Weiner & the Future of Communication

Weiner expresses both positive and negative views of the future  in regards to utilizing machinery as a means of communication. He begins his work by acknowledging that machines are progressing to the point that they are either simulating or, indeed replacing, human behavior. I found it somewhat complicating that, as machines begin to resemble humans more and more, then they must eventually fit the unique definition of humans that Weiner has assigned, in that they have an "impulse to communicate" (2). If human beings constantly build and upgrade machinery to use in place of humans for communication, I do not know that machines will achieve the 'desire' to communicate...but if they replace humans, will human beings have this desire as well? Weiner writes that animals are able to communicate, but describe humans as having a "desire for communication...is the guiding motive of their whole life" (3).

I'm afraid I had some difficulty understanding Weiner's remarks on how the world is made up of patterns. What I eventually gleaned from this argument was that he was making a point about the difficulty of translation and how, perhaps, patterns are not quite able to match up. However, the complexities in translation do not affect ideas of control, as long as messages are still able to influence the person who receives it. In respect to this idea, Weiner writes, "Control, in other words, is nothing but the sending of messages which effectively change the behavior of the recipient" (8). Using this idea, machines are capable of controlling people, other machines, and vice-versa. I think that Weiner encourages the use of machines in place of people for some tasks and he doesn't seem to express any fear about the replacement of humanity by machines, etc. His ideas are quite practical in that if a machine can accomplish the same job as a human being (and probably more efficiently), then this avenue should certainly be done. Indeed, he seems to perceive it as a matter of human dignity and respect, "...any use of a human being in which less is demanded of him and less is attributed to him than his full status is a degradation and a waste" (16).

Later on, in chapter 11, Weiner discussed the future of communication machines. He uses the example of the chess-playing machines to exhibit the limitations and also the potentials of machinery in adapting to various circumstances (whether through experience or rigidly defined rules depends on the machine). Weiner states that the invention of such machines is not merely for "ostentatious narcissism," but could also be useful in the military realm. However, machines do not appear to be at this level yet because they have not mastered probabilistic thinking. Weiner, writes, "He will not leap in where angels fear to tread, unless he is prepared to accept the punishment of fallen angels" (211). Weiner concludes this chapter by saying that machines will never be able to answer our questions, unless we ask the right ones? But I wonder, what are the right questions? Must they account for the limitations of machinery or of human kind or of both? Perhaps we will address these questions in class this week.