If a human has their intelligence artificially destroyed and then reprogrammed to only do specific tasks and nothing else, are they still a person, or are they a thing? I came to the conclusion that if it lives, it is a person no matter what their mental state is. Eejits are something that should never exist, but I would still consider an eejit a person and treat them as such. I would hope that humanity never lowers itself to the point where humans become drones when they do bad. It just seems to unethical to me even though I can see how they would be useful.
Commander Bruce Maddox is the person wanting to have him disassemble so that they can learn more about him in the hopes of making many Data android into an Army. The mind/body argument has to do with the matter and non-matter relationship. However, there are many different thoughts and discussions about what the correct relationship may be. Many philosophers have debated about how the mind and body relate to each other. In this case there is the argument on if Data, the Android Robert, has a mind (or soul).
Hence, it doesn’t exist. Following the above, everything God creates is therefore perfect, hence omnipotent, a quality coherent to the attributes of the god of theism. Again, Augustine attempts to take the blame off God by saying that evil is committed by humanity’s abuse of free will. Yet, God couldn’t have created humans without free will because the point of our existence would be lost, as free will differentiates humans and gives us individuality – it gives our life meaning and purpose. If we were not given free will, the lack of freedom and choice would render us similar to robots.
That before we know it our appliances will be smarter than us one day and that’s not how man intended life to be; humans are supposed to be on top. Not being able to use today’s technology rings in Barry’s purpose. Technology has gone wild and he makes it very clear with several examples. His ability to discredit these technologic advances brings credit to his point. One can always refute anything they’d like, but to be effective, one needs to have appropriate facts for back-up and a dominating style that brings it all together.
I was excited to write about this Star Wars episode because I feel you could have many long debates about this type of question, is Data truly considered a human? This episode brings you into a very difficult world of figuring out whether an android named ‘Data” is real enough to be seen as having his own rights and choices. Maddox, a scientific researcher, wants to shut Data down and figure out how to make multiples of him for Starfleet. Data does not want this because he feels it would be killing him if he is not able to be reassembled and brought back to life. Picard, captain of Enterprise, comes to Data’s defense and sees him as a body that knows what he wants or that can make up his own mind and is not altered by a computer.
As history has shown, in software, this limitation, however ethical it may be, is close to useless in protecting the inventor. There are only so many basic inventions in software. The most notable ones are word processors, spreadsheets, databases, and the graphical user interface (GUI). This means that if you invent the first spreadsheet, the UI may be copyrighted and the particular implementation of the functions behind it can be protected. But, this does very little in protecting you against some other guys writing a spreadsheet which is more user friendly, calculates faster, and provides more functions, even though you were the inventor of the spreadsheet.
If we were to determine the “software” running in our brains we would be able to predict what someone would do 100% of the time. While this may never become a reality do to epistemological issues, theoretically i believe it to be valid. Thus if the mind is nothing more than a computer going through lines of code then we would indeed lack free
More than describing his reasons, he hopes that many other people identify with his ideas, so he don’t feel as the only one who degrades computers’ function. Berry’s article draws attention of the audience because we live in a society that barely looks up for reasons for not buying not only computers, but also any other technological advance. We live on a pro technology world. Past generations might always seem technology as an enemy because it is hard for them to catch up with technology. Berry’s intention to persuade readers depends whether the reader agrees or disagrees with his reasons.
The tinkerer unlike the engineer has no final goal to reach, but rather tweaks certain characteristics or parts to fit into the bigger picture. While the engineer has one fool-proof solution to any given problem the tinkerer comes up with many different ways to solve one problem this can be seen in the variety of the models of eyes in the many species on earth and how each evolved. Lastly the tinkerer does not create from nothing; he always builds on top of what already exists. This is true of evolution which gives new functions to already existing characteristics (Jacob). Examples of this “tinkering” can be seen in the Homo sapiens or humans.
It also has to have a proper, appropriate ending that makes the movie memorable and that sticks with them long after the movie has ended. In director Morten Tyldum’s film The Imitation Game, the film concludes with “significant closure,” leaving the audience stunned at the way events played out. The film’s protagonist is Alan Turing, an “irascible” mathematical genius who is summoned by the British authorities to be part of a team of other mathematical geniuses in order to break Enigma, the German code machine. This film centers not only around the struggle to crack Enigma and shorten the war but also sheds some light on Turing’s homosexuality. The Imitation Game demonstrates the triumph in overcoming adversity because not only is there a struggle to break Enigma, then the struggle to keep it all a secret, but there is also Turing’s personal struggle in being a “victimized homosexual” in his society, all of which are addressed as the film concludes.