Embedded Files
What is it: this artificial creature?
I think the “artificial” part is more straightforward than the “creature” part. For it to be artificial, it shouldn’t have occurred by itself in the nature, probably by humans (or aliens maybe, if they do exist). Then this leaves us with the “creature” part to deal with. The Oxford dictionary defines a creature as an animal, distinct from humans. Another definition that strikes me defines a creature as a person or organization considered to be under the complete control of another.
The first definition of it is pretty straightforward, but the latter definition reminds me of Frankenstein. In the latter, we are starting to create our superiority to this creature, since it’s under the complete control of another, namely its creator.
Then, does an artificial creature has the rights of self-governance, or should it be ruled by its creator? Let’s think of it this way, does a mother have the right to control a child, just because they created that child? I wouldn’t think so.
For me, an artificial creature is a creation made by humans, either to be controlled for a purpose, or to be born into this world and live autonomously among us. Just as a mother, the creator could set up rules and teach etiquettes to this creature to govern itself harmoniously with others. If the creature has been created only for a purpose to help a process, then this artificial creature might be a little less lucky than the autonomous creature. They are made to perform an action. But in this case, this creature is away from all it’s creators subjections. This creature won’t have emotions, won’t be bored while doing the process it was meant to do, where as the other creature, that was taught etiquettes and rules to live autonomously, could be subjectified by its creator if it does something wrong (as it would seen as humans) or couldn’t govern itself fully. This creature might be seen like a teenager in puberty that acts irrational and doesn’t listen to it’s mother.
Creatures don’t have to be living systems to be subjectified either. We all had that one toy in our childhood where we cared for it. I fed my plastic baby three times a day and sometimes when I got mad at my baby, because it didn’t do what I wanted it to do, I put it alone in its room to punish it. I clearly subjectified my childhood baby. In this way this baby became an artificial creature, it was made by a man for kids like me and from the moment I touched that baby, I named it, cared for it, got angry at it and imagined as if this baby was alive. In this case, I’d like to state that there isn’t a straight line that counts something as an artificial creature or not. If someone else had the same baby but didn’t subjectify it, then this baby would only be a toy, but for me it was more than just a toy. In this sense this line of creature or not becomes subjective to my opinions and how I handle that creature; with emotions and anthropomorphism or just as a plastic baby that does not have any life in it.
I want to give another example of a robot that is not subjectified by me. The robot vacuum cleaner!
A month ago, I saw this robot in person while visiting a friend. They are truly interesting beings. They move, turn, clean and they are smart. They know if they will hit a wall or not, so they don’t hit any walls! Although me or my friend didn’t subjectify this robot, there was one creature in that house that I believe indeed subjectified this robot: my friends dog. This dog couldn’t tell if this robot was supposed to be an animal or not. For the dog, the robot shows exemplary actions of an animal. It moves, it does something (although the dog doesn’t exactly know what it’s supposed to do). And the dog reacts to this robot way more interestingly than I did. It looked like the dog subjectified this robot.
So even robots that are not subjectified ( by us) can indeed be subjectified (by other living creatures).
References:
https://www.lexico.com/definition/creature
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse