72 lines
4.9 KiB
Plaintext
72 lines
4.9 KiB
Plaintext
Anthropomorphization
|
|
|
|
Semantically, one rich source of jargon constructions is the hackish
|
|
tendency to anthropomorphize hardware and software. English purists and
|
|
academic computer scientists frequently look down on others for
|
|
anthropomorphizing hardware and software, considering this sort of behavior
|
|
to be characteristic of naive misunderstanding. But most hackers
|
|
anthropomorphize freely, frequently describing program behavior in terms of
|
|
wants and desires. Thus it is common to hear hardware or software talked
|
|
about as though it has homunculi talking to each other inside it, with
|
|
intentions and desires. Thus, one hears The protocol handler got confused ,
|
|
or that programs are trying to do things, or one may say of a routine that
|
|
its goal in life is to X . Or: You can't run those two cards on the same
|
|
bus; they fight over interrupt 9. One even hears explanations like ... and
|
|
its poor little brain couldn't understand X, and it died. Sometimes
|
|
modelling things this way actually seems to make them easier to understand,
|
|
perhaps because it's instinctively natural to think of anything with a
|
|
really complex behavioral repertoire as like a person rather than like a
|
|
thing. At first glance, to anyone who understands how these programs
|
|
actually work, this seems like an absurdity. As hackers are among the people
|
|
who know best how these phenomena work, it seems odd that they would use
|
|
language that seems to ascribe consciousness to them. The mind-set behind
|
|
this tendency thus demands examination. The key to understanding this kind
|
|
of usage is that it isn't done in a naive way; hackers don't personalize
|
|
their stuff in the sense of feeling empathy with it, nor do they mystically
|
|
believe that the things they work on every day are alive. To the contrary:
|
|
hackers who anthropomorphize are expressing not a vitalistic view of program
|
|
behavior but a mechanistic view of human behavior. Almost all hackers
|
|
subscribe to the mechanistic, materialistic ontology of science (this is in
|
|
practice true even of most of the minority with contrary religious
|
|
theories). In this view, people are biological machines consciousness is an
|
|
interesting and valuable epiphenomenon, but mind is implemented in machinery
|
|
which is not fundamentally different in information-processing capacity from
|
|
computers. Hackers tend to take this a step further and argue that the
|
|
difference between a substrate of CHON atoms and water and a substrate of
|
|
silicon and metal is a relatively unimportant one; what matters, what makes
|
|
a thing alive, is information and richness of pattern. This is animism from
|
|
the flip side; it implies that humans and computers and dolphins and rocks
|
|
are all machines exhibiting a continuum of modes of consciousness according
|
|
to their information-processing capacity. Because hackers accept that a
|
|
human machine can have intentions, it is therefore easy for them to ascribe
|
|
consciousness and intention to other complex patterned systems such as
|
|
computers. If consciousness is mechanical, it is neither more or less absurd
|
|
to say that The program wants to go into an infinite loop than it is to
|
|
say that I want to go eat some chocolate and even defensible to say that
|
|
The stone, once dropped, wants to move towards the center of the earth .
|
|
This viewpoint has respectable company in academic philosophy. Daniel
|
|
Dennett organizes explanations of behavior using three stances: the
|
|
physical stance (thing-to-be-explained as a physical object), the design
|
|
stance (thing-to-be-explained as an artifact), and the intentional stance
|
|
(thing-to-be-explained as an agent with desires and intentions). Which
|
|
stances are appropriate is a matter not of abstract truth but of utility.
|
|
Hackers typically view simple programs from the design stance, but more
|
|
complex ones are often modelled using the intentional stance. It has also
|
|
been argued that the anthropomorphization of software and hardware reflects
|
|
a blurring of the boundary between the programmer and his artifacts the
|
|
human qualities belong to the programmer and the code merely expresses these
|
|
qualities as his/her proxy. On this view, a hacker saying a piece of code
|
|
got confused is really saying that he (or she) was confused about exactly
|
|
what he wanted the computer to do, the code naturally incorporated this
|
|
confusion, and the code expressed the programmer's confusion when executed
|
|
by crashing or otherwise misbehaving. Note that by displacing from I got
|
|
confused to It got confused , the programmer is not avoiding
|
|
responsibility, but rather getting some analytical distance in order to be
|
|
able to consider the bug dispassionately. It has also been suggested that
|
|
anthropomorphizing complex systems is actually an expression of humility, a
|
|
way of acknowleging that simple rules we do understand (or that we invented)
|
|
can lead to emergent behavioral complexities that we don't completely
|
|
understand. All three explanations accurately model hacker psychology, and
|
|
should be considered complementary rather than competing.
|
|
|