Interviews
On Saturday, May 23rd, barnesandnoble.com welcomed Tor Norretranders to discuss THE USER ILLUSION.
Moderator: Welcome, Tor Norretranders! Thank you for taking the time to join us online this afternoon. How are you doing today?
Tor Norretranders: Thank you for the invitation. This will be fun! I am doing fine tonight -- here in Copenhagen it's 9pm of a fine spring evening. So let's get started.
Paul from Morris Plains, NJ: What would you consider some nonconscious human activities?
Tor Norretranders: Most human activities are nonconscious, in particular when the human performing them has experience in doing them. The better we are at something -- say, typing -- the less we are conscious of the process as we perform it. Many activities, such as dancing, singing, playing with kids, playing soccer, entering into a deep conversation, or caring for someone else, cannot be done under the control and supervision of consciousness, but only when we trust ourselves enough to be nonconscious while doing it. That's the reason most of us seem to sing best when showering -- we believe no one is listening.
Mike from MMuntz@yahoo.com: How do you define consciousness?
Tor Norretranders: For something to be conscious and hence part of our conscious awareness we have to be conscious of it. This means that an activity can be perfectly rational, meaningful, purposeful, and functional yet not be something that we are aware of. Thus consciousness must be limited to the mental phenomena and actions that we actually are conscious of. And that is not much! Most things we do without conscious awareness. Thus the concept of consciousness can only be used when the person involved reports to be conscious of something. We cannot project consciousness into activities or states just because they seem functional or rational to us. It is different from knowing, feeling, thinking, sensing, in the sense that consciousness is to know we know, to feel that we feel, to think that we think, to sense that we sense, because we do a lot of this without actually being aware of it. Consciousness is subjective; my conscious experience can be had by no one else. Therefore, it can not be approached only on the basis of objective criteria, like a pulse or a muscle tonus.
Mac from Richmond, VA: What led you to the theory that the human mind consciously processes only 16 of the 11 million bits of information?
Tor Norretranders: Studies done over more than four decades indicate that we are not able to process more than a few handfuls of bits in a conscious way. Much more is going on inside us and between us and the world around us, but we are not at any moment conscious of the temperature of the room, even though we sense it, or the expansion of the universe. However, consciousness is as alert as it is narrow. We can jump quickly between being aware of the tightness of our shoes to ponder the infinite universe. But we cannot think of both at the same time. The number for the intake of information, 11 million bits per second, tells us how much information can enter our brain from the sensory apparatus and is a mainstream number used in many textbooks on neurophysiology, etc. On a more personal note, what led me to an interest in these numbers was the evident difference between what language and conscious reflection can convey between us and what we actually seem to know about each other. Clearly, there's more to meeting a person than a transcript of the conversation could convey.
Yohan from Suffern, NY: What type of empirical evidence do you have to support your theories?
Tor Norretranders: Many studies in neurophysiology, the study of the bodily basis for mental activity. Studies in information theory, in psychology, and other fields referred to in the book. Although the conclusions seem radical and surprising, the body of evidence supporting them is very strong. Most workers in the study of the mind would nowadays agree that consciousness plays a much smaller role in human functioning than everybody would have thought just a few decades ago. The book gives a long list of references to such work.
The Free King from Midwestern USA: Sir, what you say in your book is surely inspired and the product of great consideration that only an unfettered mind with talent could have produced, but isn't this all a bit impractical? The information to support your concepts is there, but as is said where I live, "You can use statistics (data, information) to prove anything. Sixty-three percent of us know that." Doesn't the idea that we should even attempt to alter our thinking patterns in such extensive ways invite an unresolvable conflict between the inherent nature of human thought and the abstract concepts it's capable of grasping? Is it even worth considering the attempt if it isn't compatible with the natural order that's already in place?
Tor Norretranders: My point is that we all suffer from an illusion of conscious control and believe that most of the good and great things we do are the result of conscious control. But this is a myth, in particular when we do very creative or benevolent things. Thus, I am not trying to change any natural order but to illuminate the fact that we could have more fun, do better work, and care more for each other if we allowed ourselves to understand that the good things and the good deeds come from our entire persons, rather than our conscious self-control. In a sense, what I am saying is something we all know but didn't perhaps know how to say.
Niki from Sudbury, MA: Were you the person to actually invent exformation? Had did that process come about?
Tor Norretranders: Yes, I invented the concept and gave it a name. It is closely related to concepts of depth in complexity theory (physics and mathematics) as is explained in the book. Exformation was a concept I needed to develop to understand communication. In particular as a writer, it is evident that most of the research you go through to write a book is not in the book but has to have been in your life (and have gone through your head) for the book to be of any interest. You compress 500 books into one volume. It struck me that really, this is what all communication is about: having something to say and then saying a little of it. So the most important part of a conversation is that which is not said but referred to in what is being said. Just like in this chat. Exformation is a neccessary complement to the concept of information, in order to make any progress in the study of human communication. Many people insist that the concept of information should deal with meaning, while it only deals with how difficult a message is to describe. My point is that something that contains very little information can be extremely meaningful and important, like a "yes" in a church. But the meaning is not in what is said, it is in what is referred to, the exformation, thrown-away information, in the mind of the communicator, but not in her mouth.
Tom from La Jolla, CA: Have you ever taught? Would you ever consider it?
Tor Norretranders: Yes, I have taught a lot and given numerous lectures here, there, and everywhere. My teaching has mainly been at college level and higher, but I used to do some high school stuff, too. Also, I have been doing a lot of television, which is basically teaching very big classes.
Krista from Knordgren@aol.com: What are your thoughts on the Internet? What type of future do you foresee for the Internet?
Tor Norretranders: I believe the Internet is of extreme importance. In a few decades, it will be everywhere, integrated into most activities, yet unnoticed like electricity is today. Considering the theoretical approach to human information processing of my book, I find it striking that telecommunications nowadays happens mainly at a bandwidth close to language and consciousness. In the near future, perhaps 15 years ahead, telecommunications will happen at the bandwidth of our sensory system. Thus the metaphor for telecommunications will not be conversation (like telephone) but presence. I do believe that this will be a major change in human interaction. We will have to invent as many ceremonies and protocols for regulating telecommunications as we now have for regulating presence (hello, goodbye, friend, marriage, hat-lifting, how are you, etc.). But we will have to do that over a few decades, as opposed to the thousands of years we've being developing protocols for presence. It is going to be some challenge. On the other hand, the democratic and ecological potentials in this are enormous. Everybody will have the ability to search and spread knowledge, contacts, and ideas. To make this coming communication chaos bearable, we'll have to invent many new schemes for human interaction. But it will help us see how little our conscious and language-based interaction actually convey. Artificial presence, which will be one of the consequences of the Internet, will, I believe, stimulate our interest in real presence, just being there, a theme much underestimated in our present culture. Hence, the implications of the Internet will also be ironical We will learn about the richness of being offline, because we try to mimic presence online.
Nick from New York City: How exactly do you suggest accepting chaos?
Tor Norretranders: By accepting the simple fact that we are not in control of the universe, even if our culture sometimes seems to believe so. We cannot plan, predict, and control everything. It is true for the environment but also for our personal life. To accept that is a relief to many, a source for fear and anxiety for others. My point is that we've been living fine without actually being in control, and that we can live even finer if we give up the attempt to be in control. The world is far richer than scientists were thinking just a few decades ago.
Niki from Niki_palek@yahoo.com: Does THE USER ILLUSION differ at all from MAERK VERDEN?
Tor Norretranders: THE USER ILLUSION is the American translation of the Danish book MAERK VERDEN.
Brian from Dayton, OH: I am a bit confused when you say, "Civilization is about linearity." Is that because of government, school, etc. restrictions on civilization? Can you please clear up with what you mean by civilization? I am a bit confused.
Tor Norretranders: Civilization is about linearity because it tends to limit the amount of information that we have to deal with in interacting with our environment: flattening out the terrain so we can drive bicycles and dance on the floor. It's great to do so, but my point is that the environment also becomes less interesting. When all we have is smooth roads and flat floors, only the biking and dancing can amuse us. But even if a summer meadow is difficult for bikes and hard on dancers, it is full of riches that we can just enjoy.
Carla from Santa Fe, NM: How exactly would you say that life is greater than we know?
Tor Norretranders: Because we cannot say to each other how great life is. We run out of words, out of time, and out of appreciation of the simple fact that life is so rich that we cannot express all of its richness. And we cannot know it either, for knowledge is about standing back from the flow of life and describing it. Hence my point is that you already know what I mean.
Steven from Berkeley, CA: I thought THE USER ILLUSION was great! How long have you been working on this book?
Tor Norretranders: Well, most of my life.... Professionally, I was working on this book for three years, but it's difficult to say, because it touches upon so many themes that I've dealt with in my professional and personal life, that it is hard to tell when it all started -- or ended. Thanks for the compliment.
Nick from New York City: Also, how do you suggest embracing the world? What specfically?
Tor Norretranders: Be here now and stretch out your arms in openness. If all you find is a computer screen, consider why you chose to be there, right now. I would guess that your motivation is just like mine We want to share our experience with other people. We have many ways of doing so. But openness is always vital. I know this answer leaves a lot to be deserved, but the question is really the most important part: how can one actually open up and embrace the world? Everybody will have to investigate for themselves. After all, no one can embrace it all. We have to do it together.
Moderator: Thank you, Tor Norretranders! Do you have any closing comments for the online audience?
Tor Norretranders: Thanks for an enjoyable and thought-provoking chat. I was impressed by the variety of themes taken up in the questions. It was a lot of fun to me. Have a nice day -- here in Copenhagen the spring evening has now become a pleasant and warm spring night. Best wishes and take care.