手机是否是你的一部分?

2018-08-06 20:28ByKarinaVold
英语学习 2018年7期
关键词:智能手机大脑思想

By Karina Vold

In November 2017, a gunman entered a church in Sutherland Springs in Texas, where he killed 26 people and wounded 20 others. He escaped in his car, with police and residents in hot pursuit, before losing control of the vehicle and flipping it into a ditch. When the police got to the car, he was dead. The episode is horrifying enough without its unsettling epilogue.1 In the course of their investigations, the FBI reportedly pressed the gunmans finger to the fingerprint-recognition feature on his iPhone in an attempt to unlock it. Regardless of whos affected, its disquieting to think of the police using a corpse to break into someones digital afterlife.

Most democratic constitutions shield us from unwanted intrusions into our brains and bodies. They also enshrine2 our entitlement to freedom of thought and mental privacy. Thats why neurochemical drugs that interfere with cognitive functioning cant be administered against a persons will unless theres a clear medical justification. Similarly, according to scholarly opinion, law-enforcement officials cant compel someone to take a lie-detector test, because that would be an invasion of privacy and a violation of the right to remain silent.

But in the present era of ubiquitous technology, philosophers are beginning to ask whether biological anatomy really captures the entirety of who we are.3 Given the role they play in our lives, do our devices deserve the same protections as our brains and bodies?

After all, your smartphone is much more than just a phone. It can tell a more intimate story about you than your best friend. No other piece of hardware in history, not even your brain, contains the quality or quantity of information held on your phone: it “knows” whom you speak to, when you speak to them, what you said, where you have been, your purchases, photos, biometric4 data, even your notes to yourself—and all this dating back years.

In 2014, the United States Supreme Court used this observation to justify the decision that police must obtain a warrant before rummaging5 through our smartphones. These devices “are now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial6 visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy”, as Chief Justice John Roberts observed in his written opinion.

The Chief Justice probably wasnt making a metaphysical7 point—but the philosophers Andy Clark and David Chalmers were when they argued in “The Extended Mind” (1998) that technology is actually part of us. According to traditional cognitive science, “thinking” is a process of symbol manipulation or neural computation, which gets carried out by the brain. Clark and Chalmers broadly accept this computational theory of mind, but claim that tools can become seamlessly8 integrated into how we think. Objects such as smartphones or notepads are often just as functionally essential to our cognition as the synapses9 firing in our heads. They augment10 and extend our minds by increasing our cognitive power and freeing up internal resources.

If accepted, the extended mind thesis threatens widespread cultural assumptions about the inviolate11 nature of thought, which sits at the heart of most legal and social norms. As the US Supreme Court declared in 1942: “freedom to think is absolute of its own nature; the most tyrannical12 government is powerless to control the inward workings of the mind.” This view has its origins in thinkers such as John Locke and René Descartes,13 who argued that the human soul is locked in a physical body, but that our thoughts exist in an immaterial world, inaccessible to other people. Ones inner life thus needs protecting only when it is externalised, such as through speech. Many researchers in cognitive science still cling to this Cartesian14 conception—only, now, the private realm of thought coincides with activity in the brain.

But todays legal institutions are straining15 against this narrow concept of the mind. They are trying to come to grips with how technology is changing what it means to be human, and to devise new normative16 boundaries to cope with this reality. Justice Roberts might not have known about the idea of the extended mind, but it supports his wry17 observation that smartphones have become part of our body. If our minds now encompass our phones, we are essentially cyborgs18: part-biology, part-technology. Given how our smartphones have taken over what were once functions of our brains—remembering dates, phone numbers, addresses—perhaps the data they contain should be treated on a par with19 the information we hold in our heads. So if the law aims to protect mental privacy, its boundaries would need to be pushed outwards to give our cyborg anatomy the same protections as our brains.

This line of reasoning leads to some potentially radical conclusions. Some philosophers have argued that when we die, our digital devices should be handled as remains: if your smartphone is a part of who you are, then perhaps it should be treated more like your corpse than your couch. Similarly, one might argue that trashing someones smartphone should be seen as a form of “extended” assault, equivalent to a blow to the head, rather than just destruction of property. If your memories are erased because someone attacks you with a club, a court would have no trouble characterising the episode as a violent incident. So if someone breaks your smartphone and wipes its contents, perhaps the perpetrator20 should be punished as they would be if they had caused a head trauma.

The extended mind thesis also challenges the laws role in protecting both the content and the means of thought—that is, shielding what and how we think from undue influence. Regulation bars non-consensual interference in our neurochemistry (for example, through drugs), because that meddles with the contents of our mind.21 But if cognition encompasses devices, then arguably they should be subject to the same prohibitions. Perhaps some of the techniques that advertisers use to hijack our attention online, to nudge22 our decision-making or manipulate search results, should count as intrusions on our cognitive process. Similarly, in areas where the law protects the means of thought, it might need to guarantee access to tools such as smartphones—in the same way that freedom of expression protects peoples right not only to write or speak, but also to use computers and disseminate23 speech over the internet.

The courts are still some way from arriving at such decisions. Besides the headline-making cases of mass shooters, there are thousands of instances each year in which police authorities try to get access to encrypted24 devices. Although the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution protects individuals right to remain silent(and therefore not give up a passcode), judges in several states have ruled that police can forcibly use fingerprints to unlock a users phone. (With the new facial-recognition feature on the iPhone X, police might only need to get an unwitting25 user to look at her phone.) These decisions reflect the traditional concept that the rights and freedoms of an individual end at the skin.

But the concept of personal rights and freedoms that guides our legal institutions is outdated. It is built on a model of a free individual who enjoys an untouchable inner life. Now, though, our thoughts can be invaded before they have even been developed—and in a way, perhaps this is nothing new. The Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman26 used to say that he thought with his notebook. Without a pen and pencil, a great deal of complex reflection and analysis would never have been possible. If the extended mind view is right, then even simple technologies such as these would merit recognition and protection as a part of the essential toolkit of the mind.

2017年11月,一名槍手闯入得克萨斯州萨瑟兰泉的一座教堂,造成26人死亡,20人受伤。他驾车逃离,警察和居民紧追不舍,结果汽车失控翻入沟中。警方赶到之时,枪手已经死亡。即使没有最后那个令人不安的结果,这个事件也已经足够可怕了。据报道,在调查过程中,FBI把枪手的手指按在他iPhone指纹识别的位置上试图解锁手机。且不论谁会受到影响,光是想到警察用尸体侵入某人死后的数码生命,就难免令人感到不安。

大多数民主宪法保护我们的大脑和身体不受侵犯。这些宪法也保障我们的思想自由和精神隐私神圣不可侵犯。这也就是为什么干扰认知功能的神经化学药物不能在违背当事人意志的情况下使用,除非有明确的医学理由。同样,根据学者的意见,执法人员不能强迫某人测谎,因为这会侵犯隐私权和保持沉默的权利。

但在这个技术无处不在的时代,哲学家们开始质疑生物解剖是否真能完整地捕捉到我们是谁。鉴于手机设备在我们生活中扮演的角色,我们的手机设备是否应该得到与我们的大脑和身体同等的保护?

毕竟,你的智能手机不仅仅是一部手机。它比你最好的朋友还了解更私密的那个你。历史上还没有哪种硬件,甚至包括你的大脑,能像手机那样包含如此质量或数量的信息:手机知道你和谁说话,何时说话,说了什么,去过哪里,你的购买记录、照片、生物识别数据,甚至是你写给自己的备忘录——而且还是过去数年来的所有这些信息。

2014年,美国最高法院利用这一观察来证明其决定警方必须取得搜查令才能搜查智能手机是合理的。正如首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨在他的书面意见中所说,这些设备“现在成了日常生活中如此无处不在、如影随形的一部分,以至于人们常说的火星来客可能会认为手机是人体解剖结构的重要特征。”

首席大法官可能并不是在提出一个形而上的观点——但當哲学家安迪·克拉克和戴维·查尔莫斯在1998年发表的《延伸的思想》中提出技术实际上是我们的一部分时,他们就是在提出一个形而上的观点。根据传统的认知科学,“思考”是一个由大脑执行的符号操作或神经计算过程。克拉克和查尔莫斯大体上接受这种思想的计算理论,但他们认为工具可以无缝接入到我们的思维方式中。智能手机或笔记本等物品通常与我们大脑中的突触一样,在功能上对我们的认知至关重要。它们通过增加我们的认知能力和释放内部资源来提升和扩展我们的思想。

如果被接受,那么“延伸的思想”这一论点会威胁到关于思想的不可侵犯性的广泛文化假设,而思想的不可侵犯性是大多数法律和社会规范的核心。正如美国最高法院在1942年宣称的:“思考的自由从本质上来说是绝对的;最专横的政府也无法控制思想的内在运作。”这种观点起源于约翰·洛克和勒内·笛卡尔等思想家,他们认为人的灵魂锁在肉体中,但我们的思想存在于一个非物质的世界,其他人无法进入。因此,人的内心生活只有在被外在化时,比如通过言语,才需要保护。许多认知科学的研究人员仍然坚持这种笛卡尔式的观念——只有,现在,思想的私人领域与大脑中的活动同时发生。

但是今天的法律制度正在全力反对这种狭隘的有关思想的理念。它们试图去理解技术如何改变了“何为人类”,并制定出新的规范界限来应对这一现实。罗伯茨大法官可能并不知道“延伸的思想”这一理念,但这一理念支持了他那听起来像是嘲讽的意见,即智能手机已经成为我们身体的一部分。如果我们的思想现在包含了我们的手机,那么我们本质上就是半机械人:部分是生物,部分是技术。考虑到我们的智能手机如何接管了我们的大脑曾经的功能——记住日期、电话号码、地址——或许手机中所包含的数据应该与我们大脑掌握的信息得到同等对待。因此,如果法律旨在保护精神隐私,其边界则需向外延伸,从而给予我们的半机械体解剖结构和大脑同等的保护。

这种推理方法导致了一些潜在的极端结论。一些哲学家认为,我们死后,我们的数字设备应该作为遗骸处理:如果你的智能手机是你的一部分,那么处理你的手机时,或许应该更像是在处理你的遗体而不是你的沙发。同样,有人可能会认为毁坏某人的智能手机应该被看做一种“延伸”的攻击,与击打头部罪责相当,而不仅仅是毁坏财产。如果你的记忆因为有人用棍棒袭击你而消失,那么法庭毫无疑问会将这一事件认定为暴力事件。因此,如果有人弄坏了你的智能手机并且清空了里面的内容,那么这个罪犯应该得到与造成头部创伤的罪犯同等的惩处。

“延伸的思想”这一论点也挑战了法律在保护思想的内容与途径这两大方面的作用——即保护我们“思考什么”和“如何思考”免受不当的影响。法规禁止在非双方同意的情况下干预我们的神经化学(例如,通过药物),因为这会干扰我们思想的内容。但是,如果认知包含手机设备,那么按理说手机设备也同样应该受这些禁令的保护。也许广告客户用来在网上劫持我们的注意力,影响我们的决策或是操纵搜索结果的一些技术也应该算作对我们认知过程的入侵。同样,在法律保护思考途径的领域,或许也需要它对智能手机等工具的获取进行保护——正如言论自由不仅保护人们写作或者说话的权利,也保护其使用计算机和在互联网上传播言论的权利一样。

法院离作出这样的决定还有一段距离。除了上头条的特大枪击案,每年有数千起警察试图搜查加密设备的案例。虽然美国宪法第五修正案保护个人保持沉默的权利(因此可以不说出密码),但有几个州的法官裁定警察可以强行使用指纹解锁用户的手机。(而iPhone X 新推出的面部识别功能使得警察可能只需要让用户在无意识的情况下望向她的手机即可。)这些决定反映了一种传统的观念,即个人的权利和自由止于皮肤。

但是,指导我们法律机构的个人权利与自由的观念已经过时。这一观念得以构建的基本模型是一个内心生活不受外界触及的自由个体。然而,现在,我们的想法甚至在还没形成之前就可能被侵入——而且从某种程度上来说,这也许并不是什么新鲜事。物理学家、诺贝尔奖得主理查德·费曼曾经说过,他用他的笔记本思考。没有钢笔和铅笔,许多复杂的思考和分析就无法实现。如果“延伸的思想”这一观点是正确的,那么即使是这些简单的技术也应该得到认可和保护,成为思想重要的工具包中的一部分。

1. unsettling: 使人不安的;epilogue: 后记,尾声。

2. enshrine: 使……神圣不可侵犯。

3. ubiquitous: 无处不在的;anatomy: 解剖。

4. biometric: 生物统计的。

5. rummage: 翻查。

6. proverbial: 谚语的,众所周知的。

7. metaphysical: 行而上学的。

8. seamlessly: 无缝地。

9. synapse: 突触,是一个神经元的冲动传到另一个神经元或传到另一细胞间的相互接触的结构,是神经元之间在功能上发生聯系的部位,也是信息传递的关键部位。

10. augment: 增大,增加。

11. inviolate: 不受侵犯的。

12. tyrannical: 专横的,专制的。

13. John Lock: 约翰·洛克(1632—1704),英国哲学家。洛克的精神哲学理论通常被视为是现代主义中“本体”以及自我理论的奠基者。洛克是第一个以连续的“意识”来定义自我概念的哲学家,他也提出了心灵是一块“白板”的假设。与笛卡尔或基督教哲学不同的是,洛克认为人生下来是不带有任何记忆和思想的。他也在社会契约理论上作出了重要贡献,主张政府只有在取得被统治者的同意,并且保障人民拥有生命、自由和财产的自然权利时,其统治才有正当性;René Descarte: 勒内·笛卡尔(1596—1650),法国著名的哲学家、数学家、物理学家。他是西方近代哲学奠基人之一。他对现代数学的发展作出了重要的贡献,因将几何坐标体系公式化而被称为“解析几何之父”。他还是西方现代哲学思想的奠基人,是近代唯物论的开拓者且提出了普遍怀疑的主张。他的哲学思想深深影响了之后的几代欧洲人,开拓了欧陆理性主义哲学。

14. Cartesian: // 笛卡尔式的。

15. strain: 尽力,竭力。

16. normative: 规范的。

17. wry: 揶揄的。

18. cyborg: 半人半机器的生物。

19. on a par with: 与……同等。

20. perpetrator: 行凶者。

21. consensual: 经双方同意的;meddle:干涉,插手。

22. nudge: 推动,促使。

23. disseminate: 传播。

24. encrypt: 把……加密。

25. unwitting: 无意的,未觉察的。

26. Richard Feynman: 理查德·菲利普斯·费曼(1918—1988),美籍犹太裔物理学家,加州理工学院物理学教授,1965年诺贝尔物理奖得主。

阅读感评

∷秋叶 评

曾听说在现代空战中,已经粉身碎骨的飞行员还能将敌手置于死地,因为战机被击落前发射的巡航导弹还在空中寻找目标。还听人说,放在停尸间遭遇意外死亡的尸首,居然身上还会有手机铃声响起,让人不寒而栗。这些在过去无法想象的“奇闻逸事”,应该都是这个高科技时代的特别现象。当然,这些大致属于外部影响,而在这个信息智能化的时代,技术手段正将我们带进人机之间由外而内、由表及里、你中有我、我中有你的交叉渗透的崭新过程。

当前的刑侦调查使用的最重要手段是相关人的手机、电脑与监控录像等电子设备。这些设备无处不在,实时记录各种信息,再通过相关的技术手段,形成完整的信息数据链,几乎能还原每一个人的言行举止的轨迹,哪怕是细枝末节,都能展露无遗。如果借用《圣经》传道书上的一句话“There is nothing new under the sun.”(太阳底下无新鲜事)并略加变通的话,我们也许就可以说,数码网络时代没有隐私!(There is nothing private in the digital age!)

其实,在当前这个透明的时代,我们的思想自由和精神隐私已难有保障,更不必谈神圣不可侵犯了。各种媒体与技术手段,在我们对此产生意识之前,早就通过海量数据收集与智能化分析工具,无孔不入并非常强势地侵入了我们的大脑与身体。我们作为个人显然对此无能为力。原文中说,2014年美国最高法院决定“警方必须取得搜查令才能搜查智能手机”。不管在实际执行过程中会打多大的折扣(据美国人自己称,911事件之后,美国政府随时都可以国家安全为由来监听任何私人电话与邮件短信),这个决定算是比较及时地对当前个人无法保全自我隐私的窘境作出了应对,认识到了今天我们的手机就如同传统上我们的住所,绝对应该是个“非请莫入”的城堡(A mans home is his castle),虽然手机这个“digital home”的安全性显然远不如我们用门窗墙壁包围起来的家园。

早在上世纪末,由两位哲学家撰写的《延伸的思想》(“The Extended Mind”, 1998)就预言,鉴于这些新技术在我们生活中扮演的重要角色,工具可以与我们的思想无缝对接,它们应该像我们的大脑与身体那样得到相同的保护。原文作者进而指出,“智能手机已经成为我们身体(毋宁说是大脑)的一部分”,证据是“智能手机接管了我们大脑曾经的功能——记住日期、电话号码、地址……”,甚至认为“我们死后,我们的数字设备应该作为遗骸处理……毁坏某人的智能手机应该被看做一种‘延伸的攻击,与击打头部罪责相当,而不仅仅是毁坏财产”。坦率地讲,这些看法笔者认为太过激进,恐怕会像时装表演秀中的那些极其夸张的服饰,几乎不可能在现实生活中占据一席之地。

智能手机虽然功能日渐强大多样,但它绝难等同于某种“人体器官”,因此对于手机的侵入(包括强行打开的物理性入侵与利用黑客手段的入侵)与侵害(包括砸碎等机械性毁坏与病毒入侵等破坏),在法律上也应该不会像对待施加于我们的人身侵犯与侵害那样一视同仁。原文作者所认为的智能手机接管了大脑功能所负责的那几样,其实充其量是传统上记事本的功能。当然,今日的智能手机的功能远远超过这些,它至少还有更重要的海量信息存储与强大的搜索功能,对大量信息的处理归类与编码转换功能(诸如近几年发展迅猛的智能翻译),以及越来越强大的分析归纳等逻辑思维能力。然而,这些功能再强大,从本质上看数字化机器还仅属于思想的载体,即便同时被赋予了逻辑思维能力,但这些能力还是基于由人类来建构的数据库(database),其“思想”的源泉从根本上还是来自人的努力。其实也难怪,因为人的认知(human cognition)离不开人的情感或感觉(emotion or feeling),离开了情感或感觉,根本就谈不上真正的“智能”,而至少从目前以及可预见的未来看,像智能手机、笔记本电脑这种工具是建构不出这个作为人类标志性的特性的。

猜你喜欢
智能手机大脑思想
智能手机是座矿
思想之光照耀奋进之路
思想与“剑”
艰苦奋斗、勤俭节约的思想永远不能丢
“思想是什么”
假如我是一部智能手机
智能手机如何让我们变得低能
智能手机