Risan, Lars: Artificial Life: A Technoscience Leaving Modernity? An Anthropology of Subjects and Objects – AnthroBase

Foreword

I come from a small tribe of Artificial Life researchers, our particular village based at the University of Sussex. One day we had a visitor from a different culture, who asked if he could study us and learn our ways. We like to show respect (at least initially…) to strangers, so we agreed; the unspoken bargain was that if he did not respect our culture and our goals then we would put him in the cooking pot and eat him.

Well, Lars Risan stayed many months, and became a friend and a colleague, and we didn’t have to eat him. Many of us have travelled in (literally) distant lands and met people whose culture, day-to-day concerns, and language, are apparently so different from ours as to make communication minimal; but so often some shared event or worry or problem shows that we do indeed have common interests that bridge the gap between our cultures. It became clear very soon that some of Lars’ concerns as a cultural anthropologist echoed our own as A-Life researchers – in particular, concerns about the reflexivity and objectivity of our respective research programmes – and a dialogue started which is reflected in parts of this book.

A-Lifers have to get to grips with what it means for anything to be alive – anything from a bacterium to a tree, from a human to (potentially) a robot. One theme that some of us use is to relate Life to Cognition (in a broad sense): living creatures know their world, know what has significance for them, through their interactions with it, and without a world of meaning for X, X cannot be alive. As humans, as scientists, we ourselves inhabit a world of words and of theories, where through interchange of ideas we try to find a common language through which we can make sense of our fields of study: common sense, objective or inter-subjective agreement. The language of objectivity usually implies that we can stand apart from our field of study as impartial, godlike observers, but above all here we must recognise that we ourselves, our modes of understanding, are inextricably linked with our subject matter.

Lars, of course, has a comparable problem in applying the cultural norms of anthropological research to the study of different cultures; above all a culture where we have opinions about his task. As Lars says, we were from his perspective often colleagues as well as informants, and the same holds true from our perspective – his research has relevance to our own concerns. I have gained immensely from his thoughtful analysis of the problems of objectivity and reflexivity that we all face.

As an interested participant, I can recommend his study as being extremely fair and insightful regarding the attitudes and beliefs, the conflicts and debates within our community. Yes, it all rings true, Lars understood and respected our ways; I am glad we didn’t have to eat him.

Inman Harvey

Sussex, September 1997

Contents

Acknowledgements
Note on style
Preface to report edition
Foreword, by Inman Harvey

Introduction

A brief introduction to the field of Artificial Life research
School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences (COGS)
Main theme
Theoretical perspective
Methodological considerations
The reflexivity of studying science scientifically

1. Working Machines, Objectivity and Experiments

Technoscience
Social Studies of Science
The simulation
The machine and the trustworthy witness
The subjects of the social sciences

Summary

2. The Technology of Artificial Life at COGS

The logos of Artificial Life

An ALERGIC reaction
The information processing paradigm in cognitive science
The cognitive science of ALife at COGS
Biological plausibility

The techne of Artificial Life

From simulated subjects to simulated worlds
Performativity: making and understanding
Genetic algorithms and the production of worlds to explore

Conclusion: anti-Cartesian, yet Boylean?

3. Representations of ALife: a Real or a Postmodern Science?

Some basic understandings of science and engineering

Representations of Artificial Life as a real science

A defence of Artificial Life as a natural science
The power of a unified Nature

Representations of Artificial Life as a postmodern science

Creative engineers
Out of control

Conclusion

4. Metaphors and Identities of Artificial Life Research

What is a metaphor?
Metaphors and Identities; Everyday Expressions and Scientific Models
Metaphors as more than “flashes of insight”
Contested literalness
The literalness of evolution
The literalness of “brain” and “neurone”
Purifications and Anthropomorphisms
Heretical Engineers

Summary and Conclusion

5. Intuitions and Interfaces

Laboratory life
Programming computers and understanding statistics
Running the GA on the network
The legitimacy of talking about skills and intuitions
Fiddling around with the parameters
The mutual definition of skills and tools
Interfaces into worlds in the making
The experienced difference between The Simulation and the I
Limits to thinking in terms of “inside” and “outside”

Conclusion: The emergence of subjects and objects

6. The Objectivity and Enchantment of Artificial Life

Artificial Life as Science: The Objectivity of Artificial Worlds

Everyday nature
Scientific nature
Windows and television
Distance

Artificial Life as Art: The Technology of Enchantment

The Technology of Enchantment and The Enchantment of Technology
The enchantment of “High Tech”
A synthesising example
The enchantment of machines with agency
Concluding remarks on ALife as art

7. Conclusion

Irony and Engagement
Monstrous technology or letting go of control?