About Us

FROM HISTORICAL MEMORY TO THE RECORDS OF NEURAL NETWORK LOGS

Memory is not merely an individual faculty but also a decisive element in the construction of social life. Anthropological and sociological perspectives point out that memory is a vital dynamic nourishing the interaction between the individual, society, and the dimensions of time and space. While people construct their collective identities through the intergenerational transmission of traditional values, ways of thinking, imagination, forms of existence, myths, oral narratives, rituals, and shared experiences, these transmissions become formative elements not only of the present social memory but also of future perspectives. This resilient formation of memory against the tempo of temporal change is largely nourished by language. In this regard, we may argue that written language (the book), in the relationship between being, action, and memory, reinforced traditional memory and forms of existence at least until the invention of print and the transformation of writing into the medium of paper. For the paper medium was not only a technical advancement but also led to transformations in ways of knowing, thinking, imagining, remembering, and forgetting. Within this framework, we can speak of paradigmatic shifts in many domains, from historiography to artistic practice. Yet the ontological unity among thought, will, and consciousness, embodied in the relationship between language, being, action, and memory, and their manifestations in action and design (soul-body-action), remained intact.

The first rupture from traditional formations of memory occurred with modern secularization and the process of mechanization, in which interactive relations between machines—functioning as independent organisms with their own operating systems alongside (or against) nature—and human consciousness/will began to emerge. In this context, the ontological unity between language, being, action, and memory (soul-body-action) became fractured, and mechanical (technological) memory began to replace traditional memory. As technology developed—expanding natural capacities of action outward beyond the skin boundary of the body, transforming the body into an object of operation both inside and out, and eventually converting everything into the logistics of its sovereign will—memory gained new dimensions. Indeed, with the invention of electricity and the subsequent processes of mass and rapid production, transportation, communication, and the mediatization of reality, memory took the form of electronic memory. With the invention of the computer, in the digital era, we encounter prosthetic memory formations that are plastic, continuously processable, and updatable—interactive relations between actuality and potential reality. As traditional memory transforms into new technological formations, it becomes detached from its historical bonds, emptied of its burden, and continuously reshaped into a plastic (prosthetic) memory, formed by discontinuous and often irrational (interactive) movements and contents.

The understanding of continuous renewal and the denial of the old, which began with modernization, has today culminated in the loss of historicity. In its place, a (plastic/prosthetic) memory emerges, continuously updated within the sudden tempo of presence’s appearance and disappearance, where every event, thought, and artistic current is replaced by another before it can attain historicity—thus leading to an ahistorical process. The same holds true for art, which, in its transformation from ars mechanica to techne, and finally to techno, has seen the organic bond between actor, action, and design severed. Today we witness how the organic unity between subject, action, and object is fragmented through digitization, and especially through AI technologies—not only our reasoning, knowledge acquisition, processing, and aesthetic capacities, but also our (historical) memory itself is compensated with a (plastic) prosthesis. This points to one of the most profound problems humanity has faced throughout history: the experience of memory loss. In this light, we may say humanity stands at a crossroads: unless it finds ways to reconnect its consciousness, will, thoughts, ethics, spirituality, actions, designs, art, and modes of existence with its (historical) memory, it may be forced to relinquish mastery over its selfhood, will, consciousness, and actions—and ultimately risk becoming a mere object of design.

In today’s world, with the spread of digital technologies, memory is being redefined and reshaped. Information is now recorded, processed, and disseminated through social media, digital archives, cloud systems, and mobile applications. These new prosthetic memory platforms are transforming both individual and collective memory; they render memory more fluid, accessible, erasable, and updateable—but also more controllable and processable. The traceability, retrievability, algorithmic classification, filtering, and processability of data bind the act of remembering to digital infrastructures, opening to question its relationship with historical memory and the capacity for traditionalization. Algorithmic intervention disrupts the natural flow of historical and social memory and constructs a new regime of memory that determines what, how, and when users recall the past. Frequent “reminder” notifications on social media, while presenting the past as fixed data, in reality reduce it to a selected, filtered, and pre-timed representation. This diminishes the unstructured, voluntary, accidental, or emotional aspects of remembering and replaces them with a systematic, data-driven, and often commodified practice of recollection. Moreover, the invisibility of algorithms obscures the responsibility for this pre-coded memory regime, leaving unanswered the question of which groups, events, phenomena, information, or narratives digital memory excludes. In this context, algorithmic memory regimes essentially lay the groundwork for ethical and political issues concerning what ought to be remembered or forgotten. It seems that algorithms—representing the imitative nature of our neural networks—through their constructive as well as destructive and manipulative capacities, limit individual autonomy, guide the reconstruction of the past, and transform our ways of thinking, imagining, and knowing. Thus, digital forms of memory confront us not only with new means of storing or accessing information but also with new regimes of individual and collective memory, from which emerge new identities, modes of meaning-making, thinking, imagination, and ultimately, existence. Clearly, the process we are experiencing requires us to conceptualize and interrogate digitized forms of memory not merely from technical, sociological, or psychological perspectives but from a more holistic viewpoint.

The theme of the first international İSTES – Symposium on Human, Art, and Technology to be held this year is “From Historical Memory to the Records of Neural Networks.” In this framework, İSTES 2026 aims to bring together academics, artists, independent researchers, and graduate students working in sociology, communication, anthropology, history, media studies, digital art, architecture, philosophy, psychology, music, cinema, theology, law, and engineering to present contemporary perspectives on debates around memory.

We would be delighted to welcome your participation.

Organizing Committee of İSTES – Symposium on Human, Art, and Technology