• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

Science Proves Heidegger (Partially) Correct?

February 10, 2011 by Daniel Horne 10 Comments

Schematic Heidegger

Irony so overwhelming I want to tweet about it with a #Heidegger hashtag:

A scientific study recently found empirical support for Heidegger's concept of zuhanden, which was discussed in the Being and Time podcast.* Wired Science covered the story last year, but the study itself is short enough that you can get through it during a lunch break. To quote the summary section of the paper:

Heidegger's phenomenology has been influential in the cognitive sciences, despite the fact that no attempts have been made to empirically confirm his insights. The experiments in this paper support Heidegger's description of the transition from readiness-to-hand to unreadiness-to-hand, a phenomenon that is key for his overall phenomenological philosophy. When humans are smoothly coping with entities ready-to-hand, they see through their tools to focus on the task they are using those tools to complete. When that coping is disrupted by a temporary malfunction, humans can no longer see through the malfunctioning tool and experience it as unready-to-hand. We demonstrated this transition by showing that when participants smoothly operate a mouse in a video game task, the body-tool performance displays the complex dynamics typical of an IDS [interaction-dominant dynamics]. Temporarily disrupting mouse behavior temporarily disrupted this IDS, at least at the body-tool boundary. We also showed that this disruption led to a reconfiguration of the participants' awareness of the situation by showing a shift in resources allocated to an additional cognitive task. This is closing in on Heidegger's transition from readiness-to-hand to unreadiness-to-hand. We take these experiments as progress toward justifying the influence that Heidegger's phenomenological philosophy has had on cognitive sciences and justifying the partly Heidegger-inspired claim that cognitive systems sometimes extend beyond the biological body.

Take that, positivists! I'm not capable of assessing the quality of the study, but it looks impressive enough. More interestingly, some smartipantzen undergrads over at CalTech cited the study as inspiration for their class project on web browser optimization. One of them now works at Google. So, the ideas of a notoriously anti-technological fascist philosopher may now be influencing new ways to improve web browsers. This may be the only justice history can offer!

*Note that Hubert Dreyfus has also applied Heideggerian concepts to analysis of high technology, but Dreyfus never attempted any empirical research of which I'm aware.

-Daniel Horne

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Web Detritus Tagged With: cognitive science, computing machinery, Hubert Dreyfus, intentionality, Martin Heidegger

Comments

  1. Burl says

    February 11, 2011 at 7:21 am

    Dan, quite interesting…

    You might enjoy reading Pirsig’s discussion of ‘stuckness’ using a stuck screw on a motorcycle to demonstrate how caring (open-ness to Quality) is what is required to form new relationships between subject (mechanic) and object (screw) in order to gain a purchase on the task. Stuckness is unreadiness-yo-hand.

    In that same section, Pirsig gives his train car/moving train analogy of Quality. The engine, cars and all their contents – static Quality – this is the ‘stuff’ of reality = present-to-hand. But to be of any value, the train must be moving – going somewhere = readiness – to – hand. Where it goes is represented as the leading edge of the engine, and this is dynamic Quality. This is the stuff of intentionality and Dazine.

    But it is written in good old American pragmatic processual English and has been read by millions.

    Reply
  2. enowning says

    February 11, 2011 at 9:35 am

    I think it’s a mistake to interpret Heidegger’s way of thinking as anti-technology. The danger is that humans will just think technicity (consider themselves resources for the machine), but he says the response is not to turn back (say to humanist classisism), but move forward to a new understanding of technology. That said, personally, he himself wasn’t that impressed with technology, preferring pens to typewriters, but it is necessary, especially in his case, to seperate his behavior from his philosophy, as his is not an exemplary life.

    Reply
  3. Ethan Gach says

    February 11, 2011 at 10:48 am

    How could a scientific study be damning to positivists?

    Reply
  4. Daniel Horne says

    February 11, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    Hi Burl,

    I keep hearing about ZAMM from so many sources, I will probably get around to it before long.

    Reply
  5. David Buchanan says

    February 13, 2011 at 11:47 pm

    Howdy gents: This study made me think of Pirsig’s work too. It certainly seems to support what he and Heidegger said about “caring” as an act so absorbing and engaging that you loose yourself. The other day I saw an article wherein the author described Pirsig’s artful mechanic as a person in the psychological state know as “flow”. It’s also known as feeling groovy, being way into it, in the zone, etc..

    Have you heard about “Heidegger’s Hidden Sources”? This book makes a case that many of his central ideas were taken from the East. I think it explains why he sometimes sounds so Zen. Pirsig studied in Indian for a while and he helped to found the Zen center in Minneapolis but his main influence was Northrop, a man from Yale.

    Thanks for posting the science, Dan. Fascinating.

    Reply
  6. Ricardo says

    January 4, 2017 at 9:36 am

    You made me think man. Did not understood a word, but you made me think.
    I am a neuroscientist lately wondering if I understood anything at all in 20 years of brain study.
    So thanks for opening ways 🙂

    Reply
  7. Devin Angeline says

    November 26, 2017 at 1:21 am

    I realize I’m many years late to this conversation, but wanted to comment, anyway. 😉

    @Dan: Thanks for the fun post on the Heideggerian cog psy study! Gah, don’t you just love when some new piece of research comes out, that validates some old bit of philosophical thought? Makes me wanna shout, ‘Booya, bitches! I knew it!’ at noone in particular.

    Reply
  8. Devin Angeline says

    November 26, 2017 at 1:23 am

    @Burl: Thanks for reminding me about Robert Pirsig, and for linking him into the convo about Heidegger. As someone who’s newly ‘digging in’ to explicit explorations of philosophy (thank you, PEL!) — I would never have made that connection on my own.

    Reply
  9. Devin Angeline says

    November 26, 2017 at 1:58 am

    @David: Thanks for mentioning the bit about Pirsig’s (philosophical-?) influences. I read ZAMM only once, more than a decade ago. And while I remember almost nothing of the ideas contained — I have almost ‘sense memories’ of how pleasurable and thrilling I found the read.

    I seem to remember the book triggering for me, at the time, a jumble of excited connections and insights regarding my process, and practice, of creativity. Heh: Though of what those consisted, has been wiped clean from my memory! (Perhaps it had something to do with the psychological state of ‘flow’, as you mention?)

    In any event — I’m looking forward, now, to revisiting the book! And to nosing around in its larger philosophical context, via PEL. 😀

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Tweets that mention Science Proves Heidegger (Partially) Correct? | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog -- Topsy.com says:
    February 13, 2011 at 7:58 am

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Accessory Philosophy, PartiallyXaminedLife. PartiallyXaminedLife said: Science Proves Heidegger (Partially) Correct?: Irony so overwhelming I want to tweet about it with a #Heidegger… http://bit.ly/h1fJdT […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Theo on Ep. 308: Moore’s Proof of Mind-Independent Reality (Part Two)
  • Seth Paskin on PEL Eulogies Nightcap Late March 2023
  • John Heath on PEL Eulogies Nightcap Late March 2023
  • Randy Strader on Ep. 309: Wittgenstein On Certainty (Part Two)
  • Wes Alwan on PEL Nightcap February 2023

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in