(This image is of the computer HAL from the movie "Space Odyssey: 2001.")
I've been participating in an interesting philosophical debate over at the Underground Logician (UL) about what it means to be human. I believe humans are unique among all animals because they are made in the image of God. That doesn't necessarily mean that I see God in the mirror, but rather refers to qualities that are found in humans but not in other creatures: the ability to write symphonies, paint the Sistine Chapel, search for God, write blogs ... that kind of stuff.
The definition of human is really important for a lot of reasons. My previous post showed that pro-choice advocates need to convince themselves that fetuses are not human, for example. And in a comment I left at UL's blog, I wrote that computers will likely have far superior analytical capabilities in the next 30 years, compared to humans. (Some futurists envision tremendous changes due to such thinking machines. See the Singularity.)
UL said computers would never compare to humans because computers cannot question their existence without being programmed to do so. Basically, he says they are merely the creation of humans. Well, I would say that is precisely why the question of thinking machines is important. There is no question that computers are created by humans, even ones that are built by other computers are originally derived from human-created machines.
But wouldn't that describe humans as well, at least from a Christian standpoint? If you are Christian, you believe we are endowed with reasoning capabilities by God. Then what does it mean if computers are "smarter" than humans, at least in their ability to analyze and solve problems through reasoning? I think it is very dangerous to measure humanity by capability to reason. If you did, then fetuses certainly wouldn't have much right to be protected, would they? The liberal blogger who wrote piglets have more rights than second-trimester fetuses would be correct.
Just some thoughts ...
2 comments:
Ah, TS, I wandered into your blog and you are on another great topic.
In terms of classification, 'man' is defined in Aristotelian terms as a rational animal. However, to say then that the fetus, who has not reasoning capacities, is not human is arguing besides the point. Babies don't have reasoning capacities, but we don't kill them...yet. Toddlers can't reason, although they are beginning to form their 'first abstraction' skills: understanding. "What's this, mama?" Adolescents are beginning to form cogent arguments, but sometimes they revert back to toddlers!!! We don't kill toddlers or adolescents. What makes a qua human being is that he is an animal that reasons. Of course there are other features of humanity that are very mysterious. As you have mentioned, to appreciate and even create beauty, to sing and enjoy music, laughing are all qualities of human. So in comparing humans with machines, this line of thinking follows.
In the abortion debate, the argument of causation is followed. If a couple wants to have a baby, they KNOW what to do. And, with complete asssurance, when 'mom' misses her first period and is feeling lightheaded or nausea, the couple isn't wondering, hmmm will we have a human, or a puppy, or a goldfish, or a wildebeast, or an orangatan, or a Gibbon, or a scorpion, or a blue whale. They rejoice that they're going to have a baby. Or on the other hand, the couple who isn't married is struck with fear; "Oh, no, my Dad is going to kill me." Why, because you're going to have a baby squirrel and he's been on the warpath against squirrels ever since the city has prohibited trapping them?
I am amazed as to what lengths people will go to relieve themselves of the guilt of their immoral choices.
I'm done for now. Others may jump in.
Underground,
*g* Well-put. Although I do have a friend whose child was very disappointed to find out that her mother wasn't having puppies.
Post a Comment