Guilty Robots, Happy Dogs: The Question of Alien Minds

263 Pages·2008·0.72 MB·English

by  David McFarland

GUILTY ROBOTS, HAPPY DOGS
This page intentionally left blank
GUILTY ROBOTS, HAPPY DOGS
THE QUESTION OF ALIEN MINDS
David McFarland
1
3
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxfordox26dp
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwidein
Oxford NewYork
Auckland CapeTown DaresSalaam HongKong Karachi
KualaLumpur Madrid Melbourne MexicoCity Nairobi
NewDelhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
WithoYcesin
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile CzechRepublic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
SouthKorea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
OxfordisaregisteredtrademarkofOxfordUniversityPress
intheUKandincertainothercountries
PublishedintheUnitedStates
byOxfordUniversityPressInc.,NewYork
(cid:1)DavidMcFarland2008
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
DatabaserightOxfordUniversityPress(maker)
Firstpublished2008
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,
storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,
withoutthepriorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,
orasexpresslypermittedbylaw,orundertermsagreedwiththeappropriate
reprographicsrightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproduction
outsidethescopeoftheaboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,
OxfordUniversityPress,attheaddressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisbookinanyotherbindingorcover
andyoumustimposethesameconditiononanyacquirer
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationData
Dataavailable
TypesetbySPIPublisherServices,Pondicherry,India
PrintedinGreatBritain
onacid-freepaperby
ClaysLtd,StIvesplc
ISBN978–0–19–921929–2
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
CONTENTS
List of Illustrations vi
Preface: TraYc Robot vii
1. Mindless Machines 1
2. Design of Animals and Robots 24
3. Interpreting Behaviour 48
4. Beyond Automata 73
5. Mental Possibilities 96
6. TheFeeling of Being 116
7. TheMaterial Mind 140
8. Mental Autonomy 170
Epilogue: TheAlien Mind 199
Glossary 212
Endnotes 221
Further Reading 245
Index 247
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
1. ThreediVerenttypesofbasiccycle,plottedasenergy
spentEversusmaterialgainedM. 33
2. Designproblemsassociatedwithabrick-laying robot. 46
3. Resultsofoutcomedevaluationexperimentsobtained
fromratsandfromrobots. 85
4. Theactualperiodoftimeforwhichsubjectsstayedin
thecoldroomplayingavideogame,plottedagainstthe
durationcalculatedfromtheory. 126
vi
PREFACE
TRAFFIC ROBOT
The traYc washeavy. As I approached the intersection I heard the
frantic whistles that indicate traYc police. I signalled left. Then I
saw the policeman—not a human policeman at all—a robot. Al-
though it wore a policemen’s cap on its spherical head, the resem-
blance ended there. It had two protruding lens-like eyes and a
whistle for a mouth. Its head swivelled on a thin neck, supported
by a torso that rotated on a pedestal, not on two legs. Two long
armsdirectedthetraYc:thehandsontheendsofthempointedto,
beckoned, and stopped the traYc in the time-honoured manner.
I slowed to take a good look. One hand pointed at me; a short
blastofthewhistleandabrusquehandsignalpromptlysentmeon
my way.
vii
preface: traffic robot
It took me a while to recover my breath. The questions were
tearing through my head. Howcould a robot be allowed to direct
traYc?Wasitsupervised?Whatiftherewasanaccident?Howcould
a robot, possibly, do the job safelyand eVectively?
It was a simple automaton, presumably, a gloriWed set of traYc
lights.ButwhyinstallsuchanexpensivetraYcdirector?Tofreeup
policefor otherduties,maybe. Butsurely it had to be more than a
simple automaton.It had to be able to react to anyeventuality the
way a human traYc policeman would do. It had to be trusted to
directthetraYcinaneYcientandpropermanner,andintheevent
of an accident or other kind of mishap to take some kind of
responsibility for its actions.
‘TRUST?’ Yes of course. But howcan a robot be trusted? I trust
my alarm clock to wake me up on time, but I do not hold it
responsible if it fails to do so. An alarm clock is a very simple
automaton. When it goes wrong I blame myself for failing to set
itproperlyorthemanufacturerforsellingmefaultygoods.Idonot
blametheclockitself.Sowhatabouttherobot?Whatkindofrobot
wouldithavetobetotakeresponsibilityforitsactions?Iftherobot
caused an accident, either directly or indirectly, then it would be
responsibleinthedirectcausalsense,butthiswouldimplynothing
more than a fault in the robot, not a fault of the robot.
The distinction here is an important one, legally. If the traYc-
director is an automaton and if it fails,then the fault would be the
responsibilityof whoever was legally responsible for thewell func-
tioningoftherobot:thedesigner,orthemaintenanceengineer,and
soforth.IfthetraYc-directorisaperson,andtheaccidentisjudged
to be their fault, then questions of legal responsibility and moral
responsibilityapply. To be legally responsible is to fulWl the require-
ments for accountability under the law. To be morally responsible,
an agent—that is the person performing or failing to perform the
function in question—has as a rule a moral obligation, and so is
viii
preface: traffic robot
worthyofeitherpraiseorblame.Thepersoncanbetherecipientof
whataresometimescalledbyphilosopherstheir‘desert’.Butarobot
isnotaperson,andforarobottobegivenwhatitdeserves—‘itsjust
deserts’—it would have to be given something that mattered to it,
anditwouldhavetohavesomeunderstandingofthesigniWcanceof
this.Inshort,itwouldhavetohavesomesenseof itsownidentity,
somewayof realising that it wasdeserving of something, whether
pleasantorunpleasant.
Doesthis meanthatitwouldhaveto haveamind? Isitconceiv-
able that a robot—a traYc robot—anyother kind of robot—could
havewhat we might call a mind? What is a mind, anyway?
Questions about the mind have been asked in the past by any
numberofphilosophersandscientists.Anobviousstartingpointfor
our attempt to answer them would be to look at what they have
had to say. On the other hand there is always a danger in starting
out on well-trodden paths. Most philosophers and scientists have
been concernedwith the human mind, whereas our robot, assum-
ing ithasamindatall,musthaveanalienmind,one,possibly,quite
diVerent from a human mind.
InWction,alienscomeinmanyforms:godsanddevils,fairiesand
gnomes, aliens from outer space, man-made monsters and robots.
Theyallhaveonepropertyincommon:theyallhavesomehuman
attributes. Usually, they are somewhat humanoid in avisual sense.
Usually,theycancommunicateinahumanlanguage,andtheyhave
some recognisably human emotions. Mary Shelley’s monster cre-
ated by Frankenstein is one of the best and best-known examples.
But we don’t have to resort to Wction in our quest for answers to
such questions. Real aliens have always been with us. They were
here before us, and have been here ever since. We call these aliens
animals.1
Animals are not like us. Yet we have persistently attributed
human-like qualities to them, in our ordinary thought, in folklore,
ix