ru | En
PHILOSOPHICAL
LITERARY
JOURNAL
ISSN 0869-5377
Author: Astakhov Sergey

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Lecturer, School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, sastakhov@hse.ru. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., 105066 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology

Astakhov Sergey

Sergey Astakhov. Postgraduate student, joiceastachow@mail.ru. School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066, Russia.

Publications

Phenomenology vs Symbolic AI: Hubert Dreyfus’s Philosophy of Skill Acquisition / Logos. 2020. № 2 (135). P. 157-193
annotation:  A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
Keywords:  artificial intelligence; phenomenology; skill acquisition; mental represantations; motor intentionality.
Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage / Logos. 2017. № 1 (116). P. 1-40
annotation:  This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.

Keywords:  actor-network theory; laboratory; irreductionism; heterogeneity; flat ontology
All authors

© 1991—2020 Логос. Философско-литературный журнал.
Все права защищены.
Дизайн Юлия Михина, jmikhina@gmail.com,
программирование Антон Чубченко