BEYOND DESIGN: CYBERNETICS, BIOLOGICAL COMPUTERS AND HYLOZOISM andrew pickering
[email protected] revised: march 2006 Presented at an international conference on the philosophy of technology, Copenhagen, 13-15 Oct 2005. Revised for submission to Synthese. beyond design p. 1 We tend to think of technology as a unitary category, as if we could have a single, unitary philosophy of technology. Martin Heidegger (1976 [1954]), for example, thought that the essence of technology is a project of enframing, of putting the world at our disposal, and that science is the means of achieving that. We dominate nature through knowledge: science gives us access to the levers of power. And, at the same time, we enframe ourselves, becoming parts of a posthuman assemblage of production and consumption. I think Heidegger was right. The last few centuries can be characterised by an ever-growing assemblage of knowledge and power, science and technology, which does enframe the world and ourselves within it. I don’t see why we should not have a unitary philosophy of that assemblage: Heidegger is a good place to start. That is not what I want to talk about. The history of British cybernetics offers us a different form of science and engineering that does not seek to dominate nature through knowledge. I want to say that one can distinguish two different paradigms in the history of science and technology: the one that Heidegger despised, which we could call the Modern paradigm, and another, cybernetic, nonModern, paradigm that he might have approved of. This essay focusses on some work in the 1950s and early 60s by two of Britain’s leading cyberneticians, Stafford Beer and Gordon Pask, in the field of what one can call biological computing.