Tech Critics and the Limits of Anti-Tech Philosophy: A Skeptic's Take

In an era where tech critics have never been more vociferous in their diatribes against digital technology, a new wave of philosophical inquiry is shedding light on the complex relationship between humans and machines. But are these critics onto something, or are they relying on shaky ground?

Jason Kehe, a contrarian voice in the tech world, has taken to task the latest brand of anti-tech philosophy, one that posits that binary digits at its core can reveal the essence of human experience. Kehe cites René Descartes' philosophical method, where he stripped away everything else to arrive at his famous "I think, therefore I am." While Kehe acknowledges the intellectual rigor on display, he argues that this approach is a misstep.

"You can break down problems into their constituent bits," Kehe writes, "but the question remains: what do those bits say about the world? Do they reveal some fundamental truth about reality, or are they just simplistic caricatures of human experience?"

Kehe cites the example of gene-based reasoning, where genes only account for a minority of how we develop and behave. He argues that binary digits, similarly, cannot explain the full scope of human cognition. "New behaviors always emerge at the intersection of complex systems," he writes. "You can't look at computer code and know what will happen entirely."

Furthermore, Kehe charges that anti-tech philosophers such as Aden Evens have oversimplified their arguments by relying on binary logic to define the limits of computation. Kehe argues that this approach ignores the complex evolution of technology over time and neglects the human agency involved in creating these systems.

Kehe concludes that the relationship between humanity and technology is far more nuanced than what advocates like Evens suggest. "We invent technology," he writes. "Technology doesn't invent us."

As we continue to explore the impact of digital technologies on society, it's essential to examine the philosophical underpinnings of these debates. By considering multiple perspectives – including those that challenge conventional wisdom – we can develop a more informed understanding of our complicated relationship with machines.

Read more at wired.com