What is real? Can anything be proven objectively, without a doubt true? In the final chapters of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, we find Rick Deckard's reality drastically changing. Mercerism is a hoax. The meaning of life and its true definition becomes blurry. What is happiness? These are all questions are few questions we are forced to contemplate at the conclusion of the novel. What really separates us from the androids, and what reality do we live in?
What we sense, remember, and love can all be boiled down to a series of biological hormones and electrical impulses. Maybe the mood organ is not as outlandish as it seem. Our brains, on a very basic level, works very similarly to a computer or robot. Computers are giant on-off switches. When electricity flows down the wire, the computer sees a 1. When the wire is dead, the computer sees a 0. Our brains work similarly. Neurons fire electrical pulses in complicated patterns throughout our entire nervous system. We are a series of electrical impulses. So, what makes us so unique?
When Rick hears that Mererism is a hoax, he finds a new meaningful interpretation. Rick falls in love with an android. Even after finding out that his toad is electric, Rick seems satisfied. He does not object to dialing 670, long deserved peace, on the mood organ. Rick's entire life seems full artificial happiness. He lives in his own reality, which may not be objectively real at all.
As I contemplated the conclusion of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, I could not help but think 'How important is it that I live a real life?' Isn't it more important to be happy in our own reality? How important can the distinction between human and robot be if we, ourselves, cannot know what true reality is? Do you think that the false reality created in Philip K. Dick's science fiction novel is inherently worse then an objectively true reality?
"What really separates us from the androids, and what reality do we live in?"
ReplyDeleteThis sense of disillusionment that you describe, for me, was best evoked by Dick through the spider which John Isidore finds "undistinguished but alive." Immediately, the androids seek to disassemble it. Like you pointed out, the androids reduce us from abstract conceptions of humanity and love to little more than 1's and 0's, yes's and no's. Similarly, the androids seek to disassemble and discover its constituent parts. When it is reduced to five legs, the spider "crept about miserably on the kitchen table, seeking a way out, a path to freedom. It found none." The spider, representing humanity, is brought to its last legs as the androids blur and confuse our distinguishing conceptions of ourselves. Irmgard then tells Isidore, "I was right. Didn't I say it could walk with only four legs?" Though the spider's function ostensibly, is unaffected, there is an unmistakable change to its form. This is a deep, cutting blow to both John who feels pangs of sadness and emptiness, as though something is removed from him too. Wishing to end its suffering, John "carried it to the sink and there he drowned it. In him, his mind, his hopes, drowned too. As swiftly as the spider." The androids force John to abandon what he held so dear, some essential element of his humanity. Even as the androids approach perfect scores on the empathy test, I feel that the spider finally reveals something which can separate the humans from the androids. Certainly, empathy can be mimicked by the robots. However, as much as they are able to produce the correct observable response, there is a suggestion that they cannot truly experience it. Though their physiological readings may indicate sadness, perhaps the androids never actually appreciate despondence or joy. Dick seems to suggest that whatever distinguishes us is, at the very best, intangible, and therefore all the more vulnerable to the androids which threaten this humanity.
David, you said, "What we sense, remember, and love can all be boiled down to a series of biological hormones and electrical impulses." This is reductionism, and one who believes it necessarily rejects the existence of a soul apart from the body. Likewise one who believes it will most probably reject the concept of the afterlife.
ReplyDeleteIf reductionism is true, then there is no intrinsic meaning in anything; indeed it is difficult to keep from slipping into nihilism. In order to not be nihilist, you must create subjective values for yourself. This is called existentialism, aka 'happy nihilism.' If you have no value, there isn't a good reason for valuing humans over androids because both are mere atoms. But, maybe you say, "Humans are intelligent and sapient, so surely they are worth more than atoms!" Then you value matter because of its intelligence and sapience, except androids have those qualities too, so there ends up being no difference in value between androids and humans. If you value matter based on its ability to feel empathy, as the Mercerists in the novel do, then humans > androids. While this will certainly seem like an arbitrary choice to some, it's not more or less valid than any other. With existentialism, you're free to choose (or create) any value you like.
If reductionism is false (as in Catholic teaching) and we have souls of equal value and androids don't and souls are inherently valuable, then people are worth more than androids. If androids have souls too, then androids and people are valued the same.