Towards the end of the first half (HE) of Lyotard’s essay, he outlines the fundamental difference between the way a computer processes input and the way the human mind processes input. A computer is, at its most basic level, a binary processor. The human mind is not. We can function on data that is neither a one nor a zero. For example, if a friend tells you that he saw an animal that was similar to a horse except shorter and stockier, you could figure out that he saw a donkey. To a computer, however, it either was a horse or it was not. The computer could not handle the ‘similar to’ concept. It is this distinction between the functioning of a computer processor and that of a human consciousness that marks one of Lyotard’s major points opposing the possibility of thought’s existence outside of the body.
The human mind’s ability to recognize similarity between distinct objects or ideas and create associations opens up an infinite expanse through which one’s consciousness may traverse. One association leads to another, leads to another, and so forth ad infinitum. Lyotard invokes an analogy to the field of vision. From any given viewpoint, there is a limit to how far one can see, and that limit is the horizon. Say there is a tree at the horizon. You can reach the tree by progressing forward, but you have not reached the horizon because it has progressed as you did. The same principle applies to the field of thought. By making one association or analogy, you may be able to see how you could get to another a few steps down the line. But the vast landscape of cognitive thought is still obscured to you, and the only way to unveil it is to progress forward, pushing your horizon of thought ahead of you. In this way, Lyotard explains that human cognition not only consists of an infinite landscape of corresponding analogies but also is structured as one overarching analogy to the field of vision. “A field of thought exists in the same way that there’s a field of vision (or hearing): the mind orients itself in it just as the eye does in the field of the visible. […] [T]his analogy isn’t extrinsic, but intrinsic.” (4-5)
This being the case, a computer cannot possibly reproduce human thought. If it is unable to generate analogies, a computer cannot construct the infinite landscape of associations that makes up the field of human thought. Indeed, it cannot even conceive of the frame of reference that the human mind uses to orient itself within the landscape of its own processes.
This passage is difficult because in trying to explain the mind’s dependence on analogy, Lyotard himself invokes several analogies. This is both inevitable and (I’m sure) intentional on Lyotard’s part. It is inevitable because of precisely what Lyotard is explaining. The human mind depends on its own ability to make cognitive leaps. It is nearly impossible to describe anything relying entirely on binary statements and without invoking some sort of analogy. Saying that a horse is not a car is only slightly more useful than saying that a horse is a horse when you don’t have any idea what a horse is to begin with. Therefore, Lyotard’s use of analogies to explain our dependence on analogies is not only inevitable but also pedagogical. In explaining our dependence on analogical thinking he is simultaneously demonstrating it. This in turn reinforces the explanation.
Lyotard concludes that the very manner in which our thought processes progress is analogous to the way our bodies progress through physical time and space. Therefore to dissociate the consciousness from the body would be to dissociate the thought process from its own landscape.
3 comments:
I like that you chose to explain Lyotard's use of analogies to demonstrate thought's need for analogies, because that is a really interesting part of his essay. Somewhere in the introduction, though, you should tell the reader what exact quote you are simplifying. If you’re commenting on a lengthy piece, then at least put in a short excerpt for clarification. Perhaps also in the introduction you could tie in the analogical part of your essay. It seems randomly thrown in at the end.
Also, your post is somewhat wordy. I think you can simplify your own sentences to make them a little easier to read. As far as your explanation of Lyotard's essay, you don't really seem to analyze anything about his work until the very end (which is very insightful and explained well). You are merely rewording, which I understand was the prompt, but I think you should try to include what you believe are his reasons for saying what he’s saying.
You do a good job of describing how humans think, but maybe you could expand on why computers aren't able to understand anything other than the binary code. Your examples are drawn out clearly, which I liked, and overall I think you really demonstrated a great understanding of Lyotard’s writing but I think you might be able to improve your own essay.
Towards the end of the first half (HE) of Lyotard’s essay he outlines a concept, over the course of about a page and a half, which I wrestled with considerably. Lyotard describes what he considers to be the fundamental difference between the way a computer processes input and the way the human mind processes input. A computer is, at its most basic level, a binary processor dealing exclusively with bits, which are either positive (1) or negative (0). The human mind on the other hand cannot be simplified so easily. We function on data that is neither a one nor a zero. For example, if a friend tells you that he saw an animal that was similar to a horse except shorter and stockier, you could figure out that he saw a donkey. To a computer, however, it either was a horse or it was not. The computer cannot handle the ‘similar to’ concept. Even programs that process vastly complicated amounts of information, pictures, or music all boil down to a series of ones and zeroes. The computer sees that this bit is positive and this bit is negative. Basically, computers cannot simulate human thought because their essential dependence on binary code makes them unable to create associations and draw analogies, which is a basic and necessary function of human thought.
The human mind’s ability to recognize similarity between distinct objects or ideas, and create associations opens up an infinite expanse through which one’s consciousness may traverse. One association leads to another, then leads to another, and so forth ad infinitum. Lyotard invokes an analogy to the field of vision. From any given viewpoint, there is a limit to how far one can see, and that limit is the horizon. Say there is a tree at the horizon. You can reach the tree by progressing forward, but you have not reached the horizon because it has progressed as far as you have. The same principle applies to the field of thought. By making one association, or analogy, you may be able to see how you could get to another a few steps down the line. Yet the vast landscape of cognitive thought is still obscured to you, and the only way to unveil it is to progress forward, pushing your horizon of thought ahead of you. In this way, Lyotard explains that human cognition not only consists of an infinite landscape of corresponding analogies but also is structured as one overarching analogy to the field of vision. “A field of thought exists in the same way that there’s a field of vision (or hearing): the mind orients itself in it just as the eye does in the field of the visible. […] [T]his analogy isn’t extrinsic, but intrinsic.” (4-5)
This being the case, a computer cannot possibly reproduce human thought. If it is unable to generate analogies, a computer cannot construct the infinite landscape of associations that makes up the field of human thought. Indeed, it cannot even conceive of the frame of reference that the human mind uses to orient itself within the landscape of its own processes.
Lyotard’s concept is difficult to process because in trying to explain the mind’s dependence on analogy, Lyotard himself invokes several analogies. This is both inevitable and certainly intentional on Lyotard’s part. It is inevitable because of precisely what Lyotard is explaining. The human mind depends on its own ability to make cognitive leaps. It is nearly impossible to describe anything relying entirely on binary statements or without invoking some sort of analogy. Saying that a horse is not a car is only slightly more useful than saying that a horse is a horse when you don’t have any idea what a horse is to begin with. Therefore, Lyotard’s use of analogies to explain our dependence on analogies is not only inevitable but also pedagogical. In explaining our dependence on analogical thinking he is simultaneously demonstrating it. This in turn reinforces the explanation.
Lyotard concludes that the very manner in which our thought processes progress is analogous to the way our bodies progress through physical time and space. Therefore to dissociate the consciousness from the body would be to dissociate the thought process from its own landscape.
Charity's comments here were quite insightful, and apply more or less fully to your final draft as well as to your first one.
You are clearly engaged with Lyotard, and in particular with his interest in analogy. The problem is that you spend a great deal of effort paraphrasing (rather well, as Charity points out), rather than zooming in on precise focus and working with that. Your engagement with Lyotard's difficulty - as well with what you find interesting in him - takes place on a rather abstract level. This isn't a disaster, but because you spend so much effort on paraphrasing, your discussion of *why* Lyotard is difficult is ultimately lacking. Once more, Charity zooms in on your discussion of Lyotard's use of analogies as the really important thing here - but you devote relatively little space to it.
Post a Comment