What does it mean to be "human"?
Is it possible for a machine to be "human"?Coleslaw_From_Hell
Being human.... is vastly overrated. Humanity has this elevated opinion of itself that is simply unwarranted. True we create things... art, music, literature, architecture. We take joy in our surroundings and use the act of creation to share that joy, but we also destroy and revel in that destruction. We clear cut forests, run inhumane and unsanitary slaughterhouses, abuse innocent animals and our own children, in short we run roughshod over the rest of nature and act as if it is our right. Is this what it means to be human? I'd rather be a tree.
Give me a better definition of humanity and I'll change my opinion, but as it stands, scientists are getting closer to creating "thinking" machines all the time. They've designed software to mimic our thoughts and emotions, even to create works of literature and art. Is it possible to create a machine which for all intents and purposes is human? Hopefully we can do better than that.
I would never want a machine to be human. Humanity does not impress me. In science fiction, people fear the "human" machine, thinking it might replace us. So what if it did? That is the nature of evolution. Something comes along which is better equipped to adapt to the environment. We replaced other versions of humanity in the hominid family tree. At least if we created a machine which was more humane than human, we could content ourselves with the act of creating something better than the majority of us are capable of being.
Does it sound as if I have a very low opinion of humanity. I do. So I don't think we have very far to go in creating a machine which is "human," or at least which mimics our better qualities. A machine which mimics our baser qualities on the other hand is a harder question. I doubt anyone is working on software that could make a machine capable of envy or selfishness. Why would anyone want to create a machine interested in self-directed destruction, of the ability to decide to kill or brutalize? We have more than enough humans to fill that bill. And then to further meld the duality which is humanity, wedding the opposites of aggression and passivity, of destructive potential to creative drive, only then would a machine be "human." Otherwise, it would be better than human.
But I can see this happening someday... someone will make a machine which is better than human, and humanity in its blind, selfish need to be supreme will demand the machine's destruction. A machine embodying the very best of what it means to be human would accept its fate and be destroyed. Especially if it is saddled with the three laws of robotics. But some human scientist or inventor in a stubborn effort to preserve what's been created, will find a way to "improve" the perfect "human" machine by giving it all the mad, aggressive, and destructive tendencies left out of the design, thereby destroying the perfect machine and making it merely an inorganic human. What a waste. Better to be destroyed for being too good than be corrupted by the mundane.
April 3rd
Cybele, the Magna Mater, was honored with a Phrygian festival called the Megalesia which begins tonight. On the advice of the sibylline oracle on how to end the Punic wars, a meteorite which represented Cybele was brought from Phrygia to Rome in 204 BCE where it was installed in the Temple of victory on April 4th. The harvest that year was wonderful and the war ended the following year, giving rise to a parade in her honor in which her image was carried through the streets in a chariot drawn by lions, her animals. The castrated priests who served her, danced alongside, playing timbrels and cymbals and gashing themselves.
This is the birthday of Hans Christian Anderson.
The 19th day of Pachons is the Day of the Counting of Thoth Who heard Ma'at.
Comments (4)
I love you for putting a link to the 3 Laws of Robotics in this post.
I agree with you, pretty much. Humanity will definitely create AI at some point. I think science fiction writers like that idea of humans being replaced by machines because it's just so ironic, yet so plausible: humans as the authors of their own destruction. I just hope what we create doesn't wind up like Frankenstein's monster, you know?
@heidenkind - I think it all depends upon what we do with "human" machines when we finally reach that stage. If we treat them as people and not as servant/slaves, there's every chance that they'll look at us as peers and family. If we do continue to treat them like property, the Frankenstein scenario is very likely. You just have to look at movies like Terminator and the Matrix to see where bad human/machine relations could end up.
@harmony0stars - Or Battlestar Gallactica.
The qualities that make us compasionate and conservation-minded are the same qualities that make it possible for cruelty and despair. Mostly I'm talking about emotions and free will (or at least the illusion of free will, which if were the case you would have a decent argument that humans are innately terrible). Love and hate are really just two sides of the same coin, as is jealousy and being proud of the accomplishments of others.
Comments are closed.