Mike wrote,
>
>Hi Eugene. Yes, the issue you raise concerning Vasiliy'Vasil'evich and
>connectionism is very relevant. It came up in a different form in
>Yrjo's AT class. Is it possible to model dialectical logic in a computer
>program?
>
I'm not sure I fully understand your question or better to say the context
in which you asked it. In my view, everything models dialectics simply
because dialectics tries to reflect everything and, thus, is reflected in
everything. For example, the relationship between computer software and
computer hardware is dialectical -- they mutually constitute each other
can't exist without each other (computer hardware without software is "empty
abstraction" -- Davydov would say).
Computer is a tool, a "cognitive amplifier" and as a tool it can help us to
increase our cognitive power of dialectical thinking. When we model an
ecological system with a computer the computer is a part of our dialectical
thinking (although, we do not have any other).
If you asked me can a computer (in our current understanding of computers)
"think" or, better to say, become self-organizing system, I'd say no,
although I believe that we, human, can create artificial self-organizing
system out of non-organic material but on some other principles than we
build computers. When we say that the Big Blue computer (or whatever it is
called) won Kasparov in chess, in my view, what we say is a metaphor.
Factually, people who designed the Big Blue won the chess tournament. They
won equipped with the Big Blue. Do not read me wrong -- I think it is a
great achievement for machine builders. It proves that we can amplify
cognitive power of chess players/computer builders to such a degree that
they (not the machine) can win the strongest "naked" opponent through their
machine. This is the issue of agency and I believe that agency can be only
a self-organizing system. Computers do not have agency and probably won't
have until they are build as a human tool.
Why aren't computers self-organizing systems? I'm not a specialist on
self-organizing systems (John, Jay and other more knowledgeable people,
please help). My insights are JPF insights (Just Plain Folks -- the term I
read from Jean Lave):
1) "Bad news 1". A self-organizing system is highly concerned about its
existence. It's biased (e.g., likes water and avoids acid) and biased means
being alive. Computers are indifferent to their existence and functions.
Switch them off or on -- no difference to them.
2) "Bad news 2". Parts of a self-organizing system die without the system
(unless the system is simulated). CPUs, hard disks, memory chips are nicely
stored in computer stores without being damaged being outside the computer.
3) "Good news 1". Both self-organizing systems and computers consist of "the
same" indifferent matter.
My conclusion: computers can't become a self-organizing agency because
currently they are build by humans to serve human agency rather than to be
an agency. The first principle of serving an agency is being non-resistant
(i.e., obedient -- "do what I want you to do") and, thus, indifferent which
my computer nicely is (at least now :-).
What do you think?
Eugene