39. The Chinese Room

Synopsis - It is discovered that the woman behind a screen at a Chinese clairvoyant's booth is actually not deaf and mute. She in fact is a he, and also does not understand the spoken Chinese messages passed by customers from under the screen. He uses a computer to translate the messages, and write meaningful replies back in Chinese. So the jig is up. But is it wrong for a computer to replace a language-processing mind?

This is a strange one. The novelty behind a clairvoyant's booth in Beijing was that the fortune teller was a deaf and mute girl, Jun. No one was able to see her as messages were written and passed back and forth from under a screen. No customer cared if the output he received came from an unseen source until it was revealed that the mystic was a man, John, who relied on a computer as part of the fortune-telling process. The computer did not make the fortunes merely translated.

So what's the problem? The girl is a man. She/he is not deaf nor mute. She/he does not read Chinese. A computer is used to translate questions and predictions passed under the screen. Does the customer then lose out in the purchase of services? Yes and no. A customer still gets his fortune but not under the same circumstances he thought were in place. If the ultimate outcome is the prediction on a piece of paper was it, yes all is ok. If the delivery was essential to the outcome, then there is a failure in expectations. Sort of like knowing the answer to a complicated math problem without showing the sums. Similarly it could also be like fried chicken being presented beautifully on platter, not knowing the waiter dropped the pieces on the kitchen floor earlier.

Baggini wants the reader to look into the metaphysical aspect of having a brain. Is it purely a machine or need it be attached to an external living entity which understands how a problem is solved to qualify as a mind? It seems so. I know my brain processes the light signals entering my eyes into meaningful information but at the same time the eyes, the optic nerves and neurons simply can't give that meaningful information on their own. The sum is greater than its parts.

Can a computer not replace its functions to some degree? Yes of course but it's a lot more work to develop artificial intelligence. The computer in the story translated the Chinese but was not used to develop the clairvoyant messages. Perhaps the translations themselves weren't exact and John had to apply an unexact science to figure out what the messages were. It is this unscientific, fuzzy logic that makes us human, and our brains very powerful.

When does a computer have a mind? I don't know but it'll be creepy if it thought like us.

38. I Am A Brain

Synopsis - When Ceri Braum had her deteriorating body disposed of and her brain kept alive, linked to a mike, speaker and camera, she wasn't quite as happy as she thought she would be. Was being all brain good enough to represent her a person?

I remember an episode of the Twilight Zone where a doctor disassembled the body of a man and hooked him up to an array of sensors so that he could live without his body. It all went well with the brain resting in a jar of fluid in a lab and taking in all the sanitized cleanliness around it. The man's wife then appeared, taunted the brain with vile words and then kissed the doctor full on. The brain felt anger and betrayal but could not do anything but sit there helpless.

It's a fact that the brain controls most of what the body does. Our thoughts and memories start and are stored in the brain. These help us learn and solve problems. The brain controls the body to a great degree. If we are defined ny our actions and the actions themselves are usually the result of our thoughts, it's easy to accept the brain as the definition of who we are. This logic is perhaps individualistic.

From a other person point of view, speech, touch and even facial expressions define who a person is. Human-human interaction goes beyond the brain. We look into people's eyes, react to a smile, ask about a frown, nudge shoulders, and connect through in so many ways. Though these actions may start in the brain as thoughts but it is the physical execution of these thoughts through our bodies that define us from a social standpoint. Connections are made from the heart. Perhaps after a while with the brain.

A brain can't climb a mountain. A brain can't make curry chicken. A brain can't drive a car. The brain can develop ideas and envision outcomes but it needs the body to take up and fulfill the challenge. Actions speak louder than thoughts and words.

I believe that yes a brain is our control center but we are little, hollow, even purposeless without the body.

37. Nature The Artist

Sypnosis - The curator of a museum loves a piece of rock she believes was carved into present artistic magnificence by a famous artist. When the truth is revealed, that the rock is merely a rock unshaped by man, she is flabbergasted and worse, needs to decide if it belongs in her museum alongside other 'real' works of art?

I've always thought of art as something that evokes a response. Applause or criticism, a response no less. In that vein, almost everything around qualifies as art. But there's a trick to it. Not everything qualifies. Plastic packets of food at a supermarket may look ordinary but if one stood far away and caught the big picture, one would a riot of rectangular shaped colours. To me that's interesting, and worthy of a photograph. I'm the train as I write this so let's take a localized example - a hand grab. On its own it might be a boring piece of plastic but when a line of them with different hands grasping for support at various angles, all of a sudden the visual becomes interesting. The lowly hand grab describes the human need for external strength and support in this wavering, unsteady modern existence. Art is everywhere. It all depends on how we want to look at it.

The author has brought across some examples of how the definition of a work of art has transcended brush and canvas to more ordinary, in fact, everyday objects. From Mona Lisa to Duchamp's urinal. From traditional, and sometimes a protrayal of fantasy, to modern and sometimes very real. Abstract pieces have gone for millions at auctions. Art schools teach all manner of art these days and traditional brush and palette techniques are a mere smidgen of what's taught. So it would quite impossible to put a rigid definition of what by its nature is meant to develop with creative expression.

If we are open to what art could be, then perhaps the boundaries are also not important. If the curator's museum had a specific role to display works from specific artists, then the rock would have no place there. If the curator was cool with nature's creations on display (especially one which did not require tending or cleaning up after) then the rock would be a perfect, accidental overstayer.

36. Pre-emptive Justice

Synopsis - Minority Report the movie sort of covers it. The police predict who's going to commit a crime and arrest them before they do it. Though crime is down by staggering numbers, some feel that it isn't right to punish people for crimes not yet committed.

It is a very good, cool movie. A peek into the future where cars you don't need to drive park in your apartment, holograms follow you in a store, and your eyes let the world know your past and present.

And like in the movie, things started going wrong when evil people in charge of the predicting waifs did bad things, did more bad things to cover up their folly and hence manipulated justice.

So the basics - is it ok to lock people up for a future crime? This is one of those situations where the folks in favour of this system assume that they are the best people to make that decision, that they are morally and ethically superior and they would never be arrested under this system. And that's a problem. We assume the profiles of criminals quite readily. Uneducated riff raff from broken homes are the ones responsible for all thefts, murders and shootups, perhaps all evil intent. Today's crimes are also not so basic. Theft and murders are biblical wrongdoings, and fail in complexity to white collar hoodwinking, cyberattacks and intercontinental mafia gangland drug-fuelled vendettas. Smart people commit smarter crimes. Who are we then to judge the goodness of man?

Trust is an important issue. Can we trust the 'machine' that predicts the crime and criminal so accurately? Just because it had provided precise 'hits' so far, it doesn't mean it's not infallible. If it started to make mistakes, would we recognize them? How far along would the police go before innocents were errorneously but unwittingly put behind bars? Will we be committing one crime to supposedly prevent another?

If a machine, trusted without exception, told someone that he'd be committing a crime next week and would now be arrested, could it be seeding the thought in this person instead of properly assessing the threat? With the seed, this person might come to believe that he actually would have committed a crime in the future. From 'no wat' we might get 'maybe' which then would, under the right psychological conditions, stretch to a 'yes I did it, no, I would have done it! Oh I am a bad person. Oh thank you machine for preventing this tragedy!' Well maybe.

I'm more for innocent till proven guilty or a confession is tortured out (kidding). Crossing this line is tricky ground and almost no legal system would enjoy treading on highly circumstantial ground.

35. Last Resort

Synopsis - Winston feels his country is going nowhere in the war with Germany. Hitler was going to win and he would be subject to the menace of the Third Reich. He had to do something, anything to create a devastating blow to the enemy forces. He decides that he should be a suicide bomber.

People behave strangely in times if crisis. Given that most of us do not live in a crisis most of the time, such behaviour appears irrational and perhaps inhumane. Here's where we must put ourselves into the shoes of others and walk a mile. As circumstances change dramatically, from peaceful to war-torn, from stocked larder to empty, dusty shelves, we begin to sympathize and understand the root cause of their actions. It is deplorable that people use, perhaps even manipulate, others to turn themselves into human bombs. Their motivations are higher. They fight not for a job in an office, they fight for their lives, water, food and freedom. They fight for their religion. On a daily basis no less. These situations are difficult to comprehend outright. Many in developed and developing countries would not last a day in Palestine yet we decry the actions of those with no homes and food for their families, no jobs to earn money from, no room to move. It's a sad, desperate situation. And we all know what desperate times call for.

In the example of the dangerous air force bombing missions, honour was bestowed on those who were successful and those who perished on their missions. The Japanese kamikaze missions had the blessings of their emperor and these pilots knew they would be revered honourably. The case seems similar for suicide bombers. Most Palestinians think that a strike, any strike, against the enemy is a noble deed. Once again, it requires a measure of empathy to agree with their methods.

On TV, we're bombarded with images of death and destruction on an almost daily basis. The guns, bombs anx violence genre does very well at the cinemas too. We hear of destruction and violence on the news all the time. Parents buy their kids toy guns and shhot em up computer games. Our modern lives are inundated with such imagery and savagery. We don't need special wartime circumstances to envision suicide bombers wiping out scores if innocents in a market. Many of us are perfectly desensitized. That's sad too. Does it mean we'd turn into suicide bombers at a moment's thought?Maybe. Perhaps impressionable teens who like vampire movies might perceive this as a chance for immortality. I think there's a need for us to acknowledge the perceptions of reality and fantasy among some of our youth before they start treading on loose ground.

34. Don't Blame Me

Synopsis - Marge, Midge and Mungo are before a judge who must pass sentence over crimes they did, supposedly on the advice of others. Who then is to blame?

Who calls himself 'Mungo'?

Our lives start out absorbing the wisdom if others. Kids listen to parents and guardians, and learn that pots on stoves are usually hot and best left alone, playing in the rain can make one sick and a hosts of other life lessons. Unfortunately superstitions, bias and other quirks are equally handed down. Imagine if your parents told you to hurt cats because they are the spawn of the devil. Such advice, adequately drilled, would be detrimental to both child and nearby cats.

So givers should bear some responsibility over the actions of the recipient where applicable. And the 'where applicable' is a very important part of the argument. In today's context, the 'did you get it in writing?' or 'in black' circumstance makes for awesome finger pointing (the fleeting spoken word is never enough). Legally there's some measure of importance if advice is transmitted on paper. Perhaps also culpability of any crime as an outcome of the advice is also better assigned if the source of advice, and the advice proper, are known on paper. Always read the caveats though. Many who sue for losses from professional advice often miss out of waivers of culpability in little fine print at the bottom if the page.

We can't run away from seeking advice from professionals. How society defines professionals is a related debate. Doctors, lawyers, engineers and those with a piece of paper acknowledging their talent/skill are certifiably responsible for the advice they give. Astrologers, palm readers and psychics on the other hand can get away with everything but blaming it on the stars. Societies like Hong Kong and India put a lot of trust in feng shui masters and astrologers, and many seemingly absurd things are done on their advice. When absurd becomes criminal, the legal systems have to manage this situation with open minds on tiny paths. Blame is very hard to pin on such persons.

The judge in this story sought advice from his peers, other judges who serve to apply logic, reason and compassion to criminal adjudications. We presume their professional capabilities in this field. Their advice is usually right.

33. The Free Speech Booth

Synopsis - The People's Republic has announced that its citizens could now say whatever they wanted, even if it was hurtful to the government, as part of a policy of allowing free speech. The only caveat is that these words must only be spoken in free speech booths, closed off from the rest of society. Now is that really free speech?

People want to heard. There's some point in being able to say whatever whenever but who's listening? As the author has pointed out, there are consequences to words said. Some good, some bad but always reacted to. The free speech booth is a mere empty capsule with no audience (though I suspect any government that's critical of any dissent probably bugged each scream portal). Yes it could be therapeutic to enter a booth and scream some innanity. In the end, who'd care except the person who tried the contraption out. No audience, no effect.

But let's try this. What if many people gathered about these free speech booths, patiently waited for their turn among thousands to go hurl an obscenity to the powers that be (albeit to themselves and categorically only themselves), and came out refreshed to have coffee with waiting, satisfied comrades? Would that strike fear among the People's Republic? A silent meeting of critical thinkers.

In Singapore, there is a Speaker's Corner which is hardly utilized. It's a sizeable green space where one can talk freely within terms if course. Registration of intent is required prior. An audience is never guaranteed - one probably has to bring one's own. Not exactly a platform for free speech in a country ranked very low for press freedom but an attempt that unintentionally mimics the free speech booth and perhaps it's associated charms? No one even uses Speaker's Corner to tell stories.

Should there be limits to free speech? Odd question to ask. What is free speech with limits? Not free at all. But we should be wary of the consequences. The author has provided examples of how words could eventually cause hurt. Fire! Fire!

Perhaps we are more concerned about the individual consequences of free speech, libel and such. Some governments will lock you up and throw away the key if you talk too much. I 'd bet the People's Republic would.