THE DILEMMA OF

TECHNOLOGICAL
ALTERITY
(ALTERNATION)
技术他者性（替代）的困境
Roberto Pizarro Contreras
roberto.pizarro.c@outlook.com
University of Science and Technology of China
■ In the corporation of late capitalism in the West, we have a famous saying that goes: "If you seek
different results, don't always do the same.” (OPEX – Operational Excellence; Continuous Improvement)
■ 在西方资本主义公司中，我们可以在其方法、战略和计算系统的不断更新和更替中观察到技术他
者性（在卓越运营和持续改进的概念中）。
■ In the context of contemporary academia, this saying would be something like: "If you want to generate
new ideas or powerful intuitions, don't always rely on the same resources (methodologies and artifacts).“
a. The discussion about the paper.
b. Today, academic philosophy primarily parasitizes classical philosophers through its continuous
reinterpretation of them. There is no longer a philosophy of grand systems. (Habermas, 1975)

■ 在当代学术哲学中，我们可以欣赏到技术他者性的概念，当：
a. 哲学家们对论文的适用性提出疑问时
b. 当哈贝马斯表示学术哲学只是在对经典思想家进行不断重新解释，而不真正产生创新思想时。
 ■ In the corporation of late capitalism in the West, we have a famous saying that goes:
"If you seek different results, don't always do the same (using the same technologies
and procedures).”

■ In the context of contemporary academia, this saying would be something like: "If
you want to generate new ideas or powerful intuitions, don't always rely on the same
resources (methodologies and artifacts)."

1. These two mottos summon us to a question about the other

(alterity/otherness), from which arise two a priori questions:

a. What conditions determine that I should reconsider the systems

and tools with which I think?

b. To what extent should I change (alternate) or preserve these

modes?

技术他者性至少涉及以下两个问题：
c. 什么条件决定了我应该重新考虑我所思考的系统和工具？
d. 我应该在多大程度上改变（替代）或保留这些方式？
Emmanuel Lévinas
 ■ In the corporation of late capitalism in the West, we have a famous saying that goes:
"If you seek different results, don't always do the same (using the same technologies
and procedures).”

■ In the context of contemporary academia, this saying would be something like: "If
you want to generate new ideas or powerful intuitions, don't always rely on the same
resources (methodologies and artifacts)."

2. Furthermore, these two mottos express the force of attraction and the
delicate threads (Leviathan’s silicon mesh) with which technology
operates. This power of technology can be translated in neurocognitive
terms in the form of bias. For instance:

a. Functional fixedness
b. Fallacy of absolute supremacy (Leviathan’s bias)

此外，技术他者性表达了技术运作的吸引力（如 Éric Sadin 所说的

Leviathan 的硅丝）。这种技术的力量可以用神经认知术语翻译成偏见
的形式。
c. 功能性固定性
d. 绝对至上谬误（利维坦的偏见） Éric Sadin
2. The force of attraction and the delicate threads (Leviathan’s mesh) can be translated in neurocognitive
terms in the form of bias:

a. Functional fixedness
• Using tools in one way and not being able to use them in another (Duncker, 1945).
• Doing things in one way and not being able to do them in a different way (Zynga, 201).

b. Fallacy of absolute supremacy (Leviathan’s bias)

• The greatness of a system (a network of concepts or artifacts) can cloud the subject's capacity and
self-esteem, causing them to focus on the magnitude of the 'Leviathan' and lose sight of its artificial
nature (i.e., that it is a human creation and, as such, may be subject to significant reforms).

技术的吸引力（利维坦的硅网）可以用神经认知术语翻译为偏见：

功能固定性
• 在某一种方式中使用工具而无法在另一种方式中使用它们（ Duncker, 1945 ）。
• 在某一种方式中做事而无法以不同的方式做事（ Zynga, 201) 。

绝对至上谬误（利维坦的偏见）
Thomas Hobbes
系统的伟大（一套概念或工具的网络）可能会模糊主体的能力和自尊心，使其专注于“利维坦”的
巨大之处，并忽视其人工本质（即，它是人类创造的，因此可能受到重大改革的影响）。
Karl Duncker
Summarizing…

1. Here it is argued that we are tethered to a set of technologies, meaning that technologies determine our
outcomes and way of being. This is nothing but the well-known thesis of 'technological determinism.
2. However, by expressing technological power in neurocognitive terms (bias), we can say that technological
determinism is not absolute, as we can build strategies to mitigate technological bias (soft technological
determinism).
3. Consequently, the moral responsibility of the subject in this case is expressed in the dilemma of when and
to what extent one should question the devices with which they routinely engage. THE MORAL
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUBJECT IS ABOUT TECHNOLOGICAL ALTERNATION.

总结一下 ...

4. 在这里，提出了一个观点，即我们与一组技术相连，这意味着技术决定了我们的结果和生存方式。
这不过是众所周知的“技术决定论”的论点。
5. 然而，通过以神经认知术语（偏见）表达技术力量，我们可以说技术决定论并非绝对，因为我们可
以制定策略来减轻技术偏见（软技术决定论）。
6. 因此，在这种情况下，主体的道德责任表现为何时以及在多大程度上应该质疑他们经常使用的设备
的困境。主体的道德责任涉及到技术替代。
References

■ Duncker, Karl. (1945). “On the solving problem”. Psychological Monographs: General and
Applied, 58(6): i-113.
■ Habermas, Jûrgen, & Ashton, E. B. (1971). Why more philosophy? Social Research, 38(4),
633–654.
■ Pizarro Contreras, Roberto. (2023). “El dilema de la alteridad (o alternancia) tecnológica” [“The
dilemma of technological alterity/alternation”]. Argumentos de razón técnica, 26
■ Sadin, Éric. (2020). La inteligencia artificial o el desafío del siglo (“Artificial Intelligence or the
Challenge of the Century”). Buenos Aires: Caja Negra.
■ Zynga, Andy. (2013). “The cognitive bias keeping us from innovating”. Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2013/06/the-cognitive-bias-keeping-us-from
■ Pizarro Contreras, Roberto. (2023). “El dilema de la alteridad (o alternancia) tecnológica” [“The
dilemma of technological alterity/alternation”]. Argumentos de razón técnica, 26