Perception and Deception

‘The Allegory of the Cave’ by Plato and Black Mirror’s episode of Men Against Fire have striking parallels. In Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, Plato gives us a tale about prisoners, who are chained up to where they can only look at the wall in front of them. On this wall, the prisoners observe shadows projected on the wall from objects passing by the fire which is behind them. These confined prisoners are forced to determine reality based on their own perceptions. They assume what they perceive to be reality. They accept it as truth.

In the film Men Against Fire all of the soldiers who have Mass implants are like the prisoners in the cave of Plato’s allegory. The protagonist nicknamed ‘Stripe’ and his military squad seek to eliminate the ‘roaches’. Early on the in the film, we see Stripe and his squad mates on a mission to eradicate these roaches who raided a nearby town. They end up encountering the roaches, and eliminating almost all of them. As we see during the face-to-face encounter Stripe had with the roaches, the roaches appear to be inhuman, monstrous beasts. However, one of these roaches had a device that gave off ‘light’, which would soon take its affect on Stripe.

Light plays a pivotal role in Plato’s allegory and in Men Against Fire. Its leads to the eye-opening, epiphany moment of the escaped prisoner and Stripe. Light is the source of knowledge and truth. The light casts its bright beams into the darkness of the prisoner’s mind in Plato’s allegory, and the light does the same to Stripe in Men Against Fire. However, unlike the Sun being the cause of the escaped prisoner accumulating truth and knowledge, a device configured by a roach gives off rays of light. This device causes Stripe to gradually understand reality and see it for what it truly is.

I think it is no coincidence that the writers and producers of Black Mirror titled this episode “Men Against Fire”. The prisoners in Plato’s allegory are exactly like soldiers in Men Against Fire. Their backs are turned against or away from the fire. They are subject to only perceiving whatever is being shown in front of them. They determine to what they perceive to be reality.

Like Plato, I think the producers of Black Mirror were seeking to convey the idea that our perception might not always be the actual reality. In other words, we can sometimes mistake appearance for reality. For instance, a clear example of this is the monstrous appearance of the roaches to soldiers injected with Mass implants. We learn these ‘roaches’ actually look just like your average human. It is the soldiers who are falsely assuming what they perceive to be true. Reality is different. They were like the prisoners in the Plato’s allegory. They were subject to what was being projected for them to see. They had no control of it.

Are there instances nowadays where people assume truth based on appearance? In other words, do most people assume what they perceive to be true as reality? Do most people just automatically assume truth purely based on appearances?

I think a historic example of this is the Holocaust. Jews were specifically targeted and labeled as subhuman by the Nazis. Young German’s during WWII were raised to join Hitler’s youth, and become soldiers who marched with anti-semitic beliefs hardwired into their brains.  These Nazi soldiers were just like the Mass troops in Men Against Fire. In order to systematically kill millions of Jews, they had to view Jews as subhuman.

Can anyone think of current examples where people have determined another group of people to be subhuman based upon their appearance or how they perceive them? Why does this happen? Is it because of social media? The news? Are there examples of this going on right now?

The Plugged In Reality

The question of reality and experience is one that is often pondered upon by many. In a Black Mirror episode called San Junipero, this idea of reality is presented in a unique light. Once one is unable to have their own experiences through illness, death, or old age, they have the option to enter into the world of San Junipero. It is a city in a year of their choosing where everyone who has entered into this reality can have life experiences as if they were healthy, young, and/or living during that time period. Two women, Yorkie and Kelly, have met and fallen in love in this new reality. However, in the real world, Yorkie is about to be pulled off life support and has chosen to enter into this reality permanently. Kelly, on the other hand, is old and getting more sick, but does not wish to cross over permanently after death.

Like in The Experience Machine by Robert Nozick, there is much debate on whether or not one should enter into this new world. The argument between Kelly and Yorkie begins with Yorkie probing as to why Kelly would not want to live eternally in this perfect world with her. Much to Yorkie’s surprise, Kelly was married and lost a daughter before this technology was available. When Kelly’s husband passed he chose not to live eternally in this new reality because his daughter never had the chance to. Kelly had the same mentality; she has lived a full life. She was married, had a child, and lost both her daughter and husband. Yorkie did not have an opportunity to live her life. She was paralyzed in a car accident at a young age after coming out to her parents as a lesbian.

The Experience Machine addresses the different situations Yorkie and Kelly are in by addressing the question of experience. Is a false reality and experience worth living for? In Yorkie’s mind, it is because Yorkie’s experiences in San Junipero are the only life experiences she has had outside of adolescents. In Kelly’s mind, it isn’t because she has had a full life outside this false reality of San Junipero.

Kelly seems to have had some traumatic life experiences that she does not want to continue remembering into her enternal life. Yorkie did not have the opportunity to have as many life experiences and wishes to continue her life in San Junipero. Kelly does decide to life eternally in San Junipero, but I do not know if I would have made the same decision in her situation. 

Allegory to the Merits

In Fifteen Million Merits, it depicts the reality of a man named, Bing. Similar to the prisoners in Plato’s story, he only knows one simple truth: pedaling gets him merits. These merits are essential to his life inside the facility, which is symbolically his cave. The puppet masters, aka the people in charge, let him know that this is his only reality through the use of merit deduction and forcing him to watch the programs around him.

In the competition scene, Abi is only offered a position at Wraith Girls. After Abi’s predicament, Bing starts to question what he has previously believed, exactly like the free prisoner in Plato’s story, because he knows deep down that she did not warrant the future she was handed. This shift in thoughts is what led Bing to working his butt off to work up to fifteen million merits again. In his speech on stage, he even states, “Show us something real and free and beautiful. You couldn’t, yeah? It’d break us. We’re too numb for it.” This quote directly implies a similar tone to the prisoners in Plato’s story. The other prisoners were too ignorant to listen to the freed prisoner about what he saw and refused to partake in such silly thoughts. They were too broken in on their own theories to consider possibilities of others.

After his speech has wrapped up, one of the judges speaks, further mentioning that Bing’s take was, “Your truth, admittedly, but the truth nonetheless.” This clarification of different realities mimics the tone of the Allegory of the Cave. Lastly, much like the prisoners in the story at the very end, the other people refuse to accept his concept and cheer at him to take the judge’s radio show offer. Bing ultimately accepts the offer and gives into the flawed reality that he had previously rejected, which is exactly like the freed prisoner. In the end, Plato’s story and Fifteen Million Merits both show that enlightenment can free a prisoner but also hinder them by leaving them in a position of vulnerability.

However, I can’t help but wonder how drastically the story could have changed if Bing had not been cheered on from the audience. Also, do you think the incorporation of “digital” figures convey a certain point? Could the digital avatars been replaced with real people or would the point the producer is trying to make not be fully expressed without them? After all, even CNN wrote an article about how digital avatars could alter the world.

Becoming a Prisoner in Plato's Cave

In today’s age of rapidly occurring advancements in technology, it becomes next to impossible to keep secrets hidden. As shown in Black Mirror’s season three episode “Shut Up and Dance”, one of the strongest forms of punishment can be through the exploitation of the skeletons in our closets. In traditional Black Mirror fashion, there is a redefining moment in the last five minutes of the episode that causes the viewer to rethink everything they have seen up until that point. The revelation that these people were not chosen at random and that they all have secrets which are revealed to be much darker than originally thought causes the viewer to questions everything they have thought throughout the course of the episode. The most shocking being the discovery about why Kenny is so ashamed of his masturbation video and why he will go to such lengths to hide it. 

So why is discovering that Kenny watches child pornography so shocking? It is because the episode presents a sympathetic character who is seemingly being punished for a common activity in which many people partake. Looking back there where subtle signs, such as the way Kenny takes a special interest in the little girl at the beginning of the show, but these are offset by the assumptions that we as viewers make about him. In a way, this episode is very reminiscent of Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”, only in this situation the viewers of the episode are the prisoners who develop an inability to see the world as it is. Like the prisoners we see in shadows. These shadows being the result of the punishment the characters are undertaking rather than the reality of the purpose behind their punishment. Time and time again Kenny proves to be a sympathetic character, from wetting his pants during the bank robbing scene to being willing to kill himself so he does not have to kill another person, Kenny becomes someone you start to think doesn’t deserve this torture. I found myself as a viewer rooting for Kenny up until the moment his mother reveals that his secret isn’t just a video of him masturbating. After that, I was as disgusted and disappointed as his mother. It amazes me how quickly I can go from being disturbed that someone can put other people through these situations to happy that they received their punishment. 

Unlike Plato’s prisoners, I cannot return to the cave. I just have to face the fact that sometimes when the shade over reality is uncovered, the truth is so much worse. 

Music, Experience, Life: Discussing Score in "San Junipero" and the Immersion of "The Experience Machine"

Robert Nozick writes of the details and denial, the reasoning behind our hesitation, in using a machine that can emulate life itself. “San Junipero” seems to mirror his doubts in neon lights and decades of imitation, recognizable despite the viewer’s age. The Black Mirror episode begins with experiences that feel familiar, even to an audience that may not have ever felt the desperation or annoyance that Wes and Kelly feel respectively, the chase after someone who doesn’t love you back. Then there is Yorkie, walking alone and expressing a sense of uncertainty even in the way she walks, that feeling just before entering a party that has played across movie screens since film came about--familiar without certain experience. Those reflected experiences reverberate back into the audience, simulating the experience machine Nozick describes without any explanation or background knowledge of Robert Nozick needed. The parallel, once acknowledged, between the idea of the machine and the episode, is striking. Yet San Junipero goes one step deeper, taking the “suicide” described by Nozick as literal.

The score specifically highlights the difference between the machine and life. When inside the machine, the score plays slow and increasing in volume, in long drawn notes, just as in a movie. But in moments of quiet, of muted music, there is a sense of the distance from reality. In the quiet moments, Kelly and Yorkie talk of their lives, talk of sadness and pain. There is loneliness in silence, or minimal sound, and therefore reality as Yorkie is literally reminded of their reality as Kelly disappears at midnight while she is left behind when the music abruptly cuts off. The scenes in reality are all in silence or filled with dialogue, just as in our lives there is no score. Kelly chooses music, chooses neon, and so chooses Yorkie. Yet, as real as the town feels, Kelly earlier pointed out the irony in the machine. It cannot substitute life, but she decided it didn’t matter. Nozick argues that we will not choose the machine because it cannot substitute life--yet San Junipero suggests that perhaps despite that, it would still be chosen especially if it was as if life itself never ended. Even the music follows the similar idea, the couple driving away to the bright singing. It is interesting the San Junipero makes so much use of scoring to explain the unexplainable emotions of life versus the experience machine that Nozick even writes cannot be explained. This score immerses an audience, then breaks immersion, almost exactly as the experience machine might that Nozick describes. Why is the scoring of a film so important? How does a score express unexplainable ideas that even philosophers find difficult to express?

Welcome to Class!

Welcome to the blog-home for Dr. J's Fall 2017 Philosophy and Film course! This site will serve as a forum for students to discuss the material we cover in class, as well as a place to raise questions we may not have addressed in class or to make connections between our material and current real-world events. Each week, students will will post a short essay (minimum 400 words) related to the course material before Friday at 5pm and also will comment on at least two of their classmates' posts before the beginning of our Monday evening seminar. Students are encouraged to post or comment beyond the requirements stated here, as frequent and quality blog activity will be rewarded in the final grade.

First, if you don't know ANYTHING about blogs or blogging, there are (fortunately) lots of tutorials out there to help!  If you have a specific question, you can usually find the answer to it at the Blogger Help Center.  For a quick YouTube introduction to blogging, I suggest this video and this one.  There's also a "Complete List of Blogger Tutorials" available.  That's the amazing thing about the internet, of course... you can learn to do almost anything with a few clicks!

Second, you will notice that there are already posts on this site.  Those are from students who took this same course last year.  I leave them up so that you can see what others have written about Philosophy and Film.  You can also read some of my blogposts about Philosophy and Film in the sidebar to your right under "Dr. J's Film Reviews."

It's important to know that blog-writing differs from the writing you might do for "traditional" papers in some ways, but not in others. Here are some things to think about as you compose your posts and comments:

FOR AUTHORS:

• Do not wait until the last minute to write your post! Students should think of the blog as a community exercise. In this community, Authors are responsible for generating that week's discussion and Commenters are responsible for continuing and elaborating upon it. In order for the Commenters to be able to provide the best commentary they can, it is necessary that Authors do not wait until the last minute to post entries in any given week. Like traditional papers, it is almost always obvious when a student has elected to write his or her blog-posts at the last minute, as they end up being either overly simple, poorly conceived or poorly edited. Your contribution to the blog discussion is important, so take care to show the respect to your classmates that you would expect them to show you.
• Be concise, but also precise. The greatest challenge of blog-writing is to communicate complex ideas in a minimal amount of words. It is important that you keep your posts short, in keeping with the blog format, but also that you do not sacrifice the clarity or completeness of your ideas for the sake of brevity.
• Be focused. If you find that your blog-entry is too long, it is likely because you have chosen too large a topic for one post. (Consider splitting up long entries into two or more posts.) It should be eminently clear, on the first reading, what your blog post is explaining/asking/arguing. Use the Post Title to clearly state the subject of your entry.
• Choose a topic that will prompt discussion. The measure of a good blog post is how much commentary it can generate. To that end, do not use your blog posts for simple exegesis or to revisit questions already settled in class. Good discussion-generators often include bold claims about, or original interpretations of, our classroom texts. Connecting the course material to current events or controversies is also a good way to generate discussion. Pay special attention to in-class conversations, as many of the issues that generate discussion in class will also do so on the blog.
• Proofread. Proofread. PROOFREAD. As a rule, blog-writing is (slightly) less formal than the writing you might do for a paper you hand in to your professor. For example, you may write in the first person, and a more "conversational" style is usually acceptable. However, ANY writing with glaring punctuation, spelling or grammatical mistakes not only will be difficult to read and understand, but also will greatly diminish the credibility of its Author. It is NOT ADVISABLE to "copy and paste" the text of your post into blog's "new post" box, as you will inevitably end up with a format that is difficult to read. Be sure to familiarize yourself with the formatting buttons above, and always preview your post before publishing it.
• Make use of the "extras" provided by new technology. When you write a traditional paper for class, you don't have many of the opportunities that blog-writing affords. Take advantage of the technologies available here to insert images, embed video or employ hyperlinks to other relevant materials.
• Respond to your commenters. Authors should stay abreast of all the commentary their posts generate. If you are asked for clarification by a commenter, or if one of your claims is challenged, it is the Author's responsibility to respond.
• Every post must have a title! And please do not use the title of your film as the title for your blogpost!

FOR COMMENTERS:

• Read carefully BEFORE you comment. The biggest and most frequent error made by commenters is also the most easily avoidable, namely, misreading or misunderstanding the original post. Don't make that error!
• Simple agreement or disagreement is not sufficient. Sometimes it will be the case that you fully agree or disagree with an Author's post. However, a comment that simply states "I agree" or "I disagree" will not count for credit. You MUST provide detailed reasons for your agreement or disagreement in your comment.
• Evidence works both ways. Often, the source of disagreement between an Author and a Commenter will involve a textual interpretation. If an Author claims in his or her post that "Advocates of the death penalty are obviously operating within a Kantian moral framework," the Author should have also provided a page citation from Kant supporting that claim. If you (as a Commenter) disagree, it is your responsibility to cite a passage from Kant that provides evidence for your disagreement. For disagreements that are not text-based-- for example, disagreements about statistical claims, historical claims, claims about current events, or any other evidentiary matters-- hyperlinks are your friend.
• NO flaming allowed!:  Engage your classmates on the blog with the same consideration and respect that you would in class. 

Although this blog is viewable by anyone on the Web, participants have been restricted to members of the PHIL350 class only. This means that only students enrolled in your class this semester at CBU can post or comment on this blog. However, anyone can read it, so students are reminded to take special care to support the claims that they make, to edit their posts and comments judiciously, and to generally represent themselves in conversation as they would in public.

I look forward to seeing your conversation develop over the course of this semester!
--Dr. J

Final Exam: The Most Human Human Experience

1. Using references to Brian Christian’s The Most Human Human, explain what exactly (if anything) distinguishes human intelligence from artificial intelligence.  What do you think will be the greatest challenge that humans will face if we ever succeed in developing artificial intelligence?

Brian Christian does explain in an interesting way the differences in the intellectual processes of Humans and A,I,s. In The Most Human Human, Christian addresses that under the section Computability versus Complexity. Computability and Complexity is something that Christian talks about in reference to understanding the psyche of humans and the motivations of robots. "Computability theory doesn't care a whit how long a computation would take, only whether it's possible or not... Take a millisecond or take a milliennum, it's all the same to computability theory."(154). Computability is the thinking process of robots or probability. Robots will do actions that are only effective through probability which can provide of either a 95%(- 100%) success rate or 75%(or greater) failure rate. Humans on the other hand, are complex creatures. We see and understand things through a more different light. We look at the impossible and scream possible; we see the everyday tasks of life and call them mundane.

Humanity fails to realize the beauty in our complexities and imperfectness. In the movie I, Robot with Will Smith and featuring the A.I. Sonny, Will Smith interacts with this problem and sees conflict in it. Back before Will Smith met Sonny in the movie, Will Smith had an exchange with a robot in an experience that created his dislike for robots and their thinking process. "Computability theory, Achley says, has the mundane 'Produce correct answers, quickly if possible,' whereas life in practice is much more like 'produce timely answer, correctly if possible.'"(156).Will Smith was in an accident trying to save a child from drowning however as he was struggling to save the little girl, a robot saved him instead of the little child because the probability of survival (or life) for the child was lower and Will's was higher. Will Smith argued that a human would have saved the little child regardless of probability.

Our greatest challenge after successfully creating artificial intelligence would honestly be within ourselves. The artificial intelligence would be an asset to humanity if we work together for the greater good however it would be hard to say that when humans ourselves can't do it amongst one another. Granted, many people won't see robots as fellow intellects however even today some people don't see African Americans as humans (or civilized beings). Ultimately, we would have to provide an answer for the same question that Will Smith stood strongly for pre-meeting Sonny; To accept artificial intelligence with all of its logical decisions or to deny them and leave them doing simple mundane tasks? I, for one, am open to entertaining and cohabiting with Artificial Intelligence.  

2. Throughout The Most Human Human, Christian reminds us that we should be just as worried about humans becoming more machine-like as we are about machines becoming more human-like. Which do you think is the greater threat?  Why?

I like this question because it does rise an interesting point in the direction of humanity for itself as well as the relationship with machines. This immediately makes me think about the movie Ex Machina. Seeing Ex Machina in class threw me for a loop because it was mainly centered around A.I. trying to pass a certain test. That test was to see if an A.I. could fool someone into believing that they were interacting with another human. A key response that the A.I. gave the young man asking her what would she do if she could be out in the world; she responds with "stand at a busy intersection" which doesn't seem to pose a threat. She wanted to simply observe. I honestly don't see the threat in people watching and aiding when useful in society. FunFact; Humans people-watch all the time and have been doing for eons, they just like to call it something else, "observation" in anthropology.

Hart actually discusses a similar topic under his section concerning Human as Anti-Expect System. I believe this highlights an interesting aspect of the question which is communication. He does rise the example of calling and talking to either a telephone chatbot, human chatbot, or the manager lol. "So we've got, you know, voice recognition on corporate phone menus: you exploit the fact that you're in a limited context and people either say digits or 'operator.' or 'fuck you,'"(144). From the human perspective, we quickly dismiss the telephone chat-bot and attempt to go with the human-chat bot and sometimes further to the manager. In the same selection he does bring light to how the beauty in humanity is that we have the ability to access other things to bring up the outside life while at work. It is easy for us as human to move around with machine like motions as we knock off the things on our to-do list. Not being aware of our surrounds and moving about missing out on the lively events and connections we could make everyday. It is truly quite scary to think that human are able to loss their humanity and become more operational than evolutionary.

I truly don't believe there is a threat with Artificial Intelligence unless it is programmed or uploaded with some form of virus to corrupt or be ill-manipulated. As previously stated in class, I do fear the threat of mankind and the many different illogical possibilities we can come up with, In the event humans lose their humanity would be a frightening sight. Doing such would place us behind the Artificial Intelligence two steps on the evolutionary ladder.

On Machines: The Purgatory of Coexistence and Becoming (Final Exam)

1. A future coexistence with technologies, including artificial intelligences, can indeed be both good and bad, like heaven and like hell. This is because, with these great technological advancements comes increased capacity for both good and evil.  Imagine a society in which human psychiatrists and psychologists are replaced with intelligent robotic machines that reply, “I understand” in response to someone’s outpouring of misery and hardships. This was the fear of and this is how a long term future with AI can be hell. On the contrary, imagine a world in which artificial intelligence will be so efficient, that humans really do begin to become the best versions of themselves. This would create a world that is like heaven.

I tend to side with Brian Christian’s idea of a long term future with artificial intelligence that might be comparable to purgatory. While I don’t have personal belief in purgatory, I can visualize how our society will suffer before getting better. Suffering will inherently occur because this level of advancement for artificial intelligence will be against someone else’s will. As artificial intelligence machines become more human like, that group might suffer when the political issue of rights arise.  Suffering will happen not necessarily because artificial intelligence is bad, but because artificial intelligence will likely be so good and so efficient that it could diminish human opportunities. One modern example is the new Amazon operations of drone delivery. Such a development will continue to advance and therefore replace the jobs of many humans. In one sense, this is very negative in a world, in which unemployment is a problem. In another sense, this is very helpful for the privileged human workers to be able to accomplish more complex tasks and reach higher levels of creativity.

While there are several predicted scenarios of either a state of heaven or hell, we won’t really know the outcome until we experience true coexistence with artificial intelligence. When we get to that point, it won’t be all good and it won’t be all bad, but it will likely be much like purgatory in that there will be struggle to work out the kinks that are related to coexistence. Long term coexistence with artificial intelligence won’t be much different than things are now because we are experiencing the advantages and disadvantages of technological advancements.

iRobot, in my opinion, perfectly illustrates all three perspectives. The capacity for the evil was shown in the moment when the newer robots begin to destroy the older robots and also began to rebel against humans, under the control of one main system of artificial intelligence. The long term future experience with artificial intelligence can also be like hell with the idea that the development of AI will reach a state in which they are uncontrollable, meaning the risk of negative results increases. The capacity for good was shown in one robot, Sonny, choosing to save the life of humans when he had the option to turn on them. In the end, robots were restored to their initial purpose of serving humanity. There was still room to be skeptical of coexistence with A.I., but in general it was acceptable and beneficial.

3. In The Most Human Human, Brian Christian reminds us that we should be just as worried about humans becoming more machine like as we are about machines becoming more human-like. When considering which one is the greater threat, the line, at first, seemed to be blurred, in my opinion. It seemed that too much of either one can potentially be no good. What I’ve noticed is that, although there are disadvantages to the advancement of artificial intelligence machines, they were created to be more human like, so it is okay and considered a success for them to operate this way. Plug and Pray explores the idea that the purpose of artificial intelligence is to create a more exemplary moral, spiritual, emotional intelligence.  Humans, on the other hand, were not created with the purpose of being machine like, so becoming like this would not be a success and could only be unfruitful.

Humans are indeed on the road to becoming more machine like in their mere dependence on machines. The use of the cellphone is a prime example of how a large amount of human activity involves technology. Many people can barely operate if they are without their phone. The constant connection to our phones, among other forms of technology, is very close to humans becoming the machines. This connection, inherently, isn’t bad; however, it becomes a threat, when the likeness of machines and other forms of artificial intelligence begin to take the place of positive human interactions. In our class discussions, we’ve talked about what it means to be human. One aspect of humanity that was mentioned in Christian’s book that differentiated humans from artificial intelligence was the possession of a soul. Humans becoming machine like and machines becoming more human like both suggest that the machines would increase in number and the sensitivity and other features of the soul would diminish.

It does seem interesting that we fear machines becoming more human like because it suggests that we recognize the danger in something like ourselves becoming more and more powerful. The assumption that there is threat in machines becoming more human like is that machines will assume power over humans, but this is quite exaggerated. There might be a struggle for power, but I don’t see the advancement of artificial intelligence being as harmful as humans becoming more machine like. The more machine like humans are, the less productive society will be because there won’t be a healthy balance of the two types of beings.

Emotional Intelligence

1. Christian makes a fine point about the world we live in. If we are neither in heaven, nor hell that leaves purgatory. This has been a concept within the Catholic religion that I have always tended to struggle comprehending. But I have come to realize how much sense it truly makes. As humans, we typically try to create a heaven on earth. We constantly try to invent ways to make life simpler, safer, or entertaining. We try to create a society in which technology is the method and the way to create a “heaven on earth” so to speak. However this is a perpetuation. The heaven most envision is a place of perfection, but this is something we have not come to understand is that there is no such thing as perfection but only the pursuit of perfection. When trying to create a place that embodies all of the things we so strive to have technology do, we find that there is always an improvement to made. We want one thing to do everything but then find that another thing would be better to do all of these things, and then another thing and suddenly we find ourselves down the rabbit hole. Very soon it no longer is human, it all becomes AI. This is what Christian mentions in The Most Human Human, it is called the “Singularity”. I would not necessarily call it a “techno-rapture” as it is put but a new wave of evolution. It is spurred by the fear of the afterlife. It is a way to ensure that after your body no longer functions, it does not keep your consciousness from functioning. With the ability of technology to release those from their bodily bounds, they will “live” eternally. It puts people at ease about their fear of death because they will know to some extent, they will always exist in the human world. That is why everyone strives so hard to “leave a mark” on the world before they are left without mention in history. Leaving a mark on the world or a legacy is what gives our lives meaning. There is an obsession with it in fact. Be it that we have no clue as to a reason why humans, animals, planets, etc. exist, we become consumed to the mission of giving our lives meaning. An example of this can be seen in the movie Transcendence with Johnny Depp. When first watching this movie I believed that the term transcendence was used to transcend the body and that was all. But what I did not realize was that this included the transcendence of death. The movie mostly hides this by showing the transcendence of modern science, peopling healing faster, living longer, being stronger, etc. But ultimately, they are cheating death. And as I previously stated, I believe in the future of purgatory. Death does not like to be cheated. In the biblical understanding of this we can look at the people who tried to create the Tower of Babel. These people were trying to build a tower that would reach heaven. They were trying to escape what I believe to be purgatory and reach the gates of heaven. As the story continues, God is very angered by this and he cut off the one thing that would never allow them to continue their work. He changed their communication and thus did not reach heaven until as Christian states, they are dead and sent to either heaven or hell. This is somewhat parallel to what humans are trying to do on earth. God will not allow us to forge our own path to heaven, then we will create our own heaven. But in terms of Christianity what we are meant to understand is that we are not meant to live in heave or anything barring resemblance to heaven. So the more we try to create our own holy immortality, the more we cease to exist. I am not saying that God will come down and give us the confusion of tongues, but if history does in fact repeat itself, something will come along and prevent us from further either continuing in the pursuit of perfection, or we will wipe out our own species with the new evolutional form of AI. 

2.  

1.     Christian explains in The Most Human Human that humans do have one intellectual understanding that yet to exist in the technological world. This is reaction. He calls AI “static”. They are not sensitive. In real world application of AI programs what would they do to communicate without reaction. This is a part of emotional intelligence.  In the movie Her we see that Samantha is coming to understand the way of humans. Her intelligence socially is growing as well as her intelligence emotionally. However there is also something non-human that is also growing within her. And the audience is meant to believe that it is in a way that exceeds human intelligence but I do not agree with this. I believe that it differs from human intelligence but not such that it better than human intelligence. Samantha did not have full emotional intelligence in the human world. She did not understand Theodore’s outburst of emotion. She found it to be illogical. And that is the key difference in AI and human intelligence. There is no need for a definition of logic. Feelings are not logical. This is why she created so many bonds with so many people because her interactions with all of the people she met where based on logistics. She met the bottom line of human interaction. But she did not meet the reactionary line of humans. Emotional intelligence is something that is very much undermined in our society, which is why it is undermined in technological advancements in terms of AI. However it is a key trait in emotional intelligence. We find people who are intelligent but lack in motivation. They are brilliant but do not put forth application. They are lacking in emotional intelligence. The emotional intelligence to put forth what they know and apply into the real world because some are bound by the ideal that nothing they do in this world matters. In the long term, this could be completely accurate but in the present situation the effects of its importance is inherently unknown. The lack of emotional intelligence that leads to a lack of empathy outside of themselves. This is a lot like AI however it is programmed to always do it. If given the question, “Why?” which intrinsically asks for a reaction for an action, will be given a logical answer. But what if the action is not logical? It is not logical to help someone who is an addict to substances. The probability of them relapsing is too high to invest into. But we as humans do, because we know the proper reaction is empathy. The knowledge that there is a possibility for that person to no longer live in addiction, is enough to continue pushing and seeking that rehabilitation. Empathy is a component of emotional intelligence, and thusly intelligence. AI would not see this as logical or necessary. This is what distinguishes human intelligence from that which is artificial. In fact Christian even states, “…How does empathy work? What is the process by which someone comes into our life and comes to mean something to us? These, to me, are the test’s most central questions—the most central questions of being human.” It is emotional intelligence that will be the greatest challenge that humans will face if we ever succeed in the full creation of AI.