What would Plato think of
What would Plato think of computers?
Last September, I read Plato’s Republic, which seems to be a defining part of a U of C education and provides the over-arching context for my social sciences and humanities classes. Of course, the point of the book is to define and understand the nature of justice. Justice, as Socrates defines it, is Òthe having and doing of oneÕs own and what belongs to oneselfÓ (IV, 434a). In other words, Socrates continues, justice is a carpenter doing the work of a carpenter and getting what is due a carpenter; or a shoemaker doing the job of a shoemaker and getting what is due a shoemaker. Therefore, injustice would be someone not doing that which he is best suited to do. Socrates equates justice with the idea that each thing has one function for which it is best suited.
(As an aside, it is interesting to note that this application of justice changes for the philosophers. By the reasoning above logic, given a philosopher, his function should be philosophizing and contemplating the form of good. But Socrates reverses the interpretation of function for the ruling class, so that given the function of ruling; the people best suited for it are the philosophers. Thus, while the philosophers would rather spend their time Òin the region of the pureÓ, they must spend their time Òdwelling in the caveÓ. I believe that the question of ‘What compels philosophers to return to the cave to rule?’ is an unresolved paradox of the Republic)
So, what would Plato think of modern computers? Do they do the function for which they are best suited? In one sense, computers do many functions: they are a communications tool, a research tool, and an organizational tool. In a more basic and fundamental sense, the essence of a computer: the processor, does only one function. Addition. Lots and lots of addition.
From the latter perspective, a silicon processor is best suited for the function of addition, and that is what it does. But if we add a layer of abstraction, or complexity, and begin to interpret the output, we realize that these chips have applications to virtually everything - hence the ubiquity of computers.
Could this mean that human thought is also reducible to simple addition within the neurons firing in our complex brain? So much for sentience being a uniquely human phenomenon.
This entry was posted
by site admin on Monday, January 22nd, 2001 at 2:10 pm and is filed under Story.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 
feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
May 11th, 2006 at 10:54 am
I like the way that you are thinking but let me give you some advice.
When I started mixing the present with the past I got fucked. When I started mixing computers and Plato we gave computers the benefit of doubt and assumed that they could think; simply because of 鈥2001 a Space Odyssey鈥. But in those days we didn鈥檛 have the benefit of a ubiquitous OS. Then we had the privilege of programming our own Operating System to suit our individual needs.
The first time that I switched on a computer it just had that 鈥> _鈥 symbol with the 鈥淿鈥 blinking on an off waiting for me to type something in. Just like in 鈥淟ost鈥, the program that is being televised courtesy of Microsoft Corp.
It took me more than a decade to get over the frustration of feeling that I could not get the most out of my computer. But only when I taught myself machine code did I realized that the basic design of the microchip, which in essence only has a stack, a pair of registers, and accumulator, was I capable of going back to the Republic. From the point of view of a mathematician it felt like the design had at least being based on some Euclidean principals. It could draw a line between two points. It could draw two parallel lines. It could even draw a line intersecting two parallel lines, but it could no more draw a circle and begging to understand the meaning of an angle than a moth can prevent itself from flying into a candle flame even though it knows that it鈥檚 going to get burnt.
So I gave up on the dream of creating an artificial intelligence. Instead of which I took up the task of creating an artificial carpenter. Then eventually God began his communion with me. Now I鈥檓 back at school again.