Transformers and the Capacity for Reason
We now can directly address the question of whether Transformers fulfill the various criteria for personhood. The first criterion has to do with the capacity for reason or rationality. In one sense, rationality is the same thing as intelligence and has been thought to involve a variety of traits, including (a) calculating, (b) making associations between present stimuli and stored memories, (c) problem solving, and (d) drawing new conclusions or inferences from old information. Can Transformers be said to be rational in the aforementioned senses? In fact, there are countless examples of (a)–(d) in Transformers stories. I’ll point out just a few below.
Transformers obviously make calculations, as can be witnessed when Bumblebee sneaks out in the middle of the night to send out a homing signal to the rest of the Autobots in the 2007 film. Part of the process of contacting his Autobot cohorts entails making calculations. In fact, it’s arguable that every move a Transformer makes requires the construction of some form of calculation; otherwise, the Transformer wouldn’t have made the move in the first place. For example, if I want to send out a homing signal, then I need to get to a place where I can do it; thus, Bumblebee sneaks out based upon this calculation. Or, if I hack Air Force One’s computers, then I can plant a virus; thus, Frenzy turns himself into a radio and begins the process of infiltrating Air Force One based upon this calculation.
In addition to their calculating capacity, Transformers have memory storage capabilities, and both can store and recall memories based upon present stimuli. Optimus Prime can recall the events surrounding Cybertron’s destruction at the hands of Megatron and the Decepticons, and has recounted these events on several occasions. When an Autobot encounters a Decepticon, they both are aware enough of each other to recall that they need to do battle with one another. Further, Transformers can solve problems, as is witnessed when Frenzy solves the problem of releasing Megatron from suspended animation in the 2007 film, or when Vector Prime sets the Autobots on a quest to solve the problem of finding the four Cyber Planet Keys in the Cybertron story.
Finally, Transformers are able to reason in the sense of deductively drawing conclusions and making inductive inferences. First, think of the Bumblebee homing signal example above. Bumblebee arrived at his conclusion by a process of deductive reasoning that probably looks something like this:
Premise 1: If I want to send out a homing signal, then I need to get to a place where I can do it.
Premise 2: If I need to get to a place where I can do it, then I need to leave Sam’s house.
Conclusion: Thus, if I want to send out a homing signal, then I need to leave Sam’s house.
So, Bumblebee sneaks away. Also, Optimus Prime probably reasons inductively like this:
Premise 1: Megatron has been an evil jerk in the past to innocent beings.
Premise 2: Megatron is going to Earth, and Earth is filled with innocent beings.
Conclusion: Thus, Megatron likely will be an evil jerk to Earth’s innocent beings.
So, Optimus Prime and the Autobots try to help Earth’s innocent beings.
Transformers and Mental States
Now, just because something can reason, this doesn’t mean it’s a person. A computer can be programmed to reason just like Bumblebee, Frenzy, Megatron, and Optimus Prime—making step-by-step, if-then types of calculations yielding necessary or probable results—yet, we would not consider a computer a person because of this capacity alone. Persons also must have the capacity for mental states. Mental states are definitely a part of a normal functioning, adult human being’s psychological life and include such things as holding a belief, having a desire, feeling a pain, or experiencing some event.
The best way to understand what a mental state consists of is to close your eyes and think about experiences where you jumped for joy, felt some pain, or regretted a decision you made. First, think of a time when you jumped for joy over some accomplishment of your own or of someone else’s, like winning some award, or your favorite team scoring the winning goal in the last seconds of the game. Recall the experience: how you smiled, relished the moment, and wished that every moment could be like this one. For example, Sam and Mikaela are elated (and relieved) when they realize that they’ve defeated Megatron at the end of the 2007 film. Now, think about a pain you experienced, like when you touched something that was very hot. Remember how that pain was all-consuming for the duration, how it lingered in your body, and how you thought, “Ow! That HURT!” That was your pain, and no one else’s, and only you could know what that pain was like. Take, for example, the time Sam fell down when he was being chased by Barricade in the 2007 film. Now, think of a decision you made that you’ve come to regret. You believe now that you could have made a different, better decision back then and now, having thought about it, it may cause you pain or regret. Sam feels this way after dropping Mikaela off at her house when he wishes he could have sounded more “cool” or “sexy” to her when they were riding together in his car.
These three experiences get at what is meant by a mental state because they entail beliefs, emotions, desires, or intentions. There are plenty of examples of Transformers acting as if they have the exact same kinds of mental states as we human persons. In several stories on film or in print, when a Transformer gets shot, hurt, zapped, or blown up, he/she/it gives an indication that he/she/it is in pain. Or, when Megatron’s plans are foiled, he expresses the typical ‘curses’ of frustration. A typical Autobot will show concern and pity for another Autobot or human, as well as disdain for a Decepticon. The gamut of emotions—sorrow, fear, anger, hope, and joy—are all expressed by Transformers at various times throughout their myriad adventures.
Transformers and Language
Language is a definite mark of personhood, and I assume that you, the reader, are a person. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be able to understand the words on this page! Language is a tricky thing to understand, and many people think that each kind of animal has its own language, including apes, dolphins, bees, and ants (to name just a few). However, we can draw a distinction between transmitting information and engaging in a communicative linguistic performance. I want to equate language with engaging in a communicative linguistic performance. All animals, including humans, transmit information in that they relay some useful data back and forth to one another or make mental associations with present or stored stimuli so as to take action. On the other hand, engaging in a communicative linguistic performance entails mental states like the ones spoken about in the previous section, so that only beings with mental states have the capacity for this kind of communication. When engaging in a linguistic performance, more than information or stimuli are being transmitted; beliefs, desires, intentions, hopes, dreams, fears, and the like are communicated from one mental-state-bearer to another. So, a bee is not really speaking to another bee when doing his “bee dance” in order to transmit information about where pollen is located outside of the hive. Even apes that have been taught sign language are not speaking—namely, using a language—to their trainers; they are merely associating stimuli with stored memories and transmitting information. As far as we know, no bees or apes have experiences of joy, pain, or regret to communicate. (Of course, what I’ve said is controversial, but that’s okay . . . this is philosophy!)
Now, are Transformers the kinds of beings with capacities for engaging in communicative linguistic performances? I want you, the reader, to understand what I am experiencing, feeling, and thinking when I speak to you in this chapter. So too, Transformers want other Transformers and other beings to understand what it is they are communicating, whether it be “death to Ultra Magnus!” or “we need this supply of energon.” Besides engaging in communicative linguistic performances, Transformers also seem to have beliefs about themselves, others, and the world around them. Further, they act on those beliefs, whether to save themselves, aid others, or engage in other kinds of voluntary behavior. Put another way, they appear to be free in the
ir actions precisely because they form beliefs, and can act on those beliefs. Obviously, a typical Autobot believes that a typical Decepticon is forming beliefs about performing underhanded deeds, while a typical Decepticon believes that a typical Autobot is forming beliefs about how to thwart his underhanded deeds.
Transformers and Social Relationships
Do Transformers have the capacity to enter into social relationships with other beings already considered persons? Social relationships can be divided up into: (a) family relationships, or those loving and nurturing relationships found in households; (b) economic relationships, or those relationships people have in the public sphere outside of the home when they conduct business transactions; (c) allegiance relationships, or those relationships that citizens in a society choose to be a part of like churches, interest groups, the Loyal Order of the Moose, and the Shriners; (d) civil relationships, which include the relationships citizens have to one another, as well as the relationship individual citizens have to their governing body as a whole. In each one of these relationships, one finds duties, rights, laws, and obligations that are appropriate to each relationship. For example, in a family a parent has a duty to take care of a child, and one of the fundamental ‘laws’ in such a relationship is unconditional love. In economic transactions, the fundamental obligation is to the ‘bottom line’ of staying in the black, and the law may include something like “let the buyer beware.” In civil relationships, we see the language of rights and laws being utilized in the most commonly understood way so as to protect citizens from harm, and ensure the prospering of societies as a whole.
Transformers do have the capacity to enter into social relationships. With respect to (d), (c), and (b), Cybertron itself was full of Transformer governing bodies, guilds, and apparent ‘interest groups’, complete with social and economic rules, as is made clear in many of the stories. What’s most important, seemingly, is (a) family relationships, or those loving and nurturing relationships to be found in households. In the 2007 movie, for example, it seems that there are several examples of family-like relationships established between Transformers and humans. At the end of the film, Optimus Prime is cast as a kind of father figure watching over his Earthly children, while Bumblebee is kind of like Sam’s brotherly friend. There are countless examples of Transformers acting fatherly and brotherly to each other in the stories, not unlike family members.
The fact that Transformers can autonomously express their desires is significant. Given that Transformers possess mental states, and have the capacity to willfully go about their business in the universe (at least, in terms of acting upon beliefs they have), it would seem that they are exemplars of the kind of being who can be held morally responsible for its actions. Think about how a typical Decepticon utilizes an Earthly piece of technology to hide himself in order to deceive another being, human or otherwise. In fact—and obviously—deception by transforming oneself into a piece of machinery is a typical move for a Decepticon (of course, Autobots do it, too, but for seemingly “good” reasons). If a Transformer can be said to legitimately have deceived, then that Transformer must have mental states. It seems that if some Transformer can and does deceive, then that Transformer should be punished as a deceiver.
Disallowing the Decepticons
Transformers communicate, have the capacity for reason, can be involved in complex social relationships, and obviously deceive other Transformers and human beings. More importantly, they express feelings of disillusion, contempt, pain, and suffering, as well as joy, satisfaction, and contentment. As I have tried to show, a being that has these traits has mental states, and such a being is a person, regardless of metallic innards, plasmatic innards, or natural, biological innards. Thus, Transformers can be held responsible for their actions the way persons are. Finally, if some Transformers are like sinister persons with a sinister plan, then their plan should be squelched, and they should be punished accordingly. In short, we should disallow the Decepticons to deceive, destroy, and deprave!
The issue of treating Transformers as persons may seem silly to talk about because, after all, they are fictional. However, as history has proven, science fiction has a way of becoming science fact. The famous robotics engineer and theorist, Hans Moravec, claims that by 2050 robots actually will surpass humans in intellectual capacity. In the not-so-distant future, there most likely will be advanced forms of machinery that behave much like the Transformers in terms of an artificial intelligence. How then will we, who are already considered persons, react? How then should such beings who seem to behave like full persons be treated?
10
Robots in Love?
JAMIE WATSON and ROBERT ARP
Pussycat, you really know how to tickle my joystick.
—RATTRAP, in “Coming of the Fuzors”
In the animated Transformers episode “The Search for Alpha Trion” from the 1980s, two Autobots lock in a loving embrace, as the masculine Ironhide comforts the feminine Chromia with soothing words in her robotic ears. They look just like human lovers, with Chromia laying her head on Ironhide’s shoulder. Ah . . ., the sweet sound of metal on metal. What?! Autobots in love? Is it possible for Autobots to experience love the way human persons do?
What exactly is love? Is it simply an erotic passion that one finds in sexual relationships (whether it’s flesh on flesh or metal on metal)? Is it more of a cosmic force that unites the world? Could love be associated with a general care and concern for the welfare of human and robotic beings? Is it reserved only for our most intimate friendships? Or, is it just a name that we give to processes having to do with blood (or oil and electricity!) rushing to various parts of our bodies?
In this chapter, using examples from various Transformers stories, we take a look at some Western philosophical conceptions of love. First, we discuss reasons why Transformers can be conceptualized as being like human persons. Next, we show how the various relationships between Transformers and humans, and amongst Transformers themselves, embody various conceptions of love. The end result will be a deeper appreciation for the varieties of love spoken about in the history of Western philosophy and—believe it or not—practical applicability for real-life loving relationships.
Are Transformers Capable of Love?
Oh . . ., here comes that sinking feeling.
—OPTIMUS PRIME in “Kremzeek!”
Whatever love is, whether in humans or in Transformers, it requires the capacity for conscious awareness. “Conscious awareness” requires a mind, and we think it requires some kind of advanced mind, like that found in humans. Saying “the capacity for” lets us keep our belief that someone still loves his wife while he is asleep, yet allows us to be agnostic about whether someone in a coma does. Since we do think people who are asleep or preoccupied with work can be in love, we know that love is more than just a type of behavior. Of course, love does involve dispositions to act in certain ways in certain contexts—which is why forgetting your anniversary is a bad thing to do.
So, love is at least a mental state that requires the capacity for conscious awareness and disposes one toward certain behaviors. Now, many animals seem to meet these criteria, but no one would say that animals can really love or be in love. Biologists don’t think animal minds are advanced enough for that kind of mental state. So there must be something else. But what? And what about computers? Could we design a machine that loves like humans love?
It’s easy to imagine that Transformers could in fact love as we do, since stories about Transformers represent them as thinking, feeling, knowing, wishing, hoping, screaming in anger or pain, crying, scheming, lying, and sacrificing just like we human persons do. Consider Sandstorm’s very noble, Mel-Gibson-in-Braveheart-sounding exclamation: “It’s time we fought for what we believe in . . . our planet, our freedom, our lives!” (from “Fight or Flee”). Or, consider Fortress Maximus’s Shakespearean diatribe: “Whether I am a hero or a coward is not the issue! I am weary! My joints creak from the corrosion of war
without end! I cannot break this ring of hate that surrounds us all. But I can remove myself from it. No matter what you decide, I am leaving” (“Headmaster #1”). If we didn’t know this was a Transformer, we might think it was an ancient Roman solider, weary of political unrest.
These expressions do sound like claims made by beings capable of mental states like love. But what would it take to turn a machine into a being that can genuinely love? Let’s look at three options philosophers have suggested.
First, imagine we have designed a software program so complicated that it allows Transformers to mimic human expressions of love in every conceivable way. Imagine the software is so good that every affectionate gesture, the slightest body language of attraction, and the slightest loving verbal cues are met with the perfectly appropriate reactions on the part of the robots. In addition, the Transformers could initiate these advances as well. Would running this software on a robot’s processors make it a being that loves?
It seems not. We can design machines to tell us what we want to hear. We could program them to tell us they aren’t “feeling well” using personal pronouns: “Error! (read: ouch!) I cannot read the device installed in drive E.” But these designs are not a sign of love on the part of the machine, they simply represent the way humans have constructed them. We do, however, praise our children when they respond to us the way we’ve trained them to. What’s the difference?
Transformers and Philosophy Page 16
