how we became posthuman.pdf

7/29/2019 how we became posthuman.pdf

1/7

a n d cu i tad

tflecytwrg;From the]

accpumotl

o f l e s , , | v . rnortaV^a n a n a l v t i c a l l y s i r j j ^technocultwe ai A order t t t a t w mgfo"la n tcon ce ptsoi sa bj ;l i^Bly al ien abduciions

Immismanri Tcdumcniim '"A monumental projec],: I " " > ' " H : S . as possiblywon|||||"I tlic history of sciwtco, 3r4|a8A\arl< l' o / . t t r . iiuthoi (f j ^ ^ t f J M"lil is is ,m incisivt: miKliUfttonIK tuui the inar j i int i/hlt^ftr^llinnod in hiinyjrilormed c$0m i l m u n i i n d s . I ioi;ominotilhla|i*|G r e j o r j D c n j o r d , wt &l lf tim

M. K a t h e r i n e H a j H * pO*!'^Pfin: hokls advanced tegres rtbt^.Ort^li. . / W Mafefe an d UtkpW

7/29/2019 how we became posthuman.pdf

2/7

/ Chapter Ten

" h u m a n " p o i n t s t o t h e s e r i a te d n a t u r e o f these changes. But finally th , . a i lswers to questions a b o u t t h e p o s t h u m a n w i l l n o t b e f o u n d i n books, , |least n o t o n l y in b o o k s . Rather, th e answers w i l l be ie m u t u a l creatio, i , ,|,,p l a n e t f u l l o f h u m a n s s t r u g g l i n g to b r i n g i n t o existence a f u t u r e in w h i c l i w can continu to survive, continu to find m e a n i n g f o r ourselves and , , ,c h i l d r e n , an d c o n t i n u t o p o n d e r o u r k i n s h i p w i t h an d differences f ron 111K.i n t e l l i g e n t machines w i t h w h i c h o u r destinies are increasingly entw ined. C O N C L U S I O N WHA T D O E S I T M E A NT O B E P O S T H U M A N ?

VV'liat, finally, a r e w e to make o f t h e p o s t h u m a n ? 1 A t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f this' book, 1 snggested t h a l t h e p ro s p e c t o f b e c o m i n g p o s t h u m a n b o t h evokes' terror aud excites pleasure. A t t h e e n d o f t h e b o o l - pcrl iupi I ca n s u i n m a -i r iz e tl i e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e p o s t h u m a n b y i n t e r r o g a ! i i i r , t h e J O u r c e s o f thi s>'terroi a i id pleasure. T h e t e r r o r i s r e l a t v e l y e a s y t o u n d e i s i a i id l ' osl vvillii ts dual eonnolal ion ul si ipersoding the hii i i ian an d i . 11 i i l , 1 l intsthat l l n i lays n i " l l i e h u m a n " m a v l i e n u n i b e r e d S i m u i . i a n hers ( n o t a b l y lans Moravee Iml also m y U C L A colleague M i c h a e l Dyor and manyotliers i believe tha t thi s i s true not only in a general inti lli i tual sense that

displaces u n e d e f i n i ti o n o f " h u m a n " w i t h a n o t h e r b u l a l s o in a sl human means, w h y s h o u l d n ' t i t b e resisted?

F o r t u n a ! ely, these v i e w s d o n o t exhaust t h e m e a n i n g s u l I h e p o s t h u m a n .As I have repeatedly argued, human being i s f i r st o f all c i n b o d i e d b e i n g ,an d l l ie c o n i p l e x i l i e s o f t h i s e m b o d i m e n t m e a n t h a t human awareness

7/29/2019 how we became posthuman.pdf

3/7

2 8 , / Chapter Eleven

u n f o l d s in ways very different f r o m those of intelligence embodied in C vbernetic machines. A l t h o u g h Moravee s dream of d o w n l o a d i n g huma]consciousness i n t o a computer w o u l d l i k e ly come in for some hard knoeksin literature departments ( w h i c h tend to be skeptical of any k i n d of transcendence but especially o f transcendence t h r o u g h technology), literarys t u d ( s share w i t h Moravee a major b l i n d spot when it comes to the significanee o^mbo^Tmenty'This b l i n d spot is most evident, perhaps, when l iterary and c u l t u r a l critics confront the fields of e v o l u t i o n a r y b i o l o g y . Froman e v o l u t i o n a r y biologist's p o i n t of v i e w . modern humans, for all their tech-n o l o g i c a l prowess, represent an eyeMjjin kl n

the h i s t o i y o f l i f e , a species faiteo r ecent to have significa nt evoluti onar y impa ct 011 human hiologicalbehaviors and structures. In my v i e w , argnments l i k c lliose ihal jaredD i a m o n d advances in Guns, Gems, and Steel: The Fates of Human Soci-eties and Why Sex Is Fun: The Evolution of Human Sexuality si m u i d betaken scriously.4 The body is l l i e net resul l ol lliousands of vears of sedi-mented e v o l u t i o n a r y l i i s torv , and il is naive lo l l i in k l l ia l ihis hislory deesno t affect h u m a n behaviors at eveiy l evel of t h o u g h l and action.

O f course, the ref lexivity l l ia l loonis large in cyberneles also inhahitse v o l u t i o n a i y biology. The models propo sed by evol utionary biologistshavejmcoded w i t h i n theni c u l t u r a l attitudes an d assuniplions formei I bythe same histoi-y they propose to analyze; as w i t h cybernelics, observerand system are r e f l e x i v e l y ^uncl up w i t h one another. To take only oneexample, the computer module model advanced by Jerome H . Barkow,Leda Cosmides, and John Tooby in The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psi-chology and the Generation of Culture to e x p l a i n hi i m a i M -V I >h il H >nary psy-chology testifiesa^-l^ast as muc h to the importance ol I n f o r m a t i o ntechnologies invsnaping)contemporary w o r l d v i e w s as it does to humanb r a i n f u n c t i o n . 5 Nevertheless, these reflexivegjhjplexia'eSjdo not negatethe importance of the sedimented h i s t o r y incarnated w i t h i n the l>oxesand opening np newways of i h i n k i n g about w h a l being I an ineans. Inp osit ing a s h i l l f r o m presenee/absenee lo p a t l e n i / r a i i d o n i i m K i , I havesought to show 1 K>w these categories can be transfer 1 ied fmni llic4n :ide toarrive at n e w k i n d s jo f c u l t u r a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n s , w h i c h may soon rejjder suchdtialit ies f ibsoli le if they have not already. Thispr oei ssol liansf ormat ionisfueled/by tensions between-the assump tions encod ed m p a l t e r n / l andom-nessasoppn.' 11 topresence/absence. In Jacques I ) e i 1 idas p e r l lanceofp r e s e n e e / a b s e n e e , presence is a l l i e d w i t h Logos, God teleologyingeneral, w i l h an originar y pleni tude that can acl to I significationand give ordei a n d mcaning lo l l i e trajectoiy of h i s t o i \ '' I 1 11 ol KricHayelock,; gothers,demonstrateshowinPlatos HepubUt i b i s viewofo r i g i n a i y presence a u t h o r i z e d a stable, c oherentself thal. o u l d w i l n i s, andtest i fy to a sluble c< iherent r e a l i t y . 7 Through these and othei H U M U S themetaphysics presence front-loadedmeaninginto the syslem. Mcaningwas guranle'ed because a stable o r i g i n existecl. I l is now a fami liar storyhowdeconsli in l i o n exposed the i n a b i l i t y of systems toposll thi i i ro w n o ri-gins, thus u n g n d i n g s i g n i f i c a t i o n and render i i i L 1 mea g i n d e t e r m i -nate. As (he picsence/abscaice hierarchy was deslabih/i d a n d as absencewas pri v i l i ;g -d ovei pn '.sence, lack displaced p l e n i l 1 a Ir und desire usurpedc e r t i t u d e . I m p o r l a n l as these moves have been in l a l e Iwentieth-centmyt h o u g h l l h c \ - I 11 lool< place w i t h i n the compass of th e presenee/abseneedial e

7/29/2019 how we became posthuman.pdf

4/7

286 / Chap ter Elevenelectrical engineers developing i n f o r m a t i o n theoiy), rand ness lias n_creasingly been seen to play a f r u i t f u l role in the e v o l u t i o n orcoin])lc.\ Sys_tems. For Chris Langton and Stuart Kauffman, chaos accelerates thee v o l u t i o n of b i o l o g i c a l and art i f i c ia l l i f e ; 8 for Francisco Vrela, randomnessls the froth of noise from w h i c h coherent microstates evolve and to whichl iv ing systems owe their capacity for fast, flexible response; 9 for H e n r iU l a n noise i s l l i e bodv's i n u r i n u r i n g f r o m w h i c h emerges coniplex coni-i i i i i m e a l i o n between dilerenl levis in a biological svslem. 1" Mlhniigl idiese models d i l l e i in i h e i i specifics 11u \ agrei in seeingrandommss aots i m p l y as the lack o l pallern bul as l l i e Creative ground h o m w h i c h patterncan emerge.

I n d e e d , it is not too much lo say l l ia l in lliese and s lar models, randomness rather t ha n pa l t e r n is i n v e s t i d w i l l i p l o n i l u d o If p a t t e m isthere-al i/al ion ol a cerlain sel ol possibililies, randomness is l l i e much, muchlarger set ol ever\ i b i n g clse. I r o m phenoniena l l ia l ca m o l be icndered coherent by a g i v e n syslem'i ;anizal tothose the system ca I perceiveat a l l . In Gregoiy Haleson's cybei nelic episteiuologv, randomness is whatexists outside the con l inos of the box in which i sysleni i s Incaled il s i lielarger and unknowable coniplexity lor w h i c h the peicepliial p r i icesses olan organisni are a i i i e l a p h o i . 11 Signilieanoe is lichieved b\ i \ i i h i l i o n a r yprocesses that ensiire the s u i v i v i n g svslems are l l ie -swhn.se organi-zaons 1 1 1 . i . 11111.11 < mctaphors foi this c plexit) unthinkable in itself.W h e n Vrela and bis coaiilhors arge u i'.iiilnxlicil Miiitl l l ia l ihere is nostable, cohorcn I se II bul only ai il inous ageiils riinning p r i igrams, iheye n v i s i o n pallern as a l i i n i t a t i o n l l ia l drops awav as human awareness ex-pands beyond conseiousness and'encounteis l l i e enipliness l l i a l , in an-OtllCI" guise i i i i l id i i | i i . i l l \ w i l l be called I he i baos l l o l l l w h i c h all l o i nisemerge. 12

W h a t do the !se d o v e l o p m o n l s mean l o r I he posthuman? When the S6U Senvis i 11 ' s t u i i i inded in presence ident i ( i e d w i l h original \ guaran eesa n d (el. o l ' igii al 1 1 a |< i lories, associated w i t h solid foundat \ and lgica!coherence, the p o s l l i i i i i i a n is l ikely to be seen as anlihuman because it en-vis ions tbeci inseious in ind as asniall subsystem r u n n i n g i l p i ogi ain ol sell-c o n s t r u c l i o n and sell assurance w h i l e remaining ignor. in i ol the actualdynamics olconiplex sysleins. Hu the posthu man does not na ll \ mean l l iee n d o f h n n i a n i l y II signis inslead the end of a cerlain concepl io n ol I he h u m a n , a eonception I bal mas have app lied , atb est, lo l l ia l l i a d I l i l i l anitywlio I la d 1 he u i al l 11 p o w e i and lc isu reto conceptual i/e l l i e inse l vesas autonoinoiis beings excrcising thei r w i l l t h r o u g h i n d i v i d u a l ageney andchoice.1 ' What is lelhal is not Ihe posthuman as such bul the g i a l l i n g o l l l ie

Conc l us in / 287| ) l l S d ni 0 1 1 I 0 a bbi 1 a l I n i m a m si \ iew ol l l i e sell When Moravee imag\ i i i i " ( ; h o o s n g l o d o w n l o a ( l y o i i r s e l l into a c pul 1 , lliereby obtain-jgll glitechnologi eal maslery the ultmale p r i v i l e g e o l i n u n o r t a l i t y , h e s 1 1 0 I abandoning l l i e aulono inolis libera l subjecl bul is expandng its per-(i (ral ives mo l l i e reabn of l l i e poslbuman. Yel l l i e poslb an need not berecuperaled back into liberal humanism, or need it be construed as a n t i -lniiiian I ocated w i t h i n the dialctico! pattern/raudoiniiessandgroundedin embodied actuality rather than disembodied i n l o i n i a l i o n , l l i e posthu-inan ollers resources for r e t h i n k i n g the a r t i c u l a t i o n ol humans w i t h i n te l l i gent machines.

I - M \ pl o r e these resources, let us r e t u r n lo I'.ale .idea that thoseor-gaiiisms ihal sumve w i l l tend lo be the 0 1 i o s w l n I S I mil 1 nal structures areg I metaphors for the c o m p l e x i l ii s w i t h o u l Whatkindof 1 nvironmentsw i l l be created by the expandinv, p o w e i and sophistii ii > intelligentmachines? A s Richard Lanha m has p o i n l c i I m i l m i l i inlorination-richen-v i r o n i n e n t s created by u b i q u i t o u s e o n i p i i t i n g Ilie: l i initing factor is not thespeedofeomputers, ort he ratesof transniss 11 gh liber-opt iccables,o r the a i i i o i u i t of data that can be generated am I sloi ed I iather, the scarcec o i 1111 o 1 1 1 \ is human attenti on. 14 It makes sense then, that technologicali n n o v a t l o n w i l l focusoncompensatingfor l bis bottleneck. A n o b v i o u s s o l u -t ii i u 1 s l o i lesi g u i 11 1 c 11 i g e i 11 machines to all nd lo l l i e choices andtasks thatd i I have lo be done by humans. For e x a n i | il e l In re are already i n t e l l i -g c n l agenl programs tosort e m a i l , d i s c a r d i i i " nnwanted messages a n d p r i -o r i t i z i n g the rest. The program s w o r k along linea similar to neural nets.Ibc\ tablale l be choices the human operators make, and they feed back

l l i r . i n f o n n a l recursive loops to reacljusl the weighls given to variouskinds ol email aildicsses. A f t e r an i n i t i a l learning p e r i o d , the sortingprogenie 1 il 1 ove ireand more of the email management, freei ng humans

l o; 11 M 1 b 1 i 1 ; 111 ( : n t i o n to other matters.1 1 trapolate f r o m these relatively simple programs to an environ-

1 in ni 1 bal as( IharlcsOstman l i k e s t o p u l i I , s i 1 pplessyntheticsentienceond e n i a n d , hi inian conseiousness w o u l d riele on lop of a h i g h l y articulateda n d coiuplex eomputational ecology in w h i c h inany decisions, invisible tob i i m a n attention, w o u l d be made by i n t e l l i g e u l machines.15 Over twodeca les ago |oseph W'ci zci iba iii n foresaw usl aicb an ecolog\' and pas-sionatel) arguedthatjudgmentis a u n i q u e ly h u m a n f u n c t i o n a n d m u s t n o tIn 1111111 1 1 1 I V I i r t o computers. 16 W i t h the rapid (l< ' v e l o p m e n t of n e u r a l netsan d 1 xpi 11 | irograms, it is no longer so clear t h a t sophisticated judgmentsc a m o l be inadeby machines and, i n some instanees, made more accuratelyt h a n by Iminans. But the issue, in Weizenbauin's v i e w , involves more

7/29/2019 how we became posthuman.pdf

5/7

2 8 8 / Chapter Elevent h a n whether or not the programs w o r k . Rather, the issue is an etbical inperative that humans keep con trol ; to do otherwise is to abdcate t heir rsponsibilities as autonomous independent beings. What Weizenbauiu sargument makes clear is the connection between the assumptions un

7/29/2019 how we became posthuman.pdf

6/7

l i l i -

288 / Chapter Eleven

t h a n whether or not the programs w o r k . Rather, the issue is an eth(.;iperative that humans keep c o n t r o l ; to do otherwise is to abdcate their I( ,sponsibilities as autonomous independent beings. What Weizenbaun'argument makes clear is the connection between the assumptions u n . | r|g i r d i n g the l i b e r a l humanist subject and the ethica l position that humansno t machines, mustbe in c o n t r o l . Such an argument assumes a visin o f t l i eh u m a n in w h i c h conscious agency is the essence of h u m a n identi ty. Sacri-fice t h i s , and we humans are hopelessly compr omised, contamnale (| NV | | ,mechanic alienness in the very heart of our humanity. 17 Henee there isan urgeiicy , even panic, in Weizenbaum's insislonoo l l ia l udgmenl is au n i q u e l y human f u n c t i o n . At stake for him is n o t h i n g Less than what itmeans to be h u m a n .

I n the posthuman v i e w , by contrast, conscious agency has never been 'mc o n t r o l . " In fact, the very i l l u s i o n of c o n t r o l hespeaks a fundamental igno-rance about the nature of the emergent processes t h r o u g h w h i c h conseiousness, the organism, and the environment are constituted. Masteryt h r o u g h the exercise of autonomous w i l l is merely the story conseiousnesstells its elf to explain rosolis l l ia l actually come aboul t h r o u g h ehaolic dy-namics and emergent structures. I I , as Donna I laraway, Sandra I larding,E v e l y n Fox Keller, Carolyn Merchan t, and other feminist critics of sciencehave argued, there is a r e l a t i o n among the d esire for mastery, an ol i jeetivis taccount of.science, and the i m pe r i a l i s t projecl o f s u b d u i n g n a l u r e , then thep o s t h u n i a n olfers resources for the construelion ol anolher kind of account. 18 In this account, emergence replaces teleology; reflexive episte-m o l o g y replaces objectivism; d i s t r i b u t e d cognition replaces autonomousw i l l ; embodiment replaces a body seen as a support system for the m i n d ;and a dynamic partnership between humans and i n t e l l i g e n t machines re-places ti i e l i b e r a l humanist subject s manifest destiny to domnate and cont r o l nature. Of course, ubis is not necessarily what the posthuman u IImeanonly what it can mean if certain strands among its complex seri-alions are h i g h l i g h t e d and combined to crate a visin of the human thatuses the posthuma n as leverage to avoid reinscr ibing, and thus repeal ing,some of the mistakes of the past.

Just as the posthnuia -ed not be antihum an, so it also need not beapocalyptic. K d w i n I lulehins addressos l l i e idea of d i s t r i b u l e d cognilioui h r o u g b his nuanced study of the navigational systems of oceangoingships. 19 His i n e l i o i i l o u s research shows l l i a l the c o g n i l i v e system responsi-ble f o r l o c a t i n g l l i e s h i p in s|iaccand n a v i g a l i n g i l successlully resides not inhumans alone but in the complex interactions w i t h i n an environment thati n c l u d e s b o l h human and n o i i h u i n a n aelors. 1 I is s l u d v a l l i >ws 111111 lo gis i an

C o n c / u i / o n / 2 8 9excellent response to John Searle's famous "Chnese room Byima ginin gasi tuation i n w h i c h communication in Chnese can t . i l . place w i i h < , u t t| i eactors k n o w i n g what their actions mean, Searle challenged the i d e a thatmachines ca n t h i n k . 2 0 Suppose, Searle said, that he is sluek ins idea room,he who k n o w s not a w o r d of < 'I 'se Tex is w r i t te n in I l m e se are s l i dthrough a slol in thedoor. Helias i n the r o o m w i t h h i m b a s k c l s o f ( hiriesecliaractcrs a m i a rulebookcorrelatinglhegymbols w r i l l e n 0 1 1 l l i e lexts w i t hother symbi ils in the basket. U sing l l i e 1 ulebook, he assembles si rings ofcharaelei s a n d pushes them 01 1 1 l l i e d o o i Vdthough his Chnese mterlocu-tors take l hese strings to be clever respon .i is to their i n q u i r i i s, Searle hasnottheleasl ideaofthe meanin g of the texis he ha s p i o d u i ed Therefore, itw o u l d b e si aketosay that machines can l l u n l . he a i g , l o r l i k e h i m ,they produce comprehensible results w i l h o u l e o i n p i e h e n d i n g anythingthemselves. 111 Hutchins's neat interpr etation S i a r l i argument is v a l u -able preeisely beeause it makes clear t h a t it is not Se a 11< I n i 111 ie entire roomt ha t knows Chnese. 21 In this d i s t r i b u t e d c o g n i t i v i s y s t e m l l i e (.'hieser o o m knows more than do anyo f itscomponents, i n c l u d i n g Searle. The situacin ol modera humans is akin to that of Searle In 111 < < lmese room, foreverydax w e particpate in systems whose t o l a l cognilive 1 a p a c i t y exceedsou r i n d i v i d u a l knowledge, i n c l u d i n g such de\ ices as cars with electronicignit ion systems, microwaves w i t h computer ehlps thal preeisely adjustp o w e r levis fax machi nes t h a t w a r b l e to other lax uiael s, and electronic w a l e h e s l l ia l communicate w i t h a t i m i n g radio wave lo set themselvesand corred t h e i l d a t e . M o d e r n human s are capab leol moro sophisticatedc o g n i t i o n than cavemen not beeause moderns a re smarter, Hutchins con-cludes, I mi b e e a u s e l l i e v l iaxe consirueted s m a r l e i c u vi r o n ments in w h i c ht o w o r k .H u t c h i n s w o u l d no doubt disagree w i t h Weizenbaum's v i e w thatud gmenl si Id be reserved for humans a l o n e , L i ke c o g n i t i o n , de c i s i nm a k i n g is delnbuted between human and nonhmnan agents, f r o m thesteam poweied steering system that suddenly la i l ed o n a navy vesselH u t c h i n s \\a . sludyingtothechartsandpocketcalculators thatthenaviga-tors w e i e then l'orced to use to calclate their position. He convincinglyshows I ba l these adaptations to cbanged circo 111 si a i i c e s were e v o l u t i o n a r yand 1 n 1 b o d i i d rather t h a n abstract an d consciously < lesigned (pp. 347-51).The sol ni mu l o the problem caused by this sudden 1.1 i 111 re of the steeringmechanism \\ as "clearly diseovered by the o r g a n i / a l |o tbe system as aw h o l e | beforc il was diseovered by any of the p a r t i c i p a n t s " ( p . 361). Seeninthispersj 11 ' l e e , theprospectof humans w o r k i n g i n p a r t n e r s h i p w i t h i n t e l l igent n i a e b i n e s is not so much a u s u r p a t i o n of I an r i g h t and responsi-

7/29/2019 how we became posthuman.pdf

7/7

I ) i l i t y a s i t i s a f u r t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t i n theconstrucli I elis lrih i id '(|,.( ^tion ci i \ i 1 0 1 1 1 i n i ii s, a construction that has been ongoing foi 11 sands fM o . Usochangedin thisperspectiveistierelationof humansubjectiyiito its environment. Nolongeris human wi ll soen as l l i e sourec In un xv|||( jemanates I lie mastery necessaryto dominate and c o n t r o l theenviro enlRather, the d i s t r i b u t e d cognition of the emergent human subject corr !lates w i t h i n Bateson s phrase, becomes a metaphor f o r t h e distr ibutedCOgnil Ivi system as aw h o l e , in w h i c h " t h i n l d n g " is done by b o t h h u n i a i l a nJin n i l n i i n a n actors. "Thinldngconsists of b r i n g i n g these structures intocordination so they can shape and be shaped by one another," I lulehinsw o ile i p. :> l(i). Toconceplualize I he human in these le i n s is nol toimperi]III unan survival but is preeisely to enhance il foi the more we understandl l i e l l e x i b l e , adaptive si n i e l mes l l ia l coordnale e i i v i n lents and themetaphors that we ourselves are, l l i e hellerwe c a n lasl i ion iniages o f our-selves l l ia l aceurately relleel ihe complex inlerplays that ultimately maket l i e e n l i r e worldonesysleni.

This v i e w o f t h e p o s i h u m a n also o f f e i s resourcesfor t h in k in g in moreso-phi s t i e a l e d waysaboul virtual lechnili unes. As l(ingas I he I ansubjectise n v i s i o n e d as an a u t o n o m i IUS sell w i l l ainliiguous boundai ios i l ie lm-man-computer inter lac i can only he parsed as a divisin bel wecn Ihe so-l i d i t y o f r e a l l i f e o n one sido and the Ilusin of virtual realilv mi l l i e other,t h u s obscuring the lai reaching (bangos i n i l i a l e d l>\ l l ie dovelopmenl ofv i r t u a l technologies. (>nls I one t h i n k s o l l l i e subjecl asan autonomous selfindependen il ol l l ie envii ent is one likely toexperience thepanicper-f o r m e d b y N o r b e i l Wi< 'in T S Cyhcnictics ai id Bei na rd Wollc's Limbo. Thisv i e w of the.self ai i thoi i/es I he leai I bal il I he l>< M I manos ai e lueaelied al all,there w i l l be n o l h i n g lo stop l l ie sell s c pele dissolu tion By COntrast,w h e n the h i i i n a n is seen as par ol a d i s t r i b u l e d syslein l l io f u l l oxpressioilol h m i i a n eapabilily can be seen precisis lo drpnul mi I be spliec ralheit h a n being i n i p e r i l e d by il . W r i l i n g in anolhei conlexl, I l i i t e h i n s arrivesalan i n s i g b l p r o l o i i n d l y a p p l i c a b l e to v i r t u a l leclino logies What used lo loo !l ike internaliza!i on |ol t h o u g h l and subject iv i t ) | nox\ appears as a gradualpropagacin ol organized binct io i ia l properties across a sel ol inalleablei n e d i a " (p. 312). This visin is a p o l e n ! aulidole lo (he viesv l lial pases vill u a l i t y as a divisin between an i n e r l body l l ia l is le f l b e l i i n d and a dise m b o d i e d subjei I ivit y that inhabits a v i r t u a l realin, l l i e consl n i c l i o n ofs n l u a l i t y perlnned by (lase in W i l l i a m (ibson's Ncuionum, ci when hed e l i g ht s in tbe "bodiless e\ulla!iou of evberspace' and leis, abose all.d r o p p i n g b a c k hi to i lio un-al ol 'lb e bod\. " T . s c o i i l rasl, in I he i le I bal

I lulehins presenls and l lial l l ie poslhuinan helps lo aulborize l i iunan

C o n c / i / o n / o i- f i i i i c t i o n a l i t y e x p a n d sbeeause the parameters o tbe cognilive syslein it n-

habits expand. In this m o d e l , it is not aquest ion ol li i a \ ngthebod) behindi but ratlw'i i i f e x t e n d i n g embodied awareness in bigbls' speeilie local andimaterial ways that w o u l d be impossible w i t h o u t elecl ronie p r o s ! hesis

As we have seen, cybernetics was b o r n in a f r o t h ol noise when Norbert\Viener firsl t l io u g h t o f i t a sa w a y t o m a x im i z e h u m a n polenlial in a w o r l dthat is in essence chaotic and unpredictable. I.ike mans othei pioneers,W'ienei helpod t o i n i t i a t e a j o u m e y th a t w o u l d prove tohave sequencesnore lai reaching and subversive than even his lor lable powers ofmaginal c< luid conceive. As Bateson, Vrela, and others would laler arge, the se crashes w i t h i n as w e l l as w i t h o u t . The chaotic unpredictab lenature of complex dynamics implies that subjeclis ii\ is cniergent rather

V t l iangivi I I d i s t r i b u t e d r a t h e r t h a n l o c a t e d solis usness,emerg-i n g f r o m and Integrated i n t o a chaotic w o r l d ralhci ib; 11 upyingaposi-tion of mastery and c o n t r o l removed f r o m it . Bruno Lal bis arguedthatsve liase never been modeni; the seriated h i s l o \ ol cybernetics emerg-ing fro elss'orks al once malerially real, soeialls n - g u l a l e i l , and discur-sively consl riielodsuggests, f or s i m i l a r reasons i bal wehave alwaysbeenpostliu n i . n i . " 1 Thepuipose of t h i s book has been to el licle ihejourneysthat have made this r e a l i za t i o n possible. I f the t h r e i storii stoldherehow

; informal K m los! its body, how the cyborg was constructed in lliepostwaryears as lochnological artifact and c u l t u r a l icn and how the hum an be-canie tbe poslhumanhave at times seemed lo presenl l l i e posthuman asa trans i al i o n lo be feared and abhorred rather iban ss-elconiedandem-braced, l l ia l n ai tion has e v e r y t h i n g to do w i t h how the posthuman is con-s i r u c l e d a i n I mu l e e , i. ind. The best possible' lime h i eontesl for what thepo s t hu i n a n ineans is now, befor e the t rains of t h o u g h l il embodies havebeen laid i Ii is\ n so l i r m l y that it w o u l d take d y n a n i i l e loebango them. 2 4 A l-t h o u g h some i n i i a ni vorsions of the posthmnan p o i n t t o w a r d the a n t i humana m I the apocalyp tic, we can cra ft others that ss i l ! beconducivetothelong-range sun Ival of humans and of the other l i l e l'orms, biological anda r t i f i c i a l , w i t h whom we share the planet and ourselves.