Role of technology in the pyramid of human mind’s “existence, investigation and agency”
“Technology” is an involved, emotive and variegated concept. It is involved in that it is an integral part of human life and has an imprint on most matters that matter to us. It is emotive in that it influences most facets of our lives, and hence engages our cognitive states and insinuates strong affective reactions. It is variegated in that it refers to a broad spectrum of objects and artefacts, manners in which tasks get done, and increasingly even ways of life. Technology has now turned into this immeasurable draw of which the human kind can never have enough.
The word “technology” has its roots in the Greek word techne, which means “art or skill of hand”. Definitionally then, “technology” could refer to techniques, skills and methods that are used for the accomplishment of objectives. Macroeconomic domains and the world of industry have converted the word “technology” to mean the techniques and skills used for the production of goods and services. Within the domain of industry, the strident world of information technology has usurped the word to refer to its products and services. In a meek way, the world of academia has used the word to refer to its approaches for scientific inquiry.
Where does technology now find most prominence in the pyramidal chain of human thought, action and veritable existence? Where is it rampant and endemic, to the point of being synonymous with the domain itself? At which points in the chain is the relevance of technology in its growth phase? Which are those levels in the pyramid where technology has found its niche, and is quite content to retain its minimalistic presence and relevance? Which are the areas of human occupation and disciplines of human preoccupation where technology is starkly absent, but could possibly play a defining role in the future?
Consider then a possible picture of the pyramid of the human mind’s “existence, investigation and agency”. At the top of the pyramid, say at Level One, are the states of mind – cognitive, affective, conative – that are a result of stimuli made up of specific propositions. These states of mind in turn lead to Level Two, which are the doxastic states held by the individual such as justified and unjustified beliefs, attitudes, hopes, desires and fears. The next level is a direct upshot of Level Two, and manifests as intelligible theories about the way the world is. This Level Three consists of apriori or aposteriori theories about states of affairs, and let us consider them “first principles” within the realm of philosophy. The task of problem solving is an integral component and enabler of Level Two and Level Three of the pyramid.
Level Four then conducts rational deduction or empirical examination on the first principles, and forms detailed theories that are ready for implementation and application. Level Five comprises the application of these theories for the purpose of worldly useful objectives such as goods or service production. Level Six, which can be considered a subset of Level Five, is the task of delivering the goods or services or the final end product of the endeavour to the intended recipient.
Where in this pyramid does technology have maximum presence and sway? Clearly scientific investigation during the 19th and early 20th centuries got technology entrenched in Level Four of the pyramid. While approaches such as deductive and inductive thinking drove rational approaches, advancements in scientific experiment design and data analysis techniques drove empirical research.
It was during the last century, with industrialisation and trade at global scale, that global businesses and industry usurped the word technology for itself, with its consummate use for the production of goods and services. Technology had found its pride of place in Level Five of the pyramid. The advancement of information technology during the last two decades has now taken technology to a new domain of services delivery, exemplified by the rise of social media, ecommerce and artificial intelligence.
Where though is technology in the upper half of the pyramid? The first three levels in the chain of the human mind’s “existence, investigation and agency” appears clearly to be the preserve of individuals and the unique machinations of their unique minds. No doubt, cognitive research techniques have established themselves to understand states of individual minds. However, these techniques of research, and their downstream variants in the form of market research, appear to rely on the techniques of “introspection” and “self-examination”, while grossly overstating the abilities of these techniques.
Experimental psychology in the late 19th century and the school of “structuralism” during the first decades of the 20th century highlighted the limitations of introspective techniques. But the untimely death of structuralism and the simultaneous rise of behaviourism and its dominance for most part of the last century has ensured that technological advancement in the upper half of the pyramid has remained in a moribund state. In fact, the difficulty in validating outcomes has led to the rise of “false” and expedient technologies that purport to achieve outcomes that they do not in reality. The market research industry is an example of an industry that suffers from the prominence of unvalidated technologies that falsely claim to research and accurately or representatively read the human mind.
The challenge of technology during the next decades lies in making its presence felt and having real impact in the upper half of the pyramid. The central question is: “how can technology develop consistent, stable and effective approaches for the inquiry into the fundamental and deep-seated issues of the human mind’s existence, investigation and agency?”
For this challenge to be overcome, the questions that should irk and goad thinkers in the disciplines of philosophy, psychology, sociology and psycho-biology will be related to domains such as states of mind, mental representation, epistemology and justified true belief, introspective techniques, collective intentionality, intrinsic motivation and measurement philosophy.
Consider a sample of such questions. How develop techniques based on introspection and self-examination that can reveal the subject’s state of mind, including her doxastic states, within reasonable limits of error tolerance? Under what conditions in practical life can “knowledge” be defined in terms less stringent than “justified true belief” and be predicated on truth-based concepts such as “truthlikeness”? How does one, in real life situations, instil motivation in third-person terms, while acknowledging that the only form of motivation that can lead to agency is “intrinsic motivation” of the first-person variety? What brand of “collective intentionality” – summative or non-summative – best represents collective agency for large groups such as those in organisations, and what are techniques to comprehend and leverage these? What are philosophies and ways to standardise the measurement of abstract psychologic concepts such as those related to mental states and representations?
Solutions to these intractable issues do exist, but less so in scientific, empirical and analytical domains. Philosophical thinking and rationalist apriori approaches will be of greater help. Moreover, the definition of “technology” needs to transcend semiconductors and information technology, and encompass all that helps us look inwards. This future journey of technology to understand humankind is at antipodes with its past journey of leveraging and using it. And in this journey, technology is not beholden to be smooth and sophisticated, and can afford to be rugged and earthy, but perforce has to be honest, humble and deep.