tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2549088046875609394.post2649783563639314695..comments2023-03-24T16:07:35.617-07:00Comments on Sounding Rhetoric: Close Reading: Logical Time and the Assertion of Anticipated CertaintyPaul Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00841372871906932597noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2549088046875609394.post-48180173538963629392014-01-03T08:02:43.655-08:002014-01-03T08:02:43.655-08:00In the computer example, shouldn't "hesit...In the computer example, shouldn't "hesitation" also be included with the 2 white dots command. the prisoner's being freed hangs on their ability to correctly guess their dot color. 2 white dots on the other(s) alone is not enough information. 2 white dots plus 2 hesitations is. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2549088046875609394.post-64670566341412584252008-12-25T09:34:00.000-08:002008-12-25T09:34:00.000-08:00"humans claim to be humans because they are afraid..."humans claim to be humans because they are afraid of finding out that they are not humans."<BR/>I like that.<BR/>I'll try to read the essay over break and anticipate that we can talk about it with certainty later, at some time that is logical for both of us.Favor of the Mothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17892164717097129990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2549088046875609394.post-64457536623051274132008-12-25T07:38:00.000-08:002008-12-25T07:38:00.000-08:00Lacan seems to be saying the prisoners are "progra...Lacan seems to be saying the prisoners are "programmed" to move towards the door no matter what, owing to the fact that the movements toward the door have the effect of making the assumption of whiteness a sort of fair accompli. That your computerized example only includes "win" scenarios is interesting, because we can imagine that it is the computer subject which possesses a non-investment in the situation to the extent that we can program it to account for "losses", but the human subjects make everything into a win through judgment-in-action.<BR/><BR/>I think a really crucial part of this essay is that because each prisoner is assigned a white dot, its possible that all the prisoners could be stuck there forever, without knowing which color they are. Subjects being driven and such, this is rather unacceptable, and so understanding is made with reference to others, by acting as though the prisoners know their colors. This is why Lacan closes the essay with his formulation of human subjectivity- humans claim to be humans because they are afraid of finding out that they are not humans. There is no external referent to guarantee what humanness is, except "doing" human. What curious about that example is that its not exactly parallel to this one, because in the game one is assigned a colored dot, making it so that there is a right and wrong answer, at least in the eyes of the warden, who will hear each prisoner tell what color they are.<BR/><BR/>The only explanation that makes any sense as regards this problem is that symbolically the warden plays the role of the Ideal-Ego, striking down attempts to assert identity as always-already inferior to the imagined ideal. The problem is that some prisoners may guess right......Paul Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00841372871906932597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2549088046875609394.post-39668956835855355502008-12-25T01:20:00.000-08:002008-12-25T01:20:00.000-08:00You don't set up the warden's problem here, which ...You don't set up the warden's problem here, which will help this make sense for others: Three prisoners are told that whoever can ascertain what color dot he has on his back he will be set free. Each prisoner may only observe the dots on the backs of the other two prisoners. There are three white dots, but only two black ones available (so, if one prisoner sees that both others have black dots, he can say "I have white!" and run out the door). If the prisoner sees one white and one black, he can assume that he is white, because if he was black, someone else would be walking out the door (here temporality is introduced: there is a second moment when the prisoner must take stock of how others are reacting). But what happens when the prisoner sees two white dots? Here a third moment is introduced: the prisoner realizes that since no one is moving toward the door, then everyone must be seeing two white dots. At this third moment, the prisoners simultaneously reach the conclusion that all three must have white dots, and they walk out the door together (a conclusion which takes a considerable amount of faith in the intelligence of your fellow prisoners...and how smart can they be?--they're in prison!)<BR/><BR/>If we imagine that this was an operation carried out by avatars in a computer simulation, then the outcome would be much more certain. Here's a simple program:<BR/>Dear Computer,<BR/>If you see:<BR/>2 black dots, go to door<BR/>1 black dot and other avatars are stationary, go to door<BR/>2 white dots, go to door<BR/><BR/>A computer would never fail to reach the door for several reasons: the computer does not doubt the logical capabilities of its fellow avatars; the time of calculation is reduced to near-zero, since the commands for each possible scenario are planned in advance; all possible scenarios are win scenarios; computer avatars cannot die.<BR/><BR/>The game is developed on a binary schema: yes/no, black/white, if/then, move/stay. The ego may be perfectly happy with this schema, structured as it is according to the rules by which the ego's world is structured and sustained. But there is this other time which intercedes, or something intercedes to interrupt time. It is the unconscious that interrupts: the psychic agency which does not say "no," and thus cannot respect the binary structure of the logic problem. "Doubt" is anathema to logic, yet here we are faced with a logical problem that must in some way account for doubt if its resolution is to be recognized as valid. It is as if this logical problem wants to make room for the unconscious, for the parapractic interruption of the signification that would carry the operation to its simple success (at least if computers were in charge).<BR/><BR/>In short: there is no temporal dimension to the prisoner problem as such (the computer example proves this). The temporal dimension only arises when humans try to solve it, and this temporality must be understood to extend from the existence of competing psychic agencies. <BR/><BR/>What I'm saying here is pretty obvious I guess. I need to revisit this essay...it is difficult.Favor of the Mothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17892164717097129990noreply@blogger.com