Format: on Shaninka campus
Language: Russian, English
Moderators: Varvara Denisova (SAS UTMN student), Tarina Iptysheva (SAS UTMN student), Ekaterina Astashova (SAS UTMN student), Zlata Pikulo (SAS UTMN student), Zakhar Neustroev (SAS UTMN student)

In the contemporary world, culture actively raises questions about the analogy between machines and humans, introducing anachronistic oppositions or tensions between the two: cyberpunk literature, science fiction films (e.g. «The Terminator», «I, Robot», etc.), video games, and contemporary Art & Science works. Humanity defends its uniqueness through anthropocentrism and culture imposes a dynamic, deeming an opposition to machines. These analogies arise from perceiving technologies as prosthetic entities that exist not only after humanity but also because of it. However, this section focuses on the works of 20th- and 21st century philosophers: our section assert that humans and machines form a complex symbiotic organism that constitutes time and defines progress, aligning with Gilbert Simondon's view that we must abandon the race to determine so-called «dominator» and «stanger» (Simondon, 2017, On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects). In other words, humans must recognize themselves as mediators and coordinators of technological processes.

According to the ancient Greek myth of Epimetheus' mistake, humanity was deprived of gifts and survival skills. However, Prometheus' techniques of making fire provided a chance for salvation to humanity. Technics, as Bernard Stiegler points out, cannot be called a prosthesis: it defines humanity and constitutes time, it is something that was not after us, but instead it was placed before us (Stiegler, 1998, Technics and Time, 1: The Fault of Epimetheus). In André Leroi-Gourhan's paleontological study, the techniques of the spear, speech, and writing defined humanity’s development through a process of exteriorization (the externalization of processes beyond the organism) (Leroi-Gourhan, 2018, Gesture and Speech). Humanity has continually transferred its functions beyond the biological organism: ancient humans wielded sticks, industrialization replaced labor with machines, and today, technology substitutes human social roles. In the digital era of automata, we encounter shifts in the perception of responsibility and its consequences — exteriorization reaches its peak, and we can no longer delineate the boundaries between human, technics and technology: where does human control end, and where does automation begin?

Jodi Dean's concept of technological fetishism offers a springboard for discussion. In the democratic web space such functions as likes, comments, and social movements appear more technological than human (Dean, 2005, Communicative Capitalism: Circulation and the Foreclosure of Politics). Digital political or social stances replace physical presence and human agency, shifting responsibility to technology for subsequent developments. Users' passivity reflects a reliance on the mechanisms of the Internet and its algorithms to handle circulation on their behalf. Trust in technology also manifests in memory formation: tools tied to specific cultures, autosaving functions online, and trends in social media stories all point to the human need for artificial support, for which they, in turn, pay with vulnerability.

The vulnerability of the techno-human symbiosis is evident in Eyal Weizman’s Forensic Architecture: Violence at the Threshold of Detectability. An analysis of a court case on the existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz demonstrates that errors in technological interpretation can have catastrophic consequences (Weizman, 2017, Forensic Architecture: Violence at the Threshold of Detectability). The central question emerges: who is responsible? Should we and can we divide the responsibility between machines and humans if, as it turns out, one defines the other and vice versa?

The concept of «reliance» and «support» reflects not only immediate consequences but also the future. For Russian cosmists, who explored the boundaries of humanity and its inevitable transformations, the hope in technology became a question of future resurrection and the possibility of immortality. Economic researchers of accelerationism (both right-wing and left-wing), as well as philosophers, converge on one point: capitalism, founded on technological progress, may collapse in various ways, but in any case, changes must occur in the relationship between humans and machine production.

In the context of technological systems, the constant overcoming of the boundaries of mutual influence between humans and technologies becomes a natural factor. The limits, as borders of mutual interdependence and the thresholds of human responsibility, are perpetually crossed, creating space for reinforcing the synonymy of humans and machines, approaching the concept of «limitlessness.» Thus, the aim of this section is to establish a dialogue about technological boundaries and/or their absence, as well as to trace the impact of technologies on society, contemporary theories about it, and the symbiotic relationships between humans and machines.