I’ve created a new category for this, since it’s essentially an essay. I wrote this in college (I can tell by my reference to Dungeons and Dragons). Pencil on notebook paper. There were multiple misspellings — ‘categories’ (beginning with ‘ch’) and ‘sentient’ (misspelled as ‘sentinent’ multiple times) 🙁 I will always be grateful for modern computer-based spell check.
I remember one Star Trek episode titled ‘City on the Edge of Forever’ in which William Shatner’s character Captain Kirk had a memorable but brief exchange of words with an entity known as the Guardian. “What are you,” Kirk had asked, “being or machine?”
“I am both,” the Guardian had replied, “and neither.”
At the time that I first saw this show, I merely accepted the Guardian’s reply as being cryptic, and what I would then have termed as ‘cool’ – meaning that it demonstrated an undeniable and enviable class.
Perhaps because of that episode. I began to notice over the years that the ‘both and neither’ explanation had become a sort of science fiction cliche – Are you alive or dead? I am both, and neither. – I have even used it at times when I DM for D&D.
Recently though, I’ve begun to wonder at the logistics of the statement. Can something truly be said to belong to two exclusive categories, and also be said to belong to neither of them? I think the key to this question is the word ‘exclusive’.
In the case of the Guardian’s conversation with Captain Kirk, the implication is that the categories ‘being’ and ‘machine’ are not mutually exclusive. If it is possible for a machine to be so complicated as to also be considered a ‘being’, then the Guardian’s statement is true in sentiment, but perhaps not in wording. (Incidentally, when I speak of a ‘being’, I mean an intelligent, free-willed type of being and not simply something that exists.)
When the Guardian says it is both a ‘being’ and a ‘machine’, it is using both terms in the broadest sense. Yes, it says, I am a construct of inanimate parts (a machine) and, yes, I am also sentient. When it says it is neither a ‘being’ nor a ‘machine’, it is using them in a sort of exclusive sense. It reasons: I am undeniably a construct, so by the strictest definition of a ‘being’, I am not one. I am undeniably ‘sentient’, so by the strictest definition of a ‘machine’, I am not one.
The accuracy of the statement lies in the ambiguity of the terms ‘being’ and ‘machine’.
An analogous situation would be if someone were to ask me if a bacterium were a plant or an animal. “It is both,” I could respond, “and neither.” It is thought today that bacteria have characteristics of both plants and animals – meaning that they could be thought of as degenerate cases of either category. However, there are certain traditional characteristics an organism must have to be considered a plant or an animal, and bacteria lack some of these. Again, the ambiguity of the terms allow the seemingly contradictory response.
(As an aside — I studied Spanish in high school, and was slightly annoyed by the fact that there are two different verbs for ‘to be.’ One is a sort of permanent ‘to be’ – “He is my father” – the ‘is’ denoting a sort of permanent condition that can’t be changed. But, if I were to say “the sky is blue,” I’m not stating anything permanent – because the sky is not always blue. Since English lacks this distinction, another factor could be ambiguity in the verb.)
As another example: if someone showed me a rubber horseshoe and asked, “Is this a chunk of rubber, or the horseshoe?” I could again say “It is both, and neither.” ‘Both’ in the sense that it was once, and could still be considered, a chunk of rubber; and it is shaped like a horseshoe. ‘Neither’ in that it is no longer strictly a chunk of rubber since it has been processed into a complex shape; and it is not strictly a horseshoe since it is not made of metal, and will never be used on a horse. In other words, there is a was/is–is/was dilemma because the object used to be one thing, but now is something else.
The entire point I’m making is that with ambiguous words – categorias (nouns) and verbs – the Guardian’s statement is not necessarily wrong. A statement like that cannot be used however with words that are antonyms. Nothing can be both ‘sane’ and insane, ‘black’ and ‘white’. (Is a rock sane? insane?)
My conclusion is this: though the Guardian was not wrong in what he said, he should not have said it in that way. A better phrasing would be: “I am a sentient construct – though not necessarily a ‘being’ or ‘machine’ in the traditional sense.” The only problem is – this reword loses some of the dramatic effect.