Marcus Zonis 12/3/2012 PHI 305 Term Paper Cybernetics, Human Consciousness, & Free Will In order to challenge

notions traditionally held by the human race, I must enter the realms of extreme possibility philosophizing on points that seem more like science fiction than plausible reality. I must try and challenge normally held notions, doing any less would be an injustice to philosophy. I will not only examine thoughts from great philosophers, I shall delve further by using ideas that can be found in the manga or graphic novels. The goal is to get at the heart of what it means to have free will, consciousness, and what it means to be human, cyborg, and machine. Descartes was one of the most remembered philosophers of the early modern era, who brilliantly reflected on the nature of a person. In his work Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes continually challenged the traditional notions that what we are is simply defined by our everyday experiences. Descartes challenges all notions of our bodily senses and mental thoughts concluding that a human body can be deceived and because of sensory deception the flesh may not exist. On the other hand, a humans mind must exist. Why? By trying to disprove the existence of the mind one proves that there truly is a mental thing. Within the moment the mind thinks, it also exists. By trying to unthink itself, it is thinking, and must exist. By using Descartes ideas on the mind the following points can be claimed: A) it is possible for there to be mental things without physical bodies, and B) the human mind is not limited to just the

human form. These are two components that will play a major role in questioning machine, man, and the importance of free will. Descartes even hypothesizes on the existences of mental creatures without physical forms. If such things could exist, is it too fantastic to imagine minds without bodies? Both Chalmers paper (The Extended Mind) and Andersons paper (Neuro-Prosthetics, the Extended Mind, and Respect for Persons with Disability) introduce and examine the extended mind thesis. The goal of their thesis is to figure out where does the mind stop and the rest of the world begin? (Quoted from The Extended Mind) This question and the thesis that analyzes it are critical to understanding where the line between humanity ends and where the machine begins. I strongly agree with Andersons ideas on the nature of neuroprosthetics . Specifically, Andersons idea that the mind extends beyond h uman form, to the extent that mechanic parts that are used by the mind are components of said minds body . Anderson gives us the example of an old man with Alzheimers. He cannot remember where anything is around town. To aide his survival he uses a notebook to write what features are on what streets. This mere pad of paper is his only means of remembering how to get where he needs to go. Indeed, tearing sheets out of his notebook may be a greater assault on his cognit ive system than removing some of his brain tissue. (Anderson 265) The human who uses

neuroprosthetics is still consciously a human, so long as they are the masters of the technology they use. What about when the neuroprosthetic ceases to be an extension of the human body/mind? When the prosthetic becomes a critical asset in defining this human as something changed? Say the human has more metallic parts than natural human parts what are they man, machine, or something altogether new?

The first philosophy that will question the nature of what a human mind is without a human form are ideas proposed by Masamune Shirow in his work the Ghost in the Shell. This series takes place in a future Earth where the lines between humans and machines has utterly blurred. What is a person? Who has free will? Do you cease having free will when you cease having a mortal form? Are you still a human if you have no physical form? These questions and more are examined within his work. The basic idea Shirows work demonstrates is that a full (body and mind) human is the only capable source of a sentient and sapient being. When the humans consciousness/mind leaves its organic flesh and enters a metallic host it still remains a person. Within his work, this mind is known as the ghost, which cannot be duplicated or made through artificial means. If there is a problem in the ghosts transfer from one shell to the next the mind will simply disintegrate. In the Ghost Universe, the mind is what truly defines a person not the body, and artificial intelligence can never truly be a ghost. The reason I have spent so much time mentioning this work is that it poses a possible outcome to the philosophical dilemma I face. Perhaps the mind is all we need to be concerned with. Shells might be limited to only playing a role in a ghosts conception, i .e. a human is born in human flesh with a human mind; rather than playing any role in defining the nature of a sapient/sentient thing. The philosophical conclusions of Ghost in the Shell leave me with much to think about. I will accept that the nature of the mind is critical to understanding what is and what is not a human. I cannot accept the claim that both metallic and organic bodies are merely shells. Human forms are critical to the formation of what is a person. Most of the machines displayed within this and many other science fiction works are created to appear human-like. Clearly the

image/idea of what a humans body is holds a sacred meaning to defining what is a human. Furthermore, I completely disagree with the notion that a person is incapable of being created from a metallic form. It seems completely possible that artificial intelligence can reach an equivalent level of sentience/sapience to that of a human. By nature of the term human having interchangeable value to the term person; an artificial being, having a similar level of aptitude to a human, must be considered a person. Stuart and Elizabeth Ewen wrote the novel Channels of Desire, which makes an interesting case for the near-complete inhumanity of machines displayed by their cold, calculated, and mechanized functioning. This kind of thinking is neither creative nor passionate, two critical components that define being human. Why are creativity and passion human traits? The Ewens hold a Marxist perspective. They see mankinds ability to create of their own free will and desire as being the definition of what it means to be a human being. They proposed that since the creation of the earliest machines during the industrial revolution, mankind has been adopting mechanized thinking. Through such cold logic, humans are becoming less human and more machine. Though there is hope for mechanized processes. At least those that are imaginative by nature (i.e. films), since they are human by nature. This is a machine that apparently wages war on the machine. (Pg. 18, Channels of Desire) The mere idea of a machine, by its nature, being human or a human with the nature of a machine seems quite bizarre. It is hard for many people to wrap their mind around the idea that, through my robotlike lifestyle, I can be considered less human than the robot sitting next to me. The Ewens might be on to something. Can we really call some trait inherently human or mechanized? Shouldnt such assumptions be considered prejudicial?

Channels of Desire brings us to an interesting dilemma. Can a human retain organic form but cease being a human merely due to ones way of thinking? Can a robot with sapience/sentience become a human merely by being passionate? In my opinion, what they define as being human are components of what it means to be a sapient/sentient person. Therefore, being passionate is a quality of personage. While, what they define as being mechanized is actually the absence of personage, demonstrated by the turning-off of ones free will. Free will is the critical component which defines personhood. Without free will no human is truly human, nor cyborg a cyborg. In one case only humans could be sentient; in another, qualities were the defining trait of sentience. Within this third case, both humans and machines have sentience. The larger question posed in this case is, if a machine is made like a human and thinks like both a machine and a human, what is it? The situation that poses this scenario is the 2004 version of Battlestar Galactica. From a philosophical perspective this issue could go one of many ways. This situation proves that free will is not the only factor in defining personhood. Though it certainly is critical in determining what category such a being would fall under. There are many characters fall in this grey are between man and machine. For the sake of ease we will call them Cylons. Within the television series, some seem to act more human, while others act more mechanized. The defining personality component that defines where they land between man and machine depends greatly on the individual Cylon. Numerous times throughout the show Cylons take critical actions, which seem to play a major role in determining their natures. One cannot ignore the fact that biologically humans and cylons are not the same. Free will can only go so far on its own. How far is a difficult question? Perhaps ones actions and qualities can define a

cylon as a human, even without being a physical human. Another critical factor is how other people see said cylons. Are they humans or machines? Such opinions would vary widely, greatly depending on how said people are affected by said cylons actions . Or, how close (personally) they are to said Cylons. The bottom line is that, the nature of a person (human vs. machine) is defined more by free will and image, then by biology. With the lines between humans and machines blurring, is there any room for a third category? Cyborgs, part human part machine are a unique alternative for personhood. I would argue many of the above cases could also be considered cyborgs. Once again I must ask, how does such a being see themselves, and how do others see them? One of the best sources with a vast amount of cases that try my philosophical limits of determining the nature of people as human, cyborg, or machine are graphic novels. One great example that is filled with all three cases and even ones that challenge the model is, Brightest Day: Green Lantern Corps Revolt of the Alpha Lanterns. For example, cyborg superman was born organic like humans. Through a crazy situation gone wrong he gained the ability to control all machines. In the process of gaining this ability part of his body decayed due to exposure to radioactive material. Half his flesh was replaced with metal. Though he is the villain in this story, the reader grows to sympathize with him. Driven mad by thee loneliness of his cyborg nature, all he desperately tries to do is return to former organic state. The major question that comes out of this tale is: once an organic being (i.e. human) becomes inorganic, can they ever truly become organic again? From the physical perspective, maybe, depending on the level of technology that one can use to solve the above dilemma. From the perspective of the mind is a whole other story. I believe that if the being truly sees themselves as a human then, most likely, they are. Free will

to choose ones type, and to act as one freely desires, is necessary to sentient/sapient living. Though one could take control of a machines mind that does not mean said machine lacks free will. Only that their free will has been violated, just like a human being within a trance/hypnotic state can be manipulated. Free will and sapience/sentience stand between persons and hunks of inorganic/organic chunks of flesh/metal. It does not matter if I am a machine, cyborg, or human. If I have the above listed components, then I am a conscious being. Should it matter if I am a machine or man? No, only that I am a person with free will, who is allowed to live as I please, also I require a certain level of sentience/sapience that allows me to understand how the consequences of my actions affect others.