E. T. is an extraterrestrial visitor who befriends a young boy named Eliot. E. T. learns some English and communicates with the boy, asking for Reecies pieces and wanting to "phone home." He feels pain, makes plans, and communicates emotion. Yet, his physical make-up is very different from his human friend. He is a silicon-based life form (and thus the basic element in his body are not carbon) and his "nervous system" does not have electro-chemical impulses but works through pulses of light.
Does E. T. think or feel? Does he have a mind? Is he a person?
ReplyDeleteUnder the theory of functionalism E.T. would be a person who thinks, feels, and has a mind. ET is a Silicon based life form, which differs from humans’ carbon based life, and has a nervous system based no flashes of light, which differs an electro chemical nervous system that humans have. Some people may then assume that ET is not a person. However, ET also learns English and communicates things like asking for Reese’s pieces and to phone home. He feels pain, makes plans, and has emotions. All of these are tendencies that humans share. Functionalism states that due to these tendencies ET is a person. Functionalism is the theory that a state of mind is defined by environment inputs that affect internal states and bodily behavior. If we can assume humans are people, then because ET shares the same functions as humans he is a person. When he experiences the environment input of hungriness, he thinks that he wants food and asks for Reese’s pieces. Humans do the same thing. ET is therefor a person able to feel. ET experiences the environmental input of not being on his planet, which leads to the internal state of longing to go back to his planet, and the bodily behavior of creating a homing device, and escaping people who want to keep him on Earth. Humans would also try to get home and escape other’s who would keep them from doing so. Thus, ET is a person who thinks. ET is able to learn English and communicate just like humans can, which means that he is a person who has a mind. Thus, under functionalism, because ET can function the same as humans, he is a person.
I believe E. T. is a person. This is in the sense that he has a mind that can think and feel, not that he is strictly a human being. There are several ways we can look at this case. First, if we were to look at t E. T., through the lens of reductive materialism, we could obviously come to the conclusion that he does not have a mind because his mind is based on silicon, and ours is based on carbon. However, to me at least, this cannot be true. E.T. acts similarly to how every person I know does. He seems to experience emotions, feelings, thoughts, etc., the way I or any other person would. So if we were to look at E.T. in the case of behavioralism E.T. would obviously be a person. However, there is another issue brought up by scenarios such as the Chinese room problem. What if E.T. had no brain and instead had a program in his head that told him to respond to certain inputs? This version of E.T. would appear to have feelings, emotions, and a mind, but he would actually just be a program that does not understand or have feelings and has no thoughts. If this is possible, behavioralism must be false. However, I also reject this. Specifically, I reject the application of this scenario to the case of E.T. If we would want to figure out how his brain actually worked, this would involve dissecting it and ultimately killing E.T. After disecting E.T. If we find out his brain works like a program, that’s great. If we find out his brain is actually a mind, we have just killed a person. So while ultimately, to find out whether E.T. is functionally equivalent to a person, we must kill him. Instead of doing this, I propose we work with what we already have. As far as we know, E.T. is behaviorally similar to a person. I think, in this case, being behaviorally similar is good enough to treat E.T. as a person. He behaves the same as a person, so why take the risk of killing a person to find out whether or not he is a person?
ReplyDeleteMuch like Ava in the movie Ex Machina, the theory of functionalism claims that E.T. is one who has a mind, is able to feel like a human, and to think like a human. Humans are made of different cells which form skin and E.T. is a silicon-based life form which lacks a nervous system that is engineered by electro-chemical impulses but has a nervous system which only works through different pulses of light. Any normal human would first interpret based off of looks and biases that E.T. is not a human and is an alien. Then again much like humans E.T. learns English and is able to communicate for things such as Reecies pieces and the want to ‘’phone home’’. These ways to communicate that E.T. uses are the same ways that humans also communicate; he shares common characteristics with humans. E.T. also displays that he can feel pain and express emotions. The theory of Functionalism views society as a very complex and orderly system with interlocking structures and functions or social norms/patterns that operate to the needs of individuals, and groups of society; if one can function like another it can be seen as that ‘thing’, there is an input and an output. And based on this theory E.T. is a person and not just an alien from a different planet, he is a person from another planet. The environmental input of him being far away from his planet, and the idea that he does not have family that are similar to him through the physical sense causes an output which is the emotional and physical sadness, and longing that he has for his old planet. There is also another input which is the idea of him being chased by the government in pursuit of testing him, and the output which is his need to constantly run away from the government officials to keep himself and others alive. E.T. functions the same as humans, and E.T. is a person.
ReplyDelete