Philosophy, reality, and virtual reality technology

Philosophy

Reality, Philosophy, and Technology

The Problem of Subjectivity

One of the fundamental philosophical conundrums is how to define reality. If reality is that which remains constant in the human mind, then LSD trips and schizophrenic delusions are just as real as the 9-5 workday. if, however, reality depends on a collective agreement, then the personal world of emotions, dreams, and imagination ceases to have meaning. Neither one of these positions is ultimately tenable. Therefore, philosophers need a comprehensive definition of reality that does not deny nor advocate either one of these positions. In other words, a definition of reality must be liberal and inclusive of both subjective and objective truths. Reality is not absolute; rather, it incorporates subjective experiences. At the same time, reality must be defined at least in part by a shared vision.

Discussion 3: Establishment of Fact and Scientific Method

Technology sprung from the scientific quest for knowledge and mastery of reality. However, the scientific method may obscure earnest quests for truth because of its limited methodology. If reality depends on a finite set of sensory experiences, then human beings fail to appreciate the possibility of facts that cannot yet be perceived. For example, before Newton, gravity was not considered a reality because the force of gravity itself cannot be perceived via the senses. The scientific method corrects for sensory shortcomings. However, philosophers must endeavor to think beyond that which the senses deliver.

Morality, Philosophy, and Technology

Discussion 1: Human/Robot Interface

Current robotics technologies depend on strong human controls; no android exists that can survive independently of a human being either for its creation or for its sustenance. No android can therefore be considered alive in any reasonable definition of the word. Therefore, robots are dependent on humans. Robots do not make decisions; humans make decisions and program robots to execute those decisions. In the same way that a human being operates an automatic weapon to kill another person, so too does a human being operate a robot to kill another person. Therefore, human beings are always responsible for the actions carried out by the robots in their charge.

Discussion 2: The Possibilities of Sentience, Part 1

If a robot was created that could exist independently, then the human being that created it remains its parent. Just as parents are responsible for the actions of their children until the children reach the age of majority, parents of robots are also responsible for the actions of their creations. A robot kills because it was programmed to kill by the person who designed it. Therefore, the person who designed the robot is de facto a killer too.

Discussion 3: The Possibilities of Sentience, Part 2

If a robot exists independently of its creator, then it is also possible that it thinks wholly independently. From this perspective, the creator of the robot cannot be held responsible for the robot's actions if it should kill another human being. So long as the human being did not purposely design the robot to be a killer, then it cannot be held responsible morally for the robot's actions.