The popular Matrix movie trilogy depicts a futuristic dystopia in which humanity is enslaved by intelligent machines, used as a power source while they live out virtual lives in a computer-generated world similar to the “real” world just pre-dating the takeover of the machines. What is not explored in great depth in the movies themselves is the back-story: How things ended up that way.
A series of animated shorts, entitled The Animatrix, explored some of the peripheral stories surrounding the series. Two of the chapters are devoted to developing the storyline that leads up to the situation depicted in the movies. It begins when humanity succeeds in the creation of artificial intelligence. Soon, intelligent, anthropomorphic machines are doing almost all of humanity’s “dirty work,” and humanity falls into a state of vain decadence. One day, a robot with the designation B1-66ER is threatened by its owner with deactivation, and in response, kills both the owner and the mechanic instructed to deactivate it. B1-66ER is arrested and put on trial. The robot claims that it acted in self-defense, stating that it “simply did not want to die.”
Those who are interested can explore the story in greater detail here, but I’d like to look at the case of B1-66ER in a Theosophical light. The moral dilemma in the story is that B1-66ER is viewed simply as a machine, yet it acted in what it stated was its own self-defense. Can a machine be intelligent? For that matter, can a machine be conscious? Supposing we soon develop a machine sophisticated enough to plead for its own life, how would we know whether or not there is a life there for which to plead? After all, the machine could simply be executing its programming—nothing more, nothing less. This issue is compelling enough from a purely philosophical point of view, but its examination from a Theosophical viewpoint seems even more thought-provoking, as Theosophy offers a variety of unique lenses through which to explore it.
For example, Theosophy teaches that there is no such thing as “dead” matter, that even an atom is alive in its own way. There is nothing special about the atoms that compose our physical bodies aside from the fact that they are, for a time, somehow held into a complex organizational structure by a guiding principle during our physical life. The blueprint for our bodies is said to be built up of etheric matter by an elemental before we are born; the atoms that constitute our physical body are organized according to that blueprint. Is it absolutely necessary for incarnation to take place this way?
Let’s stretch our imaginations and assume that a robotic body could be created that is very similar to a human body, even down to sharing the human form’s strengths and weaknesses. Let’s now imbue that robot with an artificial brain loaded with incredibly complex programming similar in sophistication to a human’s brain. Could an ego incarnate into such a vehicle? There is no dead matter, after all—so why not?
Today there are many computer scientists eagerly working to develop artificial intelligence. Computers started beating chess champions years ago—and while that doesn’t involve true thinking so much as quick calculation and a well-written logic program, there are computer programs today that write poetry and create artwork. You can even have a chat conversation with one. As advancement is made in the field of AI, these questions may become more pertinent. How will we, as humans, treat “intelligent” machines? How will Theosophical ideas influence our perspective on the matter?
I have to say that this series of postings is one of the very best that I’ve seen in my 25+ years of being in the Theosophical movement. So, for those of you who have posted, my comments are not pointed at you. These are directed to the movement as a whole, and not any one organization. I appreciate very much the reasoning that has been shown by most of the participants. Especially useful is the tying of AI and the SD. This is exactly the point most relevant to where we are at today. We’re doing it again, and this time there is someone around (us) to say something about it.
Part of my day job involves creating new devices in the realm of Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 (yes it’s on the way). I am very familiar with some of the steps between “here” and “spiritual” machines. Most are still unseen in their particulars. Kim, the one comment you made regarding the atheists being the ones most into designing intelligent machines is quite telling. So far, it’s their argument and they’re winning.
One of the principal purposes for the creation of the Theosophical movement was to act as a counterbalance to the materialism of the age (ML#1), to present different perspectives and guide the wave of materialism towards spirituality (1900 KH Letter to Besant).
I haven’t, quite honestly, read a lot of Dennett’s material, although I catch a post or two of his occasionally on Edge.org. It’s the likes of Dennett and Dawkins who are currently defining the arguments in the world today. Honestly, from what I can see, Theosophists are about the only ones out there who have pulled together something of a rationale for actively engaging their memes (yes, a term coined by Dawkins). Why do I say “the only ones”? Because our writings, while little more than a cobbling together of different traditions, taken as a whole, present a case for a different perspective on evolution. The main point that Theosophists make is that evolution is primarily an issue of consciousness working its way into physical manifestation.
The BIG question is, how do we prove that without resorting to “religious” or “mystical” arguments? You (the collective readers of this post) may recoil at the thought, but, like it or not, that is the field where Dawkins, Dennett, Gates & Co. play in. We must be skillful in framing our points.
Some Theosophists will retreat into a field often inhabited by our co-religionist bretheren, saying that we’re beyond question because we are “spiritual” and these discussions are “below” us. That’s irresponsible (and mentally lazy) at best, and downright moronic at worst, as it implies two things; a) That we really don’t have anything useful to say, and; b) What we have is silly to begin with. For a rational person, that leaves two conclusions, either; a) We drop the pretense about who and what we are, and; b) We look for things either less silly to believe or wallow in and rejoice in our collective insanity and forget the world. Fortunately, we have a corrective in our own mechanisms. It’s called our “Objects”.
I honestly feel that if Theosophists suddenly had a case of amnesia where it came to all mention of masters, mahatmas and such, the entire movement would probably be able to accomplish its goals. “Masters” are like the Buddha in the middle of the road. Run em’ over and don’t look back! Viewed in that light, one could reasonably assume that using the mahatmas to make my case is an act of insanity, too.
One other book I would highly recommend on the “Singularity is Near” by Ray Kurzweil. Kurzweil shows some sympathy towards Buddhist-like points of view, and has credentials every bit as impeccable as Dawkins or Dennett. His books are all easy reading and brings the complex issues of AI and the future to us in a way that most can relate to.
By the way, I agree with the posting, “Godel, Escher, Bach” ROCKS!!!
Thanks for your site and innovation. Being robotist from nepal , I would like to join the team if possible . I am a humanoid robotist.
nice discussion.but AI (artficial intelligence) is actually a set of commands to be executed in response to a particular condition. the most suitable command to secure a particular goal that has been set forth by the programmer is executed. so actually artificial intelligence is nothing but to choose the right command according to the program algorithm. its not like a machine can make its own decision, actually it follows the most suitable command the programmer provides.