On Computers
Reference:
Aristotle/Anonymous. On Plants. The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation. Vol 2.
Comments:
one: John Janosko
two: Chris Kam
Summary:
The author thoroughly explains plants and their similarities to each other as well as other things of this earth. He is searching for the meaning of life for a plant, the essence of the plant. In this search he expounds upon the possibility of plants have sensation or desire and compares those feelings to that of animals. Plants can be seen in contrast to animals through many reasons including their cyclic nature of growing in and out of season. Plants are compared within themselves to each other looking at different types of plants and how they relate. Their utility and substance is related to the uses we as humans ascribe to them. The paper goes on to once again show the relation between plants and animals in-so-far as what they need to survive, the different ways they grow, and concludes with the commonalities and tendencies among plants.
Discussion:
The paper seemed more interested in describing and relating every feature known to plants than actually figuring out their "soul status". I suppose this is not a bad way to go about things as one can make his own inferences based upon all the material provided. That being said, in reference to computers, I see it important to focus on the fact that plants and animals were not created by us, but rather procreated while computers are not only made by us, but made from inanimate objects. The same question is hinted at in Searle's Chinese Room argument. Can a bunch of inanimate objects pieced together form something known only to an animate object, a living object, a soul? It seems that in order to realize a computer as having any sort of feeling or sensation, the hypothesis would have to come from a strong AI argument, for it seems trivial to assume that modern computers have no sensations as they simply perform action as specified by their developer. However, if strong AI is considered, then one can begin to imagine the possibility of a thinking, feeling thing of a computer.
Human do have feelings, but computer will never have feelings. Works out good for us and good for them. It a constant reminder than they are simply tools that can be used for good or for evil.
ReplyDeleteI found that correlation as well (the Chinese Room and this article) and agree that computers (as intelligent as they can become) they'll never be these automated processes which will be able to think and truly feel.
ReplyDeleteI think it is really important to emphasize the distinction you made between plants and computers. We did not create plants, plants are God's creation, and depending on what each one of us believes we will be able to draw our own conclusions. In this case, I definitely agree with you.
ReplyDeleteBased on the computers we have now, and what they can do, I agree. The argument will truly come, like Evin said, if and when we achieve strong AI. When this happens, how will we know that they will not feel anything. We may not program in the capacity for it, but is it possibly that the computers will be able to simulate feelings enough that humans cannot tell the difference? I don't know, but I think that there is a chance that whether computers have souls will be one of the big debates of our life time.
ReplyDelete