Animals And Machines From Humans example essay topic

Movies and novels such as "Planet of the Apes" and 2001: A Space Odyssey are called Science Fiction because they portray situations that seem extremely unrealistic concurrent with contemporary philosophy. "Planet of the Apes" depicts a world where apes rule while humans are subjected to servitude and confinement. These apes speak intelligibly and are human-like in appearance and behavior. In 2001: A Space Odyssey, the highly advanced computer, HAL 9000, an acronym for "Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer", controls the bulk of spaceship operation. It makes declarative statements, learns from mistakes and, in the beginning, interacts well with the crew. In both works non-human entities, apes in one and a robotic system in the other, make spontaneous declarations and perform functions based upon previously acquired "knowledge" which goes against what most consider to be normal animal / machine behavior, thus it is termed Science Fiction.

In 1637, celebrated French philosopher and mathematician, Ren'e Descartes (1596-1650), published Discourse on Method, Optics, Geometry, and Meteorology in which he maintains that he had established two universal criteria to distinguish animals and machines from humans, and thus those entities without souls from those with. His criteria are the entity must have the capacity for speech and act from knowledge. His justifications that machines do not meet these two criteria are sound; however, he fails to verify that animals do the same. Descartes' argument that humans have an infinite capacity to make appropriate responses is true as well as his implication that this capacity is non-material. Descartes' first argument is only humans have the capacity for speech. In the opening of Discourse on Method Descartes remarks that machines and animals could never use speech or signs as we do when placing our thoughts on record for the benefit of others.

For we can easily understand a machine's being constituted so that it can utter words, and even emit some responses to action on it of a corporeal kind, which brings about a change in its organs... but it never happens that it arranges its speech in various ways, in order to reply appropriately to everything said in its presence. (Descartes) Speech can simply be defined as the faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words, whereas talking is just an utterance of sounds. Therefore the argument can be reduced to a capacity for speech versus talking because speech, according to Descartes, requires some sort of non-materiel entity capable of the formulation of these statements, which he attributes to the soul. However, simply the utterance of sounds does not require any such entity.

Since humans are the only animals that use speech, we must be the only animals equipped with a soul. He also points out that it is not the lack or organs or physical capacity that prevents speech and requires talk: "it is not the want of organs that brings this to pass, for it is evident that magpies and parrots are able to utter words just like ourselves, and yet they cannot speak as we do" (Descartes). He also makes the point that "we ought not to confound speech with natural movements which betray passions and may be imitated by machines as well as be manifested by animals" (Descartes). He is making the point not to interpret the habitual instinct to make a racket and wave appendages when angry as speech.

He makes the point as well that machines, by simple programming, can utter sounds that resembles communication but that they are not truly speaking because it is simply the disposition of their organs, not true expression. Descartes' first criterion for distinguishing humans from animals and machines, those with souls from those without, is the capacity for speech. Because humans are the only creatures that use speech to communicate, where other animals may talk (a very primitive version of speech) through programming (robotics) or instinct (animals), they must be equipped with a non-material soul. Descartes' first distinguishing factor for differentiating animals and machines from humans is speech and it holds true for both machines and animals. Descartes's e cond factor, however, is action from knowledge, which does not withstand criticism as well.

He states, although machines can perform certain things as well as or perhaps better than any of us can do, they infallibly fall short in others, by the which means we may discover that they did not act from knowledge, but from the disposition of their organs. For while reason is a universal instrument which can serve for all contingencies, these organs have need of some special adaptation for every particular action. (Descartes) He later goes on to make an analogy to a clock: just because a clock tells time better than humans does not mean that it has more reason or that it possesses any knowledge but instead that the pulleys and weights inside of it are disposed, by the nature of its design, to calculate and display time; it is not action from any knowledge or consciousness of itself or its task. Knowledge can simply be defined as a familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study. Where humans can learn from mistakes and reinforcement, machines only do as their design demands. For example, if a robot is programmed to keep running into a wall, it will until it is reprogrammed or runs out of power.

Descartes' argument works well when speaking of machines; however, not as well with animals. In Discourse, Descartes does not give enough evidence to defend his premise that animals do not act from knowledge but only from the disposition of their organs. Recent studies show that many birds are more intelligent than previously thought. Ravens, for instance, have the ability to solve difficult puzzles, such as untangling a knotted string to free up a tasty treat or figuring out how to steal fish by hauling in an angler's untended line... crows on the remote Pacific island of New Caledonia have learned a skill that people once thought only primates could master: the use of tools. The birds use long, specially chosen twigs to spear the plump grubs that hide deep beneath the bark of rotting logs... orangutans learn complex tasks, such as washing clothes by hand, after just a few tries. And even pigeons and parrots have shown an extraordinary capacity to recognize, count, or name different objects.

[1] Examples such as these and many others had lead many scientists to the conclusion that many animals are a great deal more intelligent and conscious than previously conceived. These show that animals in fact do act from knowledge. Descartes says that it is action only from the "disposition of organs" that delineates humans from animals. However, the actions described clearly go beyond the disposition of the Raven and crow's beaks.

Some may argue, however, that these actions are simply the product of natural selection. In response to what end would nature "select" an orangutan's ability to wash clothes or a bird's capacity to count and / or name objects. Other skills as well argue against natural selection because if only those able to untangle string to get food (already unlikely) were able to pass genetic material on to the next generation, then the Ravens must be able to quickly learn by see others do, which begs the question as well. Both of Descartes' criteria have aspects that suggest that he believes that humans have an infinite capacity for appropriate responses.

In explanation of his speech criteria, he offers, "it never happens that it arranges its speech in various ways, in order to reply appropriately to everything that may be said in its presence" (Descartes). If six nouns, four verbs, six direct objects, and the basic rules of English grammar were programmed into a computer, it could produce over 1300 grammatically correct sentences such as "The cat ate the rabbit". However, this sentence only works if the questions were along the lines of "What ate the rabbit?" but would not be appropriate if the question were along different lines. Humans, however, have an appropriate answer for every possible question and every possible situation because they have reason, whereas animals and machines "have none at all". Humans can appropriately answer any question posed to them about any topic anytime because of common sense.

For example, if someone were asked, "Are earthworms made out of mailboxes?" because of reason, they would reply "No". Likewise, if someone were asked, "What does the theory of relativity mean in terms of quantum mechanics?" a typical response would be "I do not know", which is still appropriate. Even if the answer were incorrect, the reply would still be appropriate if it addressed the root of the question. When detailing his second criterion, he writes, "while reason is a universal instrument which can serve for all contingencies, these organs have need of some special adaptation for every particular action" (Descartes). Since humans are the only animals that possess organs that have the capacity to handle every situation, they must have in them another sort of organ that is able to formulate these infinite responses. This reasoning organ, which Descartes determines to be the soul, directs humans to use the organs that they have to psychologically and physiologically appropriately cope with every situation presented to them.

The next logical question would be if humans have this infinite capacity for appropriate responses, is it non-material as well? The answer is yes. Physically, something finite (material) cannot elicit or contain infinite permutations. Numbers, time, and space are all infinite and non-material. Conversely, computer output, no mater how much data is input, is finite because no output can come from it that has not been input first. Where time is infinite, a clock, which measures time, is finite because it has finite parts and a finite power supply, similar to a calculator for numbers.

Infinite things are non-material, whereas material things are finite. In a New York Times article titled "Chimp Talk Debate: Is It Really Language?" Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh, a scientist at the Language Research Center, reports that one of her Bonobo chimpanzees "gossiped" about a fight between two other chimpanzees using a special keyboard. However, after reading the entire article and doing further investigations into how these "experiments" are conducted, it becomes apparent that more than likely the chimp was simply pushing random buttons to elicit a certain response, whether it be food or some other type of reward. Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh addresses this saying that the chimp had never pushed those few buttons in that order every before. However, she, like most others in her field, fail to mention that, in most cases, any attempt made by the chimps to "communicate" is usually rewarded with food or other reinforcement, but after the same buttons are continuously pressed, the food is discontinued in favor of more diverse "communication". Therefore, it suffices to say that the chimp was simply hungry and looking to press new buttons to elicit reinforcing behavior.

It is just coincidence or misinterpretation because of wishful thinking that lead Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh to her conclusion that the chimp was actually "speaking" to her, therefore these false-findings do not undermine any of Descartes' criteria. Descartes was not the first person to examine the differences between human and animal / mechanical behavior. Movies and novels such as 2001: A Space Odyssey and "Planet of the Apes" deliberately invert human-machine and human-animal interaction so as to bring more emphasis on how the audience and society distinguishes them. Descartes uses two determinants as the distinguishing factors: speech and action from knowledge.

Both of these factors rest on the assumption that humans have an infinite capacity to make appropriate responses and, because it is an infinite capacity, it is non-material. He has successfully argued that machines differ from humans in these two ways. However, he was unsuccessful in showing that animals differ from humans through action from knowledge because more recent studies show that animals, such as Ravens, are more intelligent that previously thought. Though, even studies at the Language Research Center have showed that Descartes's speech criterion still holds with animals. With new technological developments on the horizon, in half a century there may be no more debate about distinguishing humans from animals and machines, but instead debate about distinguishing humans from artificial intelligence and advanced robotics. If so, would Descartes' criteria still apply?

If not, what would the new factors be?