In this blog post, I’d like to examine, through the character of Andrew from ‘The Bicentennial Man’, how control of the sensory system can influence human identity and the self.
Andrew, the protagonist of the movie ‘The Bicentennial Man’, was originally designed to possess only the senses necessary for a robot. However, through his own efforts, he came to possess senses similar to those of a human. He expanded the scope of his senses from a very limited set—such as sight and hearing, which were necessary for obeying his owner’s commands—to include senses unnecessary for a robot, such as taste and pain. Through his own efforts, he altered the system governing his senses, and this became a stepping stone for the robot to become human. In other words, it can be said that, in the film, he created an event in which an individual transcended a kind of “species identity.” The driving force behind this transformation was his desire to find his true self. Even today’s humans utilize control over their sensory systems, though perhaps not to the same extent as Andrew’s comprehensive transformation. Furthermore, such technology will continue to diversify and expand in scope. However, controlling sensory systems is a delicate technology that can affect an individual’s rational and emotional realms—and indeed, their entire life—just as much as a robot becoming human. According to the dictionary definition, sensation refers to “a conscious phenomenon that occurs when external stimuli—such as light or sound, or physical stimuli like pain—are transmitted to the central nervous system.” We know that even life forms with central nervous systems very different from those of humans can possess sensations similar to those of humans or even forms of sensation that humans do not possess. Therefore, in this essay, I will define sensation as encompassing everything that, by receiving external stimuli, can influence rational or emotional judgments. Furthermore, when examining the realm of sensation within the stimulus-response process, the “process of reception”—that is, the stage in which an external stimulus is received by an individual, synthesized through thought, and subsequently leads to action—corresponds to sensation. Thus, the experiences felt by Andrew before he became human can also be included within the realm of sensation. Classifying sensations according to this criterion allows us to consider not only the basic senses humans are naturally endowed with—such as sight, hearing, taste, smell, pain, and touch—but also the realm of senses that, while not innate, can be created. Alternatively, from the perspective of the subject experiencing the sensation, sensations can be divided into pleasant ones and unpleasant ones that cause distress. The methods currently used by humanity to control the sensory system can be examined according to the classification of sensations described above. Methods for enhancing sensory functions such as vision, hearing, and taste—or creating functions that are otherwise absent—range from auxiliary devices like eyeglasses and hearing aids to artificial ears that utilize bone structures critical to auditory function, enabling even people without ears to hear. In the classification of pleasant and unpleasant sensations, the primary application of sensory system control is the suppression of unpleasant sensations. Advances in chemical anesthesia have made surgery possible, dramatically extending human lifespans. Although this technology is not yet applied to humans, in laboratories, genetically modified mice—in which genes related to the creation of sensory receptors are deactivated—are often used in experiments to study animals with altered sensory systems or to verify gene functions. For example, mice with modified specific receptors will eat foods that other mice do not consume. There is little difference between the sensory system control used today and the sensory augmentation depicted in ‘Bicentennial Man’, aside from the fact that technology has advanced slightly and that the former induces a vast array of sensory changes in a single individual. Nevertheless, in the film, Andrew was recognized as a “human of robotic origin.”
In reality, opinions would still be divided on whether to recognize such a being as human.
However, there is no doubt that Andrew’s identity transcended the conventional identity of a robot. By his very existence, Andrew caused confusion among people regarding the definition and scope of what it means to be human. To that extent, this was an event that raised profound questions about the identity of any being. Similarly, humans could become beings with a third identity through the same scientific and technological methods applied to Andrew. So how can sensation alter the very realm directly linked to an individual’s sense of self? Let’s consider the way each individual processes sensations as a “framework.” This framework will differ from one individual to another. A living being is defined by the way it receives various sensations through its unique framework, integrates them according to its own mode of operation, and reacts accordingly. Furthermore, as the effects of these sensations accumulate, the framework itself changes. Let’s assume there is an entity called A. When that framework changes, the entity produced is no longer A; similarly, when the sensory input changes, the entity produced is A’—a different entity from A. In other words, different input yields different output, and as this process accumulates, the framework itself changes. In Buddhism as well, the self is viewed as a temporary combination of the physical elements corresponding to the body of an entity; the sensibility that makes sensation possible; the cognitive function that recognizes physical and intellectual objects; the mental function that shapes mental states or dispositions; and the discriminative function that judges things. Thus, the “sensibility that makes sensation possible”—which corresponds to sensation—was regarded as an essential element constituting the self. It is also worth imagining what kind of transformed “third identity” might be possible for human beings. As we read Su Shi’s “Ode to the Red Cliffs,” with every line we can imagine, alongside Su Shi, the blue breeze, the tranquil waves, and a cup of wine raised aboard a small boat. It is against this backdrop that we become even more immersed in the story. Because we are human, this is possible even if we do not live in the Song Dynasty or leisurely linger beneath the Red Cliffs. If the senses humans possess were to diminish or if new senses were added, we would not be able to appreciate the “Ode to the Red Cliffs” as we do now. One might wonder: if our existing senses remain unchanged and only new ones are added, why would we not experience that same feeling? A person who is blind develops heightened senses of hearing and touch. If humans were to acquire an overwhelming number of sensory capabilities, it would become impossible for us to perceive the emotions we share as human beings with the same subtlety. This applies equally to all traces of human existence, including other literary works. We must recognize that the control of our sensory systems is a technology that directly affects our identity as human beings. Current science and technology have advanced to the point where we can literally “turn our senses on and off.” The ability to alter our senses—ranging from traditional methods of sensory system control to those utilizing cutting-edge technology—has, in many ways, made life more convenient for humans. However, before long, the very desire to regulate these senses will bring about drastic changes similar to those caused by Andrew. It is impossible to know how successful—or unsuccessful—the control of sensory systems will be. What is clear, however, is that the ultimate destination of sensory system development will be something incapable of sharing human emotions. As we watch documentaries where a cuckoo lays its egg in a sparrow’s nest and the mother sparrow raises the cuckoo chick, believing it to be her own, aren’t we projecting ourselves onto that sparrow?
