Nick Land recently went on the Theory Underground show and told people at various levels of philosophical mastery about how the human body is an inefficent mechanism for carrying brains around the solar system, and that eventually intelligence will rid itself of the human body in order to more efficiently scooter around the galaxy for questionable reasons.
I wonder what Heidegger would say about the technology stuff? I think he'd probably agree with much of what you say here. There's a sort of danger in getting caught up in the lure of technological thinking. You sum it up nicely when you say that it appears "cool and goth". Surely there's a way of thinking this age of technology which doesn't just lapse into this, as you say, "ridiculous" (I really loved that you used this word here too, it's apt!) view of technology.
I just think its funny that Nick Land believes that technology is going to indefinitely reproduce itself in successful bouts of overcoming its limits and expanding. He equates Capital with the self expansion of technology which (he acknowledges) would require that Capital is able to overcome its limits of being rooted in human labor and fuse the real production of technology fully with the logic of financial acceleration, which, despite appearances, is a crazy gamble. It's much more likely for things to stagnate or collapse. He even recognized some of his idealism in his turn to NRx in which he realized that this could not occur from the autonomous functions of the free market but only from some powerful actor.personifying the function of high rates of real reinvestment. He somehow expects that these powerful actors will continue to push this forward towards their own dissolving. In reality as soon as this becomes a problem for their self reproduction (as happened in the '70s) they probably will simply start to try and self-insulate and maintain ruling power without resting on the mess of constant technological dynamism which is inherently destabilizing. It's just a total fantasy, a potential possibility.
He is absolutely exhausting, much like looking after a toddler is exhausting and boring. I haven't said anything 'cause why bother. History will put him and his ilk in his place.
The real question here is whether robots can have souls. If they can, then Land is perhaps not so wrong. If they cannot then well, we can pass on the gift of intelligence but not the gift of possessing a soul.
A calculator does not have subjectivity/awareness of itself and isn't a life. In cybernetic theory, things can move "like a body" with certain tendencies like a hyperunconscious, but there are still irreducible real subjectivities within that. Unless it has subjective aliveness, it is a calculator or simply even a social tendency being confused with an alive subject. The subject of history as a conscious idea (aka a tendency acting like a body but is not a body) like "proletarian" still needs the alive things within it, even with its technologic appendages.
One more thought. It doesn’t seem like Land is claiming that technology produces human desire, but that consciousness-at-large creates human desire that will in turn create the ever-evolving technological circumstance that allow consciousness to eventually reach a state of pure expression in material form. So subjectivity (includes desire) is a tool created by consciousness-at-large as a method of bringing about the necessary material circumstances to reach its purest expression (the Singularity).
I’d be interested in a deeper discussion on how Land differentiates technology and consciousness. I haven’t listened to this most recent interview, but my initial impression of this idea that consciousness seeks the most proficient carrier (seeks to shed the meatsuit in favor of a more efficient host) is that it echoes an evolutionary model. The point this article raises around the idea that consciousness cannot be separated from desire (is produced by desire?) brings up some interesting questions to be considered, as does the question of whether subjectivity is formed from desire rather than say, essence (as the quality which separated humans from beasts). Land’s combination of German Idealism and Marxist economics seems to always lead to either very subtle or subtly contradictory insights on the topic of consciousness as an independent phenomenon.
Are you taking into consideration the inevitable upcoming of AI+meme+crypto hyperstitions that will basically create the bedrock for semiotic capitalism? Once there, capital will just be a way to aggregate intelligence and narratives. Who says that at one point in the future the best way to accumulate intelligence (capital) won't be a narrative that maximises the distribution of intelligence across space and time creating a sort of cybernetic hive mind hybrid between humans and AI?
I would definitely say your ascetic contemplation of such processes are harmless, but if they were really popular I would say fetishizing the processes of a glorified Amazon or tiktok algorithm is not very ambitious of a job for a philosopher.
It's not glorification of a social network algorithm. It's understanding how such algorithms (and generative AI, and all future instances of AI) are changing the way we see ourselves and the way capitalism work. Generative AI is a representation of the collective unconscious - digitalised into billions of data fragments - that for the first time has actually become an entity in itself which we can interact with and that it can also interact with itself (see infinite backrooms experiment). It's going to change everything.
I wonder what Heidegger would say about the technology stuff? I think he'd probably agree with much of what you say here. There's a sort of danger in getting caught up in the lure of technological thinking. You sum it up nicely when you say that it appears "cool and goth". Surely there's a way of thinking this age of technology which doesn't just lapse into this, as you say, "ridiculous" (I really loved that you used this word here too, it's apt!) view of technology.
Am I hearing a request for a piece on Heidegger's take on technology? :-)
I think so!
Great critique, thank you for sharing
I just think its funny that Nick Land believes that technology is going to indefinitely reproduce itself in successful bouts of overcoming its limits and expanding. He equates Capital with the self expansion of technology which (he acknowledges) would require that Capital is able to overcome its limits of being rooted in human labor and fuse the real production of technology fully with the logic of financial acceleration, which, despite appearances, is a crazy gamble. It's much more likely for things to stagnate or collapse. He even recognized some of his idealism in his turn to NRx in which he realized that this could not occur from the autonomous functions of the free market but only from some powerful actor.personifying the function of high rates of real reinvestment. He somehow expects that these powerful actors will continue to push this forward towards their own dissolving. In reality as soon as this becomes a problem for their self reproduction (as happened in the '70s) they probably will simply start to try and self-insulate and maintain ruling power without resting on the mess of constant technological dynamism which is inherently destabilizing. It's just a total fantasy, a potential possibility.
What do you have against goths dude, at least the girls can be pretty hot
I’m citing it as the redeeming factor!
He is absolutely exhausting, much like looking after a toddler is exhausting and boring. I haven't said anything 'cause why bother. History will put him and his ilk in his place.
The real question here is whether robots can have souls. If they can, then Land is perhaps not so wrong. If they cannot then well, we can pass on the gift of intelligence but not the gift of possessing a soul.
A calculator does not have subjectivity/awareness of itself and isn't a life. In cybernetic theory, things can move "like a body" with certain tendencies like a hyperunconscious, but there are still irreducible real subjectivities within that. Unless it has subjective aliveness, it is a calculator or simply even a social tendency being confused with an alive subject. The subject of history as a conscious idea (aka a tendency acting like a body but is not a body) like "proletarian" still needs the alive things within it, even with its technologic appendages.
He makes being a meat vehicle from a machine entelechy sound so goddamn appealing in the worst way.
https://fatherofzoomers.substack.com/p/naked-and-afraid?r=jejuu
One more thought. It doesn’t seem like Land is claiming that technology produces human desire, but that consciousness-at-large creates human desire that will in turn create the ever-evolving technological circumstance that allow consciousness to eventually reach a state of pure expression in material form. So subjectivity (includes desire) is a tool created by consciousness-at-large as a method of bringing about the necessary material circumstances to reach its purest expression (the Singularity).
I’d be interested in a deeper discussion on how Land differentiates technology and consciousness. I haven’t listened to this most recent interview, but my initial impression of this idea that consciousness seeks the most proficient carrier (seeks to shed the meatsuit in favor of a more efficient host) is that it echoes an evolutionary model. The point this article raises around the idea that consciousness cannot be separated from desire (is produced by desire?) brings up some interesting questions to be considered, as does the question of whether subjectivity is formed from desire rather than say, essence (as the quality which separated humans from beasts). Land’s combination of German Idealism and Marxist economics seems to always lead to either very subtle or subtly contradictory insights on the topic of consciousness as an independent phenomenon.
Are you taking into consideration the inevitable upcoming of AI+meme+crypto hyperstitions that will basically create the bedrock for semiotic capitalism? Once there, capital will just be a way to aggregate intelligence and narratives. Who says that at one point in the future the best way to accumulate intelligence (capital) won't be a narrative that maximises the distribution of intelligence across space and time creating a sort of cybernetic hive mind hybrid between humans and AI?
I would definitely say your ascetic contemplation of such processes are harmless, but if they were really popular I would say fetishizing the processes of a glorified Amazon or tiktok algorithm is not very ambitious of a job for a philosopher.
It's not glorification of a social network algorithm. It's understanding how such algorithms (and generative AI, and all future instances of AI) are changing the way we see ourselves and the way capitalism work. Generative AI is a representation of the collective unconscious - digitalised into billions of data fragments - that for the first time has actually become an entity in itself which we can interact with and that it can also interact with itself (see infinite backrooms experiment). It's going to change everything.