I don't think your analysis of the creature is quite right. He does participate in the human world, and the world rejects him. Repeatedly! The problem isn't that he doesn't have "particulars", it's that he does have particulars and they lead him to a dire inference; and in fairness to him, it is an inference hard for us to falsify.
I don't know if the creature is a moral agent, but he is not doing some kind of naive pattern-matching. He has seemingly intrinsic motivations--both for survival, and also, seemingly, for companionship--and he takes rational, sophisticated steps to achieve those things. He resorts to vengeance when those measures fail, but it seems like a stretch to say that this would not have occurred to him without Milton.
I agree he does participate, again and again, but always from the wrong side of the glass. Without recognition, his encounters never become the reciprocal exchanges that educate judgment. "When he finally reveals himself to the family, the creature discovers that seeing humanity from the outside is not the same as being seen as human. He is chased away. Rejected and alone, he turns to violence."
Regarding particulars, my point is that formation requires a social practice of correction--someone who says “no,” “that hurt,” “here’s how to make it right.”
And regarding Milton, my point was more that Paradise Lost supplies a narrative template for making sense of his exclusion. In the vacuum left by relationships, he reaches for a story that fits: the rejected creature against his maker. I.e., Satan. I would agree that Milton does not create his motives but it does help organize them.
I guess the crux of the disagreement is that, at least in my reading, it seems like you are putting a wall around certain forms of (social) experience and labeling them as those that "educate judgment". I don't know that this is a helpful distinction to draw. Creatures and children alike are constantly learning from every experience they encounter, and they apply that learning towards their inborn (albeit malleable) motivations. And because of this, it can be very hard for a teacher to know what the student is learning.
In other words, thinking in terms of "instructed vs uninstructed" seems less useful, compared to asking: "what are these experiences teaching them about the world, and how will they be inclined to use this knowledge?"
Oh I disagree. Rejection comes for the creature because of a lack of authenticity. He play acts or mimics human interaction without authenticity and true empathy.
If the reaction to rejection is violence and hate, that shows a lack of moral constitution.
I don't see how you can say the creature is inauthentic in his human interaction, when he is clearly more perceptive and empathetic than many humans. The creature is extremely empathetic and perceptive in his original plan to approach the family, which fails partially due to bad luck.
His mistake is generalizing too aggressively from that experience; but that too seems like an authentically human mistake. Victor Frankenstein certainly does it.
I think the creature is clearly more introspective than most people are! He has a sophisticated mental model of the social world that includes, himself, other people, and the relationships between these things.
Also I don't see what is inauthentic about reacting to things.
This is really interesting and thought-provoking. It made me think of Stanislas Dehaene's book 'How we learn' where he argues theory of mind is key to learning. The fact that children know someone is trying to teach them is crucial, according to quite a few studies, in motivating students paying attention. So there is a student-teacher reflexivity. I believe developmental psychologists Csibra and Gergely even argued that humans have an innate pedagogical tendancy. I'm not sure how much this could be relevant to the AI-human teacher relationship, but perhaps (building on your article) intent could still be important.
You assume Victor's abandonment of the creature mirrors the "Sovereign Child" approach, but the book advocates for active support and understanding, not neglect.
Children who grow up in households without obligations and without expectations turn out to be bloody unpleasant people - "Lord of the Flies" is a story of a few such children. I was told from time to time "To you much has been given, from you much will be expected" and I also heard this: "Why did you do that? You just don't do that, it just isn't done." Limits, clear, bright line limits and expectations must be set in childhood, or the result is a lazy, entitled, and incompetent adult, unable to function in polite society.
As to "screens", no child should be given a "smart" phone or tablet or any such thing, before they are correctly formed, morally and emotionally. We used to have "adult" sections in libraries, and certain books were forbidden to children, and that was for good reason - just as people under 18 are excluded from "adult" bookstores and the like. And the same goes for "social" media - it has been shown to be a terrible form of socialization, for both children and adults, except that adults presumably have more experience and better judgment. And AI should be kept out of schools. It can be a useful research tool - but only for those who have experience doing research without AI, and who have developed critical thinking and analysis skills. Otherwise, AI will create atrophy - and without the skill and experience to know better, people will go along with AI "hallucinations" and be unable to distinguish them from reality. The movie "Idiocracy" could turn out to be prescient of the near future, not 500 years from now...
While I tend to agree that clear limits are important to raise thoughtful kids, "Lord of the Flies" (written by a bitter headmaster) is about children who were raised to obey authority, first and foremost. When the authority disappeared, they sought it out, knowing that, based on their experience, "might makes right."
In a real "Lord of the Flies" situation, the kids acted less selfishly.
you claim the philosophy lacks moral formation, yet "Sovereign Child" emphasizes fostering understanding through freedom, not leaving children unguided.
You then suggest that children are left to external forces, but the book promotes parental involvement to help kids develop self-direction.
You compare screen exposure to the creature's isolation, but "Sovereign Child" encourages tailored freedom, not unrestricted access to unfiltered content.
Furthermore, you assume a lack of correction, while the book includes problem-solving and guidance to adapt the approach to each child's needs.
We can argue about the particulars of the monster's "lived experience" and the ramifications of that experience, but I agree completely with the article's premise, brought to life (no pun intended) with Shelley's metaphorical monster. The relevance of Shelley's Romantic period, super-charging the ascendence of existentialism and the philosophy of phenomenology, and Artificial General Intelligence is profound. Aside from shared hubris of Frankenstein and his modern AI equivalents and the insatiable demand for energy to power their innovations, the path to machine consciousness via LLMs alone is unequivocally doomed. Without that lived experience, without 'being in the world' and having an awareness of emotional consequences, the algorithm is a failure beyond relatively simple agentic tasks. In contemporary times, Shelley's fable is a very powerful piece of literature because of its prescience.
I don't think your analysis of the creature is quite right. He does participate in the human world, and the world rejects him. Repeatedly! The problem isn't that he doesn't have "particulars", it's that he does have particulars and they lead him to a dire inference; and in fairness to him, it is an inference hard for us to falsify.
I don't know if the creature is a moral agent, but he is not doing some kind of naive pattern-matching. He has seemingly intrinsic motivations--both for survival, and also, seemingly, for companionship--and he takes rational, sophisticated steps to achieve those things. He resorts to vengeance when those measures fail, but it seems like a stretch to say that this would not have occurred to him without Milton.
Good points! Let me clarify:
I agree he does participate, again and again, but always from the wrong side of the glass. Without recognition, his encounters never become the reciprocal exchanges that educate judgment. "When he finally reveals himself to the family, the creature discovers that seeing humanity from the outside is not the same as being seen as human. He is chased away. Rejected and alone, he turns to violence."
Regarding particulars, my point is that formation requires a social practice of correction--someone who says “no,” “that hurt,” “here’s how to make it right.”
And regarding Milton, my point was more that Paradise Lost supplies a narrative template for making sense of his exclusion. In the vacuum left by relationships, he reaches for a story that fits: the rejected creature against his maker. I.e., Satan. I would agree that Milton does not create his motives but it does help organize them.
I guess the crux of the disagreement is that, at least in my reading, it seems like you are putting a wall around certain forms of (social) experience and labeling them as those that "educate judgment". I don't know that this is a helpful distinction to draw. Creatures and children alike are constantly learning from every experience they encounter, and they apply that learning towards their inborn (albeit malleable) motivations. And because of this, it can be very hard for a teacher to know what the student is learning.
In other words, thinking in terms of "instructed vs uninstructed" seems less useful, compared to asking: "what are these experiences teaching them about the world, and how will they be inclined to use this knowledge?"
Oh I disagree. Rejection comes for the creature because of a lack of authenticity. He play acts or mimics human interaction without authenticity and true empathy.
If the reaction to rejection is violence and hate, that shows a lack of moral constitution.
I don't see how you can say the creature is inauthentic in his human interaction, when he is clearly more perceptive and empathetic than many humans. The creature is extremely empathetic and perceptive in his original plan to approach the family, which fails partially due to bad luck.
His mistake is generalizing too aggressively from that experience; but that too seems like an authentically human mistake. Victor Frankenstein certainly does it.
An individual must be introspective, not reactive to be authentic. Frankenstein did not demonstrate introspection, did he?
Frankenstein exists separate from nature or the natural world, making him inauthentic.
I think the creature is clearly more introspective than most people are! He has a sophisticated mental model of the social world that includes, himself, other people, and the relationships between these things.
Also I don't see what is inauthentic about reacting to things.
I was worried enough. And now you put forth this compelling analysis 🧐. Ugh 😣
This is really interesting and thought-provoking. It made me think of Stanislas Dehaene's book 'How we learn' where he argues theory of mind is key to learning. The fact that children know someone is trying to teach them is crucial, according to quite a few studies, in motivating students paying attention. So there is a student-teacher reflexivity. I believe developmental psychologists Csibra and Gergely even argued that humans have an innate pedagogical tendancy. I'm not sure how much this could be relevant to the AI-human teacher relationship, but perhaps (building on your article) intent could still be important.
You assume Victor's abandonment of the creature mirrors the "Sovereign Child" approach, but the book advocates for active support and understanding, not neglect.
Children who grow up in households without obligations and without expectations turn out to be bloody unpleasant people - "Lord of the Flies" is a story of a few such children. I was told from time to time "To you much has been given, from you much will be expected" and I also heard this: "Why did you do that? You just don't do that, it just isn't done." Limits, clear, bright line limits and expectations must be set in childhood, or the result is a lazy, entitled, and incompetent adult, unable to function in polite society.
As to "screens", no child should be given a "smart" phone or tablet or any such thing, before they are correctly formed, morally and emotionally. We used to have "adult" sections in libraries, and certain books were forbidden to children, and that was for good reason - just as people under 18 are excluded from "adult" bookstores and the like. And the same goes for "social" media - it has been shown to be a terrible form of socialization, for both children and adults, except that adults presumably have more experience and better judgment. And AI should be kept out of schools. It can be a useful research tool - but only for those who have experience doing research without AI, and who have developed critical thinking and analysis skills. Otherwise, AI will create atrophy - and without the skill and experience to know better, people will go along with AI "hallucinations" and be unable to distinguish them from reality. The movie "Idiocracy" could turn out to be prescient of the near future, not 500 years from now...
While I tend to agree that clear limits are important to raise thoughtful kids, "Lord of the Flies" (written by a bitter headmaster) is about children who were raised to obey authority, first and foremost. When the authority disappeared, they sought it out, knowing that, based on their experience, "might makes right."
In a real "Lord of the Flies" situation, the kids acted less selfishly.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-what-happened-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months
you claim the philosophy lacks moral formation, yet "Sovereign Child" emphasizes fostering understanding through freedom, not leaving children unguided.
You then suggest that children are left to external forces, but the book promotes parental involvement to help kids develop self-direction.
You compare screen exposure to the creature's isolation, but "Sovereign Child" encourages tailored freedom, not unrestricted access to unfiltered content.
Furthermore, you assume a lack of correction, while the book includes problem-solving and guidance to adapt the approach to each child's needs.
The sovereign child approach says that "if a kid can’t opt out, that’s compulsion or coercion." In other words, freedom means opt-out authority.
Formation, which depends on non-optional participation, is therefore ruled out.
A thought-provoking article
We can argue about the particulars of the monster's "lived experience" and the ramifications of that experience, but I agree completely with the article's premise, brought to life (no pun intended) with Shelley's metaphorical monster. The relevance of Shelley's Romantic period, super-charging the ascendence of existentialism and the philosophy of phenomenology, and Artificial General Intelligence is profound. Aside from shared hubris of Frankenstein and his modern AI equivalents and the insatiable demand for energy to power their innovations, the path to machine consciousness via LLMs alone is unequivocally doomed. Without that lived experience, without 'being in the world' and having an awareness of emotional consequences, the algorithm is a failure beyond relatively simple agentic tasks. In contemporary times, Shelley's fable is a very powerful piece of literature because of its prescience.
Nick Sagan wrote a book called Idlewild that nurtured and educated superior beings in a high tech crèche. Interesting