Thursday, February 14, 2008

connections that fade

In “Speech, Writing, and Code” Kate Hayles discusses platform obsolescence. She draws a comparison between the difficulty of recoding so that a program can be run on a platform just a few years newer and the ease of reading books from hundreds of years ago and still being able to understand them as relevant to the modern world. For me, this elucidated one of the specific failings of the computer to emulate a human mode of processing. While computers are capable of performing one task which they are programmed to do with astonishing precision, following code exactly, they lack the ability to translate the meaning of code or language with any kind of fluidity. Computers struggle when text does not match context. The human mind has an innate ability to execute what amount to a series of “recoding” operations in order to translate into new contexts and see in a different light. In fact, the human though process is defined by connection making. Computers are defined by the execution of connections which have been built into them. Therefore, computers are a reflection of the needs and challenges of the human mind, making permanent the constantly shifting and vanishing connections which exist in the human mind.
Hayles goes on to describe “biological modifications and technological prostheses to impose digitization on … analog processes.” It is fascinating to think of speech and writing as forms of digitization of the analog impulses that inspire them. Through an elaborate series of alph-numeric symbols and vocalizations, ideas are broken down into 0’s and 1’s that have simply evolved to be more compact, to look prettier, and to appeal to what is fundamentally human. What if machine language to evolve in such a way? Is it so far fetched to think that something akin to the “code” language that appears in The Matrix would result? How will the evolution of more advanced computer languages compare to the evolution of the higher forms of human language that we use today?
I liked Manovich’s description of the new computer as a “programming machine.” While I use my computer as a media machine as well, I believe that my primary goal now has become to use it as a tool for creation. Technology has given us the opportunity to be infinitely creative in a world full of effective digital tools and distribution channels. I almost feel spoiled.

No comments: