Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

Can Machines Think?

The basis for the hit movie BladeRunner was a story by science fiction writer Philip K. Dick, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" He explored the possibility of robotic consciousness and android emotions. Now that the age of robots is upon us, we can examine what is the purport of "artificial intelligence?" If machines can think, where does that leave consciousness? Are machines really thoughtful? Or as Ray Kurzweil put it, “Are we spiritual machines?” The idea of artificial intelligence is often used to promote the idea that consciousness is merely an epiphenomenon of the brain. If we can create something like an artificial brain that can demonstrate a similar kind of epiphenomenon, then the idea of consciousness is merely a useful fiction. In other words, if a computer can “think” and display “emotions” then minds can be created artificially and the mind-body philosophical problem disappears.

There is no need for a “soul” or “consciousness” if we can simulate the epiphenomenon of thinking with machines. Of course this is an impoverished definition of “thinking,” or “consciousness.” But the purpose of the argument is to undermine and do away with metaphysics. For this reason “Artificial Intelligence” or AI is a kind of holy grail in a number of academic disciplines. There is a kind of confluence of cognitive science and neural psychology, where the attempt is being made to use cognitive theory to boost artificial intelligence.

Once again, the idea is that if we can understand how thinking goes on in humans, we may be able to imitate that behavior in machines. If we understand human learning, then we can adapt that knowledge in machine learning and create true artificial intelligence. Unfortunately, this kind of thinking follows the function of consciousness without understanding what consciousness is. And by focusing on the mechanics of thought without driving at its substance, philosophers, linguists, psychologists, cognitive scientists and IT specialists renounce meaning for pragmatics. Since practical applications in AI bring the money, why should anyone be concerned with meaning?

The language used by these specialists, however, trivialize the reality of consciousness. And so, thinkers like Ray Kurzweil encourage us to flirt with the idea that we are nothing more than sophisticated machines. I find it ironic that biologists who study life conclude that life is mechanical, while technologists conclude that machines have emotions. These are merely empty conceits, but as they become fixed as memes in popular culture, these notions eat away at our collective spiritual life. By buying into all these anti-spiritual views, we become easier prey for the propaganda that promotes consumerism.

If life is empty and meaningless, if metaphysical and spiritual ideas are a waste of time, then all that is left is to enjoy the moment, live for sensual and aesthetic pleasure and embrace life’s absurdity.

Camus felt that life was absurd

Atheists think themselves clever for dispensing with conscious reality, but having set out to murder God, they end by destroying their own spiritual lives. What bothers me is the idea that meaningless is the purport of all this pragmatism. By saying that machines think and can write poetry, we degrade thinking and poetry. By claiming that consciousness is no more than a chemical reaction in the brain, we exalt the meaninglessness of chemical reactions. And by claiming to create “intelligence” through circuitry, we denigrate wisdom. What good can come of stripping wisdom and spiritual life from human society?