This statement actually consists of a series of three related claims: (1) machines are tools of human
minds; (2) human minds will always be superior to machines; and (3) it is because machines are human
tools that human minds will always be superior to machines. While I concede the first claim, whether I
agree with the other two claims depends partly on how one defines "superiority, " and partly on how
willing one is to humble oneself to the unknown future scenarios.
The statement is clearly accurate insofar as machines are tools of human minds. After all, would any
machine even exist unless a human being invented it? Of course not. Moreover, I would be hard-pressed
to think of any machine that cannot be described as a tool. Even machines designed to entertain or
amuse us--for example, toy robots, cars and video games, and novelty items--are in fact tools, which
their inventors and promoters use for engaging in commerce and the business of entertainment and
amusement. And, the claim that a machine can be an end in itself, without purpose or utilitarian function
for humans whatsoever, is dubious at best, since I cannot conjure up even a single example of any such
machine. Thus when we develop any sort of machine we always have some sort of end in mind a
purpose for that machine.
As for the statement's second claim, in certain respects machines are superior. We have devised
machines that perform number-crunching and other rote cerebral tasks with greater accuracy and speed
than human minds ever could. In fact, it is because we can devise machines that are superior in these
respects that we devise them--as our tools--to begin with. However, if one defines superiority not in
terms of competence in per-forming rote tasks but rather in other ways, human minds are superior.
Machines have no capacity for independent thought, for making judgments based on normative
considerations, or for developing emotional responses to intellectual problems.
Up until now, the notion of human-made machines that develop the ability to think on their own, and to
develop so-called "emotional intelligence, " has been pure fiction. Besides, even in fiction we humans
ultimately prevail over such machines--as in the cases of Frankenstein's monster and Hal, the computer
in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Yet it seems presumptuous to assert with confidence that humans will
always maintain their superior status over their machines. Recent advances in biotechnology,
particularly in the area of human genome research, suggest that within the 21st Century we'll witness
machines that can learn to think on their own, to repair and nurture themselves, to experience visceral
sensations, and so forth. In other words, machines will soon exhibit the traits to which we humans
attribute our own superiority.
In sum, because we devise machines in order that they may serve us, it is fair to characterize machines
as "tools of human minds. " And insofar as humans have the unique capacity for independent thought,
subjective judgment, and emotional response, it also seems fair to claim superiority over our machines.
Besides, should we ever become so clever a species as to devise machines that can truly think for
themselves and look out for their own well-being, then query whether these machines of the future
would be "machines'' anymore.
This statement actually consists of a series of three related
claims
: (1)
machines
are
tools
of human
minds; (2)
human
minds
will always be
superior
to
machines
; and (3) it is
because
machines
are human
tools that
human
minds
will always be
superior
to
machines
. While I concede the
first
claim
, whether I
agree
with the
other
two
claims
depends partly on how one defines
"
superiority,
"
and partly on how
willing one is to humble oneself to the unknown future scenarios.
The statement is
clearly
accurate insofar as
machines
are
tools
of
human
minds
.
After all
, would any
machine even exist unless a
human
being invented
it?
Of course
not.
Moreover
, I would be
hard
-pressed
to
think
of any
machine
that cannot be
described
as a
tool
. Even
machines
designed to entertain or
amuse us--
for example
, toy robots, cars and video games, and novelty items--are in fact
tools
, which
their inventors and promoters
use
for engaging in commerce and the business of entertainment and
amusement. And, the
claim
that a
machine
can be an
end
in itself, without purpose or utilitarian function
for
humans
whatsoever, is dubious at best, since I cannot conjure up even a single example of any such
machine.
Thus
when we develop any sort of
machine
we always have
some
sort of
end
in
mind
a
purpose for that machine.
As for the statement's second
claim
, in certain respects
machines
are
superior
. We have devised
machines that perform number-crunching and
other
rote cerebral tasks with greater accuracy and speed
than
human
minds
ever could. In fact, it is
because
we can
devise
machines
that are
superior
in these
respects that we
devise
them--as our tools--to
begin
with.
However
, if one defines superiority not in
terms of competence in per-forming rote tasks
but
rather
in
other
ways,
human
minds
are superior.
Machines have no capacity for independent
thought
, for making judgments based on normative
considerations, or for developing emotional responses to intellectual problems.
Up until
now
, the notion of human-made
machines
that develop the ability to
think
on their
own
, and to
develop
so
-called
"
emotional intelligence,
"
has been pure fiction.
Besides
, even in fiction we humans
ultimately
prevail over such machines--as in the cases of Frankenstein's monster and Hal, the computer
in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Yet
it seems presumptuous to assert with confidence that
humans
will
always maintain their
superior
status over their
machines
. Recent advances in biotechnology,
particularly
in the area of
human
genome research, suggest that within the 21st Century we'll witness
machines that can learn to
think
on their
own
, to repair and nurture themselves, to experience visceral
sensations, and
so
forth. In
other
words,
machines
will
soon
exhibit the traits to which we humans
attribute our
own
superiority.
In sum,
because
we
devise
machines
in order that they may serve us, it is
fair
to characterize machines
as
"
tools of
human
minds
.
"
And insofar as
humans
have the unique capacity for independent
thought
,
subjective judgment, and emotional response, it
also
seems
fair
to
claim
superiority over our machines.
Besides
, should we ever become
so
clever a species as to
devise
machines
that can
truly
think
for
themselves and look out for their
own
well-being, then query whether these
machines
of the future
would be
"
machines'' anymore.