Intro
The key question involved here is: at what point does one stop being human? When the mind is robotic, but the body is flesh? How much of the mind must be robotic? How does the function of the robotic aspect of the mind affect the classification? There are a multitude of factors that could influence the “human” or “machine” classification of the being as well as how one ought to be governed.
Thesis
If a being is capable of its own intelligent thoughts and possesses a brain, be it human or not, it seems wrong to apply any of Asimov's rules. If something is sentient and possesses its own means to think and act, its rules should be determined by its peers, not by those that are in a position of power simply because their existence predates the other.
The first rule’s stipulation about harm via inaction does not even apply to human beings in most cases. In my 20th-century Europe class, we are currently discussing the role of perpetrators, victims, resisters, and collaborators in the holocaust and how actions or lack thereof contributed to the imprisonment and deaths of millions. Allowing another to come to harm for self-preservation is common among human beings. Rule two states that “A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.” which implies that the existence of the robot is contingent on its subservience to humans. If this is applied to a cyborg, what is the practice if not slavery?
Rule three, the idea that a robot is supposed to protect itself unless a human being is in danger or it conflicts with orders given to it by a human being, assumes that a cyborg would desire to continue following orders and saving human beings. While some may say it's irrational or immoral, it is understandable to seek relief from the existence of pain. Furthermore, the classification of one’s being based on cognitive, or motor function is a similarly dangerous path. One of the many victims of the holocaust were so-called “empty-eaters”: mainly the elderly and the disabled. These groups were rounded up and murdered for the purpose of creating more space and resources for the population desired by Adolf Hitler. Unfortunately, relegating cyborgs to a separate set of laws and classifying them as sub-human could potentially open pathways for this to happen to others.
Antithesis
With the right programming and materials, a machine can have virtually infinite space to hold information or to be held in as a memory. In the case of a cyborg, it can exist forever with regular tune-ups, which inherently separates it from humanity. Machines exist with a purpose and while a man may wish for a purpose, he does not need one to come into existence. Robots exist to serve a function, and that does not change if some aspect of a cyborg is human or vice versa, the mechanical aspect of the human being. Furthermore, it can be argued that this is not slavery, but rather a trade. The cyborg lives on infinitely with “tune-ups” in exchange for following human orders.
As for the line “It can also be argued that DNA is nothing more than a program designed to preserve itself” - the infinite varieties and miraculous nature of DNA counters this suggestion. The chances of organic life existing, and in such a complex form, are extremely slim whereas the creation of a program is not nearly as difficult to conceptualize because it was mathematically engineered by someone to serve a specific function.
Additionally, the fleeting nature of human existence is what makes it so precious, thus the emphasis on human protection in Asimov's rules. Cyborgs have the potential to live forever, human beings do not. It’s supply and demand: the being with the shorter lifespan values time more than the other and therefore the human’s life is seen as more precious than the machines. Additionally, cyborgs have the power to live on without a body, their consciousness may be uploaded and reinstalled into a fully computerized or another hybridized body while those that are purely humans do not have this luxury.
Synthesis
The argument that artificial intelligence is simply an extension of human intelligence via thought pattern may be countered in that if human life is to be preserved- why should this form of life be any different? Certainly, the body becomes more expendable if it’s made of replaceable materials like metal or plastic, but the replication of thoughts and their processes can be replicated too, so that makes the mind just as expendable as a result. With technology’s progressions, body parts will be replaceable on a large scale in just a matter of time, does that not make human parts equal to those in machines? As for the issue of the soul, in Ghost in the Shell, the Puppet Master had developed its own soul and it could be argued that the puppet master is more human than the man that lost his memory. If memory creates a ghost as it were, then the cognitive function of the cyborg is what determines its value, and we have already explored the potential implications of that.
The law is a fickle thing. While it claims to exist for the protection of the weak, its function is to serve and protect those in power- this is true for Asimov's rules as well. The rules assume that human life is more precious than robot life, ergo the robot may not injure a human and must obey human orders, but the assumption that a robot would or should be content with this life creates a paradigm shift: is it the humans that are vulnerable or the robots?
Conclusion
The most thought-provoking line in Ghost in the Shell is “And can you offer me proof of your existence? How can you, when neither modern science nor philosophy can explain what life is?” Aye, there’s the rub. My aim in this paper was not to define life. No one has been able to for centuries and I do not anticipate that there will be an agreed-upon explanation anytime soon, it certainly won’t emerge as a result of this assignment.
Instead, I posit that because we cannot define life or humanity, especially when hybridized with machinery, it is not for us to govern. To homogenize a machine or man combined with a machine with Asimov's rules- which clearly assert the value of humans over robots- is to declare the cyborg as less than others. This is dangerous in various ways. It invites society to marginalize not only cyborgs but also other human beings which has historically been a violent process. While we are unable to define life, we are certainly able to call brutality by its name and it appears that applying Asimov's rules to a partially human-machine or a partially mechanical human would have an adverse effect.
Comments
Post a Comment