Shorts: In Time I kept staring at her face in utter confusion as the Deja Vu kept growing stronger with each passing moment. I couldn't bring myself to believe that my memory was failing me. It was the one thing I had always counted on. But there I was, analysing all the features of her face unable to place them in my memory. When? Where? Really? My processors were running at full 60 bits per second to find something. A face. A name. A place. Nothing. All search results came negative one after another. As I was reluctant to consider the possibility of dementia, I gave in to false alarm. Why? It's true that faces aren't unique and the brain is fine tuned to identify faces, but this case was unique. There's no way I could've forgotten a face like that. This case was probably the first one which shattered my confidence in my brain. After all, it's just another organ, bound to fail at some point. Is this all there is to it? For all my consciousness, introspection and imagination, I am limited by protoplasm? In this respect, spirituality seems like a cowardly attempt to feed the ego. Or is it? Perhaps this approach is nihilistic and hence not, unbiased. But again, is there such a thing as an unbiased approach? Why is it that an adult is much more unlikely to open up to a stranger than a child? Bias? Ego? Perhaps both. So, does this make an ignorant child right and an experienced adult wrong? (Notice how the phrasing of the question biases you) So, bias isn't wrong. Therefore, there cannot be anyone who's absolutely unbiased. So then, how to judge a situation in an unbiased manner? Well, you can't. Not unless you're unaware of both sides and are equally likely to be biased towards either. But with experience, you will become biased and hence are more likely to rule in one's favour. So, can we conclude that absolute justice is impossible because, logically, absolute unbiased approach is impossible? In my opinion, it really boils down to what you see justice as. Is the execution of a serial murderer justice? If you ask that question today, almost everyone will say yes, directly or indirectly. But who are you to say that 500 years down the line, the opinions won't change? Because after all, that's what justice is. Opinion of majority. If history has shown us anything, it's that justice has never had a static definition. There was a time when punishing a son to atone for Father's sins was considered justice. Most people (hopefully) would be horrified at that suggestion today. And yet, the bias still exists. Would you let your child marry a person who's father is an infamous criminal? Is the child responsible? Maybe not. Is he/she affected? Definitely. But in what way? Does the child realises the immoral actions of the Father and condone criminal activity? Or does he/she see it as the right thing to do? In an ideal situation, the likelihood of either situation is equal. But what about the former question? What's the likelihood of society viewing the said child in an unbiased manner, that is, based upon his/her own actions rather than pedigree? So, is bias a by product of human emotions, or is it logical outcome of an adaptive intelligence gaining experience. Although the former tends to be the simpler answer, the latter is closer to the truth. We already have adaptive Artificial Intelligence which quickly learn the preferences of their users and tweak themselves to cater to that. Extrapolating along these lines, if we ever have autonomous robots serving humanity in future, will they be biased? Imagine a person walking with his personal robot and getting attacked by crooks in a street. Will the robot be biased and save the life of his user, or will it adhere to the three laws and do nothing? One might argue that it's dependent upon the programming, but for a moment, let's assume that it's artificial intelligence. That the only thing encoded in the robot are the three laws. So, we basically have an intelligence without emotions. But, does bias exist in the robot? Personally, I cannot answer that question. But it would be a great insight into what emotions actually are. Assuming this robot is biased and saves his user's life, where does the bias stop? Does it grow into 'feelings' of protectiveness? Isn't that an aspect of what humans refer to as 'love'? At what point does the robot become human? Questions are many and answers are but speculations. I realised she was looking back at me. I couldn't read any signs of recognition. But again, I'm easily forgettable and not too good at reading emotions on other people. It's funny how people always seem to lack the one thing they need the most. Or its probably because they lack it that they need it the most. In either case, what I lack is time. With each passing moment, I march closer to my end. A thump in the chest every 0.6 seconds is nothing more than a continuous reminder of my inevitable doom. Perhaps I'm being cynical and, to quote a friend of mine, 'criticising the emptiness of the glass rather than appreciating what's in it'. Maybe it is so. But I can hardly help it. For every action has a cost. A cost one must somehow pay. Many times, one must even pay for an action they didn't want to do, but did anyway. For every path is like a runaway. There is only so far you can go and then you reach the point of no return. The flight must take off. Most are calm and uneventful. Some are turbulent. Some crash and rare ones survive. Sometimes, the fate of the flight is hardly in ones control. But the outcome can be affected by will of the pilot. I turned my gaze away from her. Any further efforts would be futile. If I hadn't seen her face before, I certainly wouldn't forget it now. It was etched permanently beside hundreds of others. Perhaps one day, I will get what I crave for and what the majority of population craves for. Perhaps, one day, I won't be out of time.
Jump to content
