The following essay was a paper I wrote for a class I took called “Science Fiction and American Culture.” It discusses issues brought up in Isaac Asimov’s novella Bicentennial Man, which can be found in Robot Visions. You should be able to find a copy of it at your local library, or you can purchase one from Amazon.com.
This essay was written several years before the movie version starring Robin Williams produced.
| sentience n. | 1. The quality or condition of being sentient: CONSCIOUSNESS. 2. Emotion as opposed to perception or thought. |
| consciousness n. | 1. The state of being conscious. 2. The totality of attitudes, opinions, and sensitivities held or thought to be held by an individual or group…. 4. a. A critical awareness of one’s own situation and identity. b. Awareness: concern. |
| Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary | |
Can humankind create life? Can we, through our technology, our intelligence, and the raw materials we have available create an artificial life that is capable of thinking, coping with its environment and feeling? This has been an underlying theme in many works of science fiction. It is the underlying question in most of Isaac Asimov’s robot stories and continues to be asked to today in stories and television.
“The Bicentennial Man” by Asimov reminded me quite a bit of several episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation ( STTNG). Data, the android, can be thought of as an extension of the ideas Asimov worked with in his stories and novels of robots. His uniqueness sets him apart, but at the same time he can be remarkably “human.”
The arguments that say a machine — a computer — no matter how complex can never be considered alive (that I’ve noticed) are:
- A machine cannot think, it can only simulate thought.
- Humans can experience emotions, machines cannot.
- If the Three Laws of Robotics are taken into consideration, then a robot can never have free will. A human can.
Using examples from the readings for this week, from episodes of STTNG, and bits and pieces of an argument I have been developing for years, I plan to show that a robot can be capable of sentience — in all its meanings. Since there are no robots of this caliber in existence yet, I will not be able to prove my point, but I hope to at least cast doubt on the idea that it is an impossibility.
Argument 1. A machine cannot think, it can only simulate thought.
What is thought anyway? Is it a function of the brain or the mind? Is there a difference?
Some scientists believe that the sum of the brain cells in your head equals the sum of your mind, that the whole is not greater than the sum of the parts. To them, everything you feel, everything you think, everything you remember can be explained by the electrical impulses and chemical markers of your brain. They believe that, in theory, it is possible to extract everything that you experience as your mind from the gray matter in your head.
Other scientists do not believe this. They believe that when your brain cells work together they create something that is bigger than the sum each cell added together. They believe that it is impossible to extract from the physical stuff in your brain everything that you experience as your mind. If you separate the brain cells, you loose the ability to understand the mind.
Because these debates still goes on today, with evidence accumulating on both sides, how can we say what thought is? If we can’t understand our own thought, how can we say that a machine is not thinking? If the first group of scientists are correct, then we are nothing more than carbon based computers. The only difference between us and a thinking machine is the materials we use to create the thoughts. Both a computer brain and a human brain use electricity.
Until we fully understand the basis of human thought, argument one is moot. It raises a philosophical discussion that can only be backed by faith, belief and opinion. It cannot, at the present time be used as an argument against artificial intelligence.
Argument 2. Humans can experience emotions, machines cannot.
The key idea, which runs through most episodes of STTNG that concern Data, which is thought to set him apart from humanity is his lack of emotions. I disagree. I am absolutely convinced that he has emotions. They may not be passionate emotions that clog his thinking or cause him to behave irrationally, but they are there.
In “The Bicentennial Man,” Andrew describes how he experiences something akin to emotion. “Andrew was fond of them…. At least, the effect they had upon his actions were those which in a human being would have been called the result of fondness, for he did not any other word for it.”
A little later he goes on:
“I enjoy doing them, Sir.”
“Enjoy?”
“It makes the circuits of my brain somehow flow more easily. I have heard you use the word ‘enjoy’ and the way you use it fits the way I feel. I enjoy doing them, sir.”
Data says the same thing in the episode where the Enterprise visits Tasha Yar’s home planet and meets her sister Ishara. Data says that he has a memory loop, that he keeps thinking about Ishara and misses her.
What are these experiences if they are not emotions? When we are enjoying something, can we not say that what we are experiencing is an easier flow of our thoughts? When we miss someone, do we not experience a memory loop? Is there really that much difference between a “simulated thought” and a real one?
When an actor acts are they experiencing a “simulated emotion”? If so what makes it simulated? I would say it is simulated because the actor knows that it is not his emotion but that ofthe character he is portraying. So I ask this. If a robot experiences a “simulated emotion,” why is it simulated and not real? The emotion is its. It is not pretending to be someone else. Is it only simulated because someone programmed the possibility of its existence into the computer? Then I ask, how do we know that we are not “programmed” in some way — by our genetics, evolution or God?
Argument 3. If the Three Laws of Robotics are taken into consideration, then a robot can never have free will. A human can.
This argument, in effect says that because Asimov’s robots are programmed with the Three Laws of Robotics, they have no free will. This implies that humans do. But do they?
Psychology often uses the premise that adult behaviorcan be explained by — and is often dictated by — events that happen in childhood. In other words, if X happens when someone is 3 years old, then Y is mostly to be manifested in adulthood. The person in question does not even need to consciously remember X in order for Y to happen. And even when the person is aware of the root of their behavior, it does not mean that they are able to change it easily. Is this not like a program? Does this not limit a person’s free will?
Then there are rules imposed by society. Some are never even explicitly stated. People just “know” that Z is wrong — they don’t know why necessarily. Is this not like a robot “knowing” not to harm a human and to follow a human’s orders?
What is the difference? A human programs a robot and humans weren’t programmed? How do we know this? We have no proof that we are not programmed. For all we know, genetics and evolution have programmed each an every one of us quite precisely — just as precisely as the roboticists programmed Andrew.
George argues with his father “When you talk to him [Andrew] you’ll find he reacts to the various abstractions as you and I do, and what else counts? If someone else’s reactions are like your own, what more can you ask for?” What, indeed. Artificial Intelligence researchers ask this same question of their critics. I ask this same question. If a computer or a robot can show me that it is self aware, then I’m willing to accept it as “alive.”
