A friend shared this series of Google autocomplete search results on a social network, it contains screen captures of Google’s autocomplete feature along with a venn diagram produced from the resulting terms:

I was curious if I would get the same terms, so I tried it. As soon as I found that my results for “Why are Buddhists” were different in than the screen capture in the image above I decided to take more of my own samples. I tried out a few religions that came to mind off the top of my head. Here are the results of my autocomplete searches, taken today between 11:11 and 11:15:

Google autocomplete is described as an “algorithm” that “offers searches that might be similar to the one you’re typing.” Based on the description below of how they are produced, you may have different results when you search:

As you type, Google’s algorithm predicts and displays search queries based on other users’ search activities. These searches are algorithmically determined based on a number of purely objective factors (including popularity of search terms) without human intervention. All of the predicted queries shown have been typed previously by other Google users. The autocomplete dataset is updated frequently to offer fresh and rising search queries. In addition, if you’re signed in to your Google Account and have Web History enabled, you may see search queries from relevant searches that you’ve done in the past.

“The forms of knowledge that technologies mediate is integral to both a society’s cultural information pool, and to the extramental reality in which they live. Technology itself constitutes an alteration of that relationship — especially as it intervenes in the experiential aspects of that relationship . . . Technologies are in a sense ‘artifacts of knowledge’ (Laughlin 1988b) — they are alterations in material reality that, accompanied by meaning in peoples’ minds, facilitate intentional acts. As such technologies become part of the extramental reality in which we are embedded and to which we must adapt.” (p. 158)

“We would suggest that a society’s technical knowledge is precisely that aspect of their information pool that facilitates an alteration of the relationship between experience and extramental reality through the mediation of techniques and artifacts. In other words, technologies combine information from the culture pool (as meaning) with material and energy in extramental reality that have been purposefully altered in order to afford novel intentional acts.” (p. 159)

I asked the writer to recount their experience of visiting a “contemporary” church in Arkansas, Easter 2009. The photograph they showed me of the coffee shop was so interesting, I wanted to know more. Here is what they sent me:

The last time I went to church it was in a bar in Brooklyn. Yesterday I went to a “contemporary” protestant “non-denominational” church in Arkansas with my mom.

This church is fairly new but the “style” is inceasingly popular in the southern United States. There is considerable debate about the goals and outcomes of such churches: “… I see a blatant capitulation to consumerism in much of this direction. Many experts in this movement do not hesitate to call their techniques “marketing methods,” but this approach breeds an unhealthy individualistic consumerism, which is already pervasive throughout the culture, when Christian leaders treat church growth as the primary activity of the Lord’s Day, and the congregational worship service as a virtual business undertaking aimed at getting consumers to “buy the product.” (John Mark Ministries)

(The “coffee shop”)

My first reaction to the physical architecture of the church is that it looks like a mall. The main entrance is a coffee shop aimed at creating a social space. I learned later in the service that new guests can trade in their comment/registration card for a hazelnut latte.

The congregation seems to be comfortable in such a mall culture. Many women have trendy, tight fitting dresses, 13 year-olds wear high heels, men and women have bleached hair and tanned skin, and the male uniform seems to be khakis and blue shirts. All of this combined to make me feel terribly uncomfortable.

The service begins with 20 minutes of rock music. The band has a drum set, an electric keyboard, a lead singer/guitarist, a bass player, a back-up singer/tambourine player, and an acoustic/electric guitarist. My grandmother regularly complains about them.

The pastor’s message included a warning to avoid “humanistic” ways that lead one to buy in excess and focus on “the flesh”. If one is “with Christ” then one will focus on internal, spiritual goals rather than the “humanistic”. During the closing prayer the keyboard player played instrumental inspiring music that increased in volume and tempo as the prayer closed. As the prayer ended the projected screen had swirling colors similar to itunes visualizer.

A post on _Augmentology 1[L]0[L]1_ titled “_Emily is Not Real_: Uncanny Valley vs The Digital Übermensch” refers to my paper “Mapping the Temples of Cyborgism” and uses the graphic I created to illustrate an expansion of Mori’s map of the uncanny valley. The post is a RICH mine of links – so check it out.

_Augmentology 1[L]0[L]1_ is a blog seeking to “dissect post-geophysically defined notions of reality” and is sponsored by the Ars Virtua Foundation via the CADRE Laboratory for New Media.

“Ars Virtua is a New Media Center and Gallery located in the synthetic world of Second Life, World of Warcraft and the World Wide Web. It is a new type of space that leverages the tension between 3-D rendered game space and terrestrial reality, between simulated and simulation. The Ars Virtua Foundation is a locus of research around the issues of reality within simulated environments.”

Interview with Davis during Loris Gréaud’s Cellar Door installation.

Biblical events as if seen on Google earth.

God’s Eye View (Ark)

Reading William Gibson’s blog and thinking about his discussion of ATMs as part of his extended nervous system, I decided to start mapping mine. I began with the interface I spend most of the day with, my Mac – then to the WiFi router, then the cable modem, then the cloud, then the servers and the ‘others’. There’s so much more to add… And strange that it really did come out looking so hierarchical – I was expecting it to be more rhizomatic. Perhaps I’m not representing it correctly – or maybe that which was born of ARPANET actually IS more hierarchical than it seems. After all, the military designed it…

(If you visit Gibson’s blog – take note of the strange structure of the interactivity – rather than allowing comments on the blog, there is a separate message board which he clearly reads and comments on in his blog. Any thoughts on this?)