Critical Response Assignment #4

Hayles, N. Katherine. “Prologue: Computing Kin.” My Mother was a Computer: Digital Subjects and Literary Texts. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2005.

In this article Hayles expands on her previous article with new perspectives on what it may mean to be posthuman in light of the technological advances since her last writing six years earlier. She suggests that the fear we once experienced with the notion of posthumanism has been subdued with the realization that we are not as autonomous as previously thought as we are immensely influenced by countless nonhuman actors, as she argued for in her last article. Here she expands on dichotomies that have become dissolved due to the expansion of revision regarding our commonly held notions of normality through the technological advances of our time. She notes that the binary opposition of embodiment/disembodiment “has fractured into more complex and varied formations”, (2) and that this extends onto our notion of materiality. Like in her last article she suggests that we redefine materiality as “an emergent property created through dynamic interactions between physical characteristics and signifying strategies”. She also makes mention of how this idea of materiality is in line with her notion of the Computational Universe, “the claim that the universe is generated through computational processes running on a vast computational mechanism underlying all of physical reality”(3). She notes that this conception of the Computational Universe would not have been possible in past socio-cultural contexts and note the parallel observation of eighteenth-century thinkers, amazed by the watch, who noted that the world was like clockwork. She uses the sentence “my mother was a computer” to display the many ways in which society has changed as a result of technological innovation as the sentence can be interpreted in various ways that were not possible previously.

In the past, people were called computers because they performed mathematical feats. In this sense, some people’s mothers were computers. However she also points to the idea of the Computational Universe overtaking the idea of Mother Nature, as “the Universal Computer is envisioned as the Motherboard of us all” (3). Another sense she notes can be interpreted into the sentence “my mother was a computer” is that children are often taught to read by their mothers, which gives voice to texts and gives “a sympathetic resonance between the natural world and human meaning” (4). She notes that now, children may still learn to read in part from their parents, but there are many other programs and modalities which permeate our methods of communication. Computer programs were sold as educational toys for years now, ranging from video games on consoles to semi-interactive books. I personally know that my typing skills stem from the oh-so-important things I had to express as a twelve year old girl on instant messaging interfaces with friends. What she claims is so important about this is not that it changes our notion of mother as a computer but that it incorporates many more sensory modalities and encourages a much stronger, even kin like, link between ourselves and electronic environments. Another interpretation of the sentence is that which an artificial life simulation would say if it were asked who its parents are. This reminded me of the movie I, Robot where the main robot character keeps referring to his creator as his father (although I must add the book was much better than the movie!). However she points that this type of language is used frequently and has a sort of reverse undertow to it as well, as in when we say that programs “gave birth” to other programs or results, or as in how we question “the extent to which human beings can be understood as computer programs” (5). She then turns to some distinctions between electronic methods of understanding and some more traditional methods of understanding the world around us.

Hayles cites three broad categories of resources we may use to help us understand the world around us: mathematical equations, simulation modeling, and discursive explanation. She notes that mathematical equations are not particularly useful for understanding complex systems as they do not explain nonlinear behaviours. While my understanding of mathematical equations is subpar I wondered how the Fibonacci sequence would fit into this statement. Overall I found her dismissal of mathematical equations quite quick as she moved on to simulations and discursive explanations. Here I wondered if her favouring discursive explanations stemmed from her background in literature as she argued that narratives have been around for a very long time and are much easier for us to understand than simulations which are relatively new and written in a mathematical language that exists within a “(relatively) inhuman world of massive numerical calculations”(6). I think it could easily be argued reversely, that simulations appeal more to the visual system than discursive explanations, and that in evolutionary terms we are highly visual animals and this fact preceded discursive forms of expression. In this interpretation simulation could be a development not away from our natural tendencies for understanding but instead closer to our more primitive, engrained methods of understanding the world around us. However she does note the similarity/opposition of these forms of expression and hold true to her influence from complexity theory as she explains the “entanglement of bodies of texts and digital subjects is one manifestation of what I call ‘intermediation’, that is, complex transactions between bodies and texts as well as between different forms of media”. She notes that the immersion of digital analogies into our language for both our existence as humans and the occurrences in the world around us encourage the different version of posthumanism to be understood. Ultimately, even though media effects need to be expressed in the embodied world to have effects, she refuses an either/or choice in line with her feelings on complexity theory, invoking “the necessity…to think in terms of multiple causalities, complex dynamics, and emergent possibilities”(7). Despite possibly straying from her main point a little bit, she insists that “the most important significance of My Mother was a Computer… is to insist on the irreducible complexity of contemporary posthuman configurations as they continue to evolve in digital subjects and literacy texts, computer programs and human mindbodies”(7).

To a large extent I agree with Hayles. I think complexity theory is a necessary interpretation in today’s world. Concepts like the earthship and academic emphasis on interdisciplinary studies and degrees show the push towards a more well rounded attempt at understanding and incorporating a variety of points of view or physical phenomena simultaneously and with ease. Even if we look at a young person’s resume today and the general shifts in the job market, as opposed to before a linear job pattern is less favoured and attainable today than a varied job path that is more flexible. While in relation to the job market it is arguable whether or not this i a an asset to society, there are many aspects of our world today that are leaning towards a more integrative and well rounded approach to a variety of problems. Another example is in health care where it is widely recognized that chronic care patients require a variety of support services including educational, social, nutritional, physical, and spiritual. I have briefly criticized Hayles above for matters of clarity in explanation but overall, aside from the general comments on the concept of posthumanism in general I mentioned in Critical Response Assignment 3, her arguments appeal to me. I would like to expand further on some possible interpretation of the phrase “my mother was a computer” to expand on some interpretations and follow in her footsteps to suggesting further avenues for the future of humans. Given that this book was published in 2005 it is likely that some of the things I will discuss were not even in development at the time of her writing, but they clearly apply to the idea of computers being parents. One particularly interesting example is that of 3D printing machines including the makerbot and the RepRap. The RepRap is a 3D printer that essentially was created to recreate itself. This gives a new ring to the “I’m my own grandpa” song as the machine was essentially built to recreate itself multiple times over. The makerbot was inspired by the RepRap but was more consumer oriented. It is entirely open source and can be purchased online or made personally at home. It is a 3D printer which the user programs to create anything that the program dictates. There are online communities already for sharing programs for the makerbot and people have made many things from iPhone cases to sculptures of the Statue of Liberty. In this case, the grandchild of the RepRap, as the makerbot developers referred to it as, is a tool that allows a wide variety of physical things to be parented by computers.

One of the most fear inducing ideas related to “my mother was a computer” I think is the implications of genetic engineering and direct physical organic/nonorganic integration. Now to some extent we could argue the rise in acceptance and popularity of a variety of body modification such as tattoos and piercings are one example of this that has been occurring forever, such as the genetic alterations we as a species have induced on our environments through selective breeding of plants and animals. In this TED talk Paul Wolpe gives us an outline of some of the evolution of genetic engineering and electronic integrative technologies. He specifically cites the first organism to be parented by a computer at about 17:00 which he explains was the result of a programmed genome being inserted into a living cell which then reproduced the programmed genome. He spends a great deal of time talking about bugbots and other technologies such as electronic arms. The bugbots are particularly fascinating as the computer chips are directly integrated into the creatures brain. This seems amazing until you see the mice and larger animals which they have also successfully done this to. He notes that there are ethical issues with these procedures as we have essentially removed the animals’ autonomy entirely. This returns to the problematic notion of autonomy in this newly developing world, and I wonder how Hayles would respond to these new technologies. Some more highlights of the talk include a successful lamprey eel brain in a vat and a self aggregated lump of rat neurons which essentially created the first organic computer chip entirely on its own. The genetic engineering fields have immense implications for the idea “my mother was a computer”, and they raise a wide variety of other philosophical and ethical issues that are imperative to discuss. This reflects on the vast complexity and interactions of our social, cultural, ethical, physical, and emotional selves with technology and how we are all ultimately inseparable.

 

Where do you think posthumanism will take us? What futures do you see regarding our relations with technology?

What do you think of the vast ethical dilemmas regarding genetic engineering and organic/nonroganic integration? There are obvious advantages to some of these technologies such as pacemakers and other life-saving devices, but I personally found myself excited by bugbots and horrified by the RoboRat – what was your reaction?

Earthships are eco-friendly homes that integrate a variety of previously used systems and largely recycled building materials to create a home that interacts with the environment to encourage efficiency. They have referred to themselves as “biotectures”.

http://www.earthship.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=711&Itemid=3

This Google Tech Talk goes over the development of the makerbot, explains the RepRap, and shows some possible applications of the makerbot in the future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zirHL_rRBu0

Paul Root Wolpe: It’s time to question bio-engineering: TED talk uploaded March 24 2011.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TEDtalksDirector#p/u/14/ovV7v2XYJAI

 

Critical Response Assignment #3

Hayles, N. Katherine. “Conclusion: What Does it Mean to be Posthuman?” How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1999.

In this conclusion to her book, Hayles addresses how the notion of becoming posthuman often arouses terror but also excites. She hopes to address the causes of these ambivalent feelings and give us a more positive outlook on the question of what it means to be posthuman. The prefix of post- implies that humanism is ending. However Hayles says a lot of the fear associated with posthumanism comes from the idea that humans are coming to an end; that we will be “displaced as the dominant form of life on the planet by intelligent machines” and that are only options are to give up or become machines ourselves. She notes that this fear can only be accurate if we view what it means to be human in a rather specific way; namely, we do not accept the changes that are happening or will happen to our day to day existence as humans. This view of what it means to be human is stagnant to a degree, and she argues that this is not appropriate as humans are subject to evolution. Not only our physical selves but also our social, cultural, political, and emotional selves are not stagnant at all – we are constantly evolving on multiple levels. Similarly, these multiple levels of possible change influence each other, for example, the technological and cultural innovation of increasingly popular mobile devices has led not only to a change in just how important our thumbs are but also to social innovations such as twitter which likely would not have existed practically without the popularity of mobile devices. And if we think about some of the revolutions aided by the advent of these mobile aimed social networking technologies we begin to see a cascade of new abilities and opportunities that arises out of something that can seem rather simple, such as the expansion and evolution of mobile phones, but in fact becomes immensely wide-reaching in influence. She also points to the power of history in having influenced our lives, which is rather mind blowing to think about when we consider the immense statistical improbability regarding each of our individual existences.

Having convincingly discredited the notion of what it means to be human as being justified in being perceived to be stagnant, she turns to possible futures for us humans and therefore possible interpretations of what it means to be posthuman. Some options she notes are a symbiotic relationship between humans and machines or a more one sided take over by machines. She notes that both of these possibilities are already occurring to some extent, in the case of symbiosis in our everyday lives and the more invasive reliance on electronic devices such as pacemakers or other life saving medical technologies. Similarly machines have taken over in a lot of ways, as in factory assembly lines. She notes that here the fear is not as strong; it is more a fear of change than a fear of obliteration. From this more neutral point she goes on to discuss what is exciting about the idea of being posthuman. Again she maintains that the idea of what it means to be human cannot be stagnant and that what this means for posthumanism is not the end of humanity but the revision of the conception of humanity. She points to some functions of computers which we actually enjoy; one particular example she uses is a program that learns from your actions how to prioritize your email inbox for you. However this raises another objection by those who she characterizes as being fearful of posthumanism. Part of what scares us about the increasing invasion of machines into our lives is the idea of losing control, but Hayles counters we never had any control in the first place. She again mentions how we as humans have been reliant on, and will continue to be, evolution which encompasses multiple levels of our existence – social, biological, environmental, cultural, technological, and so on. No single aspect controls the other; they are all influenced by the other aspects.

One particularly vivid argument she uses to convince us of this is in response to the fear that arises out of us perceiving that cognition and decision-making capabilities should be reserved for human minds. She notes a reinterpretation of Searle’s Chinese Room thought experiment that aimed to discredit the idea that machines can think. The reinterpretation of the Chinese Room under complexity theory and Hayles’ general outlook is that the Chinese Room is a distributed cognitive system, and that we participate in these systems on a regular basis. Our cognitive abilities are magnified past our individual ability by the addition of technology, when it connects us with other minds but also when it connects us with relevant data and/or technologies. Similarly, decision-making is distributed along these systems as well. The availability of certain technologies, our reliance on them, and our use of them, all greatly influence our decision making and have for thousands of years. This does not take away from what it means to be human, she argues, but instead; “to conceptualize the human in these terms is not to imperil human survival but is precisely to enhance it, for the more we understand the flexible, adaptive structures that coordinate our environments and the metaphors that we ourselves are, the better we can fashion images of ourselves that accurately reflect the complex interplays that ultimately make the world one system” (290). Basically, the only fear we have of posthumanism is unfounded as it is based on a flawed notion of what it means to be human. In fact, we have always been posthuman.

One main criticism I have of the notion of posthumanism under Hayles interpretation is that she wants a nonlinear, constantly evolving notion of posthumanism but frames it within a linear evolution. While I understand her goal of dissolving dualities and that evolution can be both linear and dispersed, it does make the idea of posthumanism a little more difficult to understand and she does not address this problem directly. It seems it would be more appropriate to rename posthumanism to not imply linearity but then again I don’t think anybody said that words had to reflect their actual meaning, it simply seems favourable. It seems somewhat problematic to say that we have always been post-human but are coming from a standpoint where we do not recognize ourselves as posthuman. The prefix of post implies a linearity that is hard for me to get over. However I do see how this could be a clever ploy on her part to imply the dissolution of our notions of linearity and time within the term itself, I still find it makes her interpretation slightly less approachable.

 

What do you think about this ambiguity in Hayles’ notion of posthumanism? Intentional play on words or overlooked ambiguity?

Can you think of some examples of distributed cognitive systems outside of those on the internet?

 

An extensive suggested reading list relating to a wide variety of implications of posthumanism

http://www.carywolfe.com/post.html

An easy to digest interpretation of posthumanistic themes in the storyline of the video game Dead Space which includes a mention of the dual reliance on and avoidance of technologies seen in complex systems.

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/post/136789-the-cybernetic-conundrum-posthumanism-and-dead-space/