Forum - Week 2 - The Stimuli Simulacrum
While the forum was primarily about originality(1), we touched on a topic which I wish to pursue further. This is regarding, as I put it, the intellectual integrity of a computer.
Intellectual Property
In our highly developed society it is a criminal offence to steal or replicate another person's intellectual property and masquerade it as your own. While ownership of a physical object has always been a possibility, the prospect of owning the nonphysical has only transpired in recent times. As our species emerged from a faceless fog of anonymity into the populism of the Enlightenment, we fashioned a mentality of self-commercialisation. It was only a matter of time before this egotistical attitude conceived the monetary value that could be attributed to ownership of intellect, and in turn the legal system had to ensure the money went to the rightful owner. Today, a computer is not legally capable of owning anything physical or nonphysical, however it is in our perceived ownership of the nonphysical that a dilemma emerges...
Intellectual Integrity
The physical existence of a manufactured item certifies its creation and implies the prospect of ownership. When there is no physical manifestation of an item, its existence, creation and possibility of ownership is questionable, as it can never be proven. When an idea becomes property, the line between the physical and the intellect is blurred. If we can own a complex amalgamation of electrical stimuli in the human brain, why is it impossible for a computer to possess its own 'intellectual' creation? It could be argued that the creator of the computer owns anything that computer produces, yet our society does not pass ownership of intellectual property over to our parents, our 'creators' if you will. Where is the line that separates intelligence and artificial intelligence? The obvious difference is as simple as the boundaries of organic and mechanical. This however, reignites the initial conundrum of physical and nonphysical possession. If we suggest the nonphysical to be existent such that it can be possessed, why is there such a restrictive physical limitation of 'organic only' to the concept of ownership? We draw the line of ownership at organic, yet blur the line of physicality altogether with ownership of the nonphysical.
Intellectual Evolution
If a computer composes a piece of music based on our rules of harmony and melody, why does it not belong to the computer? When does a computer cease to be following orders, and actually resemble our creative processes? When does a byte, become an idea?
I have asked more questions than I have answered, however it is the existence of the questions that is important.
1. Stephen Whittington, "I Want To Be Original Like Everyone Else." Lecture presented in the Recording Space, Electronic Music Unit, Adelaide University, 8/3/07.
Nerd: But electrical stimuli in the brain can be considered physical!
Me: So can the electrical current in a computer. Thank you for strengthening my argument.
11 comments:
QUOTE: Nerd: But electrical stimuli in the brain can be considered physical!
Me: So can the electrical current in a computer. Thank you for strengthening my argument.
Sure both are physical, but the computer's actions are ultimately being instigated by a human. Either the computer or ourselves must have a non-physical trigger (over the brain for example, before the electrical stimuli will take place.) I call this the mind. There's my "wise thought of the day". On that basis, I deem computers unable to own intellectual property, as intellect is more than just electricity...
Aren't our actions being instigated by a human? Us?
I beg to differ- intellect is only electricity. Would you say I have intellect if I'm dead? What if I were brain dead- my body still alive but my brain no longer responding to or creating stimuli? Just because we have such an unfathomably complex way of generating and interpreting these electrical charges it doesn't mean we are not bound to the physical world. Even if we have a 'soul', that soul is still restricted to the laws of the physical world while it is contained in a physical body. In a physical sense, computers are the same, just vastly inferior and in different shells.
I suppose I’ve reached the point of contention- can a computer ever have a soul? Through my highly limited understanding of this world and worlds beyond it, I would ascertain that a computer could never have a soul- perhaps only for the reason that ‘the soul’ may just be the result of an organism too smart for its own good trying to substantiate its existence.
Let us consider 'the mind'.
Long before we harnessed electricity, the organic world was using it purely and unknowingly for neurological activities. If we use electricity to form our 'mind', perhaps we weren’t supposed to discover it? To this day we don’t know why it works, but we abuse it to the extent that creating it pollutes our air and destroys our ozone, and lets face it: we let it run our lives. Perhaps we opened Pandora's Box…
Doesn't that sum up the human race perfectly? Too smart for its own good.
No I couldn't disagree more. The human race would like to think it is smart, but how can we even discuss electrical stimuli when no one can adequately explain what electricity even is on a fundamental level? We don't know what gravity is, what time really is, how thunderstorms work, what conscience is... How little do we know!
If our brain is all there is to control us, then we are merely a prisoner of our brains and whatever it decides to do next. We use our "mind" or "soul" if you will, to make moral and ethical choices and the brain is simply a computer used to control the body... And if the physical world is all there is, then tell me how much does justice weigh? Why do some things play on our conscience when we innately recognise we've done something wrong? How is creativity a product of atoms? What do aesthetics smell like and what are their physical properties? How come we can we be certain of the existence of other minds? Are you telling me every brain is essentially the same control mechanism? I think this points to a unique non-physical intellect that we all possess.
Oh no, I've just opened a very large can of worms. I prepare to be flamed.
Ahh, indeed. We are smart, but not smart enough.
On morality: I believe that every animal with a brain makes ethical and moral decisions, even if it's only through instinct. A giraffe can walk almost instantly after it is born, and it doesn't need to be shown how or to be told it has to. I strongly believe that genetic background (and society to some extent) carries much weight with our instincts of what is right and wrong. I'm trying not to spout the 'E' word here. Much like a giraffe knows how to walk, our brain has developed instinctual thought, beyond the basic instincts of self-preservation found in lesser animals*.
On how little we know: Homo sapiens often try to explain things we don't understand through irrelevant means (like poetry or art). Just because we don’t understand it, it doesn’t mean we never will. It doesn’t mean we have to understand it. Why even bother trying to give a reason for existence when we are not physically able to comprehend it? Just like an artist or poet tries to explain the meaning of existence, some people conjure fantastical reasons for the unexplainable. Reasons that can never be proven or denied to any great extent. While it would be nice if there was one big answer, it is equally plausible that we are just too dumb to understand. I don’t like to say these things, but logicality is a bitch. I have stated somewhere before of my interest in our ability to comprehend our own incomprehension (I think it was my Perspectives essay), as it is one of the defining characteristics of our species.
At the very start of this reply I had written, “We are our brains”, then I looked in the mirror and instantly thought that we are more than the physical, as I cannot ‘see‘ who I am. Even though that probably makes me psychopathic. So really, I have no idea. Like I said, we are just too dumb, so we should just try and enjoy ourselves and make the most of what we got. I'm sure aesthetics taste like chicken.
*‘Lesser‘ could be argued…
QUOTE: "So we should just try to enjoy ourselves and make the most of what we got." Right, so I should eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow I die? Animals don't make moral and ethical choices, they do what is necessary to survive. But humans are different - why is there such a thing as self-sacrifice? And if there's little point in knowing anything, why are you at Uni and where did your motivation to respond to my previous comment stem from?
Animals self-sacrifice all the time, particularly mothers protecting their young. Don't you think that their instinct can be considered a moral choice? Just like some animals know they have to take care of their young, we have instincts that govern our morality. Our morals may be more complex than than the average beast, but who's to say that they don't all stem from instict? Is it not moral to protect one's young? If our brain is so far advanced from other species, it would be safe to assume that we excel in many other areas, such as instinct.
I'm at uni because I'm a pawn of society, just "doing what is necessary to survive" to some extent. Sure, I enjoy it, but that is what our society allows- choice of lifestyle. I could survive without a job or education, just living off rubbish from bins. But then how am I any better than a stray cat, or any 'lesser' animal? Thankfully I have a choice- not just doing what it takes to survive, but doing what it takes to enjoy survival.
And enjoyment tastes like chicken too.
On the subject, your analogy of "What does aesthetic smell like" is already answered: you claim that we are more than the physical, then expect a definition of existence on something that "we do not understand". The whole point of us just being too dumb is that we are limited by our physicality, smell being an aspect of our physical being. The comprehension of such things requires a sense that we do not have.
Sorry if there's bad spelling, I'm late for a meeting.
OK, so you think instinct can be the same as morality. Let me put it this way, does not a moral law imply a law-giver? If you agree with that statement, then this obviously points to an intelligence beyond ourselves (OK then I won't beat around the bush, I personally call it God) however that entails a non-physical realm of existence. Sure you may believe these laws arose through our own socio-biological and cultural heritage, and they do to an extent, but we all would agree that it's wrong to kill someone. Why? Because electrical stimuli in our brains causes us to think such things? I can only conclude that we are not purely physical/material beings, or "educated beefsteak" if I adopt your view.
Has the gap widened sufficiently enough between us now? :-)
Who says a moral law implies a law-giver? I would think that a moral law is the only law completely different to the physical laws we have created in society, the laws created by our law-givers. In any case, our physical laws could quite easily condition our moral laws, considering there is physical punishment in doing otherwise (jail). We just do what it takes to survive.
If we are 'given' morals, why do people still get murdered? Are you saying God tells some people to murder? Consider this- he does. This doesn’t follow on from my current argument, but hear me out. It is a recent realm of thought that I have been exploring, in which I conceptualise that God (or whomever/whatever) allows bad things to happen so we can develop positive personality attributes such as courage, compassion, hope etc. If bad things never happened, we would not appreciate the good things we are given, and would not develop a healthy, caring personality. If this is the case, bad things need to happen, God lets them happen (if not enforces them), and we benefit from it exponentially. To someone who reads the bible, this may seem like moot. I understand the power that the bible has over people’s lives, and I am grateful for the good it encourages and has encouraged, however I personally do not believe that old stories of magic tricks are the answer to any problems I have in my life. I guess I’m saying, I personally don’t need the actual bible to help me in my life, as I can use the tools I have been given and form my own views and opinions on the universe and still be a good person, thanks to the morals I have been given/have acquired. I guess it is through this thinking that I am able to explore things such as we have discussed, without the limitations, so to speak, of religious beliefs.
I just noticed the picture in the previous blog entry has a strange pertinence...
wow you guys weren't kidding about the blogging, comment, discussion / argument bonanza!
my two cents,
"can a computer ever have a soul?"
in the animatrix a robot gets plugged into a computer program, which tempts it with the possibility of becoming human. however this program is somewhat similar to what we would call a Trojan Horse virus, in that if the robot gives in to its wants (to be like a human and experience love) then the robot lets the virus aboard itself and is useless.
this animators creative answer to your question:
can a computer ever have a soul?
it wants to have a soul.
Sorry. this has nothing to do with the post, I just wanted to reply to what you said on my blog. Thanks for the comment, you're going to end up being my Music Tech guru if you're not careful!
I'm pretty inexperienced (understatement right there) so I appreciate that sort of thing. Cheers,
Amy
Post a Comment