling us and isolation from society could be one of them.
“Are we using a device to communicate, or is the device itself communicating?” this is an interesting question, but like those above I think the answer is both. Regardless of what the skeptics think, an element of human control always remains within this equation. Objects cannot communicate unless we allow them to. And I think before severing all connections with the objects around us and jumping to dystopian world views, this is what we need to grasp.
ReplyDeleteI think a machine is a machine, and while it can be programmed to a very sophisticated level, the user will always be the one doing the thinking and communicating, not the machine.
ReplyDelete