In Jainism and Hinduism, this is closely related to the concept of ahimsa, nonviolence toward other beings. Intelligence and sentience are quite distinct, so the question arises as to whether computers with artificial intelligence will become sentient.Įastern religions including Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism recognize nonhuman beings as sentient beings. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but, "Can they suffer?" Artificial intelligence What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. The 18th century philosopher Jeremy Bentham raised the issue of animal suffering and sadism in An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation: In the philosophy of animal rights, sentience is commonly seen as the ability to experience suffering. There continues to be much debate among philosophers, with many adamant that there is no really hard problem with sentience whatsoever. This is called the hard problem of consciousness. New Mysterians believe that only sentience cannot be comprehensively understood by science. They do not deny that most other aspects of consciousness are subject to scientific investigation, from creativity to sapience, to self-awareness. Holders of this position are called New Mysterians. The second-order discourse of cognition destabilizes the usual sense of cognition as conscious awareness, revealing the possibility of nonconscious and nonhuman forms of sentience.Many philosophers, notably Colin McGinn, believe that sentience cannot ever be understood, no matter how much progress is made in neuroscience in understanding the brain. Dalloway and Mind of My Mind), movies ( Avatar, Memento, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind), and even Aramis, Bruno Latour’s idiosyncratic meditation on a failed plan for an automated subway.Ĭlarke declares the era of the cyborg to have ended, laid to rest as the ontology of technical objects is brought into differential coordination with operations of living, psychic, and social systems. Clarke’s purview includes examinations of novels ( Mrs. From this foundation, he interrogates media theory and narrative theory through a critique of information theory in favor of autopoietic conceptions of cognition. Reconceiving interrelations among subjects, media, significations, and the social, this study demonstrates second-order systems theory’s potential to provide fresh insights into the familiar topics of media studies and narrative theory.Ī pioneer of systems narratology, Clarke offers readers a synthesis of the neocybernetic theories of cognition formulated by biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, incubated by cyberneticist Heinz von Foerster, and cultivated in Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory. Neocybernetics and Narrative opens a new chapter in Bruce Clarke’s project of rethinking narrative and media through systems theory.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |