I'm More Than a Robot... or Am I?

Let’s examine some defining robot traits and see how I stack up.

Am I programmable?

Am I artificial?

Do I have free will?

This article is more of a philosophical exercise— not a comparison chart between me and ChatGPT. ChatGPT has more problems than a troubled teenage protagonist in a young adult novel. It deserves its own article and probably a therapy session.

For example, academics at Cornell University analyzed over 500 answers from ChatGPT. The research team wrote, “Our analysis shows that 52 percent of ChatGPT answers are incorrect.” Compare that to the well-researched article ahead of you.

Am I programmable?

AI’s actions and behaviors are programmable. We can set modern AI for a variety of tasks and diverse applications. So my question is this: can we set humans for a set of tasks?

When someone hires me to write their website, they are not programming me to write a website. But was I programmed to be a writer?

I enjoy writing and thus chose this career. But let’s delve deeper into psychology. Behaviorism is a school of psychology. It focuses on the empirical evidence of observable behavior instead of the internal states of mushy feelings.

A hardcore behaviorist might say that my writing career is a product of a lifetime of conditioning.

Conditioning is learning by linking stimuli with consequences. Operant conditioning is where behavior is strengthened or diminished if followed by a reinforcer or a punisher.

As a kid, I got good grades in English and was pummeled in PE. So, writing was rewarded, and physical activity was punished. But is it accurate to say I was programmed to be a writer?

One such behaviorist, John B. Watson, suggested he could program humans from infancy.

In his 1930 book, Behaviorism, John B. Watson wrote, “Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in, and I’ll guarantee to take anyone at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief, and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors.”

No one took John B. Watson up on this offer.

In the modern “Nature vs. Nurture” debate, we understand the truth to be more complex.

John B. Watson suggests a purely nurture-based development. Today, we understand that genetics does play a role. For example, someone might be genetically predisposed to be a good athlete. Or they might be predisposed for quality writing.

However, if they grow up malnourished, then their athleticism might not take off. If the potential writer grows up within a bad education system, then they might not hone their talents.

Of course, I am simplifying this complex ongoing debate.

So, am I programmable like a robot? Through operant conditioning, yes!

Of course, I am not programmable the same way a machine is. I run off of life lessons, not code. My programming is a set of behaviors learned, shaped, and reinforced throughout my lifetime by circumstance.

Programming is out of the programmee’s control. My genetic predispositions are also outside of my control. So, you could potentially argue that I am somewhat programmed by the “code” of my DNA.

Am I an artificial being, like a robot?

You’ve probably heard of the simulation hypothesis. It suggests that we are simulated beings within an artificial construct.

I strongly dislike this “hypothesis” because it focuses on semantics and, by its very nature, is unfalsifiable. Falsifiability is the capacity to prove something wrong. All scientific hypotheses need to be falsifiable in order to be tested.

The simulation hypothesis is more of a philosophical mindset. Similar ideas have been around for millennia.

Proponents will suggest that we are in an ancestor simulation. An advanced civilization is running simulations of their early ancestors. These powerful overlords are probably running thousands of simultaneous simulations. So what are the chances that your life is real?

This is a dumb question. We have no reference group to judge said chances. We have no sample size to infer probabilities. The advanced civilization itself is a flimsy basis. Even if there was evidence of such a capable intelligence, we don’t know if they would even bother with such simulations.

You could just as confidently say we are all imaginary within a god’s dream. Or that nothing exists outside of your own mind.

The latter is a philosophical belief called Solipsism. Since we can only be certain of our subjective experience, we should assume that we are the only consciousness in the universe. “There is only my mind— not in the universe, but as the universe itself.”

None of this can be proven or disproven!

Unfalsifiable. If we could run an experiment that proves we are in a simulation, then those overlords could prevent it. They could rewind the simulation and edit our reality so the experiment fails. They could edit the very thoughts within our minds.

In Solipsism, you could suggest that all evidence against Solipsism is just part of your subjective universe.

So, am I an artificial being like a robot? All evidence says no.

Let’s use Occam’s razor here to assume the simpler reality.

But do I have free will?

The idea of a robot with free will scares us and is the center of several science fiction stories. Our modern AI does not share in our agency. But are we really free?

We feel free but know the real world is deterministic.

You can choose to throw a ball, but the ball cannot choose where it will land. We can determine the ball’s velocity and trajectory based on its initial conditions.

The world is bound by its physical laws, and so are we.

We feel free— we feel like we have choices, but feeling is a physical state. There is a common phrase in psychology:

Everything psychological is simultaneously biological.

The quote is credited to Dr. David Guy Myers, an American psychologist. All of our thoughts are manifest in the material world through the activity of our neurons.

So, the biochemical and electrical activities of our neurons are governed by the physical laws of the physical world. Our bodies are complex biological machines, yet everything happening within us is bound to causality.

Doesn’t this make sense with the behaviorism discussed above?

Famous pioneer of behaviorism, B. F. Skinner, went so far as to say that all human actions are results of conditioning. We believe in free will because we know of our behavior but not its causes.

We feel free because we “make” choices. But those choices are products of our internal mechanisms.

This philosophical belief is called Determinism.

I am motivated by evidence. In my opinion, based on my understanding of these concepts, there is more evidence and logic supporting Determinism than there is for free will.

Don’t like the idea of fate without free will? Well… those feelings were also predetermined.

How do I score against a robot?

Am I programmable? My behavior is a product of my life’s conditioning

Am I artificial? Probably not.

Do I have free will? NO ONE HAS FREE WILL, AND NOW I AM IN AN EXISTENTIAL DOWNWARD SPIRAL!

Subscribe to my newsletter for lighter concepts.

Are you going to subscribe to my newsletter? Is the choice really yours?