Can Cyborgs Lose their Humanity?
Humans, Cyborgs and Androids
Androids are fully mechanical machines (perhaps beings) that are modeled to look and ideally act like a human being. Think of the character data from Star Trek. Cyborgs however started off as humans that are made up of both organic (i.e. living) and bio-mechanical parts with an example being Robocop. In separate discussions I've talked about the possibilities of a machine becoming sentient, to the point of being considered worthy of 'respect' we give to humans.
But this article is going to go in the reverse asking the question of is it possible for a human to take on so many cybernetic components they essentially could lose that which made them human. I don't profess to have concrete answers here, just my thoughts and predictions. In the end it will probably end in a similar manner as the US Supreme Courts attempt to define porn which essentially said, "I can't fully give a definition, but I'll know it when I see it.
I have to expect that as time goes on we are going to see the trend of coupling our bodies with technology. Some are more invasive such as prosthetic arms that are hooked into to nerve endings allowing them to be controlled by signals from the brain as well as some being able to respond back with touch sensations.
A more in depth view of what goes into this type of 'human-machine' interfacing can be seen in the Ted talk titled "Extreme Bionics" by Hugh Herr.
Already we have wearable technology such as smart glasses that provide an augmented reality view of the world. Functionality includes the ability to view 3D objects in a new way, to having information pulled up on an overlay, to providing directions to a location. Levi's is releasing their smart jacket this year with many more technological clothing on the horizon.
Now I know this isn't exactly the typical view of cybernetics, but things like this, allow us to think differently. Think of the things we wouldn't need to store in our actual memory, instead being comfortably dependent on these 'enhancements.' Hell, just by being in the age of smart phones, I challenge you to think of the last time you actually memorized a phone number instead of just seeing the contact named 'Bob' or some other name in your contact list.
There has even been some research into temporary tattoos made from electroconductive ink that might be used to take your temperature, monitor your health, or even complete your ApplePay payments!
Now Let's Look Waaay out in the Future
In a Futurama episode called "The Six Million Dollar Mon" Hermes goes from being 100% 'natural human' to completely mechanical except for this brain. Each upgrade he performs is to allow him some expansion of functionality, such as stronger, faster, extendable arms, a Cylon like eye allowing to see across much a wider spectrum, etc. Now while never stated, it never seemed that the ability to 'feel' touch sensation was retained, he'd no long be hungry or thirsty since there were no more organs (outside the brain,) which has to make you wonder where the line might be to losing one's humanity. Is it the body, is it the brain, is it something beyond those?
Now my question in a scenario like this is this:
If Hermes' brain was uploaded to and replaced by a mechanical alternative, such as the positronic brain used by Star Trek's Data android...would he still be human?
My mind goes a couple of ways on this. On the one hand, no longer having the typical biological needs (which is what we are made to detect and react to on a primal level,) starts us down a path that I can see becoming distinct from what we currently think of as human...say the need to use the term super-human or human-plus.
On the other hand, I like to think that our actual identity, essence and/or soul is contained not in the physical itself, but rather in the pattern that was set up. In this case, should the full pattern of the brain be transferred (and maintained) in the artificial medium, the thing that would 'make me be me,' would still exist. This would lead me to want to answer that I would still be human, even if future generations that would start from this point may need to use another definition, since they wouldn't have the same biological references I was build upon.
What's Your Thought?
Don't Miss the Show! Follow the Steemit Talk Podcast (STP) Account
New STP Website!!
Are you new to Steemit and Looking for Answers? - Try https://www.steemithelp.net.
Image Sources:
Gold Cyborg
Augmented Reality Gif
Hermes
I would say the answer to your question is yes, obviously this isnt concrete evidence either, but in cyberphere an old mush that I used to play there was a thing called cyberpsychosis which could happen to you if you had too many implants, basically you would lose control of your character, but he also lost his ability to empathise with other living creatures.
I vaguely remember hearing about the cyborg rpg stuff back in the day, more the table top vs the mush. But I'd figure they wouldn't had been too far off each other.
I can see what you're saying though. I can see the ability to empathize with other life to be an important characteristic. While in this area of discussion, I have a hard time disagreeing.
However, playing devil's advocate...I have a relative with rather severe Asperger's syndrome who also has at best minimal ability to empathize with at least humans, if not life in general. However, I would have a hard time saying/thinking he didn't have an aspect of humanity. Idk..it's a tough definition to nail down.
omg this is crazy one day are mines are going to live for ever.,.keep up the good work I love this post.,.,.btw can you follow me thank you keep up the good work
Thank you!
After reading the Dune series the thoughts of living forever, especially when most people still have normal 'human' life spans, may not be as enjoyable as we would think. In the 4th book in the series, a guy who used to be human like, now instead lives thousands of years, making it very tough to find meaning in relationships (friendship or love) with humans very hard since they seem to him to be gone in the blink of an eye. :P
Lol, I'm in thought experiment mode today.
I'm going have to check it out.,..im a big reader...thanks a lot
I'm a big fan of the series. This part is in the 4th book called God Emperor of Dune. Def worth a read imo :)
thank you I well look into the series
This post has been ranked within the top 25 most undervalued posts in the first half of Mar 13. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $2.95 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Mar 13 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
did they ever have it to begin with..
Did the human have humanity to start with? Hehe. In this thought experiment I'd have to say yes. But overall this post does end up requiring a definition of what humanity exactly is. I found this to be a more entertaining way to essentially pose that question. Lol
Why was this flagged?
I couldn't tell ya. My best guess was to offset a bigger SP vote or something, maybe related to abits post on Whales No Up-Voting Test. But eh, what can ya do. I have to assume there was some reason I can't think of. @smooth would be the only one that would really be able to say.
I'm not worried though. One of those 'out of my control' things.
It's not humanity that a machine person would lose.
It is their life. Life, or biological life, is based on DNA, right?
To replace the code of biological life with computer code and mechanical parts is the divide between Life and Machine.
I can agree with the distinction between life vs code/mechanical parts. However to some degree I see this hinging on whether our consciousness is fully embedded into the biological life or if that could say be stored in a powerful enough parallel processing computer, neural net or some other sort of technology. Some akin to the question of 'could we upload our selves into a computer.'
But I don't claim to know, just something I tend to wonder on, having my preferred ideas (though that by no means I'm correct.)
Well, humanity is the question in your article.
I question life.
But the real issue might be this: What if life is already a machine made of mechanical, electrical, and chemical parts?
What if there is no true difference?
True true.
I do tend to equate humanity more towards the consciousness/sentience side of things, but I know not everybody does.
Personally I don't see a difference between biological and mechanical machinery (even though I'm sure some people would argue this tooth and nail.) The root in my eyes are self-sustaining, self-organizing systems. Beyond that it's just a matter of how good the 'code' is to adapt to changing conditions (food/water/etc for biology, replacement parts/power/etc for mechanical.)
The closest difference I can think of would be more a matter of what drove initial creation of the two forms, nature bringing biology and biology bringing mechanical. But that has little impact to the question in my mind.
I think it's intelligence that is the difference between inanimate matter, and an intelligent being. "Biological life" has less meaning, in the age of the machine.
For example, you could argue that fire is a form of life. And it is, in many ways.
But even so, it lacks intelligence, so even though it is "self-sustaining" in many ways, as well as "self-organizing", I wouldn't call it life. Or maybe I would...
But as for a machine person? I think it's up to them to decide if they're alive or not.
And one more thing: You mean sapient. Not sentient.
Sentience is the ability to sense things. All animals, and many machines, are sentient.
But sapience is intelligence.
While the intelligence aspect is worth including explicitly, I do prefer to include sentience. Being able to sense things are an important piece to me, creating the feedback loop with the thought itself. Some of this I see as refining my semantics, I'll admit I'm tired right now and nearing bed time.
I will agree biological life has less meaning in the machine age. However, before the machine is assembled and functional, it's merely a mass of inanimate pieces (minus the 'brain' that I could see being possibly self sufficient.) While I like the fire analogy, I would think the flame itself would technically be a plasma, that would fall under being inanimate matter. I could see more in the chemical process of the burning log (or other ignition fuel) being life like. But, I'd have to think more on this after some sleep.
On the machine choosing if they're alive or not, there is the caveat of needing to be concious to be able to ask that question, which is kind of another step. But I guess that life tends to 'know' regardless it's alive by it's drives...knowing an impending death (for mortal things anyway) would be a different, more difficult realization (which isn't really necessary.)
I'll think on this though :)
Hmm, what is a human? Is a human a collection of cells? If so then the cybernetic brain creates something else other than a human. I don't worry about such things, you're all the same to me once you arrive here.
First I'll say that this in the area of things that "I know I don't know." But I do have preferred models until I find it to fail in some test.
Personally, I like to think that the 'essence' of who we are is more in the pattern that is setup within the biological brain/body. So If this same pattern were to be transferred into something purely mechanical, including both the brain equivalent as well as analogous pain, temperature, etc sensors that the biological body has. Now trying to also include something for the concept of hunger/thirst is where I start to question this ability, since machinery/robotics don't necessarily get energy from food nor require water to hydration (that allows molecules to move around.)
In the end (sry for the shpeal there) I see the biological body as a mean to capture a pattern of energy (not one to one like reincarnation, but rather a scoop from the ocean of stuff comprised from lots of these 'dissolved patterns.') While alive, we can slowly change this pattern internally over time. After that, it can only happen from outside forces.
I still love this model from Babylon 5 that is similar, using the term of the 'soul.'
Your reward for being in
Promotedis an upvote and 0.025 SBD extra promotion.Good job, keep your contents promoted! :)
Much appreciated! Great project to see going on.
Post-humanism and trans-humanism are interesting topics indeed!
And one of my favourite explorations in SF.
In one of your examples, you asked if the complete pattern of thought/brain waves were uploaded to a mechanical construct would it still be human? Maybe, it might be more correct to refer to it as a post-human intelligence.
But one question you didn't ask was "What if you made a copy of this pattern; or ten copies or ten thousand copies?"
and "What happens to the original?"
I hoped it would lead to some interesting discussions :)
This is true. To some degree I can see this depending on details (like speed of the artificial 'brain') as well as definitions of what makes human a human (which I could see some who see a 'person' to be that non-physical thing behind the physical thing containing it.) But yea, personally I wouldn't have a problem using the term post-human simply with the removal of biological needs at that point (with the brain being that last thing requiring oxygen, ions, etc versus just electricity/working capacitors/etc.
My view on this one would be that at the moment of making the copies, you would essential have multiple of the same thing, that would then start to grow apart by individual experiences. This over a period of time would end up with many copies (like twins, triplets, up to 10,000'lets.) that would in my view become their own individuals.
However depending exactly how the copies are made, you could end up with something like in the movie Multiplicity where as each copy is created, the original pattern used degrades, making each clone more imperfect than the last. You can see some of this concept in the movie trailer.
Yes, once a copy starts having it's own experiences, however similar they would being to diverge into individuals. And making copies of copies introduces error, you said degradation, but that's just evolution ;) sometimes the errors are beneficial, most often not though.
(I think I've only seen the trailer for "Multiplicity" not the whole movie.)
What I was trying to ask with regards to the "original" was that in many SF treatments of the concept sometimes the "original" remains as it was before uploading to a mechanical existence, and sometimes it is destroyed in the process.
Other things explored are human rights/property rights and ethics. Does the original own the copy? Does what property (house for example) the original owned get shared? Does the original have any responsibility to the copy? One of the ways around that and often exploited by SF writers is to kill the original somehow, so only one instance of that individual remains, it resolves the human rights/property rights issues but opens up tons of ethical issues.
Such a fascinating topic!
I getcha. Good points. Personally I'd think that the original at best would have a 'parent/child' relationship for some period, depending on how functional the copy is off the bat and financially to some degree. The copies would still have expenses/needs (this also calls the expectation of job shortages in the future with this) and ethically I'd think we wouldn't want them to just be 'off on their own.' But along with this, I'd also expect there to be a drive to not make them slaves/owned by the original...especially since most would argue (I'd assume) that they would be their own sentient being.
I remember a Robert Heinlein book (I think "Time Enough for Love") where the main character ended up on a planet where every 'human' there when born had a clone created, with no higher brain functions, just autonomic systems so it'd breath, pump blood, etc. The clones were then stored in 'tubes' while unconscious and were there should the original need blood, organ transplant, etc. Of course the conflict then got into 'how do you know when/if the clones were completely unconscious and non-sentient.
Clones might have the parent/child dependency they do need to grow up (currently anyway) but if it's an upload, I think it would be quite independent immediately, socially and legally parent/child(iteration) might be a better social construct to use for that kind of relationship. However, the copy being mechanical would last far longer than a biological only human, the roles may have to be reversed in old age.
That sounds like an interesting book! I'll have to check it out.
I've read a short story where part of the back story of the protagonist was the he worked in a meat farm where there were vats of pig stem cells that were cultured, then later processed into pork chops/bacon/ham etc. The idea was that the vats only contained a culture of stem cells, but he had to leave that job as sometimes the cells formed different pig parts, like hooves and things, the final straw as an eye with some kind of rudimentary pig mind behind it that followed him as he was going about his job cleaning the tanks.
Have you seen "The Island" It was fun.
The trailer gives most of it away, so don't watch too much of it if you want to save the surprises but it is similar to the book you mentioned.
I getcha. I'm good with viewing the 'clones' as being individual, independent beings from their beginning then...like Bob-1, Bob-2, etc Lol.
Heh, I've never heard of that short story. Sounds really interesting though.
I do remember "The Island" movie..that was a good one! Been quite a while though, should probably rewatch it soon!
The short story I was referring to is in a collection, Year's Best SF or something like that, I'll try to find it after work.
If we for a moment consider the possiblity that the consciousness is not dependen on the brain,how does that change this discussion?
Anyway,very interesting stuff,upvoted and resteemed.
I hear ya, that's an important aspect in how things could really be further defined. I'm personally in the school that the pattern exists rather independently with the brain merely being the medium for it. Much like the soul is discussed in this clip from Babylon 5.
But I'll flat admit this is an area that currently can't be explained and I definitely don't claim to know. Just my best/preferred models of things. :)