Read an Excerpt
On February 10, 1996, humanity suffered a debilitating stroke, when a machine defeated the reigning world chess champion for the first time. Garry Kasparov was shaken up after losing the first game of a six-game match with the IBM supercomputer Deep Blue. However, he recovered sufficiently to win the match, putting machines back in their place. But not for long. The following year humanity died, when Deep Blue defeated Kasparov, who was able to win only one game out of six, while the machine won two. Many commentators drew the seemingly obvious conclusion: The human mind is nothing more than a complex machine, and now we can make machines capable of doing just about anything that we can do.
On the other hand, perhapsas Mark Twain quipped when told about widely-circulating rumors about his own deaththe demise of humanity has been greatly exaggerated. The machine that beat Kasparov by analyzing millions of chess moves per second was the product of human intelligence. Rather than demoting or burying humanity, it could be seen as the triumph of human ingenuity. It took the collaboration of many people, including computer experts and chess mastersnot to mention the millions of innovations preceding itto design and program Deep Blue. Rather than a death blow to humanity, its ability to play brilliant chess is a tribute to humanity. It demonstrates the power and creativity of human intelligence. Also Deep Blue was designed for a purpose; it was not a mindless, purposeless accident.
The notion that humans are just sophisticated, complex machines is by no means new. We can trace the basic idea back at least to the ancient Greeks. However, in modern times it received considerable impetus from two seventeenth-century rationalist philosophers: René Descartes and Baruch Spinoza. Descartes provided a mechanistic explanation for all physical phenomena, including the anatomy and physiology of animals and humans. However, he remained staunchly committed to body-soul dualism, so he refused to apply this mechanistic view to the human mind. Not all of his followers were so restrained. Indeed, Spinoza, though adopting Descartes’ rationalistic method of gaining knowledge, abandoned body-soul dualism, insisting on the unity of the physical and mental. Spinoza rejected the notion that humans have free will, because he believed that even the human mind is completely subject to natural causation. This means that humans would not be independent agents making real decisions. Rather, human behavior is allegedly determined entirely by the concatenation of events preceding an individual’s "decision."