Artificial intelligence is definitely a touchy subject for the human race. The very mention of the term conjures up images of apocalyptic societies where intelligent super-computers have either enslaved the human race or eradicated the inferior species altogether. For some, such as Descartes, the connotation of "artificial intelligence" attacks the very core of the human spirit, the pride of our race. The very thought of an "intelligent" computer that is on par, or more likely superior, to our own brain sends chills down the spine. And others, such as Turing, tried to settle the issue of machine intelligence altogether. The movie A.I.: Artificial Intelligence contains a crux of philosophical inquiry directly relating to both Descartes’s
…show more content…
This central theme is established by Professor Hobby’s hypotheses regarding the nature of love, the relation of love to intelligence, or personhood, and about the role of robots circa the year 2125. Professor Hobby begins his proposal for a robot-child by distinguishing the “sensuality simulation,” of the current mechas. After asking the adult mecha Sheila to love, Hobby responds by saying “ But I wasn't referring to sensuality simulators. The word that I used was love. Love like the love of a child for its parents. I propose that we build a robot child, who can love. A robot child who will genuinely love the parent or parents it imprints on, with a love that will never end” (CITE). Hobby boldly hypothesizes that for love to transcend sensuality simulation, there must be a bond as such that of a parent and child at its core. That is, that the largely involuntary and identity forming attachment seen in a parent-child relationship is crucial for any real love. Professor Hobby continues his proposal by speculating that robots that love will not only possibly develop a subconscious and be able to dream, but also possibly be able to form their own desires (CITE?). Hobby’s list of traits is not exhaustive implying that he finds these traits to be indicative of human nature. While both Descartes and Turing undoubtedly …show more content…
As part of an argument that David should abandon his dream of reuniting with his adoptive mother by becoming a real boy, Joe attempts to humble David by insisting that he, like every other mecha, was built for a specific function. That is, Joe insists that David is a child-bot the way he is a lover-bot (CITE). At a first glance, David was specifically a child-bot before he imprinted on Monica, but upon imprinting he immediately becomes the first mecha who loves, who starts to acquire a subconscious, to dream, and so on. Furthermore, David’s journey to become a real boy through the means of Blue Fairy is proof of how far David is from being specific. The various forms of animus against mechas have the common effect of disrupting the normal functioning of individual mechas, especially as seen with Joe and David. However, making it impossible for a mecha to fulfill its specific role leads it to new behavioral and functional expressions of the capacities that underlay its original functionality. As mechas improvise, they become reflective and aware of themselves in new ways, in particular in ways independent of their originally assigned role or function. David’s, as well as
This central theme is established by Professor Hobby’s hypotheses regarding the nature of love, the relation of love to intelligence, or personhood, and about the role of robots circa the year 2125. Professor Hobby begins his proposal for a robot-child by distinguishing the “sensuality simulation,” of the current mechas. After asking the adult mecha Sheila to love, Hobby responds by saying “ But I wasn't referring to sensuality simulators. The word that I used was love. Love like the love of a child for its parents. I propose that we build a robot child, who can love. A robot child who will genuinely love the parent or parents it imprints on, with a love that will never end” (CITE). Hobby boldly hypothesizes that for love to transcend sensuality simulation, there must be a bond as such that of a parent and child at its core. That is, that the largely involuntary and identity forming attachment seen in a parent-child relationship is crucial for any real love. Professor Hobby continues his proposal by speculating that robots that love will not only possibly develop a subconscious and be able to dream, but also possibly be able to form their own desires (CITE?). Hobby’s list of traits is not exhaustive implying that he finds these traits to be indicative of human nature. While both Descartes and Turing undoubtedly …show more content…
As part of an argument that David should abandon his dream of reuniting with his adoptive mother by becoming a real boy, Joe attempts to humble David by insisting that he, like every other mecha, was built for a specific function. That is, Joe insists that David is a child-bot the way he is a lover-bot (CITE). At a first glance, David was specifically a child-bot before he imprinted on Monica, but upon imprinting he immediately becomes the first mecha who loves, who starts to acquire a subconscious, to dream, and so on. Furthermore, David’s journey to become a real boy through the means of Blue Fairy is proof of how far David is from being specific. The various forms of animus against mechas have the common effect of disrupting the normal functioning of individual mechas, especially as seen with Joe and David. However, making it impossible for a mecha to fulfill its specific role leads it to new behavioral and functional expressions of the capacities that underlay its original functionality. As mechas improvise, they become reflective and aware of themselves in new ways, in particular in ways independent of their originally assigned role or function. David’s, as well as