Cologne/Lisbon Philosophy of Technology LAB201724.11.20179h30-18hAnfiteatrodaFCiências.ID,BuildingC1,3rdfloorFaculdadedasCiênciasUniversidadedeLisboa,CampoGrandeOrganizedby:Dr.AlexanderGerner,PhilosophyofHumanTechnology,CFCULProf.ThiemoBreyer,a.r.t.e.s,UniversityofCologneDr.JohannesSchick,a.r.t.e.s,UniversityofCologne

#01_TechnologiesofAlterity

Info/Inscription(freeofcharge),pleaseemailtophilhumtech@gmail.com

PROGRAM9h30-9h45hArrival/Welcome9h45-10hIntroduction(AlexanderGerner,JohannesSchick,ThiemoBreyer)10h-11hThiemoBreyer(UniversityofCologne,a.r.t.e.s.) TechniquesofVisibilityasTechniquesofAlterityHumans are visible. They are visible in virtue of their embodied nature and their uprightcarriage.Inamorepregnantsense,theyarevisibleasseeingbeingsandassocialpersons.Seeingandbeingseenconstitutethesphereofhumanvisibilityandproducevarioustypesofgazesinwhichperceptionandrecognitionoverlap.Amongthedifferentformsofvisibility,a physical and a social one can be distinguished as very basic modes. Humans arecharacterisedbytheirphysicalvisibilityasanyotherobjectthathasatleastoneopaquelayer.In this mode of visibility, humans are perceptually identified. Social visibility transcendsthis identification, because it calls for a recognition of theotherperson (in amoremoralsense).Inrecognisingtheother,oneconfirmstheir“value”asapersonandasaninteractionpartner.Recognitioncan,however,beabsentinvariousways,whenonedoesnotconsidertheother.Thisimpliesalackofempathicexpressionsandshowstheboundednessofsocialvisibility to embodiedexpressivity. The talk aimsat systematisingdifferent typesof socialgazesastechniquesofvisibilityandalterity.KEYWORDS:Visibility,self-awareness,expressivity,embodiment,gaze11h-12hMarkCoeckelbergh(UniversityofVienna)PerformancesofArtificialandHumanAlterity:PoliticsandTechnologiesofDomesticationandAlienationIntheuseofdigitaltechnologies,alterityisproducedandperformedinvariousways.Thistalkfocusesontwokindsofhuman-technologyrelationsinwhichalterityplaysaroleindifferentways.Oneisthattechnologyitselfappearsasaquasi-other,whichoftentakesonanalienyetfamiliar–inotherwords,uncanny–dimension.Here,likeinthecaseofothernon-humans,there are political processes of domestication that try to de-alienate, to include in thehousehold.Thequestionthenisifthealienisnotexcluded,orindeedifthealienisallowedtoappearatall,whenallothernessisreducedtosameness.Anotherrelationisoneinwhichtechnologyisusedtoproduceandperformthealterityofhumans,forinstanceinsocialmediaandinsurveillance.Heresomehumansareincludedas"sameothers”thatarefixedontheir(data)identity,whereasothersareconstructedasdifferentandevenalienothers,whichareexcluded from the household but in this way still managed, domesticated. Again, thistechnologicalconstructionofaliensisapoliticallyproblematicperformance,notbecauseitexcludesthealienbutbecauseitproducesit(inordertothenmanageit).Inbothkindsofrelationsandperformances,themainethicalandpoliticalproblemconcernstheviolenceofcategorisation,whichkeepsbothmachinesandhumanswithinoroutsidespecificboundariesandborders.Bordercrossingsarenotonlyforbidden;technologiesareactivelyusedinwaysthatcreateandmaintainexistingontologicalandpoliticalboundaries.Howcanwedealwiththisproblem?Whatdifferentkindofpolitical-technologicalperformancesandpromiscuitiescoulddestabiliseandresistthis?KEYWORDS:artificialagents;alterity;politics;domestication;alienation

12h-12h15CoffeeBreak12h15-13h00EstherKeymolen(UniversityofLeiden)Trustinthenetworkedera:afunctionalfiction.Trustisarobuststrategytoreducecomplexityinsocialinteraction.Whenwetrustwehavepositiveexpectationsabouttheactionsofothers.Althoughwearenotsurewhatthefuturebringsorhowothersaregoing tobehave,whenwehave trustwecanbridge this gapofuncertainty.Trustcanbeseenasa“functionalfiction”.Byacting‘asif’weknowforsurewhatwillhappeninthefuture,socialinteractionismadepossible.Itisnottobeexpectedthatinournetworkedsocieties,trustwillsoonbecomeredundantand substituted by technology. On the contrary, in order to endure the complexity thattechnologyinherentlybringsforth,trustwillonlybemoreindemand.However,howtrustandtheshapingoftrustareimpactedbytheuseoftechnologiesisanopenquestion.Thefocusofthistalkwillthereforebeontheintersubjectivecharacteroftrustandhowthisintersubjectivecharactermightbeundersiegebythedevelopmentofautomatedandpro-activeothers.Bothpublicandprivateactorsinvestinalgorithmicdecision-makingsystemsthat crunchhuge amounts of data in order to predict the behaviour of their citizens andcustomers.Basedonthesedata-drivendecision-makingtools,interactionswithcitizensandcustomersincreasinglybecomeautomated.Generally,citizensandcustomershavehowevernoway of guessing how they are being read by these systems. They are in a relation of“invisiblevisibility”.Citizensandcustomersbecomevisibleinawaythatisinvisibletothem.Althoughtrustisalwaystoacertainextentblind,isthereamomentwhereitbecomestooblind and transforms in sheer hope? Can our pro-active, personalized and automatedenvironmentstillfunctionasafamiliarworld,a“lifeworld”inwhichsharedperceptionsandbeliefscanbepresupposed?Finally,somepreliminaryideasaresharedontrustasacentralpartofinterfaceethics.KEYWORDS:trust,complexity,postphenomenology,mediationtheory,interfaceethics.13h00-14h15LunchBreak14h15-14h45AlexanderGernerHacking, messing around, enhancing, flattening or resisting the embodied alien? ProbingDramaturgiesandTechnologiesofxenoresonance.Enhancing4E(embodied,extended,embedded,enactive)techniquesofcognitionshouldbeputintoperspectiveintheiraliendimension.Humansasliminalbeing,aredescribedas“notentirely at home with ourselves” (Waldenfels 2011,76). By “pan experiential meshes” ofobject-orientedequallyexistingflatontologyBogost´s(2014)AlienPhenomenologyorwhatit is like to be a thing hacks into and messes withWaldenfels´s alien human sense andexperience-centred account by an -what I call- post-experience and post-personaldramaturgy.InmyviewBogost´sprojectivealienexcludesbody-centerednessindemocracyofobjects inwhichhemessesaround:“amess iswhat isnotgraspablebyhumanactors,unable tobeordered intoanetwork.Butwho’s to say thatmymess isnot thevolcano’snetwork? Whose conception of reality gets to frame that of everything else’s?” Bogost2014,21)ThispositionIwanttoproblematizeasathemederivedfromacybernetic“common

collective”andflatnetworksresearchprogramthat leadstonetwork-based“ecologies”ofubiquitousandtotalizingconnectednessbycomputationofaprogrammeddigitalizedalien:“thealienisnotlimitedtoanotherperson,orevenanothercreature.Thealienisanything—andeverything—toeverythingelse.”(Bogost).Formethisdramaturgyoftotalmobilisationandmessingaroundwiththealienleadstoadisembodiedprojectiveconceptionsofalteritythat has to be confronted with the fact of a general technicity of embodied humanexperience:Within polycentric positionalities (Plessner), we are defined by paradoxes ofborder-crossing experiences and deviations, in which we not only constantly crossexperientialthresholds,update,re-embodyandtinkerwithnewtools,self-imagesandhaveencountersandconfrontourselveswithanotherandthusbecomedefinedwithinapraxisofbodiesintechnologies.Moreover,whenbecomingtransformedbytechnologicaltoolssuchdigital Avatars, body doubles and enactive interaction schemata (body technologies), orembedded and extended body-techno interfaces- projective aliens are created withindifferent dramaturgies. In these dramaturgies, plural roles based on the possibility of„poly(ec)centricpositionalities“(Gualeni2015)createfictionsandhallucinationsthatoftenappearmore„real”thanourviewsonourspectator´sbodies.Hackingandtinkeringwiththeex-bodiedorre-embodiedalienisguidedbythemeaningofhackingasinitiallypresentedin1959byPeterSamson.RecentlycreatedVRAvatarTherapiesstageVirtualBodydoublesandby that hack, tinker, enhance or empower resistance against projected aliens, such asacousmaticvoicesinthehead.Inmyreadingoftechno-alienphenomenologytheembodiedalienisputintoperspectiveastechnicallyout-of-sync,ordesynchronisedandindramaturgiesofxenoresonance.Xeno-resonancedealswithunidirectionalentrainmentsonapregivenorstabilizedrhythmbyoneofthecommunicators/sonancesourcesthatcannotbeinfluencedconsciously(onapre-persoanallevel),orareimposedontheother.Xeno-resonancedealwithalteredstatesofselvesasdirectlyinducedbytechnologyasforexampleina)proposedfuturemedical treatment of paralysis in which interrupted, inner-bodily resonances betweennervousandmotor-systemareenvisionedtoberestoredwithbrainimplantsbybrain-spine-interfaces thathavealreadybeen tested inmonkeys.Anotherexampleof xenoresonancewould be b) Avatar interfaces c) genetic editing and interspecies plant-animal-humaninterfacesord)directbrain-to-braininterfaces(Grauetal2014;Yooetal.,2013).Since2013itispossibletotransmitsensory-motor“information”commandsinbetweenanimalbrainsmediatedvia the internet (Pais-Vieiraetal.,2013) -,examplesofadigitalembodiedalienwhen“I”become“we”(Trimperetal.,2014).These interfacescanbe interpretedfromadirected or imposed resonance position, which rise ethical, social, economic andpolitical/policyissues:forexampleissuesof“brainprivacy”(Alpert,2007)posethequestion,ifweareactuallyexperiencingasuspensionofresonanceoranewcategoryoftechnologicallyinducedresonanceinwhichthe“sound-source”takesoverandentrainsontothereceivingbodyadisciplinaryregimeofslave-resonancecontrolledbyanuncontrollableortranscending(acousmatic)master-other.Shouldtherebeofafundamentalhumanrighttoresistmessingaroundwith“you”“me”and“we”inxeno-resonance?

KEYWORDS embodied alien phenomenology, hacking, technical Interfaces of Cognitiveenhancement,xenoresonance

14h45-15h15:JohannesSchick(UniversityofCologne,a.r.t.e.s.)“TheOtherSideofIntelligence”:Techniques,AlterityandtheHomoFaberAt thebeginningof the20thcentury,HenriBergson introducedtheconceptof theHomofaberinhisfamousbookCreativeEvolution.Althoughtheideaofmanbeingatoolmakinganimalwasfarfrombeingnew,theconceptofthehomofaberignitedavibrantdiscussionofthegenesisof intelligence:whileBergsonclaimedthathuman intelligence isgenerated inexchangewithmateriality,Durkheimandhis schoolargued for thesocialoriginofhumanintelligence.Thesepositionsconstitutedthepolesofthehighlychargedfieldofcontroversy,whichwasheldbyanthropologists,philosophers,sociologistsandarchaeologists.Oneoftheprominent figures was the nowadays almost forgotten, yet influential philosophers LouisWeber,whoprovides,accordingtoFrançoisSigaut,an important link inthephilosophyoftechnology inFrancebetweenAlfredEspinasandGilbertSimondon.ForWeber,thehomofaberrevealsadifferent,pre-socialandpre-linguisticsideofintelligencewhichworksratherwithschemataandimagesthanwithverbalexpressions.Thisspecificoperationalmodeofintelligenceisgeneratedoutofarecursiverelationshipwithmatterandcorrespondstothespecificmodeofexistenceoftechnicalobjects.Technicaloperationsnecessitateadifferentformofrepresentationinordertobecomprehended.Thismodeofthought,theothersideofintelligence,manifestsitselfintheunderstandingoftechnologyashumanscienceinthefrench tradition, which ultimately leads to Simondon’s project to search for a “newencyclopedicspirit”allowingforasymmetrical,ethicalrelationshipwiththetechnicalworld.In following this trajectory, I ask for the ontological and epistemological conditions ofpossibilitytoconceiveofthetechnicalobjectasother.KEYWORDS:Technology,homofaber,GilbertSimondon,technicalobject,ethicsofalterity15h15-15h45AnneLefebvre,ENS(Paris-Saclay(Cachan)/CIPh)'Therobotdoesnotexist'(GilbertSimondon):onemorereasontorethinkitsdesign.Althoughthelastdecadenewtechnologiesclearlyrelaunchedit,thequestionoftheexistenceof‘artificialothers’or‘artefactsasothers’,mighthavenothingfundamentallynew.Inaway,thecomplementarythesisGilbertSimondonwrotein1958[2017],OnTheModeofExistenceofTechnicalObjects,canbereadasanearlycriticalanswertothealreadyexpandingrepresentationsinthe1950’s,ofmachinesasalteregosthatwouldthreatenorsavehumanity.Ourfirstgoalinthispaperwillbetoenlightentheverymeaningandissuesofthisstriking–butnolessserious–statementSimondoncametomakethen:‘therobotdoesnotexist’(Simondon2017,p.16),andtounderstandwhyheneverthelesscallsinhisallworksfortreatingtechnicalobjectsdifferentlythansolemeans,evenfordevelopingemotionforthem.Inthesecondpartofthispaper,onewillshowthat–farfrombeingdisqualifiedbytodayemergenceofnewtechnologieslikeAI,deeplearning,etc.–Simondon’sphilosophyofindividuationallowsustoentirelyreformulateandcleartheproblemoftheontologicaldifferencebetweenhumans/artefacts,thatmanycontemporaryauthorskeepstrugglingwithinvain,bybringingusbacktothetruecriteriaoflifeasanticipationandinvention.Atlast,onewillshowthat,indoingso,Simondondoesnotonlyhelpustodistinguishsimulationprocessesfromlife’sinvention,butalsoleadustorethinktheontologicalstatusofartefacts:theirmedianrolewithinourrelationalprocessofindividuationinwhichemotionisinvolved.Onewillclaimthatitiswhyweneedtotakeseriouslythequestionoftheirdesign.IwillinvitethedesignerOlivierHirt(ENSCI–les

ateliers)tojoinanddiscussabouttherelevancytoexploredesignprojectsabletotakecareoftheserelationalcrucialissues,farfromstayingprisonersofthesolelogicsofimitationandinteractionthatroboticsmostlydevelopstoday.KEWORDS:Simondon,anticipation,simulation,emotion,relation,design15h45-16h00CoffeeBreak16h00-16h30NunoNabaisAnimalandmachine:Couldtheybesimilarformsofestrangement?16h30-17h10Roundtable1_TechnologiesofAlterity_Performance,Robots,AIwithMarkCoekelbergh,ThiemoBreyer,GraçaCorrêa,(Robotsandperformanceaestheticsandethicalconsiderations),AnneLefebvre,JohannesSchick,ViníciusJonas(CFCUL)17h10- 17h50 Roundtable 2: Digital Alterity (data protection, policy, law issues trust,Biobanks)EstherKeymolen,MaraAlmeida(CFCUL),AlexanderGerner,MarkCoeckelbergh,JohannesSchick,AlexanderGernerPieterVermaas(TUDelft)_Notes/comments17h50-18h00Resumeandendnotes:ThiemoBreyer,JohannesSchick,AlexanderGerner