A. Mitrofanova The essay is written as a table discussion with Kostya Mitenev on the roots of conflict between concepts of artificial intellect and artificial life

Computer culture which we are deeply plunged in is the producer of large quantity of artefacts and paracultural events that don't fit traditional cells of art (not 'high', not beautiful, not imaginative), programming (not functional), communication (non-perceptible by consumer or user logic). Computer as it is executes the function of broadening, in a sense being the heir of the 20th century radical art which firmly led out art from the drawn boarders. Everything produced by computer is either consumer stupidity or cultural trash, and these must be dominant codes of outside estimation of computer culture.

Periphery and center, consciousness and body, structure and function or paradigm war at daybreak of the computer era

Computer is the child of culture absolutizing consciousness and the adopted child of neurophysiology which plays a dominant role in conceptionizing of body in the 20th century. Matured it conflict of concepts, the computer got a double system of code and interpretation.

Phenomenology of consciousness, with its ears always sticking out of the processor, regarded consciousness as a self-referential instrument of perception, analysis and representation of the world. Consciousness possessed instruments of code, categorizing and presentation of the world. (And it's not important whether it was the German phenomenological school of Gusserle or the Soviet objective materialism.) Consciousness performed as universal interface between the subject and the world. Consciousness was formally identified with the Universe. Therefore initially the computer as a prosthetic appliance for concrete conscious operations (logic's, calculation, information, memory) was embrional part of concept of consciousness reduced of psychologism and subjectivity by means of phenomenology. At birth the computer pretended on role of artificial consciousness/intellect intending to be better than its parents - more powerful, more precise and reliably ignoring the influence of stupid and psychologized body. It's only sense, control/selfcontrol and rationality of logic that can be counted on in the multicomplicated structure immobile in its hierarchy and huge multi-stage management.

For structure and validity

If remember Russian/Soviet component of paradigmal construction of 'structure' we can see that starting from the end of the 20s, in theory of literature the formal method of Shklovsky raised construction up to the 2nd symbolic system/ideology. History became history of class structures. Art became, according to art theorists Ioffe, Vipper, Alpatov, illustration of formal and stylistic, and cultural and historic structural conceptions.

Physiologist Pavlov described the work of the dynamic stereotype in his book "20 years' Experience of Objective Study of Higher Nervous Activity of Mammals." He wrote: "Brain can easily distinguish power relations and this engenders aspiration to put within the framework of meter all perceptible lines of sounds…brain systemizes irritators in creating balanced system of inner processes." Thus, the dynamic stereotype of meter is a system of nonequal processes in accordance with their intensity. Meter is the base for placing of rhythm, harmony and melody. In such a way Pavlov determines the excitation and inhibition centers' allocation in human's brain while percepting music in order to provide ideal functioning of harmonic tune of melody and rhythm. (thereby, atonal music is considered as physiologically baseless and unhealthy). Only phenomena that can be explained, motivated and structurally well-grounded could be represented in history and theory of culture and in science may become a model of an artificial mentality.

In the USSR working out of computers started in 1927 (S.Guershgorin, M.Kirpichev, I.Bruk, V.Lukyanov and others). The first electronic calculating machine was constructed in 1950 under leadership of academician S.Lebedev (S.A. Lebedev. Electronic Calculating Machines. M., 1956). Though the primacy is given to the digital calculating machine with software named 'MARK-1' constructed in the USA in 1944. "Use of electronic digital calculating machine substantially broadened the goals. It became possible to make calculations that hadn't been available because the time of the operation surpassing the life time of a human being" (Big Soviet Encyclopedia, v.5, ch.Calculating technique. M., 1971).
While in the 20s moving of logic was possible in various directions - structural/functional, unique/multiple, conscious/material, central/peripheral, managed/selfmoderaing, from the end of the 20s structural totalitarian ideas became the winners that marginalized and shifted incompatible approaches out, into applied fields of art and science.

Function and structure

In 1932 a young physiologist Peter Anokhin wrote a book "Center and Periphery in the Functioning of Neurosystem." This book was a result of studying the functional activity of neuronets in human body. He had formulated principals of physiology of functional systems. "Functional system slides dynamically along structural units of the body. At the same time the units themselves are dynamic." Functional system; a) is oriented on the result, which is its starting and destructive factor, it is self regulated; b) has geterogenic central-pherepherical system; c) all elements are isomorphological, controlling extra levels of freedom of components of the system, taken separately; d) functional systems maturate and disappear selectively.

Neurophysiology got an operative modern dynamic theory which explains functioning and organization of neurofunctions. Logic of functional system is in operative opportunity of organizing the body as a functional multitude.

Neuronets don't produce any ruling machine, they organize the function, they have no hierarchy of the center and periphery, because they are homogeneous with stable structures of the body. Apparently it is possible to say that body is a result of appearing and disappearing in time functional system. All bodies are functional and therefore are temporary. Within one body a lot of functional bodies appear, they can intersect with each other, partly contract or keep/don't keep in memory former bodies. Organism is a place where multiply functional systems proceed. (Simultaneously organism is the body represented through existence in it structural stable units: organs, blood or nervous systems, etc.).

Organism and functional system don't contradict, system is not determined by organism, but it slides in it, involving heterogenic multilevel elements into functional temporal total. Functional systems are working bodies. Organism becomes home for functional bodies, that cannot be connected with each other. Each of them is formed in accordance with its dominant task, in definite external surrounding conditions. Thus, perception of music excites definite brain centers, this, in its turn, excites neighbouring centers (breath, locomotion, blood pressure) and inhibites some other (excitation, pain). Music can be a functional dominant, then other body functions will be determined depending on listening and obey it. Different music makes different influence. Absence of music will create quite different picture of excitation and inhibition in central nervous system.

Appearing of the theory of functional systems was based on Pavlov's stand-in of the meaning "consciousness" by the meaning "higher nervous activity". This meaning counts brain as an instance, organizing functional activity. The tasks of recognizing music, speech, locomotion, images are different for brain, because they irritate different brain centers, but they are equal for it in their intensity and validity. Brain physiology don't differentiate knowledge, when abstract is more valid then emotional, and emotional in its turn is more valid then physiological. Pavlov's reflex is a microdimention of inner-outer reactions of organism. Reflex is body reaction on outer action. Hence, when body is seen as a system of reflexes, it is seen in a stream of correlation with the environment and culture, it takes into consideration sensor and informational effects in the process of forming of functional models.

Neurophysiological body is always functionally determined, it is temporary, it has no inner hierarchy, all elements are equal, elements of environment (cultural, ecological, informational, etc.) exist in functional system with elements of inner physiology.

***
Obviously in the conception of computer we come across the main dilemma of the 20th century: computer as an artificial mentality replaces and improves "natural" mentality. At the same time, conception of mentality is a reduction of corporal, psychological, individual, occasional. The information is cleaned from vague, similar, dissonant. A structure is generated, which claims to totally seize the whole, to reproduce logic of the whole.

On the contrary, the negation of the reduction of the partial, occasional, multiply became principal. Within this the opportunity of explaining based on total, stable, structurally completed and balanced is denied. Instead of the logic of the whole the logic of partial, temporal and functional starts to work. Instead of absence of corporal in first case here there is the redundancy of body. Each functional system borns its own body, it is temporary and quickly vanishes being replaced by other bodies. This process takes place within the same organism-structure. Structures are not more then archives or ancient roads. Different bodies are recorded in neuronet's memory (central and peripheral), they stay in archives. And they can be called corporal prosthesis or virtual bodies, that we carry inside us, not noticing them.

The meanings of center and periphery have sense only under conditions of static, structure. Within functional mobility, which involves geterogenic elements for maintaining concrete goal, temporary hierarchy of the system dominant appears. It disappears immediately after fulfilling the task, the system disappears as well.

Speaking about polybodiness, identification instability, gender's bounds, impossibility of comparing of different functional models, we come back to difference and multiply and other cultural doctrines of the 20the century. Modern computer battles represent old dilemma: multi-gender means polyfunction. Opticocentrism of virtual three-dimension meta-world if formed as reduction to optical consciousness of variety and polyfunction of body and the world.

Hygienic machine of the universal and presumption of the different
Written after a telephone discussion with philosopher Olga Suslova

We agreed that it was Gusserle who happened to be the principal programmer of artificial intellect through philosophy of consciousness. Being engaged in criticism of conception of consciousness, he found out many body ingredients - psychologism, emotionality, personality - irrelevant to consciousness according to his theory. Purified consciousness, i.e. consciousness which was phenomenologically reduced, according to Gusserle, becomes universal operative instrument box. It is not cardinally doubted and gains the status of the immanently given to us together with the being. We get existence and simultaneously structurally and functionally organized consciousness (transcendental) that is being trans-subjectively distributed amongst us. In other word, we receive the idea of computer as an undoubtful concrete instrument of operative possibility of our consciousness supplied with all 'lofty' qualities of our own. Computer surpasses our abilities - it calculates quicker and without mistakes, it filters trash and even doesn't give way to trash, operating as a hygienic transcendental machine in the long run of its logic coming to creation of virtual meta-world which is a corrected version of the reality. And the people attain immortality due to immortal consciousness which is immanently taken out of the perished body (take it as an axiom or a stable rule of the game, i.e. paradigm). Criticism of Gusserle is naturally impossible because of the rules of phenomenology of consciousness. With all instruments of the mind and the axiom of immanence of consciousness making a whole, any criticism will serve for purifying and strengthening of the immanence of consciousness.

The way out is possible merely in case of the paradigm shift, i.e. giving the status of immanence not to consciousness but to the body, for instance. In this case structural logic working with generalization, universalization are shifted for logic working in situational, temporary, pragmatically/functionally motivated. In this case the different is produced. And each particular case produces not only itself but also its criterion and recognition status. The logic as much as any instruments of analysis and representation are not universal and are produced in a concrete case, for a concrete goal. Any trash possesses its rules of production and use and its right to produce and to use. Outside users always follow these rules or they wouldn't be able to operate - to get fun from a trash-art project, to feel happy of various possibilities, to get afraid of destructive message, etc. The unique criterion of trash is the desire to use it more when 'the dynamic stereotype' of the operation is digested by the user and afterwards is reproduced. Thus trash can perform the role of instruction, test, it may excite and provoke, cure stress and depression of the routine and standardized life conditions. Trash has been already legalized as equal in multiple and different. Though trash based on principle (axiom) of the different will never produce an estimation scale of the different, otherwise it will contradict with its own basis. Difference and multiplicity are taken as immanent, and given as a term. Organization of defining might be variously institutionalized but the difference is absolute. Consequently, relation policies take criteria and must proceed from difference, not universal, presumption. And each difference provides for itself, is self-represented, self-fixed or self-mutated, joint or disjoint. The notion of the universal for all is shifted by criterion of the validity of life.

Aggression of the structure, attempt to conquer absolutes and instruments (means of production, estimation criteria in art, conquer of museums) seems unnecessary and not valid. A particular though adequate to its terms case becomes more perspective, interesting and profitable than an abstract battle with the mills. Trash becomes self-sufficient due to vanishing of the 'trash - non-trash' opposition if it is not, of course, parasitically produced in regards to the structure