Customer Reviews

The Cult of Information: A Neo-Luddite Treatise on High-Tech, Artificial Intelligence, and the True Art of Thinking

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book is a thoughtful and thought-provoking examination of both the meaning of and the consequences associated with the rising computer information cult within contemporary society. Roszak is a skilled writer and an even more perceptive thinker. He quickly disposes of the contemporary idea equating data or information, on the one hand, with knowledge and wisdom, on the other hand. He despairs of the notion that technological progress is an unalloyed blessing, and provides a lot of supporting documentation illustrating that for all those capabilities we gain through the use of digital technology, for example, we also lose important capabilities and perspectives.

According to Roszak, we have now come to almost rely on exclusively rational,"logical", and quantifiable methods of understanding everything around us, often to the detriment of ignoring more traditional and time-honored methods of knowing. This, in turn, leads to a very narrow perspective of how it is that the world operates, one devoid of anything not quantitative, anything comprised of more "qualitative" means of observation. Thus, to the digitally oriented logical and rational mind, anything not disposed to undertanding through calculation and the scientific method simply is not real. Furthermore, he shows us, such digital computing techniques creates as many problems as it solves.

He fears for good reason that we are falling into a hyperbolized and superficial culture where we have come to completely depend on scientific rationalism as it is depicted by the media, and that this creates a conundrum we cannot escape from, since many of the problems associated with modern society stem from this increasingly exlusively scientific and rational approach toward problem-solving.

As with other contemporary critics of the new Digital Intelligence cult like social critic Neil Postman, Roszak argues for a more comprehensive perspective , one that places the tools of computer technology at the behest of a more broad-based intelligence, one that recognizes that there is a whole range of ways of knowing and understanding that those contained in programming code. This is a provocative and thought-indicing book. I enjoyed and learned from it, and recommend it to anyone who enjoys watching a superior intellect at work, and who also appreciated the thread of a finely-hewn intellectual argument. Enjoy!

Mr. Roszak does a fine job in this book of showing the problems with the cult of information/computers. He points out the many fine things they do and how those are ignored in favor of the hyperbole favored by the computer fanatics. He has obviously studied the topic in depth and shows all the flawed projections, assumptions and ideas of the Minskys of the world. His book is especially useful at refuting claims about AI and showing where abuses can occur with the system. His questioning about the use of computers in schools is very relevant and very well thought-out. His history of the computer itself is also interesting, something rarely covered in other sources. The only complaint I had with the book was that it is fairly dated - he did little revision of the 1986 edition and there are points where this is obvious. His point though is as relevant as it was when the book first arrived 22 years ago and very few of his ideas have been proven wrong - on the other hand the AI-hypers look sillier and sillier. Definitely worth reading.

I enjoyed the book and welcomed the thoughts of the author concerning the limitations and dangers of allowing the computer to become the important locater of "knowledge". Unfortunately, one of our main concerns today is that many people don't know how to think, or don't like to think and prefer to believe they are thinking. Maybe computer data will be likened to "it must be true fact because it was in Reader's Digest". This book should be included in computer courses to allow each mind to dwell on "thoughts" and recognize them. A quote I loved, "Human memory is the self portrait we paint from all we have experienced".

Roszak bursts the bubble of marketing hype that touts information technology as an all-powerful force that can do anything for business or society. Those of us involved in consulting, communications, product development and CRM can benefit from this perspective, so that we do not overpromise. This neo-luddite is not opposed to technology, but he wants us to know its limitations and its effect on our humanity. The book was prescient when it was written a decade ago, and today its lessons seem all the more important. My only criticism is I wish the author would offer constructive suggestions for those of us who have to make decisions on information technology. He rips down our facade, but does not tell us how to rebuild.

As a sociologist and as a fervent supporter of the "true art of thinking", the text fast became for me a sign that today's 'thinkers' are not allowing the information society to internalize itself without some resistance. Roszak points out the glaring inconsistencies of the "wave of the future", in that computer technology, while often useful, is not the cure for all our ills; it cannot hope to equal or surpass the true, human process of ideation, theory construction, and the very social act of learning. I thank Roszak for making clear in a "Neo-Luddite" fashion that the easy answers are not always the best. Computer technology, he states, is a solution in search of a problem; to my mind, this can do naught but generate problems in a myriad of forms. A clear, thorough thinker, Roszak has given us food for thought...and we'd better sit down to our meal.

The Cult of Information is a heartfelt but in the end unsatisfying book, The cause for this disappointment can be found in the book's subtitle which contains the phrase `And The True Art of Thinking'. Roszak is deeply concerned that the computer is commonly used as a model of the brain. He is concerned by the importance that some give to computer skills. He is concerned that the time taken to learn computer skills lessens the amount of time children have to learn how to live in a truly human environment. He is concerned that people will begin to think that they can only act in the strictly procedural way that computers act. He is concerned that the computer brain model will make people believe that they can only aspire to the rudimentary types of interactions that computers are capable of.

Roszak spends most of his book creating examples to illustrate his concerns. However the book would have been better is Roszak had a better idea of what human thinking was really about. Instead of many many declarations that human thought is intuitive and impossible to explain, a review of the brain mechanisms that have been discovered to be behind thought, learning, emotion etc. would have been much better.

Roszak would have discovered that far being purely procedural devices, new models of computer activity are now in widespread use. These models were developed because the lack of capability that the procedural model exhibits was recognized by specialists in computer science and artificial intelligence. Indeed the same criticism that Roszak gives of computers not being capable of truly fitting itself for detailed interaction in a human environment was one of the reasons that these new models were developed. New `situated' models of computer behavior are designed from the beginning to fit themselves in to the world of humanity. They are designed as an attempt to do the routine things such as driving a car, mowing a lawn etc. that Roszak says that computers are incapable of. That these are very difficult tasks for a computer to do and that true success in this area has not yet been achieved does not deny the fact that the attempt is bing made.

Roszak seems to have a very narrow view on what human interaction is about. He does not attempt to describe it clearly. His understanding of Marshall Mcluhan is definitely lacking. He makes a statement about Marshall Mcluhan's views on television that is clearly incorrect. His lack of understanding of human activities is shown by his confounding of activities that Mcluhan would have called `hot' and `cool'. For Roszak, learning is a hot occupation. Learning is a matter of solitary thought whose goal is develop to a private understanding. Roszak never seems to describe a `cool' interaction that takes place publicly and whose goal is sharing and accomplishment.

Roszak's book is worth reading for the depth and sincerity of its concerns. It would have been better if the computer and modern forms of computer mediated interactions would have been describe doing, were more than a cartoon outline. As Mcluhan and many others have demonstrated the computer is part of a technological development that is changing the way people interact and so changes their view of themselves. Some of these changes are for the good and others are most definitely for the ill. Mcluhan and Innis, years before Roszak, recognized this and founded an insightful literature which explores this area. Roszak describes his book as a treatise. However it is more of an emotional cry in opposition to the ill effects that computers and computer mediated communication can have on humanity. Read it to understand the concerns that the neo-Luddites, as Roszak describes himself, have about technology. Read Mcluhan and others to understand these effects.

Good information that reminds us that computers think much differently than humans. They use information and process it in structured binary codes which can produce not only mathematics, but replicas of music, art and video. So it appears that robots and thinking based on bits of information is the same as humans. But what Rozak convincingly employs is that the human brain is wired much differently.

In this he shows that the human mind gains insight from various nonstructured areas that come together where we gain flashes of insight with much unpredictability, while computer random chips do the very opposite by reducing the preformulated bits of information, restricting one of multiple answers. So there is a tremendous difference in the wiring of the human mind and the computer processor, the human far more complex and superior.

What Roszak brings out is the loss of clarity and distinction of such differences and the commercialism and profit in elevating the idea that information is the same as human thinking. And yet it is human ideas that act as prerequisite for the shaping of the information to fit a particular paradigm.

Ideas create information, not the other way around. Every fact grows from an idea; it is the answer to a question we could not ask in the first place if an idea had not been invented which isolated some portion of the world, make it important, focused our attention, and stimulated inquiry. p. 105

What happens then, when we blur the distinction between ideas and information and teach children that information processing is the basis of thought? Or when we set about building an "information economy:" which spends more and more of its resources accumulating and processing facts? For one thing, we buy even deeper the substructures of ideas on which information stands, placing them further from critical reflection. For example, we begin to pay more attention to "economic indicators" - which are always convenient, simple-looking numbers - than to the assumptions about work, wealth, and well-being which underlie economic policy. Indeed, our orthodox economic science is awash in a flood of statistical figments that server mainly to obfuscate basic questions of value, purpose and justice. What contribution has the computer make to this situation? It has raised the flood level, pouring out misleading and distracting information from every government agency and corporate boardroom. but even more ironically, the hard focus on information which the computer encourages must in time have the effect of crowding out new ideas, which are the intellectual source that generates facts. In the long run, no ideas, no information." pp. 109-107

Now the book goes into the history of computers and is somewhat outdated, published in the mid 1980's and a lot has changed since then, however this does not take away from the pervious history of computer technology and the message of major differences between computer logic compared to human insight, as well as the differences between memory, processing and creation of new ideas.

This book is interesting not because of its arguments and philosophy but for the fact that the author attacks all areas that might be construed to make use of information theory. The computer, he claims, has taken the place of the emperor, and he aims to expose it as naked, to speak up and protect the "public" against the misinformation and propanda that is propagated by certain "elements" of our society. All fields of expertise that use the computer, be it financial engineering, simulation and modeling, bioinformatics, and especially artificial intelligence are attacked for their exaggerations and wishful thinking. The author's approach is deeply cynical, full of biting sarcasm, and with only a few exceptions, there are no coherent, scientific arguments to support the author's views. In particular, he makes claims on the nature of human intelligence and the human mind that are totally unsupported and mystical in nature. Ironically, his amplification of human mental abilities is comparable to that of the "information cultists" he criticizes.

The author claims that the abilities of the computer have been over-advertised, but he confuses the content of the advertising with the beliefs of the individuals who promote it. In this hyper-competitive society, every firm has to advertise to get noticed, to get its point across. Such huckstering is done for business reasons, and yes, is sometimes exaggerated. But the inaccurate claims of the advertising, if any, should not cause one to believe that they are held in the minds of the those who invented the product. But the author will have none of this, for his goal is to protect the "public" against these false claims (regardless if they ask for his help).

Financial engineering and derivatives trading are not left out of the criticism. Apparently the author does not believe in the use of the human mind which he has set out to save, for it is by using it that creative financial instruments are invented, with the intent of reducing risk. Financial engineers are "hackers" though, responsible for the 1987 stock market collapse, and the derivative is an "Alice in Wonderland" concept, a "financial hydrogen bomb". The author quotes sources for these claims, but no explicit evidence whatsoever is given for his assertion that derivatives are devastating to the economy. Such evidence would be very interesting for those who work in financial engineering.

The author's view of thinking machines as not living up to the "megahype" is just plain wrong, along with his belief that those who are behind this technology are duped by wishful thinking. The reverse is true in fact, as AI researchers are usually the last to acknowledge the claim that what they have built does exhibit some sort of intelligence. If they make outlandish and overly-optimistic claims, it is because of their doubts, and not of their confidence. The difficulties and let-downs of research require sometimes periodic shot-in-the-arms. But again, the author feels the need to protect the "public" against their inflated claims.

One can expect more neo-Luddite books like this in the years to come, primarily from those who are having difficulty comprehending the true nature of the technology and science behind the information age. The "public" though will not be writing these books, nor do they need them. The overwhelming majority of the world's citizens are intelligent enough to judge for themselves what is confronting them. The advertising will continue along with the research and development. The machines will get smarter and smarter with each passing year. Imperfections will exist in these machines as they do in the humans who brought them about. One can imagine though the possibility that the machines will themselves begin to write books that offer arguments for the intelligence of their authors. Such a prospect is awesome.

The fellow who coined the phrase "secular humanism" is not about to embrace the full nature of the internet. It would naturally be anathema to him, just as he prized Blake but damned Wordsworth. Roszak is the most Aristotelian of extreme-romance writers. I wish he would take up another hobby.