"Are We Automata?" by William James (1879)
Questions about whether humans are essentially automata, raised in an 1879 essay by William James, spark renewed debate over free will, consciousness, and how much of our behavior is determined by neural and physical processes. Many commenters argue that modern AI and neuroscience are rediscovering long‑standing philosophical problems, highlighting the value of studying history and the humanities alongside STEM, while others claim philosophy contributes little compared with empirical science. The exchange broadens into whether fields like philosophy, ethics, and history are being unfairly devalued in today’s tech‑driven culture, especially as society confronts complex questions about AI, cognition, and moral responsibility.
Reading and Accessibility Tools
- Multiple comments answer a request to “Kindle‑fy” long web texts.
- Built‑in browser reader modes (Chrome’s simplified view, Firefox, Safari, Edge, iOS reader view) are recommended; they strip clutter and mimic book‑like layouts.
- Some note UI quirks (e.g., losing position when tabbing away, difficulty re‑enabling simplified view).
- Browser extensions that send pages directly to e‑readers are mentioned, but no specific tools are named.
Historical Recurrence of AI / Automata Debates
- Several point out that debates on whether humans are automata, and on consciousness and free will, are not new; the 19th‑century text is cited as evidence.
- Commenters argue modern AI discourse often “reinvents” old philosophical debates without acknowledging prior work.
- Others caution against over‑respecting old arguments, since they predate modern neurobiology, computation, and evolutionary theory; useful mainly to see how they got things wrong.
STEM vs Humanities and “Two Cultures”
- Strong concern that STEM culture has long devalued history, philosophy, and other humanities, leaving AI practitioners unprepared for questions of cognition, ethics, and meaning.
- Some blame prominent science popularizers for publicly disparaging philosophy; others say these critiques are over‑interpreted or not that extreme.
- One side stresses humanities’ role in shaping institutions, democracy, and ethical reasoning; another claims large parts of the humanities are filled with jargon or “mumbo jumbo” and poorly taught.
- There is agreement that humanities pedagogy can be weak, but disagreement on whether this undermines the disciplines themselves.
Value and Status of Philosophy
- One camp: philosophy is foundational, generated the questions and methods that birthed sciences, and remains essential for ethics and epistemology, especially around AI.
- Opposing camp: philosophy contributes little contemporary progress compared with empirical science; many philosophical results are contradictory or irrelevant to most people’s lives.
- Some advocate integrating historical and philosophical context into STEM education to avoid “bad philosophy” and rediscovery of old ideas.
Determinism, Automata, and Free Will
- Several assert we are automata (possibly very sophisticated), with no genuine free will; others stress that subjective experience (“appearing to experience something”) is still real.
- A quantum‑based argument claims that real‑world inputs make brains and machines fundamentally non‑deterministic; responses counter that this yields, at best, non‑deterministic automata, not free will.
- Chaos theory and statistical mechanics are invoked to explain how deterministic or random micro‑effects can still produce predictable macroscopic behavior.
Consciousness, Specialness, and Panpsychism‑Like Ideas
- Some argue that if humans are “just” physical systems, this elevates the rest of the world rather than devalues humans.
- A few entertain views akin to panpsychism (consciousness in inanimate objects or higher‑order systems like forests or societies), with mixed reactions about the ethical implications.
- Others say such questions are meaningless without a precise definition of “consciousness.”
Style and Readability of the 19th‑Century Text
- At least one reader finds the piece nearly unreadable: overly ornate, unclear, and pompous.
- Another replies dismissively, implying the issue is the reader’s taste rather than the prose.
Additional Pointers
- Recommendations include related works on religious experience, pragmatism, and a history of the pragmatist movement, plus an earlier address that the article responds to.