From what I can gather from his book, Lainer seems to think in terms of the human experience in terms of a quantitative function. To Lainer, the human brain and the functions it carries out are the most intrinsically "human" things about life. It hadn't occurred to me until the completion of the book, but Lainer is most definitely a positivist (it was very convenient that I just learned that term in my research methods class). Positivism is a paradigm in research that eliminates the "why" question. To positivists, humans are animals (or in Lainer's case, computers) who perform a specific function, and who are subject to the external forces around them. While this belief may be helpful when making observations about societies and large scale movements, I believe that in the context of the book and Lainer's theories, it is inappropriate.
Lainer pushes "realistic computationalism", an ideology which makes humans out to be functions of a much larger equation. I completely reject this ideology. Humans and computer programs/equations are two completely different birds. I can agree with Lainer in that our basic functions can be replicated through a computer system (ie. breathing, sight, sound, smell etc.). However, humans and computers differ in one small, but very important way: we are moody. Emotions, and the hormones that cause them are (to my knowledge) a strictly human experience. Computers do not feel emotion, and while it is tangible to think that someday we might reach the technological proficiency to make computers "feel", they would still lack the external societal/cultural stimuli to genuinely give them a true palette of emotions. To me, it seems like Lainer does not put this into his "equation". Lainer gets very excited when he talks about the fact that computers can now "smile" and recognize one, but they still cannot feel the emotion the causes one. Even if a hypothetical computer was able to track thousands of smiles, and recognize times when it was appropriate to, it would not be able to feel the rush of endorphins that causes smiles or good feelings in a human being.
Perhaps I am at fault for my rejection of Lainer's ideology. After all, I do not think like a mathematician or programmer. I am just a regular person with no aptitude for that sort of thing. However, if you look at the converse of Lainer's argument, you see that there are very tangible reasons why one can believe that humans and computers are intrinsically different. Computers are tools. Humans are biological creatures. A computer cannot become a human, and if you need any more evidence....
how do you reconcile your reading of the end of Lanier's book with his points in the beginning?
ReplyDeleteThis is a great post. I do agree that Lanier is a positivist. I also agree that he over simplifies the human experience, in comparing it to a computer.
ReplyDeleteEmotion is often identified as the number one catalyst in any decision made by a human. Emotion, as you stated, is what a computer lacks.
For my news station, I had to cover the Tucson shooting that occurred in early January, so I had to study up on basic knowledge of how the brain functions. I think using Lanier's argument, a computer can be related to parts of the brain - the part that is responsible for regulation in breathing and heart beat. The Cerebellum is responsible for the actions similar to that of a computer, the Cerebrum is what sets us apart.