This statement actually consists of a series of three related claims: (1) machines are tools
of human minds; (2) human minds will always be superior to machines; and (3) it is because
machines are human tools that human minds will always be superior to machines. While I concede
the first claim, whether I agree with the other two claims depends partly on how one defines
"superiority," and partly on how willing one is to humble oneself to the unknown future
scenarios.
The statement is clearly accurate insofar as machines are tools of human minds. After all,
would any machine even exist unless a human being invented it? Of course not. Moreover, I would
be hard-pressed to think of any machine that cannot be described as a tool. Even machines
designed to entertain or amuse us--for example, toy robots, cars and video games, and novelty
items--are in fact tools, which their inventors and promoters use for engaging in commerce and
the business of entertainment and amusement. And, the claim that a machine can be an end in
itself, without purpose or utilitarian function for humans whatsoever, is dubious at best, since
I cannot conjure up even a single example of any such machine. Thus when we develop any sort of
machine we always have some sort of end in mind a purpose for that machine.
As for the statement's second claim, in certain respects machines are superior. We have devised
machines that perform number-crunching and other rote cerebral tasks with greater accuracy and
speed than human minds ever could. In fact, it is because we can devise machines that are
superior
in these respects that we devise them--as our tools--to begin with. However, if one defines
superiority not in terms of competence in per-forming rote tasks but rather in other ways,
human minds are superior. Machines have no capacity for independent thought, for making
judgments based on normative considerations, or for developing emotional responses to
intellectual
problems.
Up until now, the notion of human-made machines that develop the ability to think on
their own, and to develop so-called "emotional intelligence," has been pure fiction. Besides,
even in fiction we humans ultimately prevail over such machines--as in the cases of
Frankenstein's monster and Hal, the computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Yet it seems
presumptuous to assert with confidence that humans will always maintain their superior status
over their machines. Recent advances in biotechnology, particularly in the area of human
genome research, suggest that within the 21st Century we'll witness machines that can learn
to think on their own, to repair and nurture themselves, to experience visceral sensations,
and so forth. In other words, machines will soon exhibit the traits to which we humans attribute
our own superiority.
In sum, because we devise machines in order that they may serve us, it is fair to characterize
machines as "tools of human minds." And insofar as humans have the unique capacity for
independent thought, subjective judgment, and emotional response, it also seems fair to claim
superiority over our machines. Besides, should we ever become so clever a species as to devise
machines that can truly think for themselves and look out for their own well-being, then query
whether these machines of the future would be "machines'' anymore.