Ghost in the Machine Androids in search of humanity in Isaac Asimov's “The Bicentennial Man”

114 Pages·2008·0.26 MB·English

Ghost in the Machine
Androids in search of humanity in Isaac Asimov's “The Bicentennial Man” and
Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

Johanna Vainio
University of Tampere
School of Modern Languages and Translation Studies
English Philology
Pro Gradu Thesis
May 2008
Tampereen yliopisto
Humanistinen tiedekunta
Kieli- ja käännöstieteiden laitos
Englantilainen filologia
Pro Gradu, 110 s.
Johanna Vainio: Ghost in the Machine: Androids in search of humanity in Isaac Asimov's “The Bicentennial
Man” and Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Toukokuu 2008

Graduni suurimpina tutkimuskysymyksinä ovat ensinnäkin mitä on ihminen, ja toisekseen se, miten androidit
tieteiskirjallisuudessa kuvastavat tätä. Ensisijaisena tutkimusaineistonani ovat Isaac Asimovin novelli “The
Bicentennial Man” (1976) ja Philip K. Dickin romaani Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968).
Molemmista on tehty elokuvaversiot, jotka myös mainitaan gradussa. Tieteiskirjallisuudessa androidit
herättävät kysymyksen toiseudesta ja vieraantumisesta. Niiden kautta on mahdollista ottaa teoreettista
etäisyyttä meihin ihmisiin itseemme, jolloin androidit ovat kuin metaforia tai symboleja ihmiselle. Tietenkin
toinen erittäin tärkeä teema jonka ne nostavat esiin on mekanistisuus. Ihmisruumista on milloin pidetty
kellokoneistona, milloin höyrykoneena tai automaattina. Fysikalistinen maailmankuvahan pyrkii juuri
selitämään kaiken mekanistisesti ja determinisesti. Nykyään ihminen, ja etenkin ihmisaivot, rinnastetaan
usein tietokoneeseen. Siksi tekoälyn teoreettisenkin tutkimuksen on välttämättä otettava huomioon ihmisäly.
Androidit siis peilaavat ihmistä monin tavoin. Toki myös robotit, cyborgit, hirviöt ja monet muut
tieteiskirjallisuuden hahmot on yhtä lailla mahdollista rinnastaa ihmiseen, mutta tässä työssä aihe on rajattu
androideihin.
Graduni rakenne on hieman epätavallinen, koska siinä ei ole varsinaista teoriajaksoa. Sen sijaan
teoria ja analyysi vuorottelevat läpi tekstin, vaikkakin teoria ehkä silti painottuu enemmän alkupäähän.
Paljolti teoriaa on ammennettu filosofiasta, etenkin toisessa luvussa, joka kysyy mistä ihminen on tehty.
Mielenfilosofian taustalla on mieli-ruumis ongelma, eli vaikeus selittää mielen, identiteetin tai sielun luonne
mikäli hyväksymme fysikalistisen käsityksen. Varsinkin Asimovin novelli pohtii eksplisiittisesti sitä, miten
ihmisen voi määritellä ruumiillisuuden kautta, ja ehdottaa funktionalistista lähestymistapaa materialistisen
sijaan. Dickin romaani puolestaan nostaa esiin määrittelyongelmat jotka nousevat ihmisten silkasta
erilaisuudesta ja ominaisuuksien kirjosta. Tietoisuuskeskustelu jatkaa aiheen kehittelyä ja tekoälyn ja
ihmisälyn pohdintaa. Edelleen mekanistisuus herättää kysymyksen vapaudesta ja valinnan mahdollisuudesta.
Molemmissa teksteissä androidit pakenevat omaa robottiuttaan, kohti ihmisyyttä. Ne rinnastetaan orjiin jotka
haluavat vapautta, mutta poliittisen luennan sijaan esitän sen metafyysisenä pakona determinismistä. Aivan
kuten ihminen ei halua olla marionetti, myös nämä androidit kaipaavat vapauttaan.
Androidit ovat keinotekoisia kopioita ihmisestä. Kopion suhde alkuperäiseen on kolmannen luvun
aihe. Asimovin tekstissä androidille lopulta myönnetään ihmisen status, eli täydellinen kopio hyväksytään
alkuperäisen veroiseksi. Dickin androidit ovat pahaenteisempiä; niiltä puuttuu kyky empatiaan, joten vaikka
ne muutoin ovatkin täydellisiä ihmisen kopioita, ne ovat alempiarvoisia. Elokuvaversio tosin mutkistaa tätä
asettelua, koska siinä androideille kehittyy moraalisia tunteita. Luokittelut ja rajanvedot liittyvät myös aina
määrittely-yrityksiin. Androidit hämmentävät koska ne ovat rajatapauksia ihmisen ja koneen välimaastossa,
ja vaikeuttavat määrittelyä. Ne ovat poikkeuksia, hirviöitä, irvikuvia – mutta sellaisinaan ne sekä heijastavat
ihmisten omaa rujoutta että kyseenalaistavat luokitukset. Postmoderni identiteetin pirstoutuminen tulee esiin
Dickin termissä kipple, joka viittaa entrooppiseen tuhoon, rakenteiden luhistumiseen ja käsitteiden
hajoamiseen.
Neljäs luku ottaa ihmiselämään subjektiivisemman näkökulman. Kuolema tuottaa ahdistusta ja
kysymyksiä elämän tarkoituksesta. Toisaalta se on osa elämän järjestystä, ja asettamalla olemassaololle rajat
se myös motivoi toimimaan tietyllä tavalla elämän aikana. Sekä Asimovin että Dickin tekstit nostavat
kuoleman erittäin tärkeäksi kysymykseksi. Asimovin kohdalla androidi halajaa ihmisyyttä
kuolemattomuutensa hinnalla. Dickillä puolestaan androidien elinikä on vaivaiset muutaman vuotta, ja
etenkin elokuvaversio nostaa yhdeksi tärkeimmistä teemoista niiden kamppailun pidemmän elämän
saavuttamiseksi. Kärsimyksen ja eksistentialistisen ahdistuksen keskellä elämän tarkoituksen etsintä nousee
arvoonsa. Kiintymys toisiin ihmisiin ja empatia heitä kohtaan ovat tärkeimpiä vastauksia ihmisen lyhyen
elämän merkitystä ihmeteltäessä. Uskonnot ovat perinteisesti korostaneet samaa asiaa, mutta kumpikin teksti
nostaa esiin myös kysymyksen uskonnon roolista tieteiden ja teknologian kehittyessä, sekä sitä kautta
ihmisestä uuden luojana.
Avaintermit: androidi, ihminen, identiteetti, minä, toiseus, mieli, ruumis, tietoisuus, mekanistisuus,
vapaus, kopio, alkuperäisyys, rajat, luokittelu, hirviömäisyys, kuolevaisuus, elämän tarkoitus, ja uskonto.
Table of contents

1. Introduction....................................................................................1
1.1 Research material.......................................................................4
1.2 Cognitive estrangement, other and novum in science fiction....8
1.3 Androids...................................................................................14

2. What makes a human?................................................................19
2.1 Mind and body.........................................................................20
2.2 Consciousness..........................................................................29
2.3 Freedom of will........................................................................37

3. What are the limitations of identity?.........................................45
3.1 The perfect copy v the original................................................46
3.2 Boundaries and categorisation.................................................55
3.3 Kipple.......................................................................................63

4. What is the meaning of this existence?......................................70
4.1 Death and mortality..................................................................71
4.2 The meaning of life..................................................................78
4.3 Religion....................................................................................85

5. Conclusion....................................................................................95

Bibliography
“We humans, the warm-faced and tender,
with thoughtful eyes – we are perhaps the true machines.”

Philip K. Dick in “Man, Android and Machine”
1. Introduction
People have always liked to present human beings as parallel to the latest invention of
contemporary technology. When the clockwork was a new invention and its accurate machinery
much admired, the human body was compared to that. It was thought that with a similar precision,
the different parts of the human body functioned together like the wheels of a clockwork. The
invention of the steam engine had similar consequences – the human body was thought to function
much in the same manner, where fluids flow with certain pressure which is released by different
bodily functions. Today we like to compare the human body, and more precisely the human brain,
to a computer. In this model learning and other factors of the environment are seen as equivalent to
programming. John Searle observes:
Because we do not understand the brain very well we are constantly tempted to use the
latest technology as a model for trying to understand it. In my childhood we were
always assured that the brain was a telephone switchboard . . . Sherrington, the great
British neuroscientist, thought that the brain worked like a telegraph system. Freud
often compared the brain to hydraulic and electro-magnetic systems. Leibniz compared
it to a mill, and I am told that some of the ancient Greeks thought the brain functions
like a catapult. At present, obviously, the metaphor is the digital computer. (1984, 44)

It it noteworthy that these are all merely metaphors, however. Hugh Mellor has pinpointed this
idea: “Computer models of the mind no more imply that the mind is a computer than computer
models of the economy imply that the economy is” (quoted in Fearn 2005, 38).
Our tools and our machines are extensions of ourselves; where we fall short, they continue.
They are similar to us because they have been manufactured to do things we almost can do
ourselves. They have been made to do things which are in our interests, so it is no wonder that in
our tools and machines we can see reflections of ourselves. David Porush reminds us that
technology is not demonic in itself: “once we recognize the non-neutrality of technology and the
direction in which it pushes us, we can shape our own destiny by seeking our reflection in it.
Technology, after all, is an invention of man, not vice versa” (1985, 79). There is also another way
of looking at the human-machine metaphor, though, not just machines resembling us, but the
human body resembling a machine. For example the French philosopher René Descartes (1596-
1
1650) was of the opinion that the body is a machine, but within it lives the soul, or a ghost in the
machine.
To wonder what the human nature most essentially is, and to consider what the fundamental
building blocks that make a human being are, is an age-old question. In fact, it seems like these
questions in themselves are something that constitute human character. Inquisitiveness and
curiosity seem to follow humans naturally. Different kinds of machines, artificial constructs and
other reflections of humans have been used to draw comparisons. They have been used as
analogies and metaphors, but also as more precise descriptions to be taken quite literally. Thus, the
research questions of this thesis are, What does it mean to be human? and How does the androids'
borderline position reflect this? The aim of this thesis is to discuss various aspects of what has
been said about human identity and what best describes human life, and to do this by examining
two texts of science fiction to see how they reflect on these issues. In just three words, the research
question could be formulated as What is human?
As will become clear shortly, the questions around humanity involve plenty of social
aspects, after all we are social beings. Therefore it would be possible to take even a rather political
approach to the issue. The self is certainly also a social construct, very much so. The self is
political, it is social, it does not exist in a void. But then again, when you are born you are not a
social construct, and when you die you are not a social construct. In birth and death you are alone
because they are border-crossings where all the baggage of experiences is left behind. Being a
social construct belongs to the world of experiences, and if there is an ego, it is the recipient of
those experiences, not one of them (Fearn 2005, 6). It is the core of this being that this thesis is
after, that little indivisible particle or atom of self, not everything external that is wrapped around it
during life. The attempt is to try and see past all fleeting half-definitions given from the outside,
past all transient superficialities and then to try to decide if there actually is a remaining self or ego.
Therefore concepts such as otherness and the body will not be used essentially as political ideas,
even though that interpretation is certainly available; they will not be used as relating to gender,
2
sex or race, for example. Often the concept of otherness is connected to the marginalised groups in
society but the ultimate metaphysical question of what we are made of, or what it means to be a
human being is not fundamentally a sociological or a political one.
The structure of the thesis is somewhat unconventional in that there is no separate chapter
on theory. Instead, theory and analysis will be presented in a dialogue, although the theory will
perhaps be more concentrated on the initial chapters. The research material will be presented in the
next sub-chapter, followed by a discussion on some key concepts when reading science fiction,
namely cognitive estrangement, other and novum. The introductory chapter finishes with a short
discussion of androids and the many other ways in which otherness has been described in
literature.
The second chapter derives its theoretical background from philosophy, and mainly
philosophy of mind to be more precise. The mind-body problem is a widely studied field
nowadays, perhaps because advances in neuroscience let us expect some answers. Many people,
for example physicalists, in fact consider the mind-body problem solved. Chapter 2.1 will present
what the key areas in the discussion are. Consciousness is a similarly fashionable theme in
philosophy, probably due to the linkage to cognitive sciences, and that will be the topic of chapter
2.2. Finally we shall proceed to a discussion on how this relates to the freedom of will.
The third chapter is a journey to identity and its limitations. The first sub-chapter considers
androids as copies of humans and the implications of a perfect copy as it relates to the original.
Since the original-copy division is a question of categorisation, chapter 3.2 discusses the way
people label things, and what the consequences of this categorisation are. When boundaries are
crossed or when distinctions become leaky it is in fact considered dangerous. The danger is further
elaborated in the chapter on kipple, which is a concept from Dick and appears in Do Androids
Dream..? and refers to entropic loss of categories.
The fourth chapter takes on a more existentialist approach. Death and mortality are the
source of much anxiety and worry, and they are discussed in chapter 4.1. Death as the end is
3
frightening and medical science tries to prolong life as much as possible, but people may wonder if
they would like to be immortal either. Fiction allows us to theorise on this. The meaning of life is,
of course, a mystifying puzzle, and chapter 4.2 ponders on what the research material has to say
about it. Religion has traditionally been an authority in these issues and offered people comfort and
solace by giving explanations and answers. Therefore religion will be the topic of the final sub-
chapter before the conclusions.
The topics covered in the research are a vast area, which may make the thesis seem
exceedingly ambitious. It has to be emphasised, therefore, that the plan is to clarify what the age-
old questions comprise of and what kind of attempts there have been at answering them. There
really is no final authority on what is human, so I do not expect to arrive at any definite
conclusions as to how things actually are. Due to their paradoxical nature some of these dilemmas
escape definite solutions – and people, due to their own very nature, still cannot stop thinking
about them. True to its sources, science fiction and philosophy, this research too will see answers
outnumbered by questions.

1.1 Research material
For the discussion of the above topics of interest to me, I chose texts from two titans of science
fiction, Isaac Asimov (1920-1992) and Philip K. Dick (1928-1982). Asimov wrote countless
novels and short stories about robots, and his three laws of robotics that are supposed to guarantee
that robots are harmless to humans, are cited in almost all books written about science fiction. It is
worth pointing out that Asimov often wrote about androids but called them robots, which shows
that the difference can be seen as merely cosmetic. The concepts obviously have a difference in
meaning, a robot being mechanical and often metallic or plastic in appearance, and an android is an
artificial construct which also looks like a human, but the shared feature is that they are made in
the image of human beings. Since in one story discussed in this thesis a robot is converted into an
4
android (and possibly into a man), the story is asking whether there is in fact a continuum from one
category to the next, rather than a fundamental difference.
One of Dick's fields of specialization is androids, in particular where there is uncertainty
over a character's identity; often the android copies of humans are convincing enough to cause
confusion. Therefore the idea of the perfect copy follows throughout his work. Dick's fascination
with such perfect androids that they do not even realise they are androids, and who pose as human
beings, borders on paranoia. Yet it makes excellent material for the study of what is human. In
order to make a copy of something, one needs to know exactly what the original is like. So too
with humans and androids. Also the paranoia can be seen as a natural response specifically to the
socio-political climate of the 60s, with its emphasis on technology and the threat of a collapse of
the entire social structure, so it is no surprise that an abundance of literature reflected this (Porush
1985, 105).
I chose one short story and one novel, “The Bicentennial Man” (1976) and Do Androids
Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968), from Asimov and Dick respectively.1 The first one is a story of
almost fifty pages and the latter approaches two hundred pages; because of the difference in length
the novel will also receive more attention. It provides more food for thought, and there are certain
themes that were not present in the other story at all. The discussion on kipple is solely based on
Do Androids Dream...? because the concept is one of Dick's own and used in the novel as well.
The other theme that deserves a sub-chapter of its own in this thesis is religion, even though “The
Bicentennial Man” does not elaborate on it as lengthily as the novel but merely hints at it in one
detail.
Both of these stories have actually been made into films as well. The 1982 Ridley Scott
film Blade Runner, based on Dick's novel, will receive more attention in the thesis than the 1999
Bicentennial Man by Chris Columbus, but neither one of them are essentially in the core of the

1 Throughout the thesis, quotes from “The Bicentennial Man” will be followed by BM and page number in
parenthesis, which refers to the 1995 HarperCollins edition of The Complete Robot. Likewise, DA followed by page
number refers to the 1972 Grafton Books edition of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
5
discussion. Films tend to be rather different from the written texts they are based on, and due to the
standard length of films they also leave rather many things out. Blade Runner is no exception, but
on the other hand it has other emphasis and issues which make it worth considering. What Dick
has expressed in the novel with words, the film also manages to express with visual moods and
music. Blade Runner has provided a great many memorable quotes and captured the heart-aching
quality of questions of what is human, what is life and death. Therefore it will be mentioned on a
few occasions, although, as was mentioned, the films are not in the centre of argumentation.
One notable difference between Asimov and Dick's fiction can be described with the
difference between their approach to science fiction (SF), to the extent that they could even be
called separate genres. Bainbridge calls the kind of SF written by Asimov hard science fiction, and
apparently Asimov himself preferred this name (Bainbridge 1986, 61-2). It is the branch of SF
which emphasises the so called hard sciences, mainly physics, new innovations and technologies,
rational explanations and factual reports, and usually has protagonists of the hero type. One good
example of such a character is Asimov's robopsychologist Susan Calvin, who appears in several of
his robot stories. She sympathizes more with robots than humans and is somewhat unemotional
and distant, and she has a cool, rational attitude suitable for a scientist. In “Evidence” (1946) she
states: “I like robots. I like them considerably better than I do human beings. If a robot can be
created capable of being a civil executive, I think he'd make the best one possible. By the Laws of
Robotics, he'd be incapable of harming humans, incapable of tyranny, of corruption, of stupidity,
of prejudice. . . . It would be most ideal” (Asimov 1995, 544). Obviously she is very optimistic
about technology. Asimov himself depicts the attitude of hard SF in the following way: “So it may
be that although we will hate and fight the machine, we will be supplanted anyway, and rightly so,
for the intelligent machines to which we will give birth may, better than we, carry on the striving
toward the goal of understanding and using the universe, climbing to heights we ourselves never
aspire to” (italics added, 1983, 163).
If Asimov represents the hard SF, then Dick is a representative of the so-called new wave
6