Crucial to understanding one’s own beliefs is to explore the beliefs of others. Indeed, one of the best ways to develop how one truly feels about a subject is to research and understand the viewpoints of the opposition on that issue. Certainly, there is no better way to end our Ethics and Technology class than by rewriting blogs in the opposite point of view in the spirit of understanding. Truly, this exercise will help each one of us come closer to discovering our true sentiments about the controversial topics discussed throughout the semester in this class.
Anti-Journal 1: The Internet’s Boons
In my first journal, I discussed the disembodiment problems associated with the Internet as discussed by Hubert Dreyfus in his book, On the Internet. Here, I will take the opposite viewpoint, writing about the positive aspects of the Internet.
In Hubert Dreyfus’ book, On the Internet, one of the most powerful tools created by man which connects and informs the populace is under fierce attack. According to Dreyfus, the Internet disembodies human beings by forcing them to spend time in the virtual world, and this disembodiment is a negative contribution because as sentient, embodied beings, humans need physical interchange. Indeed, Dreyfus states, the only way we can know the world is through our body and how it reacts to outside stimuli. When we are disembodied, Dreyfus continues, we are depressed and feel alone and disconnected in this unnatural state. Thus, the Internet appears to have a very negative effect on its users.
Yet, Dreyfus’ argument against the Internet is not perfect. In fact, it has some serious flaws. First, it is indeed true that the Internet ‘disembodies’ its users by providing virtual rather than physical experienced. However, there are many other types of learning tools and entertainment that, in their own way, ‘disembody’ humans. When one reads a good book, for example, one becomes lost within the story. The reader is not experiencing the events of the story physically at all, but rather mentally. Yet, Dreyfus does not attack reading by saying it ‘disembodies’ humans. In fact, reading is looked upon highly in our society. Truly, a child who reads is far less likely to be scolded by his parents than a child on the Internet. Another accepted ‘disembodying’ agent is the theatre. While watching a play, the audience is not focused on how their body reacts to the events in the story. Rather, they are entertained and sometimes even challenged by these events mentally and emotionally. Dreyfus does not attack plays either, for going to the theatre is also a time-honored tradition in our culture. From these examples, it is evident that, in partaking in any event that emphasizes mental and/or emotional involvement, people are being ‘disembodied’ daily and have been for thousands of years. The human race has not been ‘depressed’ or ‘lonely’ as a whole for that long, obviously. Further, it would appear that Dreyfus takes a rather dim view of humanity if he believes the physical to be so important. Does he not believe that humans can transcend the physical to participate in mentally engaging activities? Or does he think we are simply animals unable to move beyond primal instincts and urges?
Beyond the disembodiment issue, Dreyfus simply does not give the Internet enough credit for all of its positive attributes. Though he calls the Internet "the perfect technological device" he barely mentions the Internet’s boons, and even when he does write something positive, it is only to write one paragraph later that these ‘pros’ are far fewer than the ‘cons’ of Internet use. Yet his argument for these ‘cons’ is not as strong as he would like the readers to believe. As proven above, the disembodiment issue is not so uncommon or so dire. Also, Dreyfus’ proof that disembodiment harms human being psychologically is weak at best. Consulting a study done on Internet usage by Carnegie-Mellon University, Dreyfus states that one can imply from the numbers in this research that depression and increased time spent online are linked. However, this one study is not even conclusive and rests on circumstantial evidence. The boons of the Internet cannot be denied, though. First, the incredible store of information that is the Internet is mind-blowing. A researcher wanting to find information on a topic can almost always get his/her start on the Internet. I do not know a student who can avoid using the Internet for a class. This huge ‘pro’ is enough to discredit Dreyfus’ argument that the disembodiment ‘con’ makes long-term Internet use not worthwhile. Also, the Internet is an incredible social connecting tool. Not only can one speak to friends from home over AIM, Facebook and other social networking sites, but it is possible to speak instantly and keep in daily contact with friends from all over the world. Without the Internet, it would be so much harder to keep in touch with my friends Pierre and Carole from Dijon, France. Yet, today I can and do speak with them over MSN chat daily. Truly, these are just two huge ‘pros’ to Internet use. Though I do believe the Internet (like everything, even reading and going to plays) should be done in moderation, I do not think Dreyfus gives the Internet enough credit in his book On the Internet.
Anti-Journal 10: The Measure of a Man?
In my tenth journal, I reviewed the Star Trek episode "The Measure of a Man" and argued with my own definition of personhood that Data was indeed a person and deserving of rights. In this journal, I will discuss why Data is not a person with a new definition of personhood.
Should Data the android have been granted the right to chose his fate by Star Fleet in the episode "The Measure of a Man"? This question is contingent on the definition of personhood. Is Data a person, then, deserving of respect and rights? In the episode, Captain Picard is able to prove that Data is a person by showing that he is a self-aware, conscious, sentient being. Thus, according to the writers of Star Trek, all that personhood requires is self-awareness, consciousness and sentience. To me, this is too vague, inclusive and precautionary a definition of personhood.
The first issue that arises with this definition is the question of self-awareness and consciousness in animals. In recent studies, it has been proven that elephants have shown a high degree of intelligence by recognizing themselves in a mirror. Does this not show a degree of self-awareness and of a low level of consciousness? Yet, elephants do not have special rights or respect that are given to persons. Also, much research done on the Great Apes has proven that they, too, are aware of themselves and develop a definite identity. Coco the gorilla is a good example of an ape with a distinct personality. Coco knows who she is; she is self-aware and conscious, and she has proven this many times over. Yet even Coco, who can sign, paint, recognize colors, numbers and letters, and who even has a sense of humor, is not considered a person by the general public. Yet Data, also self-aware and conscious, is considered a person at the end of this episode. Is it because Data looks like a human? If so, that would be a very superficial and arrogant reason for other humans to consider a being a person. If one dressed Coco up as a human, could she then be considered a person? Why does Data, a machine and a tool with a humanesque appearance programmed to be self-aware by humans, appear to get more rights and more sympathy than Coco, an organic creature that just does not look human on the outside? Why would people be inconsistent and treat Data differently than Coco?
Another problem that arises is sentience. In the episode, Data appears to be a sentient being. The key word, though, is "appears". Indeed, members of Captain Picard’s starship crew love Data for his courage and kindness and see him as a friend. Yet, Data is neither courageous nor kind, nor can he be a true friend. All Data can be is what he is programmed to be. Data is made to be the best member of the starship crew that he can be, and this includes having bravery and kindness programmed into him. He does not consciously choose these virtues. Data is what he is. Similarly, Data appears to feel deeply for his fellow crewmates. However, Data is programmed to do so. He does not choose to like them. In fact, Data the machine does not like or dislike. He only appears to his human peers to like them and to be friendly because it is in his programming. Therefore, whether or not Data is actually sentient is arguable.
It is by no means sure that Data is a person, then, for not only is his sentience called into question, but also the definition of personhood is, too. There is much more to being a person than being self-aware, conscious and sentient. Data could never be considered human because he is not human; he is a robot. Data was not born of a human mother, he does not have a human body and so he cannot truly experience the world the way human beings do. Because his experiences are different, so, too, are his thoughts, thus disqualifying Data further from being called a human.
Personhood, to me, can be defined as being born of a human mother and father. Any human, then, is a person. Anything not human is not. Certainly, being a non-person does not mean that other beings, like animals and robots, do not deserve certain (limited) respect and rights. Of course, no robot or animal should be mistreated for malicious reasons. As tools, robots can be respected for their exquisite (human) craftsmanship and for the work that they do. However, robots are just that – tools. If a robot needs to be harmed for the greater good of one human or all humans, that is perfectly acceptable. It is important not to forget who made the robots and who are in charge of and responsible for them – human beings.
Indeed, to know the opposite point of view is to know oneself better. I believe this was an excellent final exam exercise and a great way to end the semester for our Ethics and Technology class – in the spirit of courteous debate and intellectual discussion as well as tolerance and understanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment