DEAR PHILOSOPHER SCOTT: ANYTIME I TRY TO UNLOCK MY PHONE WHEN I’M IN A MOVING VEHICLE, MY PHONE ASKS ME IF I’M DRIVING. IF I AM DRIVING AND I CHOOSE, “I’M NOT DRIVING”, DID I LIE TO MY PHONE? IF NOT A LIE, THEN WHAT IS IT? – WEN L.
Just as murder and killing are not synonymous (a type of illegal kill), lying and making knowingly false assertions are not synonymous. Lies are knowingly false assertions intended to deceive. If, knowing it is false, one utters, “1 + 1 = 3” while alone in the forest, one has not lied.
The separate status of false assertions intended to deceive is due to the moral judgment levied against acts of deception. Morality is a tool of social engineering, and is a factor in play only between sentient beings. But, there is no actual or implied social contract between humans and machines.
As such, if the technology/ machinery into which one issues a knowingly false assertion is not expected to transmit that assertion to a sentient mind who may be deceived by it, then the channels necessary to support lying are not present.
But, the question remains, can one even make an assertion, false or otherwise, let alone a ‘knowingly false assertion’ when there is perhaps a mechanical device, but no mind present to interpret it?
All tools, technological or otherwise, are created as extensions of our natural physical or sense capabilities. We can already speak, but megaphones enable us to speak louder; public address systems enable us to speak louder than megaphones, while phones are not necessarily louder, but allow us to cast our speech farther. We can already move ourselves by walking, but bicycles make locomotion faster and more efficient. Likewise eyeglasses, weapons, clothing, calculators, kitchen utensils, automobiles, etc. They are all simply extenders of limb, sense, memory or thinking.
One employs such devices for the benefit of extending their natural capabilities, though they must first learn how to operate these tools to get the best results. In the case of smartphones, one learns when to swipe left and right, how to adjust display, font, etc.
Some phone owners may establish passcodes to access features on their phones. The protocol of establishing a phrase (rather than a random number or letter string) as one’s passcode is not to communicate its message to the phone, but as expedient for memorization. In such cases, users can select any combination, including, ‘1+1=3’, if they like.
No matter what the passphrase chosen, it can be neither true nor false because the symbols chosen as passcode are arbitrary and benign other than for unlocking the phone’s functions.
If one wishes to use the navigation software on one’s phone, but the software-makers have established that a passcode prompt appears before access is available, then one simply learns the code to access use. It is immaterial whether the company that manufactured one’s phone chose “are you driving?” as the prompt-phrase, and ‘n-o’ as the code to unlock the navigation app. It is just a mechanized code for release of the function, not a communication transaction, much less a social one.
The software-makers may have been obliged by the phone manufacturers, under pressure from government regulators, to establish the prompt and passphrase combination, and if so, a leveraged social contract backed by a statute of some kind may exist between law enforcement and the phone’s between phone users and law-makers. But, that is not relevant to the relationship between a phone user and their phone.
Bottom line, passphrases that resemble claims can’t be lies because they aren’t claims – they only resemble them.
“There is no greater lie than a truth misunderstood.” – William James
The Philosopher is In’ will be pleased to accept questions on any subject including politics, science, psychology, mathematics, logic, ethics, morals, love, relationships, aesthetics, art. Please feel free to submit your questions or comments directly to ThePhilosopherIsIn@outlook.com.
