Diego Lawler

This work promotes the thesis that humans are naturally transhuman. In order to achieve this, we present in the first two sections some examples of technological devices assembled to human beings, and we critically review the assumptions and dichotomies on which the idea of human enhancement is based according to the ordinary transhumanist vision. Thirdly, we present the thesis of the Extended Mind to support our intuition. Fourthly, we dismantle the most relevant philosophical dichotomies that structure the transhumanist position. Finally, we recapitulate the reasons why we should wake up from the transhumanist dream.

This paper explores how maintenance and repair practices provide insights into the nature of artifacts. Inspired by Michael Thompson’s (2008) analysis of life-forms, we propose an analogy that invites us to view artifacts as if they were akin to living beings. This analogy allows us to argue that artifacts possess a kind of “life-form”: a structured mode of existence characterized by their intrinsic organization, characteristic operations, and distinctive life-cycles. We further contend that artifacts exhibit a principle of unity that aligns them within a broader lineage of similar entities, defined by their shared life-form across various stages of their existence. This unity is actively manifested in the practices of maintenance and repair, which are organized around preserving the continuity and coherence of the artifact’s life-form. This perspective enables us to offer meaningful reflections on the ontology of artifacts while engaging constructively with prevailing viewpoints on the subject.

This paper explores how maintenance and repair practices provide insights into the nature of artifacts. Inspired by Michael Thompson’s (2008) analysis of life-forms, we propose an analogy that invites us to view artifacts as if they were akin to living beings. This analogy allows us to argue that artifacts possess a kind of “life-form”: a structured mode of existence characterized by their intrinsic organization, characteristic operations, and distinctive life-cycles. We further contend that artifacts exhibit a principle of unity that aligns them within a broader lineage of similar entities, defined by their shared life-form across various stages of their existence. This unity is actively manifested in the practices of maintenance and repair, which are organized around preserving the continuity and coherence of the artifact’s life-form. This perspective enables us to offer meaningful reflections on the ontology of artifacts while engaging constructively with prevailing viewpoints on the subject.

In this chapter, I defend a classic praxeological approach to technology: a robust philosophical reflection on our technological practices demands an adequate theory of action. My interest lies in exploring certain ontological and epistemological issues arising from this programmatic statement. First, I characterize the point of view of praxeology and determine the set of basic properties of technical action. Second, I suggest that the application of this viewpoint to the world of the products of technical action par excellence, namely artifacts, encourages the adoption of Wittgenstein’s notion of ‘family resemblances’ to map that world. Third, I suggest that, epistemologically speaking, the praxeological focus on our technological practices promotes what will be called a ‘pluralistic view’ of the knowledge embodied in such practices.

We examine the question of material agency as raised in material engagement theory (MET). Insofar as MET tends to highlight the causal roles played by extra-bodily material flows in human practices, the term “material agency” does not sufficiently distinguish cases in which these flows are part of an agentive engagement from cases in which they are not. We propose an operational criterion to effect such a distinction. We claim this criterion is organizational, i.e., systemic, and not causal. In the enactive account, agency requires three organizational conditions: self-individuation, interactional asymmetry, and normativity. These conditions can have organic, sensorimotor, and sociomaterial realizations. The dance of human productive practices is indeed spread between brains, bodies, and the world, as MET claims, but it is distributed in an organized manner that involves constraints and norms at various scales. We put forward a relational and non-anthropocentric perspective toward an enactive approach to productive practices. We discuss some aspects of agentive ensembles rendered more intelligible by our proposal, including incorporation, soft assembly and non-decomposability, and the grounding of teleology normative processes at multiple scales. In this manner, we seek to continue the dialog between MET and enactive theory, beginning with the view that a situated system must realize certain minimal organizational conditions to be called an _agent_.

Al interior de la filosofía de la técnica, el debate sobre la acción es recurrente y recientemente muestra discusiones polarizadas. En un extremo, se encuentran los defensores de una teoría estándar de la acción (TEAI), quienes sostienen que la acción interesante es únicamente humana, con base en las intenciones de los sujetos y, aplicada objetos técnicos, vinculada a su función. En el otro extremo, encontramos a quienes sostienen la posibilidad de que elementos no humanos también posean capacidad de transformación, más próximos a lo que se denomina una “teoría de la agencia”. En un esfuerzo inicial para revisar la potencialidad de la TEAI para su abordaje en el campo de estudios de la técnica y la tecnología, revisitamos la noción de intencionalidad. Para ello, dividimos el trabajo en tres partes. En la primera parte, caracterizamos los rasgos básicos de la TEAI. En la segunda parte, desde los aportes de la filosofía de la mente, analizamos internamente la distinción entre intencionalidad original y derivada (Dennett). Finalmente, desde los aportes de la Teoría del Actor-red, revisamos externamente la acción intencional desde algunos desplazamientos propuestos por la ontología relacional, con nociones como actantes y ensamblajes (Latour). Consideramos que estas reflexiones contribuyen a repensar las transformaciones contemporáneas del mundo artificial.

Jacques Lafitte occupies an odd place in the philosophy of technology. He was a French engineer who made a significant and conceptually innovative contribution to this field, yet his influence has been elusive and largely ignored until relatively recently. Many of Lafitte’s ideas find echoes in the work of later philosophers, yet, notably in the case of Simondon, apparently without any direct line of influence. Lafitte placed the machine at the centre of his thinking about technology and articulated various layers of analysis around it; for example, he considered machines in the broader context of an artificial world or “mechanosphere”, which encompassed certain aspects of philosophical anthropology. In this work we seek to reconstruct Lafitte’s ideas and briefly trace some of their later impact. We identify three dimensions in Lafitte’s analysis: epistemological, ontological and anthropological. We argue that the most remarkable fact about Lafitte’s thought is the way it inaugurates, and anticipates, the approach of later currents, not just in the “French tradition”, who also made an effort to integrate machine theory into broader philosophical, anthropological and political aspects, in terms that echo Lafitte’s. In particular, we will focus on Gilbert Simondon and cybernetics.

La actitud del diseño es una estrategia interpretativa propuesta por Dennett, que consiste en tratar al sistema, cuyo “comportamiento” se quiere predecir, bajo el supuesto de que sus partes cumplen funciones que obedecen a un diseño satisfactorio. Sin embargo, estudios recientes sobre atribución funcional en artefactos técnicos consideran que la actitud del diseño supone una estrategia inadecuada para entender qué hace un artefacto técnico. En particular, dos críticas han ganado visibilidad. Por una parte, Vermaas et al. (2013) señalan una inconsistencia en la propuesta dennettiana de la actitud del diseño: las intenciones del diseñador a veces desempeñan un papel en la interpretación de los artefactos y a veces no lo hacen, sin tener finalmente una intuición clara sobre su rol. Por otra parte, Vaesen y Van Amerongen (2008) sostienen que la actitud del diseño admite dos interpretaciones, una descriptiva y una normativa, y que ambas son implausibles. No obstante, en este trabajo argumentamos que estas críticas son rebatibles y que el problema reside en que ambas acusaciones, i.e. inconsistencia e implausibilidad, suponen una interpretación incorrecta de la posición de Dennett. The design attitude is an interpretive strategy proposed by Dennett, which consists of treating the system, whose “behavior” is to be predicted, under the assumption that its parts fulfill functions that accomplish a satisfactory design. Recent studies on technical artifacts' functional attribution claim that the design attitude is an inadequate strategy to elicit what a technical artifact does. In particular, two criticisms have gained visibility. On the one hand, Vermas et al (2013) remark an inconsistency in Dennett’s design stance. The very designer's intentions sometimes play a role in the interpretation of artifacts and sometimes they don´t, without finally having a clear intuition about their role. On the other hand, Vaesen and Van Amerongen (2008) argue that the design stance admits two interpretations, a descriptive and a normative one and that both are implausible. However, we argue that these criticisms miss the point given that both accusations, i.e. of inconsistency and of implausibility, result from a wrong interpretation of Dennett's position.

Este artículo aborda los intentos recientes para aplicar el vocabulario de clases a los artefactos. ¿Tiene sentido hablar de clases artificiales? ¿Son clases reales? Este artículo adopta una posición escéptica ante estas cuestiones; sugiere que, en el terreno de lo artificial, vale más aparcar la noción de «clase» y sustituirla por la noción wittgensteiniana de «parecido de familia». La estructura de este artículo es la siguiente. En la primera parte se introduce de manera elemental la noción de clase natural reparando especialmente en sus aspectos metafísicos y epistémicos. En la segunda parte se reflexiona críticamente sobre la posibilidad de extender esta noción al ámbito de los artefactos. Se discuten distintas concepciones esencialistas sobre los artefactos y se analizan algunos de los aspectos epistémicos involucrados en la aplicación de la noción de clase a los artefactos. En la tercera parte, se discute la posición que sugiere que el vocabulario de clases podría aplicarse al ámbito de los artefactos a condición de que éstas se entendieran como clases nominales. Finalmente, se concluye que, si bien resultaría más satisfactorio escoger el concepto de parecidos de familia frente al concepto de clase para analizar el mundo artificial, esto no implicaría un abandono de los compromisos realistas filosóficamente interesantes.

Esta nota crítica consiste en una aproximación a la literatura analítica reciente que discute con mayor o menor interés algunas aristas del principio de apercepción kantiano. Prestando especial atención a la forma en que esta literatura acoge el enlace entre actividad judicativa y apercepción, se identifican grosso modo tres líneas interpretativas. Si bien entrañan teorías generales sobre la mente humana, aquí se trata de ver cómo cada una de ellas propicia una hipótesis de lectura sobre qué es lo que subyace a los argumentos kantianos que enlazan la capacidad de juzgar con la capacidad de apercibir.