The advent of Robot (history and decision)

I have spoken more or less recently with Francis Fukuyama on TV, and we have come to the conclusion that the definition of democracy as the power of the majority is obsolete, old and not functional. The new definition of democracy, according to Fukuyama, is the power of minorities directed against majority. Because majority can be populist - so, majority is dangerous.

Concerning the problem of time. The great German philosopher Edmund Husserl has said that we need to understand the time as music. In music we hear previous note, present note and we anticipate the next one. Without that, if we hear only one note - that is noise, not music. Music is when we keep in mind the note that sounded previously and we anticipate the note that will follow. So, the history and the future is not the new note completely, that is the continuation of the melody we`re playing now.

That is very important point of Mr. Sloterdijk’s remark on urbanization – the melody doesn’t begin now – we`re playing it for an certain amount of historical time. That is huge inevitable tendency – we can`t stop this melody, but at the same time, if want to change something we`re obliged to put the end to it. So, that is kind of destiny in this transformation of society from the agrarian, rural conditions of life toward urbanistic.

Considering philosophical meaning of this historical process we see that with every step the human being is more and more independent from the nature. So, it creates more and more artificial ambiance, it is more and more virtual world, because the city comparing the village is virtual - there is no such dependence on spring or winter, we always have light. And that is the preparation to the robots, full-scale virtual beings – we are already half-robots. Urban culture, technical culture is already here – we are more and more independent from nature, huge part of population (not only in Europe) is urban.

The process of urbanization can not be stopped. We are becoming robots, our society is more and more robotized. In order to make this shift from human to robots we need to embed some robot aspects in our life. In philosophy there is Quentin Meillassoux, object-oriented ontology that criticizes any kind of dualism. Meillassoux tries to save philosophy from the subject – from human. So, I think Meillassoux is kind of silicon brain, because in the same manner the robot could make philosophy, or non-philosophy (François Laruelle), or the ontology based only on the object.

We are preparing to the future, we`re playing this game with urbanization, and it`s time to remember what Heidegger said about the technic as metaphysical process. We are involved in technical process, and if we’ll be replaced by the next stage of this technological world, it will be bring with itself a kind of continuity, not something completely new. Because we`re playing this melody already for a certain time. We are preparing step by step to great replacement: we are ready to replace ourselves and to be replaced.

The replacement will not be something completely new and horrible, because something horrible is already here, around us. Not only in the West, in Russia or in Asia – in all the humanity something horrible is happening right now, and going on.

I think, we`re approaching some Singularity moment – that is a moment when the neuro- network will be allowed to take responsibility in complicated situation. This killing of human by robotic Tesla car without a driver is anticipation of what`s going on. We will awaken some day to the fact that we are already replaced.

We are playing the same melody, if we`re not happy, we can`t say `stop` here, it`s impossible. We should go this route to the beginning – to the first note of this symphony. We should ask now: who is the author and began this process of urbanization, who has created trains, liberalism, democracy, progress, missile, computer, nuclear synthesis. Who is the real author? And that is essential: because it was human decision, that wasn`t kind of `natural process`. In one moment of the history we`ve decided to go that way, and now we can just slow it down or accelerate. But why we don`t ask ourselves: are we going the right direction from the beginning? Was this decision right one?

We should go back to this moment, to the beginning of this melody – that is my idea. It could be too late, to wake up with robots around, perfect tax-payers, making democratic decisions, sending each other SMS messages from robot to robot...

The conversation between robots is already possible, in neuro-network the special language is possible, during the conversation two computer have recently created the language without knowledge of the operator. So, they will replace us easily.

Who is robot philosophically? The robot, Artificial Intellect is das Man of Heidegger. It is the inauthentic existence of Dasein. More than that: once upon a time the Western mankind has made the decision to finish with Dasein at all preventing it from the possibility itself of authentic existence. Now we are by the end of the road. The robot has no Dasein. So it is irrevocable inauthenticity itself. And it still here – now, not tomorrow.