Samuel Robles

FSU / PHY2010

Final paper

Professor B. Murphy

July 26th, 2024

What separates human beings from computers and animals?

In exploring the question of what separates humans from computers and animals, we

tackle consciousness, cognition, and morality. Throughout this semester we have viewed topics

ranging from the soul and integrity to whether computers or other animals think and are able to

process information the way that we humans are able to. This exploration has gained renewed

relevance with the advent of advanced artificial intelligence, prompting critical questions about

what truly separates human cognition from that of machines and other sentient beings. As we

delve deeper into this topic, it becomes evident that the unique combination of consciousness,

emotional depth, and moral integrity defines human experience. Unlike computers that operate

on algorithms and predetermined responses, humans navigate the complexities of life through a

nuanced understanding of emotions, ethics, and social dynamics. This is especially crucial in

areas like emotional intelligence and moral reasoning. Humans have a level of introspection and

empathy that allows us to establish and follow complex moral rules, whereas machines work

within the constraints of their programming, lacking true understanding or empathy. Animals are

capable of sophisticated social actions and emotional responses, but they do not participate in

moral thinking in the same manner that people do. By analyzing this, I hope to shed light on

what makes human experience so distinctive and rich, revealing the limitations of artificial
intelligence as well as the distinct characteristics that separate human and animal cognition. This

examination will also address how these distinctions affect future AI breakthroughs as well as

our understanding of consciousness and morality.

Turing stated in his paper titled "Computing Machinery and Intelligence” that machines

could some day be able to think, with the help of the best sensory organs that money can buy. I

believe that even if we gave a computer these organs, how could we be sure that it is thinking?

How would we even connect the organs to the computer’s mainframe. Many have criticized

Turing’s paper and thoughts on whether computers are able to think and if Turing’s test

accurately measures whether a computer thinks. For some background Turing’s test consists of a

computer and a human being asked questions to determine which is human. In the 1950s the

interrogator would be placed behind two printers; one is connected to a terminal used by a

human and the other is connected to a digital computer. Both human and machine cannot be seen

by the interrogator, in order to know which printer belongs to who the interrogator must type

questions to each one. Turing predicts that by the year 2000 machines would be able to pass the

test with a 30% chance of deceiving an interrogator, which means that the interrogator would

make a mistake at distinguishing a human from a machine. Turing’s views have been debated, in

class we looked at John R. Searle who stated that computers only have syntax but no semantics,

and that we shouldn’t just think that because a computer simulates thinking it means it can think.

Davidson also points out that Turing’s test is not sufficient enough to show that computers think.

He argues that to really know whether computers think we should create a computer which has a

physical appearance similar to a human and that the computer only thinks when it’s thinking can

be understood by a human being. I pointed out that just because a computer resembles a human

physically and mimics human language does not necessarily possess genuine thought or
understanding. Generative AI, for instance, can process and generate language effectively but

lacks true comprehension and emotional understanding. Moreover, emotional understanding or

simulating emotional understanding doesn’t mean that a computer is able of thinking, as

simulated emotion which was what I argued is not sufficient enough to show that a machine

understands feelings and shows real emotion.

One key distinction is the depth of consciousness and self-awareness that humans have

compared to computers/generative AI. Thinking and decision-making are functions that animals

have; we know that from observing how certain animals behave. Our brains absorb and store

information from our surroundings, processing it even when not actively required. This

continuous learning and absorbing information give us humans the tools necessary to make

decisions. We humans make decisions based on our own experiences and emotions at that point

in time, we can call this our integrity, our own sense of moral code. Other animals, while not as

complex as humans are able to make decisions based on past experiences, the social structure of

the community if said animals is a part of a community. Computers in turn have no experiences

or emotions to base their opinion on, they have no knowledge that would help them decide

between something. Computers perform tasks based on what is already programmed into them,

when we ask generative ai to make a decision, each time it is given the option to choose it will

choose a different option. Computers choose at random; they are not able to choose because they

have no experience to draw from in order to decide. Generative AI at this point int time just isn’t

capable of replicating this continuous process. Humans and some animals possess a unique

emotional complexity and a concept of integrity that influences their actions and decisions. As

mentioned before integrity means following and adhering to one’s own code, this ensures

consistency between actions and the beliefs that the person/animal has. The logical capabilities
of computers are different. Machines are designed to emulate certain cognitive processes but fall

short in emotional depth and spontaneity, both of which humans poses. While they can perform

specific tasks efficiently and generate responses based on data patterns, they lack the broader

cognitive capabilities and adaptive problem-solving skills that characterize human intelligence.

They lack spontaneity, as they can’t provide an answer or say a comment without a prompt. The

physical aspects of humans contribute to our unique experiences, which machines, although they

can maybe simulate, don’t mean that they can replicate. Machines also have problems with

communication. Humans use a range of methods, including language, gestures, and body

language, to convey meaning and connect with others. This helps us form relationships and

cooperate with more ease. Adding to this, it not only involves transmitting information but also

expressing emotions and intentions. Computers, despite their ability to generate programmed

responses thanks to prompts, cannot match human communication.

Furthermore, intuition plays an important role in human decision making. Humans

can rely on intuitive insights and instincts, which draw on subconscious knowledge and

experiences. However, computers lack this intuitive ability and make conclusions based on

predetermined algorithms and data patterns. This lack of intuition highlights the present AI

systems' shortcomings in recreating the way humans think and decision-making process. In

contrast, computers and AI systems fundamentally lack this intuitive ability. They are designed to

process information based on predetermined algorithms and data patterns, which, while

powerful, are inherently limited to the scope of their programming and the data they have been

exposed to. AI can analyze vast amounts of data, identify patterns, and make predictions with

impressive accuracy, but it does so without the nuanced, context-sensitive understanding that

human intuition provides. This reliance on rigid algorithms means that AI systems often struggle
with tasks that require a deep understanding of context, subtlety, and the emotional

underpinnings of human interactions.

Let’s take for example a scenario where a human therapist and a computer/AI therapist

are both tasked with responding to a patient who has just shared a personal and sad/frustrating

story that happened recently. First the human therapist with their knowledge and understanding

of human emotions, would be able to approach the situation with empathy and sensitivity. In this

way acknowledging the patient’s feelings and providing comfort to the individual. The human

therapist may use a combination of soft and nuanced language, and body language including

facial expressions to convey to the individual their genuine concern, empathy and support

towards them.

In contrast by asking for example ChatGPT to come up with a response to this

predicament it might respond with “I’m sorry to hear about your situation. Based on the

information provided, it seems you are experiencing a challenging time. Here are some general

tips on coping with grief.” While this response works within the context and is in some way

polite, it lacks that emotional understanding and empathetic connection that the human therapist

offers. The bot’s inability to genuinely understand or experience emotions results in a more

mechanical and less personalized response.

This distinction extends beyond individual interactions to the broader societal constructs

that humans create. Our capacity for empathy and understanding shapes the development of laws

that guide conduct, providing a structured framework for order and fairness within society. These

legal codes are intricate, constantly evolving systems that reflect our ethical and moral ideals.

They take care of individuals and ensure that behaviors like infanticide and cannibalism, which

are still common in the animal realm, are penalized and discouraged in human society. Male
dolphins have been observed to take advantage of female dolphins, they are also known to get

sexually aggressive towards human divers. Additionally, male dolphins kill babies of their own

species in order to mate with their mothers. Chimpanzees have also been observed to kill and

partially eat babies of other chimps who are strangers to them (Goodall, 1977). These behaviors,

driven by instinct and survival mechanisms, lack the moral and ethical considerations that

humans are capable of. The ability to develop and enforce laws reflects our moral judgment and

accountability.

In my second paper regarding whether integrity can be interpreted as the modern

equivalent of the soul I stated that it couldn’t be regarded as such. This is due to the definition of

integrity, as by defining integrity as adhering to one’s own rules and code there is nothing

stopping us from following a twisted moral code. I used as an example Josef Mengele who

committed atrocities during WW2. Mengele was a nazi scientist who performed horrific

experiments on people he considered less than him. What drives a person to form these twisted

moral codes? For Mengele he used the racial divide created or more evident during the Nazi

regime to conduct experiments specifically on Jews and gypsies. He viewed himself as a

biological revolutionary, he believed that the German race had to be cured, perfected and

improved. Actions performed by humans are driven by a combination of ideological beliefs,

social context, personal ambitions, and psychological factors. All of this leads to the formation of

either a noble moral code or a twisted moral code. Computers, on the other hand, operate based

on pre-programed algorithms, and data. They don’t have ambitions, psychological dispositions or

the possibility to be influenced by social, ideological, or cultural context. Humans have the

capability to see the horror of what a person like Mengele did, they are capable of moral

judgement and can be held accountable for their actions. Other animals, while they do exhibit
social behaviors, their moral reasoning is limited to learned or instinctual behaviors, or for fear

of punishment as is the case with chimpanzees as pointed out by Jelle de Boer. De Boer argues

that just because an animal is social and cooperates with other members of its own species

doesn’t mean that that animal is a moral agent. For an animal to be considered a moral agent, it

must demonstrate an understanding of its actions within a moral framework. He emphasizes that

chimps for instance, are not merely cooperating for personal gain but because they understand

the social consequences of their actions. They understand that if after a successful hunt they

don’t share the prey they will be punished by the rest of the community. Chimpanzees are also

known to be empathetic as De Boer mentioned in his paper, that chimps help each other and

adjust their behavior based on the context of the situation.

In contrast with this, cheetahs which function solely on instinct and for practical

purposes, show no signs of moral agency. Their actions, such as playing with and then killing a

baby gazelle, reflect survival instincts rather than moral reasoning. Highly social animals, such

as wolves and elephants, exhibit more sophisticated behaviors which indicate a higher level of

ethical thinking. Wolves, for example, demonstrate empathy, cooperation, and grieving behavior,

showing a moral framework within the community they belong to. Elephants exhibit empathy

and participate in mourning rituals when they lose a member of their community, demonstrating

their social and emotional complexity. While these animals show this deep level of emotional

cooperation, and empathy between each other, I don’t believe they truly understand the moral

agency that humans have shown. Moreover, the scope and depth of human moral agency extend

far beyond the behaviors observed in even the most socially advanced animals. Humans possess

the ability to reflect on their actions, deliberate on ethical dilemmas, and make decisions based

on abstract principles of right and wrong. This capacity for moral reasoning is deeply intertwined
with our cultural, philosophical, and religious traditions, which provide a complex framework for

understanding justice, fairness, and ethical conduct. In addition, the human capacity for moral

growth and learning is unparalleled. We can recognize past mistakes, learn from them, and strive

to improve our moral standards over time. Historical movements for civil rights, gender equality,

and social justice illustrate our ability to progress ethically and extend moral consideration to

previously marginalized groups. This ongoing moral evolution highlights the dynamic and self-

reflective nature of human moral agency, setting it apart from the relatively static ethical

behaviors observed in the animal kingdom. Humanitarian efforts, animal rights advocacy, and

environmental conservation reflect a level of ethical concern that transcends immediate survival

or social cohesion.

Moreover, humans possess greater control over ourselves, other animals might just act on

instinct as philosopher Walter Sinnott Amstrong mentioned in an interview (Closer To Truth,

2023). This greater control and flexibility to adapt to other environments, allows us to perceive

this as free will and moral understanding. This flexibility and control allow us to make better

decisions in situations that might make an animal act directly on thinking instead of really

thinking through the context of the situation. Moral reasoning is a significant aspect of human

behavior, as we often consider other ethical implications, other animals don’t engage in this form

of moral thinking. Other animals show cooperative behavior such as the hunting technique that

wolves use, language such as the way that chimps communicate with body language and audible

howling, culture such as the rituals that elephants perform when mourning the loss of a member,

consciousness which some animals do have, as one way to test this is with the mirror test which

involves having an animal look at a mirror, then placing a mark somewhere on the animal’s body

and that if the animal touches the mark when looking in the mirror, this must mean that the
animal is aware of himself. Animals also show tool use although not as advanced as us humans. I

believe what separates us humans from other animals is that we have all these characteristics. We

humans show consciousness, culture, language, cooperative behavior, tool usage, this

combination of characteristics is what makes us humans and in turn differentiates us from other

animals.

In conclusion, the debate on whether computers can truly think, as envisioned by Alan

Turing, is profound and multifaceted. Turing's vision that machines might one day pass his

famous test, thereby exhibiting a form of thinking, remains a topic of debate. While Turing

proposed that a computer could potentially deceive an interrogator into mistaking it for a human,

this assertion raises fundamental questions about the nature of thought and understanding, it

raises the question of whether a computer can think.

Critics such as John R. Searle and Donald Davidson have emphasized limitations in

Turing's approach. Searle’s distinction between syntax and semantics underscores the gap

between mere data processing and genuine understanding. Davidson's suggestion that a computer

needs a human-like physical presence to demonstrate true thinking further complicates the issue.

However, even these suggestions do not fully address the core challenge: can machines truly

possess the depth of thought and emotional understanding that characterizes human cognition?

The advancement of generative AI technology underscores the current limitations within

the field. While capable of processing and generating human-like responses, AI lacks the

emotional depth and intuitive insights essential for human decision-making. The disparity

between a human therapist's empathetic response and a computer's formulaic reply highlights the

inherent gap in emotional comprehension and authentic interaction.

sophisticated blend of integrity, ethical reasoning, and cultural context—qualities deeply

entrenched in human consciousness and experience. In contrast to humans’ capacity to form

intricate moral judgments and comprehend the consequences of their actions, computers function

based on pre-programmed algorithms and data patterns. The absence of personal experience and

emotional depth serves to emphasize why, despite their advanced capabilities, computers cannot

faithfully replicate the breadth of human thought and moral reasoning.

The comparison with animal behavior reveals that while some animals display

sophisticated social and empathetic behaviors, they do not possess the same moral agency or

reflective thought as humans. Human decision-making is shaped by a rich tapestry of

experiences, emotions, and ethical considerations, which goes beyond the instinctual and learned

behaviors observed in animals.

Ultimately, while machines can simulate certain aspects of human behavior, they fall

short of replicating the true essence of human thought. This understanding reinforces the view

that genuine thinking, characterized by self-awareness and emotional engagement, remains a

uniquely human attribute.

Closer To Truth. (2023, January 2). Walter Sinnott-Armstrong - How humans differ from

other animals [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQNljUBjq3I

de Boer J. (2011). Moral ape philosophy. Biology & philosophy, 26(6), 891–904.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-011-9283-1

Goodall J. (1977). Infant killing and cannibalism in free-living chimpanzees. Folia

primatologica; international journal of primatology, 28(4), 259–289.

https://doi.org/10.1159/000155817