Is My Mac just a Machine, and Does It Matter? Part One

In Infinite Loop 1 we examined the claim, made some by PC users, that the loyalty some of us show the Mac is ill-founded because it is after all "just a machine." This strikes us as rather interesting. Why should attachment to the Mac be any different than attachments persons have to other kinds of artifacts? About a year ago I lost my wedding ring. We rented a metal detector, we dug up the yard, we even burned off the grass looking for it. It meant a great deal to us to find it. Yet using the same logic as PC users this was a waste of time. My wedding ring, after all, is just a piece of metal. Such heirlooms are only one example of being attached to something nonhuman.

The claim also strikes us as vague (and philosophers seek clarity). So we will disambiguate it. We will examine several possible interpretations of what a "machine" is and show that for each interpretation the conclusion does not follow. Each interpretation is designed to establish the following conclusion: That the sometimes strong emotional attachments and loyalty some have to the Mac are ill-founded. Does claiming that the Mac is just a machine establish this conclusion? We think not. In fact, at least three reasons people give for forming attachments to artifacts like wedding rings and art are also made for the Mac, namely, beauty, utility and symbolism. I will explain these below, and go into more detail next week

Consider this article combat training. When you are defending the Mac someone is sure to say to you, "it's just a machine." If we are right in this article then this claim turns out to be nothing but an abusive ad hominem, an insult with no intellectual backing. Take the offensive and ask, "What do you mean by a machine?" Very few will be able to answer this question in any informed way, and they should walk away in shame. But if they do not, then there is a finite number of responses to this question. I list them below. Take them to heart and you will silence anyone who makes this claim. (Of course anyone that makes this claim may not understand the points below either.)

It Depends on What You Mean by "Machine"

So when someone says, "it's just a machine," what can she mean? Well, it all depends on what she means by "machine." There are four possible interpretations. Each fails to justify the conclusion.

Interpretation 1: The artifact interpretation. The Mac is just a machine means the Mac is merely a human artifact. A human artifact is anything that is man-made, e.g., a car, a house, a painting or a computer. These stand in contrast to natural things like trees, oceans and electrons. Thus the argument is that attachments and loyalty are ill-founded if placed upon a human artifact, upon something man-made.

But think about this. Persons have attachments to human artifacts all the time. Here are a few artifacts persons have strong attachments to: a car, clothing, a photograph, a house, a movie, a book, a work of art, a song or a heirloom of some kind. Think of some artifact you value. Now think how you would feel if you lost it. We bet you would feel like I did when I lost my wedding ring. The point is that merely assuming that the Mac is a human artifact (and it is after all), does not justify the conclusion that attachment and loyalty to it are ill- founded. It is a rather everyday occurrence in fact.

But why do people become attached to artifacts? The wedding ring example gives us a hint. It was not the wedding ring per se but what it symbolizes which made it valuable for us. Some artifacts, likes works of art (which are artifactual if anything is), are valued because of their beauty. These are only two reason persons form attachments to artifacts though. There is another, namely utility.

Interpretation 2: The utilitarian interpretation. The Mac is just a machine means the Mac is merely a means to an end, and attachment and loyalty to it deters from its higher ends. In other words, the Mac is a machine means the Mac is just a tool or instrument, where "tool" and "instrument" are understood as anything which helps us manipulate the world or do a job. After all, it is argued, one might be attached to the spice rack he makes his wife but certainly not to the hammer he used to make it, for it was serving greater ends to which it was only a means. So the argument is that attachment and loyalty are ill founded if placed on means, tools or instruments and not their ultimate ends.

If understood right, "attachment and loyalty are ill-founded if placed on a tool or instrument" just means "attachment and loyalty are ill-founded if placed on a means to X rather than X itself." But again, there are many examples where this breaks down. For most things are both means and ends. For example, a delicious meal tastes good and curbs hunger, and we value both. The Mac falls under this for it is both beautiful, and beauty is desired for its own sake, and because of its utility. But beyond this, one may value his trusty old pocketknife because it always gets the job done well. Means are valued only if they are proper means to the end we are seeking, and if a tool helps us reach an end, and it does it well, then it is valued. Since the Mac is such a good means to many of our ends (both personal and commercial), we value it and rightly so.

But now things get interesting . . .

Interpretation 3: The dualist interpretation. The Mac is just a machine means that the Mac does not have a soul. This is to be understood literally: It has no personhood, it is a nonlivng thing. Thus the argument is that strong emotional attachments and loyalty are ill-founded if placed upon something which lacks a soul and all that implies. For example, pets, which we become attached to, and computers have an essential difference: pets have feelings, computers do not (so far as we know). If I smash a Dell computer with a hammer it feels no pain. Does this make a difference? (Marvin Minsky, one of the founders of artificial intelligence, said that if computers keep evolving they may keep us as pets!)

I could have said that computers lack feeling right now, but they may possess emotion in the future. If computers are capable of thought then it is a short step to computers being capable of emotion. If that time comes, then of course even Apple couldn't sell them because it would be nothing but a slave trade. Owning a Mac would become a moral situation; upgrading could hurt its feelings and so be immoral. Be that as it may, we have gone full circle, for artifacts like wedding rings lack feelings and a soul, too. Yet we have attachments to them.

Interpretation 4: The mechanical interpretation. The Mac is just a machine means the Mac is only a mechanical device: a purely physical, closed system operating according to strict causal laws. Thus the argument is that strong emotional attachment and loyalty are ill-founded if placed upon something purely mechanical. Yet, machines in this sense can be found in nature (atoms, brains) and as artifacts (water pumps, engines). Perhaps, some say, we are machines in exactly this sense. We are just physical systems; we are highly complex biological machines. The brain, for example, is just a neuro-chemical machine. (And there is evidence that Steve Jobs is fascinated with this fact. See Apple Confidential for the quote.)

And beyond these points, one might say that that WE are computers after all. Perhaps the mind is to the brain as software is to hardware; our program is genetic code not computer code. Perhaps all thought is calculation and so we are just calculators. The only difference between me and my pocket calculator is that that I am wet inside and it is dry inside. Thus, becoming attched to a computer might mean being attached to my Mac or to my best friend, who is also a computer. If one says that attachment to a computer is ill-founded and we are computers, then he obviously is not thinking about what he is saying. That is, he is confused about the kinds of things in the universe which might be computers and which might not be computers; the very being making the statement might after all be a computer too.

What we have said so far is this: Assuming that the Mac just is a machine, any possible interpretation of what a "machine" is does not show that attachments and loyalty to it are ill founded. On the contrary, the opposite position is quite sensible, for we become emotionally attached and loyal to machines under all four interpretations. This is an everyday occurrence, and one that appears justified when applied to wedding rings and other artifacts. So why not the Mac? Mac users who make the claim are just as reasonable as one who says that he is attached to his wedding ring, pet, trusty old pocketknife, or even his brain (a wetware computer)! So even if the Mac just is a machine, this is of little consequence as far as our attachment to it is concerned. (In fact, even those PC users who find themselves strangely attached to their Wintels are prima facie justified, but only prima facie. We will examine this in Part II.)

Becoming Attached

All we have said here is that in fact persons become attached to artifacts and other kinds of machines all the time. I have not argued that they are justified in being so attached. That will wait for Part II. For now we can say the following. We find ourselves attached to artifacts and other kinds of machines because of their utility, beauty and symbolism. We will examine these next week and explore how we come to attach value to artifacts at all, but especially to the Mac which, it can be argued, embodies all three to a higher degree than Wintels.

David Schultz