You are on page 1of 4

Sarah Borders

English 1010
James Hirst
Her
Rhetorical Analysis

Susan Schneider is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of


Connecticut as well as the author of two best selling books, Science Fiction and
Philosophy and The Language of Thought. In this article written from the New York
Times on March second, twenty fourteen, she discusses a computer program who
seemingly is capable of consciousness. Although there are some who disagree claiming
that an Artificial Intelligence is not capable of having such resemblance to the human
brain, Susan does make valid points as to how it could benefit the future of humans, but
also how it may not be practical.
This unique program named, Samantha, has some controversy arguing if this is
truly possible; if a super intelligence machine is able to have feelings and consciousness
in comparison to the human brain. There is logic in the entirety of this article. In the sense
that for one, essentially our human brains are computers. Brains and computers both store
information as well as containing step by step rules for generating output. Such as how
language relies on mental rules to be able to understand and produce words and sentences
(Noam Chomsky, a psychologist who introduced this speculation). The other logical part
of this opinion page, is the question if its truly possible that machines or A.I.s (artificial
intelligences), can be engineered to function like the human brain. For you can note that
the other people around you have brains that are similar to yours. Which, from that

perspective, you can then know and somewhat understand that they are conscious.
Although you cant necessarily know what the other person is feeling or thinking unless
they were to tell you so. Like Samantha, it wouldnt be any different as a
superintellegant computer program in that aspect. If the program is designed to function
identical to the brain, would that be a comparison to our consciousness? On another note,
scientists have created a silicon-based artificial neurons that can literally exchange
information with real neurons. Leading to a fact that it is possible to compute an A.I. like
Samantha with a possible human brain.
To add to the logos or rationality, Theodore Twombly is a person who wants to
hypothetically transfer his brain to this particular computer program attempting to join
this cyber universe. Susan lays out a valid point as to why this may not work. For one, if
he were to scan his bran and convey the details, it could destroy the original; Theodores
mind. He would end up killing himself when the scan would be made and the rest of the
information would merely be stored in a configuration of pixels and computer particles.
Though, on the opposing side, say Mr. Twombly did survive a brain scan and transferred
his cranial information, would the data sent to the computer label it as conscious? Just
because one sent his personal brain figures to a computer doesnt necessarily mean that it
makes the machine conscious. For humans cant upload themselves to the cyber universe,
they can only upload copies of themselves. Especially if the original still lives.
The credibility of this article comes from the author herself. Susan has a strong
background of cognitive science, metaphysics, philosophy of science, philosophy of
mind, philosophy of mathematics and neuroscience. To obtain that much credibility takes
much dedication, stamina, as well as passion. Susans words are easy to depend on.

Having this much time under her belt, its understandable that it would take a long time to
obtain that much credibility, making her a reliable source. Which leads me to the point of
pathos.
The emotion that lies behind Susans words in the last paragraph is strong. She
wrote and was speaking for the example of if you were to find out you were about to die,
you might wish to leave a copy of yourself to communicate with your children
or complete projects you care about.
With that said, she obviously cares about other people and their futures.
Shneiders argument that for future purposes, having a program that could have a human
like brain system could be beneficial. She says we sometimes reminisce and want digital
backups of ourselves. Also, if there was a potential worldwide calamity, uploading copies
of ourselves could facilitate a way of preserving human nature for future intelligence. She
also takes both sides into consideration. Those who believe it would actually work, along
with the side that completely disagrees. Stating the bias side of her a few times,
indicating it the human brain transfer wont be successful.
This article is not convincing. If you were to consider reality, scanning
somebodys brain in hopes of potentially making a super intelligence machine wouldnt
work. Also, thinking about how a possibility of actually attempting to make a computer
have emotions is taking away from human interaction. If video games and technology is
borderline addicting now, what would happen in the future if a machine fell in love
with man?
In closing, the Philosophy of Her is very interesting and not persuasive.
Although, I was intrigued and couldnt help but continue reading. Yes, it could potentially

change the future of man kind if artificial inelegances were able to literally communicate
as if they were people with conscious thoughts and feelings. I even found myself
referring to this artificial inelegance as an her rather than some other computer
program. Susan did a grand job of exploiting the logic, credibility, and emotion behind
her article. But I am not convinced.
Works Cited
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/the-philosophy-of-her/?
_php=true&_type=blogs&ref=opinion&_r=0
Schneider, Susan, The Philosophy of Her, New York Times Opinion Pages, 2, March
2014, 9:20 PM

You might also like