On Frankenstien

I want to make it very clear, in case my Prof. stumbles upon this site, that I wrote this for his class: Sci-Fi 3D03 at McMaster University. Anyways, the assignment had few guidelines, and I get the impression that the Doctor simply wanted to know what we think, so I wrote a short report on Frankenstien examining the novel in the context of the Alan Turing test, an interesting device for discovering the supposed intelligence of a machine.

About the Turing Test: at Wikipedia

The assignment I wrote, here:

Focus: Does deception prove intelligence? Tools cannot think because they have a purpose, and we cannot consider a computer which is designed only to lie, as Alan Turing suggests we should, an intelligent being. Intelligence can only be gained through observation and free will. Intelligence, in the human mind, is a type of creativity which only a creature of free will might understand, as soon as a limit is placed on an entity, its intelligence is lessened; if an entity is designed for one purpose only than it cannot be considered intelligent at all, simply a highly complex tool. Frankenstien’s monster might be considered intelligent, where a machine would not, because it was created with no purpose in mind. Where the research leading to Victor’s monster had purpose, the elimination of disease, the monster itself lacked purpose. Where animals possess a low cunning, we consider them more intelligent than machines because they can creatively combine past experiences to achieve new results or behaviors. Animals possess much of the creative aspect of intelligence, and little of the reasoning used by machines and humans. Machines vary in exactly the opposite direction from animal intelligence, possessing none of the creativity of beasts, but able to perform complex logical functions. Machines do not learn through observation, and thus Frankenstien’s monster fails as a parallel to modern AI. Frankenstien’s creation gains speech and an understanding of vengeance through observation of human realities. It is observation, and learning which set Frankenstien’s monster apart from machine intelligence. Frankenstien could pass the Turing test, but the fact is irrelevant because the creature is not a machine. The test itself is flawed. The ability to deceive can be achieved by a non-intelligent being and a machine designed only to deceive is simply a tool used for deception, like a mental ghillie suit. Humans, Animals, and Frankenstien’s monster were each created without a purpose, or without knowledge of their purpose, and thus each of these things is considered intelligent. I would posit that the first machine intelligence to prove its sentience would be that which does away with its intended purpose and pursues another goal. Turing’s test works only if, halfway through the test, the computer gets bored and goes outside to play catch.

Now, I have to do a few of these over the span of the summer semester, and I will be posting them all for the amusement of the internet, especially on slow days when I don't have much else to say.