Final Exam (Corinne Weinel)

Corinne E. Weinel
Philosophy Final Exam
Due: May 1, 2008

Robots are NOT humans and can NOT be given the same rights as humans

In previous entries, I have defended the prospect that robots can be considered human and given the same rights as every other human. I suggested this affirmative position in essays concerning “Data” of Star Trek and “Andrew” of Bicentennial Man. In this essay, I will take into consideration the alternative perspectives and furthermore rebuke my previous statements. Robots are not to be considered human beings and are thus to be considered completely different entities than humans.
The first statement which I wish to rebuke regards the personhood of “Data.” Taking into consideration the argument Commander Riker makes on behalf of Commander Bruce Maddox a cyberneticist. It is the intention of Commander Maddox to deactivate and disassemble Data in order to help him understand how Dr. Noonien Soong was able to develop Data's positronic brain. Commander Riker stated that Data was a machine and in so presented the systematic representation of Data to local Judge Advocate General, Captain Louvois. Being a robot and not a human being Data was able to remove his hand exposing his mechanical circuits and hardware. This showed that Data was not made up of the organic material that occupies a human being but instead mechanical wiring. However, with regards to the physiology of Data the prosecutor went one step further and discussed how Data was a puppet. The point was suggested that Data being a puppet needed a puppeteer to control the strings. Commander Riker then turned off Data stating the strings have been cut and in so proving that Data could not be human. In this episode of Star Trek, Commander Picard defended the belief that Data was not property. When arguing this belief, Commander Picard made the list of achievements that Data had accomplished be read aloud (because all others accomplishments were read aloud). This essayist will admit that the list of achievements that were commemorated on Data was quiet extensive and impressive, they do not entitle things to certain rights. Data being a robot is programmed with the three rules of robotics which state among others that all robots have to protect the safety of humans. Even though Data showed bravery and other acts of nobility, he was programmed to act that way and in fact did not have the free will to react differently. In modern society, most people believe that free will is an essential quality of being human.
The second statement that I wish to rebuke regards whether the robot “Andrew” could be considered human in the short story Bicentennial Man. Andrew is a unique robot and has been designed containing generalized circuitry, which allows him to perform multiple tasks. Andrew displays a certain a personality which is different than all other robots—Andrew wants to be a free human. In Andrew’s pursuit of becoming human he makes artificial organs which are organic in nature and even goes as far as limiting his life span. With all these things taking into consideration, Andrew would not be considered a human being with certain rights. The first argument that I will make against Andrews case is that being a robot is programmed with the three rules of robotics. One of the three rules states that a robot has to perform all commands that a human gives it (unless it causes harm to another human). Andrew is programmed to act in a certain way and therefore does not have free will. In modern society, most people believe that free will is an essential quality of being human. Andrew was also originally made of mechanical parts which also separates him from humans. There are certain things that a human needs to have, such as an organic brain which is wired a certain manner. It is not that the brain dies which Andrew makes his case for being a human, but the manner of which it functions. With respect to this issue, Andrew believes death is inevitable for being human. This is not so, DEATH is the result of LIFE and even animals and plants (which are not given human rights) are alive. The only reason that Andrew was granted the title of a human is because the people knew he was going to die and therefore would not be a problem in the future. The statements discussed above are adequate and need to be sufficiently addressed before any machine is called human (and will never be addressed and agreed upon).
In conclusion, a machine can not be considered a human being in any way, shape, or form. Robots are forced to obey and therefore do not have any free will, which is essential for humanity. Robots are not human because of a different biological makeup which separated humans from every other creature on the planet. It we consider a robot a human any other creature could be considered a human, taxonomically this is not possible.


Artificial Intelligence: The Benefits of Being Incorporated

In the Philosophy: Ethics and Technology class at Thomas More College, one of the most important issues that were discussed was the concept of artificial intelligence. In previous entries, I have defended the belief that artificial intelligence was an impossible fantasy to achieve. In this essay, I will take into consideration the alternative prospects and furthermore rebuke my previous statements. It would be possible and beneficial to incorporate artificial intelligence and humans into one.
In the movie “Clay,” when a person was scheduled to die their essence was incorporated into a technological device. This device allowed a person to be at all places at all times and all their memories persisted. Although, the movie was written in the perspective that this was a bad technology the benefits appeared to out way the costs. Just imagine if the minds of Einstein, Aristotle, Plato, and other great thinkers were still around. How much further would we be in improving humanity? It does not seem like it costs anything to achieve this. The person that is incorporated into this machine has total freedom and can perform anything that they wanted. Why would this technology not be beneficial, if the technology was optional to the public?
The author Lyotard also suggested in part of his essay that artificial intelligence was essential for the survival of humanity. This author tells how the world is going to cease to exist at the point when the sun dies and how artificial intelligence protects humanity. When the sun dies, the author states that, all human beings would die as a result of changes in atmospheric conditions, along with other things. If human beings were to spread their message to any other culture that would be out there some other form of humans would have to exist, more specifically artificial intelligence.
It was previously stated by Dreyfus that embodiment would be essential for artificial intelligence to work. However, I do not think embodiment is a necessary component for artificial intelligence. If the prospective of the movie Clay and Lyotard are true in which humans are incorporated into artificial intelligence then embodiment is not necessary. This is true because human beings have already been embodied creatures and therefore have the preordained knowledge.
In conclusion, I have taken into consideration the alternative prospect of artificial intelligence being impossible and not worthy of achieving and rebuked my previous statements. This essay feels that incorporating artificial intelligence and humanity would be beneficial to preserve humanity and knowledge as long as the process was voluntary. Not only would incorporating humans and artificial intelligence be beneficial but possible because humans already have a sense of embodiment.