Human consciousness has always intrigued me. Humanity’s greatest achievements in both arts and science are attributed to a unique capacity and intelligence that is solemnly human. However, computation has advanced to where information, automation and digital networks are shifting our roles, responsibility and identity. Who we are has been closely tied to what we do, that is our societal contribution and our relationship with one another. Technological tools that were created to assist us are not only reshaping human relations but also gaining a presence that changes how we think of ourselves. 

According to Dataism (Hariri, 2015), the entire human specie can be seen as single data-processing system where individual beings serve merely as chips. All of humanity’s history can be summarized by four methods of gaining efficiency: increase the number processors, variety of processors, number of connections between processors and freedom of movement along existing connections. We are therefore, mere information at our core. 

If the human experience is unoriginal and humanity’s goal is the Internet-Of-Things, then how would we explain creativity and imagination? Are they too, algorithmic information flow?

Jaron Lanier (2010) claims that as developers of digital technology design programs that require users to interact with a computer as if it were a person, they are asking for our acceptance that at least a part of our brain functions as a program (Lanier, 2010, p. 4). Our exchange with the machine “locks” us into a grid of suppositions based in minimalistic ideals and explicit commands. 

While simplicity in digital designs gets a job done, inexact details that attribute to the whole “human program” may be lost. Peripheral data that does not precisely comply to the task are ignored, resulting in an exchange template based solely in transactional efficiency. Such fragmentation of what Lanier refers to as “personhood” not only reduces our expectations of each other, but also “who a person can be and…who each person can become” (Lanier, 2010, p. 4). 

Lanier (2010) claims that we take for granted the countless ways we are networked, including via social media. We buy into surface proficiency but in truth, networks perpetuate a “program” in us that is not actually (the whole of) us. As we extend our adoption of these technologies, we empower networks through dependency. Information becomes us. We socialize and work (produce) in a “symbolic environment” of “real virtuality” (Castells, 2000). 

While dataists view such developments as human evolution, their potential results alarm others. A cybernetic “posthuman” is interchangeable with the next. S/he (it) applies “lenticular logics” (McPherson, 2012) where nodes are observed without perception of the whole. Perception rises beyond intelligence into consciousness. This is the realm of meaning, understanding and awareness. In the context of human-versus-machine, this realm represents an argument against human as information. Organisms are greater than algorithms. We are complex beings on a quest. 

Johanna Drucker references an “interior life” that is tampered by the “grand narratives” of Silicon Valley (Simanowski, 2016, p. 43). Lanier (2010) points to an augmenting “hive mind” as the result of our alikeness and displacement from the “whole”. Humanity rests at a crossroad where artificial intelligence (AI) propels singularity. Our reliance on AI for productivity must be balanced with the acknowledgement that we are not only in charge but we also reserve an authority and a sovereignty that is uniquely human. Such self recognition requires an awareness that surpasses our roles and responsibility in the social construct. 

If we were mere performances (of tasks) then we are undoubtedly replaceable by machines. Computers can outperform us. But if we are a capacity greater than information flow assigned to transactions, then it is up to us to summon that force within. Lanier refers to it as consciousness “situated in time” (Lanier, 2010, p. 42). It is a context and an embodiment that sustains us outside a performative dimension. It is “us” in a space where no information flows and yet fully defined. 

 

References 

Castells, M. (2000). Materials for an exploratory theory of the network society. British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 5-24. doi:10.1080/000713100358408

Harari, Y. N. (2015). Homo Deus: A brief History of Tomorrow. New York: Harper, An Imprint of HarperCollins.

Lanier, J. (2010). You are not a gadget. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

McPherson, T. (2012). Why Are the Digital Humanities So White? or Thinking the Histories of Race and Computation. Debates in the Digital Humanities, 139-160. doi:10.5749/minnesota/9780816677948.003.0017

Simanowski, R. (2016). Digital humanities and digital media: Conversations on politics, culture, aesthetics and literacy. London: Open Humanities Press.