rupa /DANM201 /CW8

Jean-Francois Lyotard “Can Thought Go On Without a Body?” in The Inhuman

Mark B N. Hansen “Introduction” and “The Affective Topology of New Media Art” in New Philosophy for New Media

Henri Bergson Matter and Memory

How can thought go on without the body? Obviously, there can be no thought without the body, nor can thought go on, at least not effectivley, if the body is severely neglected and left to degrade. All thought, as agreed by all three writers, is directly dependent upon our bodies' abilities to mitigate the surrounding world, taking in information through the five senses and through motion.

Lyotard attacks this subject by adding the imminent annhihilation of the earth due to the death of the sun. His solution to carrying on thought: consider the body as hardware and thought as software. Provide the software "with a hardware that is independent of the conditions of life on earth...We must learn to manufacture a hardware capable of nourishing our software or its equivalent, but one maintained and supported only by sources of energy available in the cosmos generally." He also adds that none of our computer processes today come close to the human brain since they are based on binary and we are not binary creatures; we feel, we take in "ambiguous data" that is not predefined in code, and we do not have to go through exhaustive processes in order to distinguish between what is important and what is not.

Currently, it is believed that thought can continue eternally in the digital space, once we figure it (thought and the brain) out of course. But Hansen points out, if I remember correctly, that this space is a non-place, "a space without any original analogical correlation with human activity." If this is true, how can thought be accurately represented or simulated within such a place? This level of consciousness is markedly a human trait.

Also, it seems to be very reductive for people to think thought only occurs in the brain, and that the body merely takes in and chooses the information. The heart, for example, seems to have its own brain. It has been noted on many occasions that patients receiving heart transplants take on the hobbies or personality traits of the donors. If thought simulating software is to be created, these things must be taken into account, though I'd rather it not be created at all. It seems like a waste of good human power, let's save the world instead and end hunger and poverty and cure diseases. Anyhoo, the point is that mind and body are specific to each other and the relationship of all these parts is far bigger than body as gatherer and brain as interpreter/organiser.

I really feel that the question we should pose is not "can thought go on without a body?" but instead, why should thought go on without the body? It would be pointless. There'd be no one to experience it, therefore removing all value. We could, though it's highly unlikely, design fantastical machines to carry on thought, but what good what it do any of us? None. This all seems to stem from the human need to never die, to leave a legacy and never be forgotten. We want to live on through our actions, our words, and our children, and now, through replication of DNA and the possibility of downloading ourselves into machines. Did 2001: A Space Odyssey teach us nothing? HAL does not make for a happy future.

The end is imminent, whether through our own personal deaths or the end of the world. We cannot experience it once we are gone.