Discussing the Theory of Knowledge - Essay Example

Ever since their invention, humans consider machines as their important and indispensable allies. Without them we cannot possibly accomplish feats in any of our fields of endeavor. We can even say that we have been endowed with reason so that we can create machines or tools that will help us in creating astounding inventions that will improve the standard of our lives. In its more technical meaning, machines are instruments designed to transmit or modify the application of power, force or motion." In its more practical definition, a machine is "a mechanically, electrically, or electronically operated device for performing a task (Machine)." The second definition goes beyond the original reason for the invention of machines. Instead of just aiding us in our daily tasks by being "extensions" of our bodies in performing their tasks, machines, especially since the time when a machine called computers are invented, become performers of tasks independently of its user. As long as its actions are programmed in such a way that it can now perform tasks without the presence or the real-time control of humans. They have become very sophisticated that they can surpass what we can do. Mechanical cranes can lift manifold times the maximum weight that the strongest living human can. Assembly line robots can accomplish a task way beyond a team of fastest human workers of that particular job. And, in 1997, a supercomputer named Deep Blue defeated the then world chess champion, Garry Kasparov. The power of machines exponentially increases our capacity to produce goods and services. It is understandable that they can outshine our mechanical abilities. But in terms of our mental faculties, machines such as Deep Blue has been programmed to outsmart our rational faculties. This presents a question that we are to resolve in this paper. Can a machine know Before going further, we must first define what the verb "to know" means. In English this word has several definitions. In the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition) " know" has eight definitions: "1. To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty. 2. To regard as true beyond doubt. 3. To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in 4. To have fixed in the mind: 5. To have experience of: 6a. To perceive as familiar; recognize: b. To be acquainted with: 7. To be able to distinguish; recognize as distinct: knows right from wrong. 8. To discern the character or nature of:" The definitions above give us different aspects of the word "know." By these we can say that "knowing" something starts when we perceive a thing by our senses, processing this acquired information to a point that we become acquainted with those things and ends up with the capability of the "knowing" person to distinctly distinguish or recognize that thing from others. The emergence of the Information Age has introduced machines that can "think" independently. They, such as supercomputers, can grasp and process data at astounding speeds. In a fraction of a second, they can perform mathematical operations that a human can do in hours or even years. With this capacity, they can really perform rational activities, at least to a certain extent. But can we say that this supercomputer's ability to process data is already an act of knowing given the definition of "know" above For me, I believe that machines cannot fully know. They may perform mental tasks of humans with rapidity and precision way above that of humans. But still they cannot totally know things as per defined by dictionaries. If we use the definitions above, they fall short of thoroughly knowing something. To prove this, let us consider the first definition "To perceive directly, grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty." Computers are designed to perceive and grasp data to help us in our tasks. Word processing programs, for example, are created for us to write a letters and other documents in a precise and neat manner. It can receive data coming from its keyboard and other input devices, grasp them to a point that it can perform retain these data in the computer's memory and hard disk. However, while it is evident that computers can perceive and grasp data, it cannot still account for the truthfulness and validity of the data it is handling. Though it can check the simple grammatical structure of words, it cannot check for the exact rhetorical validity of the sentences and paragraphs being inputted. There are times when the word or sentence being checked is assumed to be grammatically wrong, but rhetorically, it is correct. Another flaw in the capacity of the computers to check the certainty of the data it handles is the precision of words and sentences being translated into another language. The computer cannot detect the correctness of the translation due to the difference between the two languages' grammatical structure. There are certain words that one language has that have no exact counterpart to another language. Only by an elaboration of a human translation can this be properly translated. Though we can depend on machines' precision in terms of mathematical computations, still they cannot fully comply to the second definition of the verb to know above: "To regard as true beyond doubt." They are programmed to give us accurate data and rational results after subjecting the inputted data to rigorous processes. Yet they still cannot judge whether something is really true beyond doubt. To be considered true, a thing has to pass through meticulous scrutiny. Though in truthfulness can be achieved through computations, still we cannot entirely prove the veracity of something through laws and computations alone. We have to back it up with other rational and other human processes that computers cannot do. A lie detector test may give us lead whether a person is lying or not. But it is still not foolproof. We still need our unique rational faculty to do this job. Wisdom in rendering action at the right moment and at the right time is another thing that a machine lacks. The third definition of to know: "to have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in," can only be achieved by humans. Machines can be programmed to perform actions on a certain time and circumstance only within the parameters of the program supplied to it. They have no power to learn or develop their skills. For their skills to develop, they should rely on humans' revised and upgraded instructions. Wisdom can only be acquired from something that has the capacity to develop and improve by experience. Obviously, machines cannot have this. On the basis of the other definition of know, "to perceive as familiar; recognize," and, "to be acquainted with," we can say that machines have edge over humans. There are machines that can detect, recognize, and distinguish something. X-ray machines, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) equipments, and other machines that are designed to detect the presence of something can do this job. They can even have the power to store huge amount of data that can be used to identify something. Computers are more reliable in this aspect than humans. However let me again reiterate that the machines' capacity of distinction and discernment is limited only to data acquisition and retrieval. Acquaintance requires a bond that connects the one acquainting to the one acquainted. If we only use the discerning power of machines, we can only retrieve the tangible features of the one we are acquainting with. As humans we rely on other faculties present in our being in retrieving our memories of something or someone. Besides sensory perception we also rely on our emotions in discerning whether someone is familiar with us or not. By human standard, acquainting ourselves to another will never be complete without establishing emotional bondage to the thing being acquainted. This is the bond that will attach our memories to the thing we are acquainted with. Machines have none of this emotional bond. It is our emotions that distinguish our perception of things from machines. Machines work by the structured programs unchanged unless new instructions are inputted into it. Because of the logical powers that humans place in them, they can perform tasks that surpass our personal capacity. However, they lack the critical factor that completes the definition of the word "to know." That is our emotional reaction to things that we know. While machines perceive things only by their logic programs and instructions, we perceive things by our logic and emotions. It is our emotions that prompt us to realize that we are acquainted with something or somebody. In fact we remember things better if we have emotional attachment to it. The reason why we seldom forget the special days of the ones we love is because our emotions jolt our brain to know better something that is important to us. This distinction is probably the most critical reason why machine cannot know. Machines do not have emotions. As we review the definitions the word to know we can realize that emotions are needed to complete its entire essence. We can only genuinely know things if emotions agrees with and attest to what we know. Works Cited "Know" The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. Bartleby.com 13 Oct. 2006. http://www.bartleby.com/61/36/K0093600.html "Machine." Merriam-Webster On-line 2006. 13 Oct. 2006. http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionarysourceid=Mozilla-search&va=Know Read More