Realisation of Automatisms
Series on Arnold Gehlen
After having discussed multiple aspects of how humans necessarily develop automatism and why they’re so attracted to them, in this post, I’d like to report on how Gehlen is summarizing all this into the actual realization of it throughout technology.
Reference Points
Geheln starts with Schmidt’s three steps to demonstrate the evolution of our reference point regarding technology. These three steps are the following:
1. Organic performance
2. Power performance
3. The circular motion of action
This model fits into his ideas so far because of the movement of our reference point from the outside to the inside. That is from the physical to the mental activities and from purely mechanical tasks to replacing the learning process itself.
When comparing how this is achieved one can, for example, look at sensors. Sensoric data is used by machines to adapt their behaviour to their surroundings as some kind of fail-safe reaction. So, in that sense, it is inspired by our adapting of behaviour according to success and failures. But what is even more remarkable than that is the incorporated regulation. It isn’t only adapting behaviour but recovering the stability of its own automatism by controlling its own processes.
That means their circular motion of regulation copies ours of actions. And that is not only because it controls automatically but because it’s copying also the internal and implicit processes. These internal process that regulates the body without our interference exists therefore also analogously in machines.
Organisation Principles
Gehlen retains a full philosophical evaluation at this point since this copying phenomenon from humans into machines is not fully complete yet. It misses still some crucial information to talk about the content of our actions. More concretely, he points out that so far regulations of machines only copy the “superficial” form or the structure of our actions but nothing substantially relevant.
Of course, at this point, one might argue if that is still the case in modern times. Even with the rise of databases, annotated information, and expert systems one still just creates a huge collection of rules. Furthermore, the statistical methods in contemporary artificial intelligence might be able to act more and more autonomously but the models are still only elaborated sensors reacting to huge amounts of data. AI isn’t actually experiencing something itself besides the following of explicit rules (if you could even call that “experiencing” strictly speaking), not being able to consciously understand anything.
My knowledge of biotechnology might be too restricted here but there might be some progress in creating actual life by working with living beings. However, technology in general is unarguably an objectification of our own process into our surroundings. While that works pretty well, the results could remain unarguably “soulless”.
In the end, that is what the realisation achieved by processing technology is about. It is the projection of human organisation principles into “lifeless” nature. Not “lifeless” like simple stones but like machines. Similarly, as we discussed magic as the precursor of modern technology, supernatural technology would also be a projection of “self-made” organisation principles into nature.
Consequences of the Projection
What is interesting however is the fact that in earlier times technicians and engineers didn’t consciously think about this projection process. After all, psychology being such a “commonsense” topic in some cultures is a pretty young phenomenon compared to the origins of technology. Consequently, these technicians and engineers actually did this by accident. By using intuition they unconsciously constructed sensual and compulsive models that match their own inner life. Quite fascinating when you think about it, isn’t it?
As a result of recognizing this at some point, fruitful intersections with other disciplines started evolving. Even more so, suddenly the relevant research questions could be shared across disciplines. In the beginning, technology moved much closer to physiology, biology, and psychology.
Obviously, Gehlen being a sociologist advertises also the intersection between technology and sociology. Nowadays with social media, it makes even more sense than ever to look at the social function and social implications of technology. Even in his times, communication was already a topic since also in the first half of the 20th century people weren’t only communicating only with letters anymore. Additionally, regarding our learning process through action, the progression of technology supports the sharing of information which is definitely an aspect following from his own theory.
It’s quite interesting that from these original disciplinary intersections, proper discipline emerged. Nowadays, with the trends of cognitive science and artificial intelligence, so many domains are involved in research. My personal favourite of those intersections is the digital humanities where empirical methods can slowly be applied to huge data sets. The quantity of available texts in digital form makes it possible to operationalise even literary studies in a more objective way!
Source: Man in the Age of Technology I.4, Gehlen
