Eugene Matusov wrote:
>
> Hi Maria and everybody--
>
> I remember when I was 6-year old I physically punished my skis for falling
> me down by hitting them with ski sticks and yelling at them. I do not want
> to admit what I and other adults do sometimes when things get wrong with our
> everyday objects because it may sound insane :-) I think we can
> perceptionally project an agency (an "other") in anything that resists us.
> We also can easily perceptionally incorporate into our body any tool that
> serves us well (remember Bateson's example of a blind man with a stick
> tapping the road).
>
> It is interesting that my son recently admit that he can't play chess with
> himself because he constantly cheats the other side. I remember having
> similar problem myself. I wonder if this is a universal phenomenon and
> people can't honestly compete with an imaginary other.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Eugene
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: maria judith <costlins who-is-at ism.com.br>
> To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Date: Monday, March 23, 1998 6:26 PM
> Subject: Re: vvd AND contradication
>
> >Hi Eugene and everybody,
> >what do you think about the imaginary people have about computer? We
> >can think about this idea when you speak of the chess game and also when
> >we talk with teachers who want to begin with computers in classrooms as
> >a magic tool. Thanks, Maria Judith Lins
> >
> >Eugene Matusov wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Mike and everybody--
> >>
> >> 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