Machine Philosopher

Ana Peraica: Machine philosopher (2000) Intrduction to the De/light Me reader Project De/light me! is a reader on new patterns of second order theory, or meta-theory, but applyed not on meta as supra level, not higher, but lower or down theory, underground theory of weird productions, applications, and phenomenas, on their patterns. So, it is about experimenting in a B-production level of theory, non-academic or second handed thought, concerned with the processing of theory on its new abut with technology. The focus falls therefore on the technologisation effect on theory writing, to the contrary of philosophy of technology, or thinking technology. It is about the technologisation of thinking, and technological theory. This reader collects side-products of both theory and technology, produced on the territory of both fields left-overs, playing with technological fallout, with useless. It is as well a play with "good-for-nothing" remains of all that is caught by technologisation and theoretisation, or even over-technologisation and over-theoretisation; both subjects and objects (authors, programmers, texts, programs, books, computers). At the same time it is meant to re-examine or re-invent precisely the parameter of use, utilization, role, purpose, function or application themselves, of both "agents" . The project started with the simple sharpshooting of symptoms such as; mental delightement, overtheorising, forgotten theory, authoring theory, undead authors, revised versions, coded text, hacking theory, stylish theory, theory superstars, pseudonyms, the institutionalization of thought, names as fetishes, fabrication of thoughts, surviving overexposure, theory commodification, theory as business, reading theory, rewriting theory, performing theory, embodieing theory, fastburning theory, bad theory, fog selling. [1] Geert Lovink noted at the very begining; "The buzzwords of de\light me! Are expression of the new condition under which theory is being produced. Slogans are zipped statements. There is no time to dig into extended book versions. 'Keep it short, my time is more valuable than yours.' It says in one of the Tintin albums. Theory therefore has to turn into a meme in order to survive." De/light me! is a project that only touches in topics of technologisation of thinking in a second, and offers it to the first order theory on re-examining, it only points. This text, entitled "Machine philosopher", refers to only one of those symptoms, in the announcement entitled fabrication of thoughts. It would try to draw some problems of fabrication that proceeds technologization, and shift from manufactured to new forms of technologized thinking, with again the main question; where does it go, that obvious process? The relation of theory and technology didn't start with the computer. It started with the first mechanical proof machines, first models of thinking and conclusion in the 13th century. Though, AI discussion made only this question more obvious. It made obvious a topic of a purpose, of the theory of arguing, on for example launching the topic of the smartness of the calculator. Machines and technology have a special relation to theory, not only in the sense that theory had to theorize them, they have a lot in common; e.g. stabilization of thought or movement, control and war rhizomes. Relating the problem of the fabrication to problem of usage, I would try to draw some lines on fabrication and re-fabrication as issues of re-invention of the mind, and the fabrication and recycling of thoughts, not only by a thinker, but as well by the computer. One of the most interesting parts of the AI discussion is the question of the intentionality, the one that is always derives from the computer and text. It would play a major role in the dismissions of computer testings of certain philosophers. Still, what we think as a secret revenge of so-called intelligent technology to technophobiac philosophy is only derived hate of intrinsic theory war among schools. The computer has no intention to discredit a philosopher, but as Dennett [2] argues, we do not either. The only overt intention is in Dawkins selfish gene, the one that will survive. Though, what is its relation to the technology, or if we can re-use the term techne on the parallel micro structure level of the gene, and name it the smallest item that can be compared with it? Obviously that-like techne is demanded by the selfish gene to support its own intention, as techne has no intention of itself. But, just considering size and complexity, first techne, on the level of carrier of informations as is in the case of gene, appeared much latter. If it is only the intention of a gene, it seems, it intended to replace the techne, wherever possible. Sounds more like "suicidal genes", a ew microcatastrophic mutation? [4] If fabricating can be done only with intention, what fabricates all of this are genes, that are fabric themselves. And where here stands the meme that Geert mentioned? To speak on terms of the fabrication of thoughts, we need to enter areas of matrixes, patterns and models that have been accompanying theory since the first technologies, we should understand not only parallel movements, but also overlapping chains of development, no matter utopian or dystopian, of both technology and theory. Such a fabrication exists along theory time, even in the simple effects of quotation business. The fabrication of thought, therefore, primarily refers to the technologisation terms of patterns and models of thoughts, the simplest which is the logical matrix, but surely not the single one. All approaches lead towards to the matrix, or, all methodology, tactics, systems forming it. Matrix stabilizes and repeats. The technologisation of thought and theory is therefore a question of logistics forming patterns (or logic in a broader sense), and the recognition of those patterns of theory that are mechanically repeat. Only a recognized pattern, stabilized form can be replicated and serially produced. At the same time, to speak on the technologisation and instrumentalisation of mind (not of instrumental mind) means to draw back to utilitarian theories that recognized the junction of theory and technology as utopian. First notes can be found in Dewey's demand to recognize a "new way of mind to operate" [5], with which, according to some critics, he reduced philosophy to technology. The most common approach on the other side is the over-theoretisation of technology, that appears absorbed in patterns of explanation. But, if there is a road in between it would speak on the mutuality of influences of mind on machine and machine on mind, of meme on techne, as the smallest items, and vice versa, and even what is more, all of that genetically. "What Dewey thought significant about inquiry, and what he thought discloses its technological character, is that every reflective experience is instrumental to further production of meanings, that is, it is technological." [6] In some sense, theory is a technology, automatics of thinking, not completely independent of what it produces. Thoughts fabricate, and are fabricated at the same time. The main question, then, lies in the global discourse of the technologised being through all interactions in society. That main question, also in the broader connotation of technological society, where that undisputable process of homo sapiens, homo faber, homo technicus tends to. Maybe even to reunite itself in this discoursive conceptual and fragmented thinking of self. Towards what those fabricants of thoughts, and fabricated thoughts travel, on the line of continuity of even broken narrations of history? The Aristotelian final cause or causa finalis, the question of the way of purpose and use, is one of the most paranoid questions of human thought. While usage of all segments is known, even for homo sapiens, the one of homo faber or technicus, as to serve the wisdom, work or technology, the general purpose of reunited, non-specific human is not known. That purpose depends on the purpose of theory, work and technology, it depends on the process where it would be, once independent from the carrier and free. On the borders of the dream of the utopian picture of the workless worker, deliberated by machine, and parallely the thinkless thinker, and of the dystopian disease of final exteriorisation towards which this whole culture and history went, the final cause is always only "freedom from". Thinking goes towards freedom of itself too, towards the ultimate Enlightement, the light of nothingness, beautiful, freaky and useless, at the same time. Tending towards that final grade, the grand level of the finality of knowledge that would free-float and self-generate, is the entrance the dimension that holds everything, the dimension of the absurdity of life in both theory, work and technology. It is the process of the equilibrisation of all laborers in the peace of a wasteland. A fabrication that has a weird purpose, such as one above, is alchemy. It looks for a treasure stone that will loose its market value once fabricated. The sole goals of junction already show symptoms of the old alchemic disease, saying; "In AI community, the objective is to replace the human mind by the machine and its program and its data base. In the AI community, the objective is to build systems that amplify the human mind by providing it with computer - based auxiliaries that do the things that mind has troubling to do." [7] The fabrication of the thought leads not only to mass availability, but at the same time the pauperization, because of exteriorisation of sense. But, to think this process is only the effect of the last information phase of corresponding thesis of artificial intelligence with the threatening sub-context of a certain pauperization of the thinking class as it has there already done with working one, making humans basically unneeded in own history, has limited frame. Alchemic experiments started a long time ago. The first mechanical proof-machine was build by a theologist Ramon Lull, a Franciscian monk from the 13th century. His machine, as well as Pascal's gamble proof for utility of believing in God, or Liebnitz' chess - playing of God, are some of rare examples of bizarre actions in theory. Lull's self-given task was to convert Muslims to Christians, but he believed that Moslems may fail to convert because of the cognitive effect. So, he designed and built a series of prosthetic machines to be used to present combinations of God's virtues. In Android Epistemology, authors describe Lull's machines; "A typical Lullian machine consisted of two or more discs having a common spindle. Each disk could be rotated independently of the others. The rim of each disk was divided into sections or camerae, and each section bore a letter. According to the application which the machine was intended, the letters would each have a special significance. They might denote, for example, an attribute of God. One Lullian machine, for example, has the letters "B" through "R" around the rims of an inner disk, and around the outer disk Latin words signifying attributes of God; Bonitas (B), Magnitudo (c), Eternitas (D), and so on. A Lullian machine was operated by rotating the two disks independently, much as we would a star finder or (some years ago) a circular slide rule. At any setting of the disks, pairs of God's attributes would be juxtaposed on the rims of the inner and outer disks. Rotating the disks would create different pairings. One would discover that God is Good and Great, Good and Eternal, Great and Eternal, and so forth. The heretic and the infidel were supposed to be brought to the True-Faith by these revelations." [8] The paradoxicallity of this machine, a mechanical argument that is not a tool for the other than its own position and content, is again in its purpose. Machine still argues without Lull, it argues without a sense of time. It is self-running and it replaces the philosopher. We may think the same was done with the recording of book, but their nature is quite different, as books were not so interesting for the play of anyone's whim. "With every amplification, there is a simultaneous and necessary reduction. And... the amplification tends to stand out, to be dramatic, while the reduction tends to be overlooked. The result is that the instrument mediated entity is one which, in comparison with the flesh relations, appears with a different perspective" wrote Ihde. [9] Though all technologies, even those of writing as a tool for the historically primarly oral society of thinkers, do amplify, and carry derived intentionality, the autonomous mass production of the recognized pattern of thinking might carry complete exteriorisation, of the origin, of the name, of source, not only of the philosopher, but even the human. Such a reduction would be overlooked as none would remain to witness it. Those threads of thoughts are not a technophobian scenario at all. If they are phobiac, they are phobic to all processes that lead to the Grand End of purpose. They tend to the deliberation not of thinking, working or technical, but basically of un-free animal, to its euthanatisation not as animal, but as an animal that thought that has a purpose over all other animals. It had a purpose to be finally Enlightened, and that selfish gene becomes suicidal, self-denying. In Brain-mind machines and American Technologies of Dream Marketing, Joseph Dumit writes on "electronic devices which are worn on the head and through light sound or electronic stimulus, induce the wearer's head to produce brainwave patterns of desired sort of an electroencephalograph or EEG machine." [10] that in 1995 already cost only 10 $ for up to one hour of experience in electrowave close to Yogi's self - Enlightenment, of Heideggerian instant "feeling into". Dumit concludes "Even Enlightement is now passe." [11] So if the ground effect is passe, do we go back, or we have already disappeared? No matter, there is a wasteland full of fabricated subjects and objects, full of subjectified and objectified fabricants, with no purpose except the sole limited one of parameters invented to take us somewhere; thought, work, technology. If their purposes would not be invented, this museum of fabricated objects would have no reasons, and all work, all thoughts, all technology would work for nothing. Or maybe they would work for themselves; theory for theory, art for art... Because of that, contacts and junctions are important, in critical thought, no matter how bizarre they sound, they pre-fabricate. Therefore, thinking on the relation of technology and re-inventing purpose, usage, means to think on over-fabrication and refabrication. Pre-fabrication of theory, or its reinvention is a continuous process that sometimes gets locked inside itself. It would be interesting to mention one of the first recyclings of philosophy done with a computer; in the analysis of consistency on the author of What is called thinking? [12], on Heidegger's book Being and Time (f 11) by Rainer Bast and Heinrich DelSasse. [13] A paradox is usually by theory for theory writers emphasized through quoting Heidegger's questions; "Maybe history and tradition will fit smoothly into the information retrieval systems which will sense as a resource for the inevitable planning needs of a cybernetically organized mankind. The question is whether thinking, too, will end up in the business of information processing." [14] Though Heidegger's technophobia is proverbial, and "revenge" read paranoically as the intention of technology, we still know all intentions are derived from what Dennett named Unmeant Meaner, a gene, that adopts and in a way re-invents itself. Technology cannot reinvent itself, and what can not be reinvented stops in the static world. So, the question did the computer want to dismiss Heidegger becomes the same with did Heidegger actually ever wanted to answer What is called thinking in his free-fluctuating questioning essay. We are still not thinking" [15] he wrote numerous times. So, the day when we start would be the day of the own end, and our Englightement would become Endarkement. Finally, following Bataille's notion of the useless [16] and the problem of Endarkement, there is a passage of Critical Art Ensemble, telling a lot on this resistance to Enlightement purpose; "Utopian technology is that technology which has fallen from grace. It has been stripped of its purity and reendowed with utility. The fall is necessitated by a return to contact with humanity. Having once left the production table, the technology that lives the godly life of state-of-the-art uselessness has no further interaction with humans as users or as inventors; rather, humans serve only as a means to maintain its uselessness. The location of the most complex pure technology is of no mistery. Deep in the core of the war machine is the missile system. Ultimately, all research is centred around this invisible monument to uselessness. The bigger and more powerful it becomes, the greater its value. But should it ever be touched by utility - that is, should it ever be used - its value becomes naught. To be of value, it must be maintained, upgraded, and expanded, but it must be never actually do anything. This idol of deconstruction is always hungry, and is willing to eat all resources. In return, however, it excretes objects of utility." [17] Enlightement is a place of our universal resistance! Our way is in re/inventing roads of going back, going around, and playing with it. De/light, as resisting the light of the Enlightement, as what one thinker of the period of that, Immanuel Kant focusing on the effect of phatamorgana, thought as disinterested aesthetisation. De/light is enjoying the distance needed for the play. This reader therefore speaks on the marginal effects of pure revolt and play with both the goals of theory and machine, revolt towards both authorities. If selfish genes are building authorities, then only useless genes can play unintentiously in a shadow, as here; in the shadow of both theory and technology. Their patterns might suggest us some roads of skipping the ending in being blinded staring into too much the light of the final Enlightenment. "Such a game - without rules, with neither winner or looser, without responsiblity, a game of innocence, a caucus-race, in which skill and chance are no longer distinguishable - seems to have no reality." "It can only be tought as nonsense. But precisely for this reason, it is the reality of thought itself and the unconscious of pure thought." "If one tries to produce a result other than the work of art, nothing is produced. This game is reserved for thought and art." But; "This game, which can only exist in thought and which has no other result than the work of art, is also that by which thought and art are rael and disturbing reality, morality, and the economy of the world." wrote Deleuze, related to philosopher's play machine toys of concluding. [18] JVE, Maastricht, 2000 FOOTNOTES: [1] concept of the reader done together with Judith Fischer [2] Searle and Hageland (1980) refer to intentionality as essentiality that is missing the computer to be named intelligence. So, any computer program, any robot we might design and build, no matter how strong the illusion we may create that it has become a genuine agent, could never be a truly autonomous thinker with the same sort of original intentionality we enjoy. Issuing the topic of misinterpretation that is formulated by Dretske, Dennett clinically refers to thesis of Searle; concluding that the carrier of original intentionality (i.e. human agent) is a version of Aristotelian Unmoved Mover; the Unmeant Meaner, that has original, not derived intentionality. "We are artifacts, in effect, designed over the eons as survival machines for genes that cannot act swiftly and informedly in their own interest. Our interests as we conceive them and the interest of our genes may well diverge - even through were it not for our genes' interests, we would not exist; their preservation is our original raison t'etre, even we can learn to ignore that goal and devise of own summum bonum thanks to the intelligence of our genes have installed in us. So our intentionality is derived from the intentionality of our "selfish" genes! They are Unmeant Meaners, not us!"; in Daniel Dennett; Evolution, Error and Intentionality, V.Vilke and D. Patrige, eds, Sourcebook on Artificial Intelligence (New Mexico University Press, 1988) [3] Dawkins Selfish Gene (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1976) [4] Though Dennett's attitude is quite idealistic; as seems that except selfish there are "suicidal genes", and miniaturization of apocalypse in genes, dust, atoms, viruses... etc (see Adilkno, Media Archive, Autonomedia, Amsterdam, 1996). [5] Dewey was the first to put the technological theory of knowledge, with "there is no difference in logical principle between the method of science and the method perused in technologies". Without naming commentator, Mitcham notes a critic of Dewey's principle of reducing philosophy on technology". in; Carl Mitcham, Thinking through technology (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1994) [6] Hickman, Larry; John Dewey's Pragmatic Technology (Blomingtoon, Indiana University Press, 1990) [7] Frederik Brooks, in Howard Rheingold; Virtual Reality (Mandarin Paperback, Great Britain, 1991) [8] Android Epistemology edited by Kenneth M. Ford, Clark Glymour & Patrick J. Hayes (AAAI Press/The MIT Press, Menlo Park, Cambridge, London, 1995) [9] Ihde, Don; Technics and Praxis, A Philosophy of Technology(Boston, D.Reindel, 1979) [10] Machines were developed by Michael Hercules, inventor of the pullstars; and based on the calculation of frequency of waves (as 1,0 Hz a feeling of well being, 5,5 Hz knowing, 7,5 inter awareness of self and purpose, 10,5 healing of the body, mind body connection, fire walking). History of developing machine goes back to fifties, to experiments of Joseph Delgado, J.Olds and W.G.Penfield. in; Dumit, J.; Brain-mind machines and American Technologies of Dream Marketing, in; Cyborg Handbook, ed. by Chris Hables Gray, Heidi J. Figuerroa-Sarriera and Steven Mentor (Routhledge, New York, London, 1995) [11] ibid [12] Heidegger, Martin: What is called thinking? (Perrennial Library, Harper&Row, Publishers, New York, Grand Rapids, Philadelphia, St. Louis, San Francisco, 1986) translated by Ellen Gray [13] Rainer Bast and Heinrich DelSasse: Handbuck Zum Text-Studium von M. Heidegger "Sein und Zeit" (Stuttgard, Frommann Holzboog, 1979), on comments see; Mike Heim Metaphysics of Virtual Reality (Oxford University Press, 1993) [14]Marting Heidegger: Preface to Wegmasten (Frankfurt, 1967) [15] in What is called thinking /ibid/ [16] Bataille, Georges; The Accursed Share [Zone Books, New York, 1991} [17] Critical Art Ensemble The Technology of Uselessness [18] Gilles Deleuze: The Logic of sense (Columbia University Press, New York, 1990)