Interactive Dramaturges Ch. 3 (Krieg)

Machines are on logic domain: not “dialoguing”
Dialogue etymology: “two” + “knowledge” / collegial reasoning
— probably enabled the development of self-consciousness and human identity

Computers: underlying architecture is logically closed
Search engines provide the “where” but not the actual answer
Knowledge system: : analyze all represented data and synthesize new knowledge
– ability to create new hypotheses
– complex, not complicated
– thinking is always analytical and intuitve
— (ahem, Western culture) has a history of privileging a hierarchy of “rational”/logical/analytical over intuitive, synthetic thinking considered irrational

> Let’s note that these two separate categories of attributes have been applied to sex: male to the former, female to the latter

Computers work with “if-then” hierarchy, which demands a beginning and an end
– mono-logic.
– humans are polylogic

“Autopoiesis” (coined by Humberto Maturana): humans can simulate through language

Virtual Reality games give the illusion of dialogue, but not dialogue itself

Krieg’s Interactive Cinema System for Electronic Video Interactive System:
– option to select “footnote” sequence via personal controller through majority voting
– no dialogue

Future aim: polylogic architecture + virtual data => cognitive computing + true human-machine dialogue
– Future computers would be able to “invite Shakespeare to dinner”

 

Krieg fails to note in his description of how a future polylogic computer could dialogue about Shakespeare that there would remain, like humans, multiple answers to the questions put to Computer Shakespeare, just as English scholars would respond with conflicting interpretations. This vision of a polylogic computer who can work in meaning and infinite interpretations is far from us, as until humanity determines a “right” answer, a computer will also be unable to provide much more than further fodder into the murky philosophy of life.