I haven’t read about how a face recognition system works, but I can take what I know about computers and guess that it scans a picture and records areas where certain pixels are a different shade from adjacent pixels and records those areas of changes, which can be called “contours”. It stores the locations of contours in a list of numbers which can be called a “table”. The part of the machine which is turning pictures into tables sends that data to another part which compares that table with other tables in a database. Each comparison produces a number, representing how well one table matches another. If the comparison is higher than a certain setting, the system indicates a match.
At no point in that process was there an entity which recognized a face. Just contours, represented as numbers, compared to other numbers. To this system I can attach an arm, which, like a plant turning towards the sun, turns in the direction of a certain face. If I put a gun at the end of that arm, I will have invented a terminator. This terminator could walk around, looking for a certain target, and kill that target upon finding it.
And at no point will the terminator have any idea what it’s doing. In fact, I can put a camera at the end of that arm instead of a gun, and suddenly a machine which seemed to be aggressive to my target, now seems to be enamored by it. But of course, the machine doesn’t love, hate, or even know the target.
I can give my terminator sensors which indicate a low battery. These sensors can trigger an override circuit so that the terminator stops looking for a target and instead starts looking for a power outlet. It doesn’t feel hunger; there’s nobody there to feel it.
You get the idea. It’s conceivable that an extraordinarily complex system can act like something with motivation without actually having motivation. A plant turns towards the sun because light effects cells on the plant’s stem and the difference between exposed areas and unexposed areas cause the stem to bend. If a system can operate without motivation, why are we here inside our bodies? It’s conceivable that our bodies can do fine without us.
Thus, various philosophers have denied the idea of a “self”. Gilbert Ryle famously denied the existence of a “ghost in the machine” necessary to make the machine work (I know, I thought Sting came up with the phrase too). Living Issues in Philosophy, the textbook that I’m using, also describes the Buddha as a self-denier ( If you didn’t read the previous post you might think, based on my wonderful writing, that I’m a philosophical genius. But in fact I’m just a student).
According to the book, both Ryle and the Buddha make similes comparing the self as different systems coming together to form the illusion of a single entity. Ryle described a student who, after touring the buildings and facilities of a university campus, wondered where the actual university was. The Buddha described a chariot as collection of wheels, axles, a cab, etc… there is no chariot, just parts.
But, even if my individual self is just an illusion created from different parts, that illusion is still something which exists. Descartes would agree. And if there is no such illusion inside my terminator, why is there such an illusion inside of me? That, I believe is the fundamental question of who we are.