"because you're mucking about with a stupid phone instead of enjoying the moment with your family."
This, a thousand times over. Was at the beach last week, there was a seal sunbathing on a rock 50m from shore... Around me I could hear people complaining they couldn't see it properly - because all weren't looking at it, rather at the crappy digital zoom on their phones.
I just looked at the fucking thing, these eye things work pretty well. I'd rather be present and use my meat-based memory than have a "memory" on my phone of an event I viewed through a glass, darkly.
Also, 16gb 5s here, space I have to think about quarterly, if that.
I'd rather be present and use my meat-based memory than have a "memory" on my phone of an event I viewed through a glass, darkly.
Neal Stephenson, writing in 1999:
I was in Disney World recently, specifically the part of it called the Magic Kingdom, walking up Main Street USA. This is a perfect gingerbready Victorian small town that culminates in a Disney castle. It was very crowded; we shuffled rather than walked. Directly in front of me was a man with a camcorder. It was one of the new breed
of camcorders where instead of peering through a viewfinder you gaze at a flat-panel color screen about the size of a playing card, which televises live coverage of whatever the camcorder is seeing. He was holding the appliance close to his face, so that it obstructed his view. Rather than go see a real small town for free, he had paid money
to see a pretend one, and rather than see it with the naked eye he was watching it on television.
And rather than stay home and read a book, I was watching him.
Americans' preference for mediated experiences is obvious enough, and I'm not going to keep pounding it into the ground. I'm not even going to make snotty comments about it--after all, I was at Disney World as a paying customer.
There's a wide range of variation between being glued to a camera and using no camera. The last time I was at a scenic spot, I took four pictures in one minute and then put my phone away. The pictures do help with recalling the whole experience, such as the wind in my face (it was on top of a cliff overlooking the ocean).
This is why lifelogging is so important. I don't want to have to be distracted from my life making sure that I preserve memories in a higher-fidelity format than meat, but I do want to preserve those memories. Further, the ones that mean the most to me later are almost always spontaneous and unplanned, so a manually operated camera isn't especially useful for them, anyway.
I want full recording of everything I see and hear at qualities high enough that I can go back and look at things I missed the first time. I thought Google Glass was the start of that, but it looks like it's going to be a few more years.
There is no way that the experiences you will have while recording everything will be the same as without. Unless you think you are going to live forever and get super bored in 300 years, just live your life and live in the moment.
Because people do not act the same when they are being recorded and when every statement they make can be reviewed in the future. Unless you are secretly recording them, don't count on an experience not filled with awkward self consciousness. You may find that a significant amount of people will not want you around them, including the staff of any buisness you are in.
If you think this is good, like some sort of pressure to make the public more accountable for what they say... I would warn that instead of an ethical wonderland you may find yourself in a panopticon pressure cooker with the status quo in power.
In most situations where people are currently recorded constantly, the recording doesn't seem to produce social awkwardness. Nearly every urban public or semi-public space is this way; one may argue that cities are pressure cookers, but it's not clear to me that the reason is ubiquitous recording.
In any case, as the tech to record becomes ever smaller and less obtrusive, there will ultimately be no way to know whether you are being recorded digitally. Therefore society and people's reactions will adjust.
Yes but there is a key difference between constant recording being spread across a disconnected sprawl that is only accessible to a police office willing to drop by the local 711... And a recorded stream made by a person around you who is able to quickly review and forever archive the content.
I think in the end it will become quite taboo to operate a recording device with your friends all the time. Maybe it will become okay to turn it on during a jog through the city or a trip to the fair, but having your recording device turned on while enjoying a glass of wine with me on my back porch will be a no-no. Having it own while at the gym? No. Client meeting or anything work related which could contain company "secrets"? No. Maybe I'm wrong and there will be a cultural shift in which we all just submit ourselves to this sort of social survalience, but I find it hard to imagine it happening in any sphere more interesting than a family trip to the Apple Store.
There is no way that a first date and the potential trip back to my place has any room for a recording, it's just not a psychological and social fit.
The thing is, you're already recording those things, just in low fidelity and with poor searchability. If the tech were coming from the other direction, as "improved memory" and the ability to download memories to external storage, how would that change your view on tabooing?
I think you are making a weak argument that creating concrete audio/video recordings has any similarity to the memory of one's mind. There is such a massive ocean of difference between the filters of perception and distortion in memory recollection and video recordings, I think you are making the brain out to be something it isn't.
Nonetheless, this is an interesting debate. Reminds me of an episode of Black Mirror. Check that out for sure, it basically illustrates what you are saying. I found the segment in which before boarding an airplane passengers were required to allow the security to review their memory quite disturbing. Extrapolate that invasion of privacy in every other direction. Having whatever cloud or personal drive you record to be potentially hackable or open for evidence in the courts... It's just some dystopian death of privacy territory that I can't ever seeing the public embracing. Then again, maybe they will and if they do I'll be moving myself to whatever state our country is willing to stand up for privacy and ban such devices.
The basis of my position is the historical record that the most important ideas and movements towards advancements in human rights have often started out as illegal, unpopular and challenges to the status quo. The idea that we can stop crime by recording everything is an illusion and will only serve to suppress advancements which defy the current rule of law.
I think you may be arguing against points I'm not making; my argument has nothing to do with stopping crime, but is about my desire for perfect recall of everything that ever happens to me. I think we'll get closer and closer to that, but just audio and video of every waking moment would be a huge jump toward it.
I've seen Black Mirror, and liked it for the most part. I don't remember that particular scene, though. Maybe it's time for a rewatch. :)
Right on, I hear ya. My fears lie with the implications of having these recordings exist. I think that they will quickly become more than just a keepsake as soon as the police decide they can use them to solve crimes. I think withholding your recordings from any investigation which could be aided with them will become a crime in itself and yeah... I just have real worries about the state of affairs regarding surveillance. I'm a bit of a kook about that stuff though.
I'd rather be present and use my meat-based memory than have a "memory" on my phone of an event I viewed through a glass, darkly.
I'd rather have a digital memory, as poor as it may be, than rely on my meat-based memory which is terrible at the best of times, and many important events I lose quickly, without a way to refresh them periodically—like a photograph. So awesome for you that your memory is great, but that's not universal.
Comments
"because you're mucking about with a stupid phone instead of enjoying the moment with your family."
This, a thousand times over. Was at the beach last week, there was a seal sunbathing on a rock 50m from shore... Around me I could hear people complaining they couldn't see it properly - because all weren't looking at it, rather at the crappy digital zoom on their phones.
I just looked at the fucking thing, these eye things work pretty well. I'd rather be present and use my meat-based memory than have a "memory" on my phone of an event I viewed through a glass, darkly.
Also, 16gb 5s here, space I have to think about quarterly, if that.
I'd rather be present and use my meat-based memory than have a "memory" on my phone of an event I viewed through a glass, darkly.
Neal Stephenson, writing in 1999:
I was in Disney World recently, specifically the part of it called the Magic Kingdom, walking up Main Street USA. This is a perfect gingerbready Victorian small town that culminates in a Disney castle. It was very crowded; we shuffled rather than walked. Directly in front of me was a man with a camcorder. It was one of the new breed of camcorders where instead of peering through a viewfinder you gaze at a flat-panel color screen about the size of a playing card, which televises live coverage of whatever the camcorder is seeing. He was holding the appliance close to his face, so that it obstructed his view. Rather than go see a real small town for free, he had paid money to see a pretend one, and rather than see it with the naked eye he was watching it on television.
And rather than stay home and read a book, I was watching him.
Americans' preference for mediated experiences is obvious enough, and I'm not going to keep pounding it into the ground. I'm not even going to make snotty comments about it--after all, I was at Disney World as a paying customer.
I'd rather be present and use my meat-based memory than have a "memory" on my phone of an event I viewed through a glass, darkly.
I'm going to blow your mind: you are actually allowed to do both.
... you are actually allowed to do both.
Allowed, yes. Capable, not likely. Multitasking is overrated and actually counterproductive when writing to the meat-store inside your skull.
There's a wide range of variation between being glued to a camera and using no camera. The last time I was at a scenic spot, I took four pictures in one minute and then put my phone away. The pictures do help with recalling the whole experience, such as the wind in my face (it was on top of a cliff overlooking the ocean).
This is why lifelogging is so important. I don't want to have to be distracted from my life making sure that I preserve memories in a higher-fidelity format than meat, but I do want to preserve those memories. Further, the ones that mean the most to me later are almost always spontaneous and unplanned, so a manually operated camera isn't especially useful for them, anyway.
I want full recording of everything I see and hear at qualities high enough that I can go back and look at things I missed the first time. I thought Google Glass was the start of that, but it looks like it's going to be a few more years.
There is no way that the experiences you will have while recording everything will be the same as without. Unless you think you are going to live forever and get super bored in 300 years, just live your life and live in the moment.
There is no way that the experiences you will have while recording everything will be the same as without.
If the recording is completely passive, as randallsquared was saying, why not?
Because people do not act the same when they are being recorded and when every statement they make can be reviewed in the future. Unless you are secretly recording them, don't count on an experience not filled with awkward self consciousness. You may find that a significant amount of people will not want you around them, including the staff of any buisness you are in.
If you think this is good, like some sort of pressure to make the public more accountable for what they say... I would warn that instead of an ethical wonderland you may find yourself in a panopticon pressure cooker with the status quo in power.
In most situations where people are currently recorded constantly, the recording doesn't seem to produce social awkwardness. Nearly every urban public or semi-public space is this way; one may argue that cities are pressure cookers, but it's not clear to me that the reason is ubiquitous recording.
In any case, as the tech to record becomes ever smaller and less obtrusive, there will ultimately be no way to know whether you are being recorded digitally. Therefore society and people's reactions will adjust.
Yes but there is a key difference between constant recording being spread across a disconnected sprawl that is only accessible to a police office willing to drop by the local 711... And a recorded stream made by a person around you who is able to quickly review and forever archive the content.
I think in the end it will become quite taboo to operate a recording device with your friends all the time. Maybe it will become okay to turn it on during a jog through the city or a trip to the fair, but having your recording device turned on while enjoying a glass of wine with me on my back porch will be a no-no. Having it own while at the gym? No. Client meeting or anything work related which could contain company "secrets"? No. Maybe I'm wrong and there will be a cultural shift in which we all just submit ourselves to this sort of social survalience, but I find it hard to imagine it happening in any sphere more interesting than a family trip to the Apple Store.
There is no way that a first date and the potential trip back to my place has any room for a recording, it's just not a psychological and social fit.
The thing is, you're already recording those things, just in low fidelity and with poor searchability. If the tech were coming from the other direction, as "improved memory" and the ability to download memories to external storage, how would that change your view on tabooing?
I think you are making a weak argument that creating concrete audio/video recordings has any similarity to the memory of one's mind. There is such a massive ocean of difference between the filters of perception and distortion in memory recollection and video recordings, I think you are making the brain out to be something it isn't.
Nonetheless, this is an interesting debate. Reminds me of an episode of Black Mirror. Check that out for sure, it basically illustrates what you are saying. I found the segment in which before boarding an airplane passengers were required to allow the security to review their memory quite disturbing. Extrapolate that invasion of privacy in every other direction. Having whatever cloud or personal drive you record to be potentially hackable or open for evidence in the courts... It's just some dystopian death of privacy territory that I can't ever seeing the public embracing. Then again, maybe they will and if they do I'll be moving myself to whatever state our country is willing to stand up for privacy and ban such devices.
The basis of my position is the historical record that the most important ideas and movements towards advancements in human rights have often started out as illegal, unpopular and challenges to the status quo. The idea that we can stop crime by recording everything is an illusion and will only serve to suppress advancements which defy the current rule of law.
I think you may be arguing against points I'm not making; my argument has nothing to do with stopping crime, but is about my desire for perfect recall of everything that ever happens to me. I think we'll get closer and closer to that, but just audio and video of every waking moment would be a huge jump toward it.
I've seen Black Mirror, and liked it for the most part. I don't remember that particular scene, though. Maybe it's time for a rewatch. :)
Right on, I hear ya. My fears lie with the implications of having these recordings exist. I think that they will quickly become more than just a keepsake as soon as the police decide they can use them to solve crimes. I think withholding your recordings from any investigation which could be aided with them will become a crime in itself and yeah... I just have real worries about the state of affairs regarding surveillance. I'm a bit of a kook about that stuff though.
Who said anything about multitasking? You do one, and then the other!
Snapping a picture then enjoying it with your eyes is not multitaskkng. It's just doing something one after the other.
I'd rather have a digital memory, as poor as it may be, than rely on my meat-based memory which is terrible at the best of times, and many important events I lose quickly, without a way to refresh them periodically—like a photograph. So awesome for you that your memory is great, but that's not universal.