Lyotard, among other things, attempts to explain human thought and the complexities which surround the process in such a manner that we may build a body which may perpetuate this ability beyond our earthly, closed and solar-dependent existence. In short, he describes human thought as a reflexive process which must be properly understood in order to be captured in the form of artificial intelligence that may survive beyond the immanent storm of nuclear fires which threatens to terminate all earthly thought and meaning in the suns last throws before extinction. In the laboring process of describing human thought however, Lyotard presents his ideas in a very challenging set of analogous comparisons and conclusions which at first appear to be drawn out of nowhere. In order to better understand this segment of his passage however, one must read deeper beyond the philosophical appearance of the matter and look to the technical conclusions it ascertains. As Lyotard begins his essay, philosophical questions must, “remain unanswered to deserve being called philosophical.” From this, we will find no conclusions on the matter of human thought, and immortality through artificial intelligence will forever be out of reach.
Reflexive thought, as Lyotard describes it, is, “a mode of thought not guided by rules for determining data, but showing itself as possibly capable of developing such rules afterwards on the basis of results obtained ‘reflexively.’” He continues by pointing out that, “reflexive thought…does not hide what it owes to perceptual experience.” At a glance, it appears that Lyotard is saying that human thought references itself within its own processes in order to function. In referencing itself, we rely on our experiences and existence as a sentient being with a tangible body to draw experience in which thought can be derived. What does this mean though? How does this idea help to explain human thought in such a way that we can adequately model artificial intelligence to mimic it?
Thought doesn’t just present itself as an analogy to perception. Thought requires perception in order to proceed. Without physical being to draw experience from, thought fails to exist. Lyotard explains here that thought requires analogical reference to the physical being which presents the sentient “human” thought rather than the circuit logic that can be performed on a binary computer system. Logic can exist as a set of rules rooted in reality, but sentient thought can only proceed when there is being to draw experience from, when there is a system in which thought can reflexively build on itself as it develops. It requires a system as diverse and rooted in the physical state as a fine tuned biological organism such as ourselves to reach beyond logic and rules and gain the ultimate goal of thought that can operate and change as the environment that creates that thought changes.
In essence, Lyotard explains in this particular paragraph that in order to create an immortal expansion of our thought that will survive the test of time beyond the early reaches of our own doomed existence; we must create a system rooted in a physical being that can draw on the experiences of that being. Only then will any artificial intelligence be able to immortalize the power of human thought rather than creating a record of logical outputs forever mimicking the past. Is this really a technically conclusion on the nature of thought though? Does this give a simple answer that can be overcome to achieve immortality in the form of artificial beings with true human intellect? I don’t believe it does, but instead it returns to Lyotard’s philosophical realm; a realm dominated by the lack of answers and technical conclusions. Thus the reason surfaces as to why Lyotard presents this idea in such a complex and deeply confusing manner. Philosophical questions, by his definition, are those that do not draw conclusions, but instead provoke thought which may lead to further questions. The nature of thought really can’t be summed up simply as an entity which is dependent on a physical state to draw experience from. The nature of sentient thought reaches far beyond this simple understanding and paradoxically requires far more understanding than any technical conclusion can provide. In the complexity of his philosophical understanding of thought, does Lyotard actually conclude anything? Or does he simply lead us to the reality that human thought can never truly be explained in a technical form suitable for replication into the immortal realm of artificial intelligence?
4 comments:
You say here ”one must read deeper beyond the philosophical appearance of the matter and look to the technical conclusions it ascertains” I struggle to find anywhere in the paper were you do this. I would like to know what you think the conclusions of Lyotard really are, but its not realy there. And later you use Lyotards quote to reinforce yourself but I believe it to be contradictory. “philosophical questions must, ‘remain unanswered to deserve being called philosophical.’ From this, we will find no conclusions on the matter of human thought, and immortality through artificial intelligence will forever be out of reach” Then why write this paper, you know, if you think its out of reach why go on trying to describe why our though works. It makes it hard for me to take your good thoughts as serious, like “Logic can exist as a set of rules rooted in reality, but sentient thought can only proceed when there is being to draw experience from, when there is a system in which thought can reflexively build on itself as it develops” I really appreciate this thought but its missing significant grounding in the paper as a whole. An the rest of the paper is concerned with the problem of though existing without perception, though are not cameras and microphones essentially eyes and ears? I feel a dichotomy in your argument which seems to me at the beginning to emphasize the future as a place ruled by a.i. and at the end you seem to argue how a.i. is theoretically impossible. Lyotard, as you say, uses philosophical rhetoric that you have drawn conclusions from while your conclusion tells us “Philosophical questions, by his definition, are those that do not draw conclusions”
Lyotard, among other things, attempts to explain human thought and the complexities which surround the process in such a manner that we may build a body which may perpetuate this ability beyond our earthly, closed and solar-dependent existence. In short, he describes human thought as a reflexive process which must be properly understood in order to be captured in the form of artificial intelligence that may survive beyond the immanent storm of nuclear fires which threatens to terminate all earthly thought and meaning in the suns last throws before extinction. In the laboring process of describing human thought however, Lyotard presents his ideas in a very challenging set of analogous comparisons and conclusions which at first appear to be drawn out of nowhere. If we are to attempt any understanding of Lyotard’s descriptions, we must first note the purely philosophical nature of his explanation of sentient thought. As Lyotard begins his essay, philosophical questions must, “remain unanswered to deserve being called philosophical.” It appears however, that conclusions are indeed out of reach by this logic and Lyotard actually uses this philosophical guise to assert the fact that human thought cannot be fully understood and replicated.
Reflexive thought, as Lyotard describes it, is, “a mode of thought not guided by rules for determining data, but showing itself as possibly capable of developing such rules afterwards on the basis of results obtained ‘reflexively.’” He continues by pointing out that, “reflexive thought…does not hide what it owes to perceptual experience.” At a glance, it appears that Lyotard is saying that human thought references itself within its own processes in order to function. In referencing itself, we rely on our experiences and existence as a sentient being with a tangible body to draw experience in which thought can be derived. What does this mean though? How does this idea help to explain human thought in such a way that we can adequately model artificial intelligence to mimic it?
Thought doesn’t just present itself as an analogy to perception. Thought requires perception in order to proceed. Without physical being to draw experience from, thought fails to exist. Lyotard highlights that thought requires analogical reference to the physical being which presents the sentient “human” thought rather than the circuit logic that can be performed on a binary computer system. Logic can exist as a set of rules rooted in reality, but sentient thought can only proceed when there is being to draw experience from, when there is a system in which thought can reflexively build on itself as it develops. It requires a system as diverse and rooted in the physical state as a fine tuned biological organism such as ourselves to reach beyond logic and rules and gain the ultimate goal of thought that can operate and change as the environment that creates that thought changes. Lyotard’s approach to thought still only brushes on the surface of the topic though. Instead of explaining the complexities of thought in a living system, Lyotard simply blames the shortcomings of the successful recreation of thought on the lack of a suitable system rooted in its physical being. The question remains unanswered, “What is the defining characteristic of sentient thought?”
In essence, Lyotard explains in this particular excerpt that in order to create an immortal expansion of our thought that will survive the test of time beyond the early reaches of our own doomed existence; we must create a system rooted in a physical being that can draw on the experiences of that being. Only then will any artificial intelligence be able to immortalize the power of human thought rather than creating a record of logical outputs forever mimicking the past. Lyotard explains that thought is as deeply rooted in the physical as it is in the metaphysical, but does not build on this argument to a clear conclusion on the nature of human thought such that it may be recreated in an artificial system. Instead his “explanation” returns to the philosophical realm; a realm dominated by the lack of answers and technical conclusions. Philosophical questions, by his definition, are those that do not draw conclusions, but instead provoke thought which may lead to further questions. The nature of thought really can’t be summed up simply as an entity which is dependent on a physical state to draw experience from. The nature of sentient thought reaches far beyond this simple understanding and paradoxically requires far more understanding than any technical conclusion can provide. In this excerpt, is Lyotard actually leading us to the reality that human thought can never truly be explained in a technical form suitable for replication into the immortal realm of artificial intelligence, thus dooming it to a meaningless end with the extinction of the sun?
Bob - This is an interesting response; I think that I like your tendency to ask a lot of questions.
Chris W. - Your opening paragraph is *packed* - maybe too much so. You make a number of claims about Lyotard, all of which I can imagine being defensible, but without an initial gesture toward the complexity of his essay. You're trying to rebut, in a sense, the entirety of the essay, when the prompt called for you to explain a single passage.
Of course, you *do* have a passage on reflexive thought, which you explain well - but you explain it well enough, quickly enough, that I'm skeptical of whether you found it very complex in the first place. What's unclear, at least initially, is how the passage relates to your larger argument.
I'd argue that Lyotard does, in fact, answer the question which you claim remains unanswered, about the defining characteristic of sentient thought: *gender* is its defining characteristic. Now, you might find that answer unsatisfactory or absurd, for a variety of reasons, but it is there. This is why I think it was problematic that you tried to take on the whole essay, as well as a single quote -- a more narrow focus would have made your argument easier to defend without demanding that you master every difficult detail of the whole essay.
I thought your final paragraph mostly repeated things you'd already said, while throwing in some generalizations.
Overall: Your take on the specific passage, while somewhat repetitive, is still smart and nuanced. You don't do a good job of connecting this passage to your larger argument, though, and you make repeated generalizations about Lyotard's return to the philosophical realm without ever really defending it, and without engaging with the complexities of his ideas about gender. In short, you have your strengths, but as a response to the prompt this is problematic: you pick a passage of only modest difficulty, explain it well, then make bold claims about the essay as a whole which you don't really defend.
Post a Comment