The other day, I was sitting watching TV and the first ad that popped up was for a new car. In this ad, a mother was driving, and yet she was preoccupied by the commotion her child was creating in the backseat. All of a sudden, a car stopped in front of her, but low and behold, the mother was too distracted. Luckily, her new car was there to save the day, as it had the capability of detecting when the brakes needed to be enabled. And then the car stopped itself. That's right, the car stopped itself. I remember a few years ago when a certain car has a self-park option, and now, we have what are called 'self-braking' or 'self-driving' cars.
The notion of a 'self-braking' or 'self-driving' car strikes me as confusing. I think that I take issue with the ascribing of the word 'self' to a machine. In this class we are attempting, and struggling, to define our own species. We mull over the idea that consciousness and our ability to reflect are something that make us human. For Teilhard, humans continuously acquire knowledge, and with the ability to turn our consciousness inward towards our own evolution, only then do we evolve. With that level of consciousness can we finally, and proudly, proclaim an understanding and grasp of the 'self'? Is self not a world solely designated for a thing, such as a human being, that has awareness or consciousness? The word 'self' appears to be thrown around rather lightly, because a machine is incapable of developing awareness. When I think of machines I am drawn to Plato's theory of mimesis, and that our machines today are similar to the art that Plato saw as a mere imitation of nature. Machines mimic human behavior, and in some ways, machines mimic what society deems to be ideal human behavior, such as the ability to brake on time while driving. In the video I have posted below, one reviewer of a self-driving car noted that the new model was, "convenient since I can do something else while driving, safe because...the car will eliminate human error". It is not enough that cars have transformed modern transportation and provided the human being with effortless travel. Now cars can now mimic human behavior and in some ways are better at being human than a human.
For the last century, pop and science fiction cultures have become obsessed with the idea of machines developing self awareness and attaining autonomy. From Fritz Lang's Metropolis (1927) to the more recent I, Robot (2004), artists have explored a world wherein machines break from their subservient bonds to man and develop a collective identity, with which machines delve into their own consciousness. This breaking from man is the machines usurping that which gave them purpose. I am very careful to say 'purpose' and not 'life' because machines are developed and exist within a teleological model. A machine such as a self-braking car does not, and can not, exist independently from human desire, therefore it holds no intrinsic value.
This is definitely a topic that I would love to explore more. Hopefully we can read the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts later in the semester, because I know that Marx delves into similar topics.
Also, to visualize the self-braking/ self-driving cars: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dO6JtncrY08
The idea of the term 'self' applied to a car is also interesting to me because it means that we have essentially anthropomorphized a machine that we brought into existence in the first place. In this situation, the car can sense its surroundings like a human and react to them with even better timing. However, from the perspective of Baitalle we are undoubtedly dominate to the car because we manufactured it to serve a purpose that is meaningful to us. The seats will accommodate our bodies, the steering wheel is at the level of our hands when sitting, and the brake and gas is at our feet. Therefore, if we manufacture the car to brake when the sensors detect a possible collision, that ability is entirely of the human volition and not of the car's. The car has no sense of "self" because it is a conjugation of dissimilar parts which once had different ontological identities. I think that one reason why humans imagine machines or robots becoming dominant is that we sometimes impose our own emotions on other non-human entities. For instance, the idea that robots would want "revenge" over humans could be simply generated from our own experience as emotional beings. At the same time, our fear is somewhat validated by the way in which machines can in some cases out wit the human mind, or subordinate our intelligence.
ReplyDelete