The Artificial Man Debate
We could have
just made history by creating an exact replica of me with your latest
invention, the Clonotron 3000 machine. It sounds great in theory, especially considering
the possibility of omnipresence. But in
practice how is it like me? It’s programmed with a digital image of my brain
state, presumably giving it the ability to mimic my thoughts and behaviour
without flaw. But how can the machine
learn like I do? How can it feel what I feel? How can a glorified
three-dimensional photocopy of a person do anything other than what it's
programmed to do which in this instance is imitate me? What happens when you
take away the script? Will it continue to pretend to be me, follow its own
path, or simply cease to function? In other words, is it conscious and if so,
does it have free will?
Before we
begin replication you inform me that the machine will think and behave just
like me to the point of being able potentially to replace me. At first it appears the machine does know
everything I know, but that doesn’t prove it perceives and interprets
information exactly like I do. So how do
we know it’s conscious? Unlike in the account of Dr Dennett’s ‘Brain in the Vat’
thought experiment, we have two bodies as well as two ‘minds’ to use as guinea
pigs in determining whether or not the replica is ‘conscious’, that is aware of
its surrounding environment and if it does so of its own volition. Let’s assume now that the replica passes those
tests. Say, on a driving track, it scores
the same time, accelerating, braking and taking corners exactly like I do. On a pop quiz, it reacts at the same time and
guessing all the same answers even if they are wrong. Apparently it even likes all the same foods I
do despite having no sense of taste and being incapable of eating. Now, is it conscious? By definition yes it is. It’s aware of its surroundings, its strengths
and it’s weaknesses as I am.
When you look
at the information at hand though, how can something either mechanical or
organic or even both be programmed with someone’s conscious mind, then be
proclaimed free and independent. That’s
a bit like telling a slave in Jim Crow America he owns the farm. It’s ridiculous. After all, the machine thinks what someone
else is or should be thinking and is therefore bound to that person by virtue
of their thoughts and memories. That’s
not free will is it? Then again, what is free will? The Stanford Encyclopaedia
of Philosophy says this: ‘“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art
for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of
action from among various alternatives’. On that note alone the premise that the
replica has free will is false because although it might for all intent and purpose
believe it has options, those options are still limited by its programming to think
and act like I do which constitutes a form of determinism.
So now what? Here’s
an interesting thought. We could instead
argue in favour of both man [sic] and machine leading programmed existences and
are therefore conscious without free will.
So no matter what we think, we cannot choose what we are aware of or how
we react to external stimuli. Speaking in
terms of a person, it sounds ridiculous to suggest there is no such thing as free
choices because, unless you’re severely mentally handicapped, deranged or in a
coma, then everyone makes decisions constantly.
What to eat, what to wear, how to wear it, occupation (or not maybe) and
so on. These premises all imply at least
some form of free will since they involve choosing from a list of alternatives. On the other hand there are things we cannot
choose such as whether or not to breathe or eat as they are fundamental
requirements of our continued existence unless we’re suicidal or deranged or
both. The question then would be what
determines the choices we make?
A determinist would
say that all of our paths are pre-ordained from time indefinite to time
indefinite and that anything with a semblance of choice is merely a ruse to
maintain order within the system. But how
would that be possible and who gets to determine what everyone and everything
else does? Arguably it’s perfectly reasonable to believe in the case of the
replica, but it doesn’t seem very plausible concept in relation to people
because if nothing else, why were we given the ability to reason if there was
no reason to use it? That’s a bit like giving someone a remote control but
nothing to control for example a television. When you look at it like that, the determinist
theory is quite pointless, but that’s another debate. In the context of the Clonotron concept, the
replica is using my brain state and its thoughts and actions are determined by
me from start to finish.
Also what
happens when you take away the script? In this particular case, what would
happen if you took away my brain state from the machines program and then left
it to its own. Would it continue to
function and start to learn for itself or would it simply cease altogether? Assuming
it is reprogrammable then it’s fair to say that it would be possible to salvage
the replica and ‘teach’ it to think and learn for itself. That would effectively give it sentience along
the line of Star Trek’s Data from the ‘Next Generation’ series who is the
‘Enterprise’s’ Chief Operations Officer and also an android. However Data is, at least according to the
shows creators completely sentient, being aware of his surrounding environment and
is at times even capable of human emotion with thanks to a special ‘emotion
chip’
Data is also capable
of reasoning and making rational decisions like his human counterparts giving
him free will. So on close comparison,
the only major differences between him and his human companions are lack of
bodily function, insusceptibility to poison or disease and a near indefinite
life cycle. You could argue he can be
corrupted, but, so are people. He can be
killed (switched off or short circuited), but, so can people. If you wanted a truly sentient android with
both consciousness and free will in any sense, then you are better off building
something like Data and save yourself potential embarrassment and a lot of wasted
resources.
In summary it is
a great idea and could potentially be a useful tool alongside cloning as a
method of preserving or even immortalising a person. However the problem relating to creating a
machine with the ability to predict and mimic people’s behaviour based on a
database of prior experiences and trains of thought is that you cannot justify labelling
it as truly sentient. It will have the
ability to form opinions and reason just not independently.
References: Dr Daniel Dennett's 'Brain in a Vat' thought experiment. That truly is an inspirational piece of work. Also many thanks to Wikipedia for some background info on 'Data' from 'Star Trek - TNG' and especially thanks to Gene Roddenberry for creating the character whom I borrowed so rudely for the purpose of writing this. R.I.P good sir and finally the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.
