What can a person expect in the future? What awaits us in the 21st century? Futurological forecast by Ray Kurzweil The problem of “man

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

technology civilization eschatological life

Analysis of the text by N.A. Berdyaev "Man and Machine"

In his work “Man and Machine,” Berdyaev tries to compare eschatological and technical issues, considering technology as “a principle that liberates the human spirit.” His vision extends its gaze into the future, where man, through spiritual dominance, will once again rise above his creation, subjugating it for the benefit of humanity.

Berdyaev identifies three stages in human culture: natural-organic, cultural, technically machine, where he briefly describes each of them based on history, and also gives a comparative description of the “organism” and “mechanism” as opposing subjects and objects and their mutual the impact and tragedy of the confrontation.

In his work he makes the following arguments.

His article “Man and Machine” traces the idea of comparing “organic” and “technical”. He makes this comparison almost from the very first lines, where he compares the previous organization of society and the new one, equipped with technology. The former individual was closer to nature, and therefore, according to Berdyaev, closer to spirituality. There was a direct connection between man and nature. The advent of machines greatly facilitated people's work; they gained greater freedom and minimized the cost of physical labor. But this same circumstance radically influenced not only their life, the organization of work, but also their thinking and attitude.

We cannot underestimate the capabilities of technology and its unconditional influence on the organization of our reality. Life with machines has become much easier; they have made our work easier in many ways. But Berdyaev focuses the problem precisely on the power of technology. “Technology ceases to be neutral...” And in this sense, it represents a dangerous dependence for humans. Berdyaev says that technology kills, consumes the soul, it is merciless to man, our consciousness becomes chained to the technical and rational. Technology is not interested in the soul, it is the sphere of mechanisms, the reality of machines. Without a doubt, it brings comfort to our lives, but it also influences our being, occupying a dominant position in our way of thinking, which affects our soul.

Globalism cannot help but shape a new reality, where man becomes a god for himself and for the cosmos. The emptiness of the spirit is compensated by the power of invention, where a new universe of human achievement lives.

Berdyaev talks about another problem - the danger of subordinating the sphere of science and its discoveries, which is interconnected with technology by a certain, small group of people interested in their projects for the implementation of scientific discoveries, which is also not at all utopian, but, on the contrary, can be very real.

In this regard, Berdyaev talks about supporters and opponents of “improving life” thanks to technology. They view technology as something neutral and indifferent, declaring it the work of engineers, while others “experience technology apocalyptically, experiencing horror at its growing power over human life, seeing in it the identity of the spirit of Antichrist. This attitude towards technology comes from the simple principle that “everything that is not liked, everything that destroys the familiar, is declared evil.” But Berdyaev, as a philosopher, opposes the expansion of technology in modern society. You can talk as much as you like on this topic, but, undoubtedly, technology allows you to achieve the greatest results at the lowest cost; this is a fact with which one cannot but agree.

Berdyaev uses the following types of arguments:

Arguments for logical possibility.

For this text, the following keywords can be identified: globalization, man, machine, technology, science.

In connection with the text read, the following questions arise.

A person is free and called to activity; his reality, like his destiny, depends only on him?

Is man a spiritual being, in his pursuit of comfort, of surplus product, has he forgotten who he is, what are the foundations of his existence?

Does technology solve spiritual problems?

But is it the reason?

In my opinion, Berdyaev probably wanted to reconcile the two realities “technical” and “organic”. Of course, because Technology is a creation of man; it cannot be the cause of spiritual problems of humanity. The person is to blame for them himself. But technology can radically influence the consciousness of the masses, and due to man’s vulnerability to global problems, he has what he has. It is his will to change reality. If God died, as Nietzsche, Sartre and many others argued, all responsibility lies with man; it’s another matter that this burden is beyond his strength.

Berdyaev offers a way out of this problem, anticipating future metamorphoses; he believes that the spirit will subjugate the machine kingdom for the benefit of humanity, but man will have to turn to introspection to regain his spirituality. Only this can save him and free him from the dependence of machines.

We can conclude that technology will again be subordinated to man. This reveals nostalgia for a lost paradise, which corresponds to Berdyaev’s Christian vision. The dream of finding what was lost... will inevitably end in the victory of the spirit in human history. The goal of progress, according to Berdyaev, is precisely this.

The tragedy is that man has become so dependent on the machines that he has created that he prefers comfort rather than intimacy in a social environment where he feels quite alone. Machines are gradually replacing the individual, and this shows the irreversible process of civilization. Only spiritual potential can return a person to freedom again. “The path to the final liberation of man and the final fulfillment of his calling is the path to the Kingdom of God, which is not only the Kingdom of Heaven, but the kingdom of the transformed earth, the transformed cosmos.”

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

Philosophical reflections on man, nature and harmony. N. Berdyaev's theory: technology and the fate of culture; alienation from nature, “man-machine” in the concept of L. Mumford; ecological crisis, nuclear madness as a consequence of the collision of nature and culture.

abstract, added 05/19/2011

The development of technical thought in history, ideas about art, science and technology. Mechanistic picture of the world. Formation of the philosophy of technology in the 19th-20th centuries. The phenomenon of depersonalization of a person by technology. Ethical and technical aspect of changing social reality.

thesis, added 07/08/2012

The contradiction between man and machine as a source of the cultural crisis of the 20th century. Reasons for the fatal role of technology in human life. Results of the 19th century. O. Spengler. H. Ortega y Gasset. The process of alienation. A. Schopenhauer, F. Nietzsche. Existentialism. A. Camus.

abstract, added 06/15/2004

The formation of philosophical views of N.A. Berdyaev. Characteristics of freedom as a primary and fundamental reality that penetrates all spheres of existence - space, society and man himself. Analysis of the doctrine of “community”. The concept of man in philosophy.

abstract, added 09/10/2014

The distinctive features of the approach to technology in foreign philosophy are the following: a clearly expressed humanitarian and axiological attitude, placing at the forefront the issues of the nature and essence of technology and its significance for the destinies of our culture.

abstract, added 12/08/2010

A holistic person is a god-man in N.A.’s concept of personal freedom. Berdyaev. Interpretation of the nature of the creative act. Creativity as the realization of freedom, the path to the harmonization of existence. Understanding the purpose of man is the moral core of Berdyaev’s philosophy.

abstract, added 05/11/2015

The concept of the reality of the unconditional beginning and the main condition for its comprehension. The role of sensation and reason in the knowledge of reality. Solovyov's view of the world and the foundations of human ideas. Principles of interaction of basic beings and definition of atoms.

course work, added 10/17/2010

Epistemology as an expression of doubt about the power and justification of philosophical knowledge. Characteristics of such ethical categories as good, evil, human. Ethics of law, redemption, and creativity. The concept of eschatological ethics. Death and immortality, hell and heaven.

book, added 11/18/2010

The experience of paradoxical ethics in the work of the Russian philosopher, representative of existentialism N. Berdyaev “On the purpose of man”: the origin of good and evil, human perception of the world; comparison of the views of V. Rozanov and N. Fedorov on the issue of knowing the truth of being.

essay, added 12/13/2012

The theme of the crisis of modern culture in the work of I.A. Ilyin “The Path to Obviousness” and the work of E.N. Trubetskoy "Speculation in Colors". Disclosure of the harmful influence of technological progress on modern man in the work of N.A. Berdyaev "Man and Machine".

"Lenin's theory of reflection and modern science."
Moscow, 1966, p. 263-284

Philosophy is least of all interested in setting the development of cybernetics - this important branch of modern technology and its theory - any once and for all ordered limits. Establishing the “boundaries of knowledge” is generally a thankless task and is unusual for Marxist-Leninist philosophy, in contrast to neo-Kantian philosophy.

If somewhere there are “limits” to the development of cybernetics, it is not from the side of philosophy, but rather from those misconceptions regarding the nature of thinking, regarding the connection of thinking with the material mechanisms of the brain and with the outside world, which once penetrated into cybernetics and interfere she needs to develop.

Dreaming of a thinking machine, just as, and perhaps even more perfect than a person, many cybernetics proceed from the idea that it thinks brain. Therefore, it seems to them that it is enough to build a model brain to get and artificial thinking.

Unfortunately no. For it is not the brain that thinks, but man with the help of the brain. For those theorists who did not see much difference between the one and the other, L. Feuerbach, more than a hundred years ago, suggested doing a simple thought experiment. Try to cut the brain out of a person’s body, put it on a plate and see if it thinks?

Of course, he will think as little as any telegraph pole or mold spread on the rocks of distant planets.

The fact is that for the emergence of such a function as thinking, some other material prerequisites are required, in addition to the brain being structurally adapted to it. In particular, these are organs that provide sensory-objective contact of this brain with the outside world, something like eyes, ears, touching hands and other “external receptors.” Or, in the language of cybernetics, for the brain to think, it also requires a continuous flow of “information.” Otherwise, he quickly slows down (falls asleep).

Perhaps a system of artificial sensory organs could help matters? Let's assume that our hypothetical artificial brain has a super-perfect "perceptron" attached to it. Let us even assume that we have equipped this brain with all the other organs that ensure its independent active life - we have created an artificial model of the entire human body as a whole.

It doesn’t even matter what material this model, this artificial creature will be constructed from, iron or protein.

Will she “think”? No. In this regard, science has factual evidence. Organisms have been observed more than once that have a healthy brain and all other organs, but do not think. They did not think because there was no one important material prerequisite for thinking, located outside the body - a developed human civilization.

Mowgli and Tarzan existed not only in the imagination of filmmakers and poets. People have caught such Tarzans, fed and raised by animals, more than once or twice. And these Tarzans were very little like their Hollywood namesakes. Strictly speaking, these were not people at all. They couldn't even walk on two legs. These were ugly animals that did not possess not only thinking, but even elementary glimpses of consciousness.

Materialist philosophy and psychology have long established the fundamental fact that the ability to think is not inherited by a person along with the brain, that this ability is not “encoded” in him genetically, biologically. It is “inherited”, transmitted from generation to generation in a completely different way - through forms of the objective world created by labor, through the body civilization. In order for an individual brain to acquire the ability to think, its owner must be included in the system of social-human relations from childhood and developed in accordance with its requirements and norms. By learning to actively act with the things of the surrounding world in accordance with the norms of culture, a person only becomes a person - he acquires the ability to walk on two legs, speak and think...

The ability to use your brain to think, as well as your hands to work, like your tongue to speak, is from beginning to end, one hundred percent, social product, active function public person. This function is determined not by the morphological organization of the individual’s body itself, but by the organization of that enormously complex system, which in the language of science is called “the totality of social relations between people.” And this system includes, in addition to the mass of people connected with each other by mutual relations, also the entire set of tools, machines and consumer goods, in the production of which these relations are only formed.

“Thinking” is an active function this systems. Derived from its structure, from its “morphology”, from its organization, from its needs and capabilities. Myself thinking the individual is only an organ of this system.

Therefore, the degree and measure of development of the ability to think in an individual are determined not by his individual morphological characteristics, but by completely different circumstances. And first of all, the volume of that sphere (area) of culture that this individual personally assimilated and turned into personal property. The latter is again determined not by the biochemical characteristics of his body, but only by social conditions - form of division of labor. Thinking has always been and remains an individually performed function of the body of civilization common to all people.

Therefore, in order to create an artificial mind, at least equal to a human one, it will be necessary to create not only and not so much a model of an individual human being, but a model of the entire grandiose body of culture, within which the entire individual with his fifteen billion brain cells himself represents only one “cell”, which in itself is capable of thinking as little as an individual neuron... Therefore, if you want to create an artificial mind equal to that of a human, you must create not just one artificial being, but a whole community of such beings, which has its own culture, i.e. an entire machine civilization, as rich and ramified as the “natural” human one...

Among other things, this artificial civilization must be absolutely independent in relation to the human one, and must develop without human help. Otherwise, it will remain only a dependent, only a derivative outgrowth of human culture and human thinking, and the artificial mind will remain just a “piece” of the human mind, dependent on it for goals, means, and material...

And this system must pursue its own goals, independent of the goals of man and humanity. In other words, it must be an “end in itself”, must consider its own “self-improvement” as the only task and goal, must carry out the expanded reproduction of itself. She must develop her own internal contradictions within herself, otherwise she will be deprived of self-movement and the incentive to be active.

Therefore, to infuse an artificial mind, at least equivalent to a human one, into one single machine means creating an entire machine civilization on Earth, competing with our human one.

Abstractly reasoning, this can be done, but under the specified conditions and prerequisites, scientifically clarified by genuine, and not medical or cybernetic, “materialism” in understanding the nature of thinking.

True, you can take a different path - try to create a machine that could be included as a full member in our ready-made, naturally developed human civilization and developed into a “thinking” being on the basis of human spiritual culture. But then this creature would have to be made absolutely similar to us, living people. He would have to be equipped with all the organs, without exception, with the help of which a living person becomes familiar with a ready-made culture and assimilates it. Including those organs that allow you to experience sexual love for a person of the opposite sex and evoke a reciprocal feeling. Otherwise, the door to such an area of human spiritual culture as poetry and art will remain closed for this artificial being. As a result, it will not be able to think at the level of living people and will remain only a flawed freak in the family of people, for art and poetry are not idle fun, but a form of development of the imagination. But without imagination there can be no talk of any truly creative thinking.

Moreover, this artificial being cannot and should not be created “ready”, neither in the sense of the “program” of its actions, nor even in the sense of the “structure” of its organs, including primarily the brain. For the real human brain is “structurally” different in that it is maximally freed from the chains of biologically inherited action patterns and that is why it is capable of performing any a pattern of action dictated to him by constantly changing conditions - by the fact that his “structure” itself is a lifetime formation, formed in accordance with the “functions”. Here “structure” is a derivative of “function”, and not vice versa. But the functions performed by the brain are determined by the entire set of historically developing conditions of human activity with all the dramatically contradictory collisions within these conditions. Therefore, an artificial brain must have the ability to radically change any of the patterns of its previous activity, and, therefore, the “structural scheme” that provides it.

In short, this “structure” must be capable of a complete restructuring of all its circuits, in other words, absolutely plastic, i.e. universal, “the form of (all possible) forms.” This is exactly what a real person and his brain are like.

Therefore, if you want to create an artificial mind along this path, be kind enough to create an artificially absolute copy of a living person and do not forget to provide it not only with all the “pros”, but also with all the “cons” of the human race, otherwise you will not be able to connect it to a battery our civilization.

In one of his articles, Academician Kolmogorov said: “In a joking manner: it is possible that an automaton capable of writing poetry at the level of great poets cannot be built in a simpler way than by simulating the entire development of the cultural life of the society in which poets actually develop.”

We think that this should be stated not in a joking form, but in the most serious form, and not only about poets, but also about mathematicians, and about people involved in planning the national economy, and about any person, if he is truly a thinking individual.

You can dream of creating machines “smarter than humans” along one of the two paths that we have analyzed. You can, if you are inspired by the slogan - “a machine for a machine.” It is possible, just as you can create “art for art’s sake”, “science for science’s sake”, “technology for technology’s sake”. And not for the sake of man, not for the sake of his development. It is possible if - consciously or unconsciously - to stand firmly on the basis of technocratic prejudices, from the point of view of which a living person is only a raw material and a “means” for the development of technology, and not an end in itself.

The alternative here is inexorable. Either technology (cybernetic or non-cybernetic) is considered only as means, just how weapon fulfillment of human goals, or it turns into an end in itself, and a person becomes a means, a raw material.

Can you think like that? Can. Unfortunately, some theorists think this way. But this way of thinking is philosophically and theoretically not justified.

A man remains a man, and a machine remains a machine. And the question of the relationship between man and machine is, first of all, social question, and not at all a cybernetic one. And this issue does not disappear, is not removed from the agenda, when some hotheads from among fans of cybernetics declare that man is also a machine, and, therefore, turn the most acute social problem into a family affair between two machines... And then this is a question and indeed it looks purely technical.

Trying to provide a scientific basis for the “thinking machine,” some philosophers appeal to the latest achievements of mathematics and mathematical logic. But it is worth taking a close look at such arguments, and it immediately becomes clear that they presuppose - as a condition of their evidence - exactly what they want to prove with their help. Namely, extremely simplified and approximate ideas about human thinking. Here's an example.

L.B. Bazhenov, in his article “On some philosophical aspects of the problem of modeling thinking with cybernetic devices,” seriously believes that all arguments against the possibility of creating artificial thinking are easily dismissed by a simple reference to the authority of the McCulloch–Pitts theorem: “The McCulloch–Pitts theorem states that any function of the natural nervous system, which can be logically described using a finite number of words, can be implemented by a formal neural network. This means that there are no functions of thinking that, having been cognized and described, could not be realized using a finite formal nervous network, and therefore, in principle, reproduced by a machine.”

To accept this argument as evidential, the following premises must be accepted on faith: 1) that “thinking” is a “function of a natural nervous network” without indicating what exactly the special characteristic is this a private function of the “nervous network”, in contrast to, say, toothache; 2) that this vague “function” must be “logically described in a finite number of words”, i.e. presented in the form of a formally consistent system of terms and statements; 3) what is “description” and There is exhaustive cognition“thinking”, i.e. the modern stage of development of logic as a science.

If we take all this on faith, then the “McCulloch-Pitts” argument really proves what they want to prove with its help. If we have more specific and meaningful ideas about “thinking,” then the McCulloch–Pitts theorem proves the possibility of modeling it in a machine no more than the Pythagorean theorem.

The McCulloch–Pitts theorem indeed establishes that in the form of a “formal neural network” it is possible to implement any of those “functions of a natural nervous network” that are fundamentally amenable to “logical (here, formally consistent) description using a finite number of words.” We will not risk challenging this theorem itself.

But behind all this, there still remains a small, but very insidious question: does “thinking” constitute such function, i.e. does it lend itself to such a “description”?

Just don’t forget what we mean here: thinking, and not any particular “final” form or case of its application. Logic as a science has long been convinced that creating a formally consistent “description” everyone logical forms are not as easy as promised. Moreover, logic has serious grounds for asserting that this idea is as impracticable as a perpetual motion machine. And it is not feasible for the reason that the formal-logical consistency of the description of each private The forms of work of the intellect are inevitably compensated by inconsistency within the complete “synthesis” of all these particular logical forms, within logic as a whole.

This was already perfectly understood by I. Kant, who in his “Critique of Pure Reason” showed that thinking as a whole is always dialectical and contradictory, which opened a new chapter in the history of logic as a science. The same logic that for some time now sees in contradictions the basic logical form of real developing thinking and proves that this real thinking is carried out precisely as a process of identifying and resolving contradictions within each “particular” sphere of thinking, within each “ultimate” sphere of cognition. That this is so is proven not only by logic, but also by the real experience of the development of science.

Of course, a verbal description of any artificially limited sphere applications thinking can be made formally consistent. But only because such a description do not eat thinking, each step forward along the path of knowledge consists precisely in the “removal” of each previously established “description” with its formalisms.

An important conclusion can be drawn from this. If you really want to “model” real thinking, then you must first of all teach the “formal nervous network” to endure the “tension of contradiction”, the state “A = not A”, in the form of which its contradiction with the real is always expressed within a formally consistent scheme a specific variety of natural and historical phenomena, i.e. precisely the fact of her own “finitude”, destroyed by each new act of reality thinking.

If you manage to create artificial intelligence, which, when a logical contradiction manifests itself within it, would not fall into a state of hysterical self-excitation, destroying the entire scheme of its work, but, on the contrary, would only begin to carry out its special “function”, then you would have taken the first step along the path of “modeling” real human thinking.

But this possibility is excluded by formal mathematical logic itself, for which “logical contradiction” is a purely destructive form that destroys the “final” scheme, and not philosophy at all, not logic, for which contradiction is a constructive-regulatory principle of the real (creative human ) thinking.

Apparently, L.B. completely forgot about all this. Bazhenov. With the help of the authority of McCulloch-Pitts, he proved only one thing - that in a machine it is possible to reproduce only machine-like functions of the intellect, but in no case the intellect itself, as a “function”, the special characteristic of which lies precisely in the constant process of “removing” any finite scheme, in identifying logical contradictions within this scheme and their resolution through further research concrete reality, precisely reality itself.

He proved only one thing: that a mind equivalent to a real human one can be created only on the basis of dialectical logic and in no case on the basis of the axioms and postulates of the logic of formal mathematical constructions. These axioms and postulates, including the McCulloch–Pitts theorem, prove precisely the impossibility of his dreams.

But can a “man” be considered as a very complex, very perfect “machine”? Can. But only with the same right and with the same restrictions with which the zoologist considers man as a highly developed “mammal”, and the geometer as a terribly intricate spatial figure.

The special concepts of cybernetics highlight in a person only those features (signs, definitions) that are equally common to him with a machine. Accordingly, the machine itself is defined abstractly in these concepts.

But that is precisely why these concepts fundamentally cannot express the specific specificity of either one or the other - neither the person nor the machine itself. It is precisely from this that they are distracted from the very beginning.

Therefore, it is not surprising that in the special concepts of cybernetics it is impossible even to put, not only decide the question of the real relationship between man and machine, as two truly different “systems”.

Cybernetics has not given and cannot give a universal definition of not only “man”, but also “machine”. These things are generally beyond the scope of its special tasks and concepts and can only be defined in the system of real interaction between man and machine, including here the historically established system of social division of labor and all the consequences that it entails.

And this is what happens when definitions, legitimate and accurate as long as they are used within cybernetics itself, for its own internal needs, are accepted as universal scientific and theoretical definitions of man and machine.

“As you know, in cybernetics a machine is a system capable of performing actions leading to a specific goal. This means that living beings, humans in particular, in this sense are machines,” writes Academician S. Sobolev on behalf of cybernetics (and, one must think, with good reason).

In this sense - yes, of course. But only this. But what happens if “this meaning” is considered the only scientific one and one imagines that cybernetics has finally given a truly scientific definition of “machine”, and all previous definitions are declared pre-scientific and unscientific.

In this sense, a person will have to be called a “machine”. But then you lose the right to call a steam locomotive, an automobile, a rolling mill, and in general any of the existing or ever existing machines “machines,” because, “as is known,” to any expedient These “systems” are capable of actions as little as any stick or cobblestone. Actions “leading to a specific goal” are not carried out by them at all, but only by a person who sets them in motion and controls them in accordance with his purposeful will.

Thus, the concept of “machine”, formulated by academician S. Sobolev, refers only to man as a subject of purposeful (i.e., reasonable) will and nothing more. And, perhaps, to those fantastic machines of the future that some (by no means all) cybernetics dream about, and most of all, those working around cybernetics.

This concept is not applicable to existing, real machines. Therefore, they cannot be called “machines”. Then you need to come up with a new name for them. The easiest way, perhaps, is to call them henceforth “people,” because this name, as it turned out, has remained unemployed since man was called a “machine.”

But this is a joke. But seriously, real, actually existing, not imaginary machines suggest man as a system that differs from them precisely in the ability to act according to “target” (and not according to “causal”) determination.

Outside this system (i.e. outside and without a person), a steam locomotive, a calculating machine, and all modern technology in general is not a “machine” at all, but simply a pile of rusting metal, just one of the bodies of nature, entirely subject to the action of simple physics. -chemical laws (oxidation, weathering, etc.). Without man and outside man, it is a “machine” only by name, and then only for a short time, like a hand cut off from the body

If we do not mean Name, and scientific concept“machines”, referring both to the past and present, and to all future machines, then science has this. Machines are “natural material, transformed into organs of human will and its active manifestation in nature. They are the organs of the human brain created by a human hand, the objectified power of knowledge.”

This, in contrast to cybernetic, is universal, scientific and theoretical definition concept of "machine". Without any incidents, the entire past, present and future variety of real machines is brought under it. And the person does not fail.

Of course, one can imagine such machines, in the manufacture of which the brain and hand of man direct will not take part. You can even show the need for this in the future. But that doesn't change things. As long as a machine remains a machine, it remains only an artificially created organ of social-human rational will, a means of its active manifestation. And in this sense - an organ of the human brain, for by “brain” Marx always meant not only and not so much an organ of the individual’s body, but an organ of social-human rational will, social-human needs and “goals” that ideally express these needs.

Well, what if someday a machine is created that will no longer fall under the above concept, will not correspond to the definitions listed in the above definition of “machine”? Then, of course, you can no longer call it a “machine”. This will be something completely different. What exactly? You can fantasize about this as much as you like, but this is beyond the bounds of science.

If we adhere to these limits, then a “machine” that is not suitable as a means of realizing the rational will of a person cannot serve as an obedient “organ of human will”; every sane person will try to quickly send it to be melted down and scrapped. And it’s even easier not to make such a device at all. This is what all people of sound mind and memory have done so far, even without being familiar with the Marxist concept of “machine”.

However, another option is also possible, which has been loved by the authors of science fiction novels for some time now. Namely: such a “machine” does not want to be melted down, no longer wants to obey human rational will, does not want to be only its instrument, but wants to serve the goals of its own self-improvement. She begins to carry out expanded reproduction of her own kind and subordinates all branches of production to this egoistic-machine goal. She leaves the subordination of her creator and threatens to crush him if he tries to stand in her way, to prevent her from becoming the goal and core of all production, if he wants to remind her that she is only a means and an organ of his will.

Fantasy, a bogeyman invented by malicious opponents of cybernetic progress? Unfortunately no. If it were only a fantasy, one could treat it leniently - let people dream if they like it.

However, this fantasy only reflects real car. The trouble is that this machine has existed for a long time; it does not need to be invented and built. She has long since left the subordination of her creator, man. She has long been pursuing her own goals, has long turned into an end in itself, and considers a person as a means and raw material for her own self-improvement. Moreover, she long ago learned to use a person with his brain as her own “partial part”, learned to suppress his will and oppress his mind.

The structure of this - unfortunately, not at all fantastic - machine was already known in detail a hundred years ago and described in the famous work called “Capital”.

Capitalism is production for the sake of production, and it is a grandiose machine that has turned into an end in itself, and turned a person into a means, into the raw material of production and reproduction of its insatiable organism. This grandiose machine, consisting of millions of partial machines, has escaped the control of human reason and will, it has become smarter and more powerful than any single human individual playing the unenviable role of a cog in it.

And this “big machine” exercises its power with the help of its “daughter systems” - with the help of the state-bureaucratic machine, with the help of the military machine, with the help of the police apparatus, the voting machine, etc. and so on.

And this is not a play on words at all. A bureaucratic or military machine is a machine in a completely literal, and not at all figurative, sense of the word. All of these are systems that work according to strictly stamped algorithms, pursuing strictly programmed goals and are as soulless as any meat grinder. And the protein substance of the human brain plays the role of a partial part in their structure, providing them with “self-awareness.”

Try to look at bureaucratic, military and other “social machines” through the eyes of cybernetics and you will immediately see that they fit cybernetic ideas about a machine much better and more accurately than a printing or cotton picking machine. The powerlessness of the human individual in the face of this apparatus that is out of human control, this “demon of machinery” gives rise to all sorts of mythology in the West.

Dark people, with the help of the power of this machine demon, are waiting for salvation from the second coming. People with higher education pin their hopes on the descent into the sinful world of some scientifically super-wise ruler, a kind of electronic Lohengrin, since they have become rather disillusioned with the wisdom of living rulers. Somebody like this is coming and will immediately establish all human relationships with mathematical precision - he will calculate the proportions of production, and get rid of crises, and in general will establish heaven on earth, even choose a suitable wife for everyone.

But doubts immediately begin to overcome: what if this cybernetic Lohengrin takes the side of the enemy in the conflict between man and machines? After all, he, too, whatever you say, is a machine.

So this kind of reasoning revolves around the problem: can a person create an artificial mind smarter than his own mind and is it not risky to do this?

As a result, the problem itself, posed on this basis, begins to tragically resemble the old tricky question, once invented by overly zealous friends of theological scholasticism: can an omnipotent God create such a stone that he himself is not able to lift it?

So, in the social plane, the problem of “man - machine” is completely different than in a purely cybernetic one. In this regard, we are not talking about creating a machine that would be smarter, stronger and more perfect than a person, but about making the living person to make again smarter and stronger the entire world of machines he created, which got out of his control and enslaved him; to transform a person from a raw material and a means of technical progress, from a detail of “production for production’s sake” into the highest goal of this production, into an end in itself, and to put the social machine back in its place - to the role of a means and organ of human rational will. This is a social problem, and we cannot forget about it for a second.

The Western technical intelligentsia, including the cybernetic-mathematical intelligentsia, is therefore confused in the “man - machine” problem because it does not know how to pose it correctly, i.e. How social problem as a problem of human-human relations, mediated through the material body of civilization, including through the modern machine technology of modern production.

In the light of Marxist-Leninist teaching, in general theoretical terms, a way out of the current situation has already been found in Capital. This solution, as we know, lies in the communist transformation of the entire system of relations person to person, in creating conditions within which every member of society, and not just its privileged layers, would have all the real, materially and spiritually secure conditions for comprehensive development, to master all heights of intellectual and physical culture; conditions under which every individual, and not just the lucky few, would transform in the course of their development into a full-fledged representative of the general, social-human, rational will and would not allow anyone to monopolize the right to speak on its behalf.

Under these conditions, as Marx and Lenin showed, the need for a special apparatus for managing people, standing above society, only disappears - in the state machine and its subsidiary systems - the special apparatus of management disappears altogether people, and its place is taken by management things, cars. And people, according to the same theory, must govern themselves, on the basis of complete self-government.

The prerequisite and conditio sine qua non of the elimination of the state machine that controls people “from above” is, as is also known, the complete and comprehensive development of the abilities of each person, for only such people will not need to control themselves “from above.” While this is not yet the case, there remains a need for the state as a special apparatus. This is perfectly explained in another scientific work - in the book “State and Revolution” by V.I. Lenin. For anyone who has read this book, it is clear that the general line of communism remains the course precisely towards the destruction of the state, as a special sphere of division of labor, as a special apparatus for managing people.

When some people think that the whole problem is simply to replace the current government agencies with thinkers - planners and managers - cars, boxes like refrigerators, they become the basis of a kind of cybernetic-bureaucratic illusion, mythology. They think that communism can be built on the path of mathematical-electronic improvement of the current system of relations, i.e. on a way perpetuating the current state of affairs, on the way of transferring the current management functions of the state machine not to a democratically organized human collective, but to other machines.

And this is a purely technocratic illusion, which is no better and no smarter than the illusion of classical bureaucrats. A 100% bureaucrat, of course, can be replaced by a machine. And it’s even easier to just send him into retirement. And the vacant position should not be replaced by a machine with the same functions, but simply eliminated, thereby taking a step towards transferring management functions to a democratically organized team of living people. For only this path leads to the creation of “such an order when the increasingly simplified functions of supervision and reporting will be performed by everyone in turn, will then become a habit and, finally, will disappear, as special functions of a special layer of people."

After all, in the world that we are building, it will not be “mathematicians”, “waiters”, “politicians”, “violinists”, “philosophers” and similar characters doomed to perform one or another private function, who will inhabit and build their mutual relationships, but living and, at the same time, comprehensively developed people. People, each of whom is broader and richer than any “private function”, who know how to look, say, at mathematics through the eyes of a person, and not at a person through the eyes of a mathematician.

Nowadays, quite often the opposite happens, and professional cretinism, which takes itself for the highest virtue, is a very serious and contagious disease. This disease is associated with a penchant for mythology in terms of social thinking, in particular, the desire to turn cybernetics - a very good science in its place - into another panacea.

It is also no coincidence that it is precisely among immoderate, “desperate” cyberneticists that there are calls every now and then to turn secondary schools towards the path of deepening narrow professionalism, towards the path of furcation, towards the path of creating especially privileged schools for especially gifted prodigies, etc. It is not at all by chance that cybernetic mythology even merges with dreams about the artificial selection of mathematical talents, about the breeding of a hereditarily gifted mathematical elite, a kind of nobility of the cybernetic era, etc. etc., with discussions about the “genetic-biological coding” of mathematical abilities and other, to put it mildly, nonsense.

The theoretically developed thesis of scientific communism regarding the “comprehensive development of the individual” inevitably begins to seem like “utopia”, “poetry”, etc. to the supporters of this mythology. This, alas, is not fiction.

There is hardly any need to prove how far these ideas are from the scientific understanding of the ways and prospects of social progress developed by Marx and Lenin. But we need to say this seriously and loudly. It is necessary to clearly understand what happens when they want to create a new religion with a new god and other attributes from cybernetics - this most important scientific and technical discipline.

If we remain on the basis of those social perspectives that are outlined by the theory of scientific communism, the current state of affairs is characterized not at all by the fact that we only lack a machine smarter than a person for complete happiness, but quite the contrary, that we have not yet managed to create all the conditions for complete happiness. and the comprehensive development of every member of society, every person, by the fact that living people are still too often forced to perform purely machine functions. Communism considers its goal in terms of technical progress to be the complete liberation of man from such functions.

That is why cybernetics here knows well what and how to do, what kind of machines it should construct, in order to quickly free a living person from the burden of monotonous machine labor, from working according to a stamp, according to a template, according to a hard-coded program. So that a living person can devote all his free time to truly human work, work in terms of scientific, technical, artistic, social creativity.

That is why every living person rejoices when cybernetics promises him in the very near future liberation from the burden of machine-like work and the transfer of this work to machines. And it is precisely for the same reason that every living person in our society experiences a natural and completely legitimate protest when some overzealous friends of cybernetic progress instead invent fairy tales about a machine smarter than a man and promise to create an electronic Pushkin, an electronic Botvinnik and an electronic Shostakovich, and instead of a ministry put a box that will supposedly manage the economy better than people...

Listening to such speeches, you will even envy the car that is so tenderly cared for. Because they want to make her happy with those virtues that, unfortunately, the vast majority of living people on the globe still lack, instead of helping all living people to enter the expanses of truly human development.

Each human brain is a ready-made and very perfect system, capable - under proper conditions - of thinking. So isn’t it easier to create it in the old, old-fashioned way and take more care of creating those proper conditions under which it would work to its full, so to speak, designed capacity?

After all, trying to build an artificial brain instead of developing a “natural” one is the same as building a factory in the middle of the Karakum desert, which, through the most complex technological processes, would produce synthetic sand for the brick factories of the Far East. No smarter or more economical, although such a task might captivate some super-inventive chemical engineer.

It is much more reasonable to dream not about a machine smarter than a person, not about an electronic brain comparable to a human one, but about every living human brain working at the level of truly modern human culture, which, unfortunately, it cannot do now, being loaded machine work.

The creation of an artificial intelligent being is a myth, which unfortunately takes up a certain amount of effort and resources and distracts cybernetics from solving its direct problems. Philosophy should help cybernetics free itself from myths, especially since cybernetics has a lot of real tasks set before it by life, the needs of creating the material and technical base of communism, tasks that are truly enormous and noble, fascinating and inspiring. Academician A.I. rightly spoke about this repeatedly. Berg.

No one feels a malicious desire to set limits to the development of cybernetics and computer technology, no one wants to clip the wings of the dreams of its enthusiasts. But a dream is good only when it works in conjunction with sober scientific ideas already developed by science, in particular philosophy. In conjunction with clear dialectical-materialistic concepts about thinking, will, purpose, the connection of thinking with the brain, with sensory-objective activity and with the world, about the relationship between the ideal and the material, etc.

Unfortunately, some cybernetics do not take into account everything that they can get in this regard from modern philosophy and psychology and are trying to solve the listed problems with their own means; in their special concepts they want to redefine both “thinking” and “machine” scientifically. "ideal" and "goal". We have seen what comes of this.

On the other hand, this situation forces philosophy and psychology to take care of a more specific and clear definition of such concepts as brain and thinking, will and mind, goal and ideal, machine and man and many other concepts to satisfy the needs of cybernetics, and not only cybernetics

Thus, we are not talking about limiting the prospects for the development of cybernetics, but only about the absurdity of the “mythology” that arises around cybernetics solely due to the philosophical carelessness of some of its representatives, although it also has objective grounds in the form of the existing system of social division of labor. We are talking about establishing closer creative contact between Marxist philosophy and cybernetics.

See: “On the Essence of Life.” Moscow, 1964, p. 57.
“Cybernetics, thinking, life” Moscow, 1964, p. 327.
"The Possible and the Impossible in Cybernetics." Moscow, 1964, p. 83.
Marx K. Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Moscow, 1939, S. 594. See also: “Bolshevik”, 11‑12 (1939).
Lenin V.I. Complete Works, vol. 33, p. 50.
The most sensible representatives of cybernetics themselves also struggle with this mythology. See, for example, the book: Taube M. Computing machines and common sense. Moscow, 1964.

Lecture 1.

Introduction to the course. The concept of the “man and machine” system (MSM). Article by Berdyaev N.A. “Man and machine. The Problem of Sociology and Metaphysics". Components of the SFM. The most important problem in constructing a CMS.

Five main classes of systems.

In modern production, transport, communication systems, construction and agriculture, automatic machines and computer technology are increasingly used; Automation of many production processes is taking place. Thanks to the technical re-equipment of production, the functions and role of humans change significantly. Many operations that were previously his prerogative are now beginning to be performed by machines. However, no matter what successes technology achieves, labor has been and remains the property of man, and machines, no matter how complex they are, are only instruments of his labor. In the process of labor, a person, using machines as tools of labor, achieves the goals he consciously sets. Consequently, with the development and complexity of technology, the importance of the human factor in production increases. The need to study this factor and take it into account when developing new equipment and technological processes, when organizing production and operation of equipment is becoming more and more obvious. The efficiency and reliability of the operation of the equipment being created depends on the success of solving this problem; the functioning of technical devices and the activities of the person who uses these devices in the labor process must be considered in conjunction.

Thus, at a certain stage of his development, in order to satisfy his ever-increasing material and spiritual needs, man begins to create artificial tools - “machines”. Having at his disposal huge reserves of energy, new equipment and technologies, he changed his life beyond recognition, but at the same time he faced the most difficult task - to ensure effective, sustainable and safe management of this equipment.

By the way: Technique (Greek techne) - art, skill, craft; a term used simultaneously to refer to both art and technology.

Technology (Greek) - systematic processing.

In Russia and Germany at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, a school of thought arose that negatively assessed technical development and was associated with religious cultural criticism of technology, which was aimed at criticizing the deification of technology, the expectation of the final domination of man over the world and the earth, based its hope on faith in technology . Nikolai Berdyaev, for example, argued that the dominance of technology destroys the human personality. That is why he believed that the struggle against the domination of technology over man is necessary to save the human image, and the technicization of culture inevitably leads to the dehumanization of man.
Nikolay Aleksandrovich Berdyaev(March 6, 1874, Kyiv March 23, 1948, Clamart near Paris) Russian Christian and political philosopher, representative of existentialism.

N. A. Berdyaev was born into a noble family. His father, Alexander Mikhailovich Berdyaev, was a cavalry officer, then the Kyiv district leader of the nobility, later the chairman of the board of the Kyiv land bank; mother, Alina Sergeevna, nee Princess Kudasheva, was French on her mother’s side.

In 1913, he wrote an anticlerical article in defense of the Athonite monks. For this he was sentenced to deportation to Siberia, but the First World War and the revolution prevented the sentence from being carried out, as a result of which he spent three years in exile in the Vologda province. In the following years before his expulsion from the USSR in 1922, Berdyaev wrote many articles and several books, of which later, according to him, he truly valued only two: “The Meaning of Creativity” and “The Meaning of History.”

He participated in many endeavors of the cultural life of the Silver Age, first moving in the literary circles of St. Petersburg, then taking part in the activities of the Religious and Philosophical Society in Moscow. After the revolution of 1917, Berdyaev founded the “Free Academy of Spiritual Culture,” which existed for three years (1919–1922).

Life in exile[edit.

Twice under Soviet rule Berdyaev was imprisoned. “The first time I was arrested was in 1920 in connection with the case of the so-called Tactical Center, to which I had no direct connection. But many of my good friends were arrested. As a result, there was a big process, but I was not involved in it.” During this arrest, as Berdyaev says in his memoirs, he was personally interrogated by Felix Dzerzhinsky and Vaclav Menzhinsky. Berdyaev was arrested for the second time in 1922. “I sat there for about a week. I was invited to the investigator and told that I was being deported from Soviet Russia abroad. They took a subscription from me that if I appeared on the border of the USSR, I would be shot. After that I was released. But it took about two months before I was able to travel abroad.” After leaving (on the so-called “philosophical ship”) Berdyaev first lived in Berlin, where he met several German philosophers: Max Scheler, Keyserling, Spengler. In 1924 he moved to Paris. There, and in recent years in Clamart near Paris, Berdyaev lived until his death. He took an active part in the work of the Russian Student Christian Movement (RSCM) and was one of its main ideologists. He wrote and published a lot from 1925 to 1940. was the editor of the magazine “Path”, actively participated in the European philosophical process, maintaining relations with such philosophers as E. Mounier, G. Marcel, K. Barth and others.

A short article by Nikolai Aleksandrovich Berdyaev, “Man and Machine,” published in 1930 in France, is devoted to the problem of sociology and metaphysics of technology. The appearance of this article was mainly due to the almost complete absence of philosophical developments on this topic, the fact that a philosophy of technology had not yet been created. To create such a philosophy, it was necessary first of all to realize that this is a spiritual problem “from the inside it is the theme of the philosophy of human existence.”

In this article N.A. Berdyaev considers how, under the influence of scientific discoveries, inventions, and the emergence of new technical devices, the image of man, his spiritual life, has changed radically. Under the influence of scientific and technological progress, not only economic, military, and industrial technology has changed, but also the technology of thinking, versification, and painting.

Considering the problem of man and machine, N. Berdyaev shifts the focus of his attention to man, the process of changing his consciousness. He notes that a change in consciousness occurred when the views of Copernicus became dominant, when the infinity of worlds was revealed. Then the person found compensation and a fulcrum, transferring the center of gravity inside the person, into the self, into the subject. According to N. Berdyaev, idealistic philosophy is that compensation for the loss of space, in which he felt surrounded by higher powers.

Mass replication of technology, mass technical organization of life destroys all originality and individuality of man. But idealizing the old, Old Testament life, a person forgets that this life was associated with the terrible exploitation of people and animals, with slavery, enslavement. It is impossible to imagine a return to the old natural economy, the patriarchal system. This opportunity is not given to man. At the same time, N. Berdyaev believes that the technical era is also not eternal, "" The era of unheard-of power over the human soul will end, but it will end not with the denial of technology, but with the subordination of its spirit.""

N. Berdyaev raises a very important philosophical topic in this work - the problem of dehumanization of modern man. The technique, which has a terrible power of implementation, gives a keen sense of the destruction of the ancient cosmos with the Earth at the center. This is the payment for the thoughtless world that man has created for himself.

N. Berdyaev, as a religious philosopher, believes that man is a creation of God and carries within himself His image and likeness, that man has been redeemed by the Son of God. The end, the Last Judgment and the destruction of humanity are not predetermined by divine or natural necessity, and are not at all fatal. “It is not the machines, but man, who is to blame for the terrible power of machinism; it is not the machine that has deprived man of his soul, but man himself that has desouled him. The problem must be transferred from outside to inside." Thus, N. Berdyaev leads to the idea that “” Dehumanization is a state of the human spirit, it is the attitude of the spirit to man and the world. Everything leads us to the religious and philosophical problem of man."

N. A. Berdyaev is an optimistic philosopher. He believes in success and the power of science. Its peaks are achievable only when man is independent of nature. He believes in man's greatest potential. He believes that consciousness will place man above nature and society, will place the human soul above all natural and social forces.

We cannot underestimate the capabilities of technology and its unconditional influence on the organization of our reality. Life with machines has become much easier; they have made our work easier in many ways. But Berdyaev focuses the problem precisely on the power of technology. “Technology ceases to be neutral...” And in this sense, it represents a dangerous dependence for a person. Berdyaev says that technology kills, consumes the soul, it is merciless to man, our consciousness becomes chained to the technical and rational. Technology is not interested in the soul, it is the sphere of mechanisms, the reality of machines. Without a doubt, it brings comfort to our lives, but it also influences our being, occupying a dominant position in our way of thinking, which affects our soul.

Berdyaev believes that the spirit will subjugate the kingdom of machines for the benefit of humanity, but man will have to turn to introspection to regain his spiritual beginning. Only this can save him and free him from the dependence of machines.

Man machine system

One of the criteria for the development of human civilization is the creation and improvement of labor tools, which made it possible to expand the physical and mental capabilities of a person in the manufacture of objects of labor necessary to improve the conditions of his life.

The most ancient achievements of human civilization were the manufacture and use of stone tools. The use of the physical parameters of these tools, mainly mass and shape, allowed ancient people to more effectively use their physical strength in the labor process. As a classic example of transforming human physical efforts to increase the efficiency of his work, one can cite one of the ingenious inventions of mankind - the Archimedes lever, which uses the discovery of Archimedes (287-212). BC) law inversely proportional relationship between the ratios of the lengths of the lever arms and the forces applied to them.As follows from the formula, if the length of the right arm of the lever b , for example, twice the size of the left a , then for balance the force F 1 should be twice as strong F 2 . Hence, doing the same work, but using lever arms of different length ratios, we can lose on the way, but gain in strength, or vice versa. And since, as a rule,Since a person’s strength is significantly limited, and the path is little limited, then the lever he uses is mainly used to gain strength at the expense of losses along the way.

The nature of road transport, multi-shift production, air and space flights required careful consideration of the issue of how, during work, roles are distributed between a person and the technical systems of an aircraft, spacecraft or systems that provide a person with the conditions necessary for his life (they are usually called life support systems ). These systems and the operator cannot be considered separately from each other, since the person in the spacecraft is not just a passenger whom the ship transports from one place to another. Therefore, it is customary to consider the human machine system. This approach helps designers determine the role of each link in this system and ultimately create an optimal design.

By the way: Car any technical device intended for the purposeful change of matter, energy or information

A good definition of the concept of a human machine system was given by E. McCormick, who says that“a human-machine system can be defined as a combination of one or more people with one or more equipment components interacting with each other in such a way that the system, receiving input signals, produces the output signals required under specific environmental conditions”. This definition of the concept “man machine” makes it easy to see what is common in the combinations car driver, airplane crew, typewriter typist, and also spaceship astronaut.

In the literature, the concepts are used as a synonym for SFM“anthropotechnical system”, “ergatic system”,“ergotechnical system”, “man-machine system”, “operator-machine system”, etc. However, the most commonly used term is “MSM”. In a number of cases, the term “man-machine-environment system” is used, but this is not particularly necessary, since any SMS operates under environmental conditions and its consideration is always necessary when studying SMS.

Interest in the problem of S. “ch. them." arose in the mid-20th century; it was due to the fact that various types of systems (production management, transport, communications, space flight, etc.) increasingly began to act as objects of technical design and construction, the effectiveness of which is largely determined by the activities of the person included in them. The combination of human abilities and machine capabilities (or a set of technical means) significantly increases management efficiency.

Despite the joint performance of the control functions of man and machine, each of the two components of the system is subject to its own, peculiar only to its own laws, and the effectiveness of the system as a whole is determined by the extent to which, during its creation, the peculiarities inherent in man and machine were identified and taken into account, including limitations and potential opportunities. These features are most fully revealed in the process of designing coordinated external (technical) and internal (inherent to the operator, see Human Factors) means of activity, including the construction of information and conceptual models.

The human machine system can be an open or closed loop.In the first case, a person only turns on the system and, figuratively speaking, steps aside, since his functions end there.An example of such an open-loop system is the gun gunner system, in which a person carefully calculates all the data coming to him and gives the parameters necessary for aiming the gun (for example, the aiming angle and vertical aiming angle). After a shot, a person is no longer able to change either the trajectory of the projectile or the place of its fall.

An example of a closed loop system is the spaceship astronaut system, in which man and ship constantly interact in order to obtain the necessary results. If, for example, the speed of rotation of the ship changes in an undesirable direction or becomes simply dangerous, the astronaut turns on the appropriate braking system, which stops or reduces the rotation of the ship around one or another axis. At the same time, he monitors the readings of instruments indicating that the rotation of the ship has stopped or decreased to an acceptable value. In closed-loop systems, a person usually serves as a sensing element (sensor), a device for processing received information, and a regulator, while a machine provides him with information for decision-making. The machine also provides power output enhancement.

The “man-machine-environment” system - MHMS is a complex multifunctional system, including inanimate, living matter and society (see figure below).

System “man machine environment”

The structure of the SCMS consists of:

cars (M) everything that is artificially created by human hands to satisfy their needs (technical devices, information support, etc.);
person (H) - a human operator who, when interacting with a machine, performs certain control functions to achieve the goal;
environment , which can be conditionally divided into two types: the environment (ES) and the social environment (SS).

Environmentcharacterized by such basic parameters as microclimate, noise, vibration, illumination, dust, gas pollution, etc.

Social environmentcharacterized by socio-economic and political relations in society.

A person and a machine, in their interaction, constitute a subsystem within the framework of the human-machine system, which is called the “man-machine” system - the human-machine system.

The classification of SFM is based on four groups of characteristics:

1. purpose of the system;

2. characteristics of the human link;

3. type of machine link;

4. type of interaction between system components.

By purposeThe following classes of systems can be distinguished:

1. managers, in which the main task of a person is to control the machine;

2. serving , in which the human task is to monitor the condition of the machine;

3. educational - development of certain skills in a person;

4. informational - searching, accumulating or obtaining the necessary information;

5. research- analysis of certain phenomena.

By characteristics of the human element SChM are divided into:

 monosystems , which includes one person;

 polysystems , which includes a whole team and a complex of technical devices interacting with it.

Polysystems, in turn, can be divided into:

Parity , in which in the process of interaction between people and machine components, no subordination and priority of individual team members is established. Examples of such polysystems include the system “a team of people life support devices” (for example, a life support system on a spaceship or submarine). Another example would be a large screen display system intended for use by a team of operators.
Hierarchical , in which either an organizational or priority hierarchy of interaction between people and technical devices is established. Thus, in an air traffic control system, the airport dispatcher forms the top level of control. The next level is aircraft commanders, whose actions are controlled by the dispatcher. Third level the remaining crew members working under the direction of the ship's commander.

The activity of a human operator is a process of achieving the goals set for the human operator, consisting of an ordered set of actions performed by him.

There are several types of operator activities:

 operator-technologistpeople are directly involved in the technological process;

 operator-manipulatorthe main role of human activity is sensorimotor regulation (control of manipulators, trains, etc.);

 operator-observerclassic type of operator (transport system dispatcher, radar station operator, etc.);

 operator-researcherresearchers of any profile;

 operator-supervisororganizers, managers at various levels, responsible decision makers.

By type of machine linkConventionally, two types of signs can be distinguished:

 information - machines that provide information processing and solve spiritual problems;

 material machines that process material media.

By type of interaction between system componentsIn SFM there are two types:

 informational interaction caused by the transfer of information from machine to person;

 sensorimotor interaction directed from a person to a machine to accomplish a given goal.

Human labor activity in the “Man Machine Environment” (HME) systems is studied by the science of ergonomics.

The subject of the study is the specific work activity of a person using machines.

The classification of HSM by type of interaction between man and machine can be based on the degree of continuity of this interaction. Based on this feature, systems are distinguished continuous (for example, driver-vehicle system) and episodic

GOST 26387-84 - “Man-machine” system. Terms and Definitions

This standard establishes terms and definitions of basic concepts in the field of the “man-machine” system and its ergonomic support. Document name: GOST 26387-84

Document type: standard

Document status: valid

Russian title: "Man-machine" system. Terms and Definitions

English title: Man-machine system. Terms and definitions

Main literature

1. Man and machine: Textbook. manual/ V.L. Shaduya, I.P. Filonov. - Mn.: UE “Technoprint”, 2001- 334 p.

2. B.S. DobroborskyGENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY"MAN-MACHINE". Saint Petersburg . 2008.

3. Sergeev S.F. AND engineering psychology and ergonomics [Text]: training manual O Sobie / S. F. Sergeev. - M.: Research Institute of Schools b technologies, 2008. - 176 p.

Additional literature:

Bogolyubov A.N. The creation of human hands: The natural history of machines. -M.: Knowledge, 1988.
Martynyuk I.O. Engineer in the mirror of time. - Kyiv: Politizdat of Ukraine, 1989.
Fundamentals of engineering psychology: Textbook for technical universities / B.A. Dushkov, B.F. Lomov, V.F. Rubakhin et al.; Ed. B.F. Lomova. - 2nd ed., add. and processed - M.: Higher. school, 1986/

Article by Berdyaev N.A. “Man and Machine” is undoubtedly relevant to this day, presenting its acuteness of the problems of technology in the light of modernity.

The work amazes with its novelty and unconditional involvement in modern society, where the technical aspect is gaining momentum in its influence and total mastery of the consciousness of individuals. Here Berdyaev’s personal understanding of problems directly related to technology and modernity is revealed. It seems that the work is dedicated to our days, although it was written at the beginning of the twentieth century.

The appearance of the machine is assessed by Berdyaev as a manifestation of traditional humanism and its values, where man is subordinate to technology. The means turns into a goal, thereby rebuilding not only the social structure of society, but also consciousness, acquiring its new quality. The philosopher’s ideas are imbued with concern about the future of humanity, and, it must be said, they are currently perceived as completely acceptable, because technology since the beginning of the twentieth century. really gained dominance over man (take, for example, the phenomenon of computer addiction).

In his article, Berdyaev especially appreciated the view on the problem of the crisis of man and society caused by the rapid development of technology and the onslaught of scientistic-technocratic ideology presented with unconditional consistency, although the topic, of course, is quite controversial, because society cannot help but develop, and development, in turn, inevitably leads to civilizational “pros and cons.”

It was the study of N.A.’s article. Berdyaev’s “Man and Machine” is the subject of this work.

Berdyaev identifies three stages in human culture: natural-organic, cultural, technically machine, where he briefly describes each of them on the basis of history, and also gives a comparative description of the “organism” and “mechanism” as opposing subject and object, their mutual the impact and tragedy of the confrontation.

The article traces the idea of comparing “organic” and “technical”. He makes this comparison almost from the very first lines, where he compares the previous organization of society and the new one, equipped with technology. The former individual was closer to nature, and therefore, according to Berdyaev, closer to spirituality. There was a direct connection between man and nature. The advent of machines greatly facilitated people's work; they gained greater freedom and minimized the cost of physical labor. But this same circumstance radically influenced not only their life, the organization of work, but also their thinking and attitude.

In this regard, Berdyaev talks about supporters and opponents of “improving life” thanks to technology. They view technology as something neutral and indifferent, declaring it the work of engineers, while others “experience technology apocalyptically, experiencing horror at its growing power over human life, seeing in it the identity of the spirit of Antichrist. This attitude towards technology comes from the simple principle that “everything that is not pleasant, everything that destroys the familiar, is declared evil.” But Berdyaev, as a philosopher, opposes the expansion of technology in modern society. You can talk as much as you like on this topic, but, undoubtedly, technology allows you to achieve the greatest results at the lowest cost; this is a fact with which one cannot but agree.

Berdyaev probably wanted to reconcile the two realities “technical” and “organic”. Of course, because Technology is a creation of man; it cannot be the cause of spiritual problems of humanity. The person is to blame for them himself. But technology can radically influence the consciousness of the masses, and due to man’s vulnerability to global problems, he has what he has. It is his will to change reality. And if God died, as Nietzsche, Sartre and many others argued, all responsibility lies with man, another thing is that this burden is beyond his strength.

Berdyaev offers a way out of this problem, anticipating future metamorphoses; he believes that the spirit will subjugate the machine kingdom for the benefit of humanity, but man will have to turn to introspection to rediscover his spirituality. Only this can save him and free him from the dependence of machines.

We can conclude that technology will again be subordinated to man. This reveals nostalgia for a lost paradise, which corresponds to Berdyaev’s Christian vision. The dream of finding what was lost will inevitably end in the victory of the spirit in human history. The goal of progress, according to Berdyaev, is precisely this.

N. A. Berdyaev is undoubtedly one of the most original Russian philosophers of the 20th century. But both in the style of his thought and in his problematics, the features of extra-academic philosophizing, characteristic of many Russian thinkers, are easily discernible: indifference to the methodology of philosophical discourse, a reckless, almost ecstatic desire to solve the “ultimate questions” uncritically accepted from theology, the “sticking together” of metaphysics with natural philosophy, thinking in the categories of “spiritualistic materialism”, the moralistic attribution of “originally inherent” qualities to objects and belief in the teaching purpose of philosophy.

Like many Russian philosophers, Berdyaev did not create a philosophical system; everything he wrote is united not by a system, but by a general religious and philosophical worldview with more or less elaboration of individual parts and aspects.

Whatever Berdyaev wrote about, he always remained a publicist: he always argued with someone, denounced someone, refuted someone, suggested the correct answers to someone. At the same time, he inevitably fell into the monologue tone of a prophesying teacher; the cooling of passion seemed to him a deadening routine.

Of course, Berdyaev’s problematics, life perception, and style of thought entirely belong to the culture of modernism and remain incomprehensible outside of modernism. Berdyaev himself called his philosophy existential, or philosophy of spirit, emphasizing that his philosophy is primarily an anthropological philosophy; posing the problem of man meant for him posing the problem of freedom, creativity, personality, spirit, history.

His article “Man and Machine” is devoted to the problem of sociology and metaphysics of technology. The appearance of this article was mainly due to the almost complete absence of philosophical developments on this topic, the fact that a philosophy of technology had not yet been created. To create such a philosophy, it was necessary, first of all, to realize that this is a spiritual problem “from the inside, it is the theme of the philosophy of human existence.”

ON THE. Berdyaev emphasizes that the question of technology has become a question of the fate of man and the fate of culture. “In an age of little faith, in an age of weakening not only of the old religious faith, but also of the humanistic faith of the 19th century, the only strong faith of modern civilized man remains faith in technology, in its endless development. Technology is a person’s last love, and he is ready to change his image under the influence of the object of love.”

After reading the article by N.A. Berdyaev, really the first thoughts about how modern and relevant it is to this day.

At the beginning of the article, Berdyaev notes that we are talking not only about technology that makes it possible to improve living conditions, but also about the technology of thinking, painting, dancing, etc. But further, throughout the entire article, it is technology in its original meaning, as a technical tool, as means of life. And it is precisely the “replacement of the goals of life with the means of life” that Berdyaev so regrets, saying that such a substitution humiliates a person, makes him soulless.

Berdyaev believes that humanity faces a fundamental paradox: “without technology, culture is impossible, the very emergence of culture is connected with it, and the final victory of technology in culture, the entry into the technical era, leads to culture’s death.” It is impossible to completely agree with this, since in other cases technology makes it possible to convey this very culture to the masses (radio devices, televisions, MP3 players), thereby serving as a kind of conductor or intermediary. With the help of technology, music is created, filmed films are played, the atmosphere in the theater is created, newspapers, magazines are published, etc.

Previously, everyone was afraid of predatory animals. Today they are observed in zoos. People were afraid of hunger; they were forced to do hard and thankless work. Today these tasks are performed by robots and computers. A person has more and more free time to think. And when a person thinks, he asks himself questions. By asking questions, he tries to find answers, thereby developing spiritually and increasing his level of knowledge.

But sooner or later, “the creation rebels against its creator and no longer obeys him. We see this in all processes of rationalization in the technical era, when man is replaced by a machine, technology will replace the organic-irrational with the organized-rational. But it gives rise to new irrational consequences in social life. Thus the rationalization of industry gives rise to unemployment, the greatest disaster of our time.”

Human labor is being replaced by a machine, which is a positive gain that should eliminate slavery and human poverty. But the machine does not obey what man demands of it; it dictates its own laws. “The man said to the machine: I need you to make my life easier, to increase my strength, but the machine answered the man: I don’t need you, I will do everything without you, you can disappear.”

Another aspect of modernity from the article, because today unemployment with its consequences is on a par with poverty and social instability as the most pressing problems on a global and national scale.

Taylor's system is an extreme form of labor rationalization, but it turns man into an improved machine. The machine wants a person to take on its image and likeness. “But man is the image and likeness of God and cannot become the image and likeness of a machine without ceasing to exist. The very spirit that created technology and the machine cannot be technicalized and mechanized without a trace; the irrational principle will always remain in it.” But technology, according to N. Berdyaev, wants to master the spirit and rationalize it, turn it into an automaton, enslave it. And this is “the titanic struggle between man and the nature he technizes.”

This “titanic struggle” between man and technology can be traced throughout the article: “technology tears man away from the earth,” “technology is a product of the will to power and expansion,” “technology deals terrible blows to humanism, the humanistic worldview, the humanistic ideal of man and culture,” and etc. The author seems to every time accuse a person of his dependence on technology and, with the help of this article, tries to convey the essence of what is happening, but there is a gradual technicalization of all humanity. And although technization in itself is an inevitable phenomenon, a person forgets his culture, spirituality, goals, becoming more and more carried away by the means of life.

Carried away by discussions about the harmful effects of technology on humans, the author delves into philosophical reflections on time and its meaning for humans: “Man has no time for eternity. They demand from him an early transition to the next time. This does not mean at all that we should see in the past only the eternal, which is destroyed by the future. The past no more belongs to eternity than the future, and both belong to time...” And in general, the article, dedicated to the idea of the struggle between man and technology, is full of many philosophical terms, as if once again emphasizing that the question of technology became an issue at the beginning of the 20th century. an inseparable question about the fate of man and the fate of culture.

Based on the above, we can conclude that Berdyaev is saying that a person can be absorbed by an increasingly unfolding cosmic infinity. Christianity freed man from the power of cosmic infinity, into which he was immersed in the ancient world, from the power of spirits and demons of nature. It put him on his feet, strengthened him, made him dependent on God, and not on nature. But at the heights of science, which only became achievable with the independence of man from nature, at the heights of civilization and technology, man himself discovers the secrets of cosmic life, previously hidden from him, and discovers the action of cosmic energies that previously seemed to be dormant in the depths of natural life. This testifies to the power of man, but it also puts him in a new, dangerous position in relation to cosmic life.

A person’s demonstrated ability to organize disorganizes him internally. A new problem is being posed for the Christian consciousness. Technology has destroyed the old order of things, which began in the 18th century. In its place came a new understanding of reality in all spheres of human activity. Science and technology have made a revolutionary leap in vector history, revealing the titanism of man as the master of the Universe. But technology cannot solve the simple, pressing issues of an individual. She cannot help him with this. And yet, turning his gaze to the sky, a person feels his duality: he realizes his greatness and feels his weakness before the vast Universe. Realizing the scale, a person understands how little he has done and how much he still wants to accomplish. Technology is for a person compensation for what is currently unattainable. The tragedy is that man has become so dependent on the machines that he has created that he prefers comfort rather than intimacy in a social environment where he feels quite alone. Only spiritual potential can return a person to freedom again.

A squeak of literature

1. Berdyaev N. Man and machine. (The problem of sociology and metaphysics of technology) // “The Path”. – May 1933. – No. 38. - With. 3-38.

2. Gorokhov V.G., Rozin V.M. Introduction to the philosophy of technology. – M.: 1998.

3. Negodaev I.A. Philosophy of technology: Proc. allowance: [For technical universities] / I. A. Negodaev. – Rostov n/d.: DSTU, 1997.

An ideology that affirms the fundamental role of science as a source of knowledge and judgment about the world, where power lies with scientific and technical specialists

Eschatology is a system of religious views and ideas about the end of the world, redemption and the afterlife, about the fate of the Universe or its transition to a qualitatively new state.

Introspection (Latin: introspecto, looking inside) is a method that allows you to have an idea of your essence: structure, organization, etc.

Ecstatic - enthusiastic, in a state of ecstasy

American inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil became the author of many technological forecasts. He published his first predictions in the book “The Age of Thinking Machines,” published in 1990. The last time Ray voiced his vision of the future was a week ago at the SAE 2015 international congress in Detroit. If you collect these dates into a single list, you will get a detailed forecast of the development of key industries until the end of the 21st century.

Raymond Kurzweil became interested in the parallel development of humans and machines while studying at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He always found unexpected directions - from developing speech recognition systems to solving the problem of immortality. While the digitization of consciousness and its placement in a computer model of the brain seems like science fiction, the winner of many awards and the author of the book “How to Create a Mind” is ready to name the dates for the appearance of technologies that will facilitate this.

Recently, turning fantastic ideas into reality has become an immediate task for him, since for three years now he has been the technical director of the division for the development of machine learning and natural language processing methods at Google.

Ray's futurological announcements are interesting, if only because many of his early predictions are coming true before our eyes. We are talking about augmented and virtual reality systems, wearable electronics, smart clothing, electronic assistants (like Google, Siri and Cortana), self-driving cars and dozens of other changes in everyday life. What awaits us in the near future, if we are smart enough to live to see it?

2019
Most people will have multiple computers, although the meaning of the term itself will also change. The computing power of computers costing up to $4,000 will reach 20 quadrillion calculations per second. Microcomputers will be embedded everywhere - in clothing, jewelry, furniture and even walls. The same applies to photo and video cameras, the lenses of which are reduced to the size of a pinhead.

People will receive virtual reality systems that form images directly on their retina. Users will communicate with their computers through a two-way speech and gesture interface, with little or no keyboard input. Cables and wired interfaces for peripheral devices will almost completely disappear.

All students will have access to computers. The main training will be structured in the form of remote adaptive courses, in which students and teachers will attend remotely.

Blind and visually impaired people will be able to wear glasses that will interpret the real world through speech. Likewise, deaf people will use wearable devices that convert speech into text or signs, and music into images or tactile sensations. There will also be an artificial retina, a bionic ear and other neuroimplants, but they will exist in limited numbers.

Patients with spinal cord injuries will be able to walk again using an exoskeleton controlled via a brain-computer interface or direct commands from their own nerve endings.

Numerous haptic feedback devices will appear. For example, gloves or even entire suits that broadcast remote touches. They will be used in virtual reality systems and for more emotional communication between people over the Internet, including virtual sex.

Volumetric lattices of nanotubes will displace silicon from microelectronics. Instead of traditional algorithms, parallel neural networks and genetic algorithms will begin to be used en masse.

Automatic translation systems will become so effective that they will be widely used in professional fields and everyday life.

2021
Internet access will be available from 85% of the earth's surface. It will become predominantly wireless and very cheap. Formal payment for it will be debited automatically.

Computer programs will learn to create works of art at the level of their contemporaries, or even better than them. AI-created paintings, musical compositions and sculptures will appear.

Paper books will become a rarity. The primary means for viewing text will be thin, lightweight, portable displays with very high resolution.

2022
Robots will become as common as pets. Governments in developed countries will begin to pass laws regulating the relationship between people and robots. This will happen a few years earlier with virtual characters, and some will begin to spend more time communicating with them than talking with real people.

2024
Autopilot and driver assistance systems will be widespread in cars, trucks and public transport. In a number of countries, people will be completely prohibited from driving a car without an electronic driver assistant. Between 2020 and 2025, compact personal aircraft will appear.

2025
Wearable electronics will begin to be replaced by implantable ones. We will learn to effectively fight the aging process and will constantly extend our lives with the help of nanorobots and other technologies that do not even have a name yet.

2028
Alternative energy will become one of the key technologies for the development of all others. It will be established as the dominant concept. Solar panels will become so efficient that they will be enough to cover most of the energy costs.

2029
The program will not only be able to completely pass the Turing test, but will do it better than many real interlocutors. A thousand dollar computer will be orders of magnitude superior to the average human brain in most areas.

Brain modeling will become much more accurate. The functions of hundreds of different subregions, algorithms for their development and operation will be determined. They will be decrypted and included in neural network algorithms.

2031
Many people will voluntarily become cyborgs, and due to the abundance of implants, the very term “human being” will be rethought. Organs will be manufactured by machines in any major hospital.

There will be computer implants with direct connection to the brain and individual groups of neurons. They will be able to give a person superpowers - enhance perception, improve memory, increase reaction speed and reduce learning time.

2033
Computers will learn without human intervention. Non-biological forms of intelligence will combine the subtlety of the human mind with the speed, memory and limitless knowledge sharing capabilities of machine intelligence.

Almost all cars will become self-driving. Agricultural work and transport systems will also be fully automated.

2034
The development of AI will lead to the emergence of social movements for the rights of machines. The global orbital protection program will effectively prevent large meteorites and asteroids from falling to Earth.

2038
Transhumanism will become one of the key directions. Neuroimplants will allow you to quickly receive career guidance and any specific knowledge. The body's own cells can be programmed to perform new functions and treat diseases.

2041
Internet traffic will increase hundreds of millions of times, and search engines will be built into everything. Requests can be sent to them even with the power of thought through BCI.

2045
The first realization of physical immortality: nanorobots help overcome apoptosis and protect the body from any negative influences.

2049
Food is usually assembled by nanorobots from scrap materials. Such food is completely indistinguishable from “natural” food, but can be modified in any way by simply modifying the program. For example, it can become more or less caloric, change the content of amino acids, vitamins, microelements, or even initially include enzymes for its digestion. The technology for producing synthetic food will solve the problem of hunger and make food production independent of climatic conditions and the availability of natural resources.

The distinction between virtual reality and what is still commonly called the “real world” will be completely erased. This will be facilitated by both the development of augmented reality systems and the fact that almost all physical objects will be able to perform immediate self-assembly or change their properties.

2072 – 2099
Nanotechnology will give rise to picotechnology. People will learn to manipulate structures measuring one trillionth of a meter. An era of technological singularity will begin, which will spread beyond the Earth along with humanity. Our thinking no longer has advantages over artificial intelligence. People and machines have merged at all levels of existence. Many people don't have a permanent shape at all. They exist in the form of programs, their consciousness is capable of controlling several different physical bodies at once and creating new ones. The boundaries between the material manifestations of personalities are gradually blurring, so it is impossible to accurately determine how many people live on Earth and beyond.