I voted on brain, but if technology is in such an advanced state that we could built a device that worked exactly like a human brain, then everything could be replaced... wouldn't even need shreds of original tissue.
Of course, this depends on the very definition of what a human is... #thiscyborglife
Reminds me of my favorite author, Philip Dick. Most of his books deal with the theme of what it means to be human. Often he will offer an android or alien as an example of what is truly human and a person as an example of how inhuman a person can be. His books are awesome mindbending freakouts.
"More Human Than Human is our motto." -Tyrell (from Blade Runner)
Edited by dolo54 blows minds and blows engines! at 11/13/09 8:00 PM
dolo54 blows minds and blows engines! was starred
dolo54 blows minds and blows engines! was unstarred
@dolo54 blows minds and blows engines!: While I agree that the capacity for the subject to experience empathy would be the individual measure of retained humanity, I wonder how such empathy could be accurately judged if the biological human identity of the subject was compromised. I am not speaking of the original consciousness but of the personal perception of belonging to the biological human race. We - biological humans - share the camaraderie of being the same species, but if such an integral part of the biological human identity is removed and replaced, would a new identity form? Would a subject no longer physiologically related to the human race retain any lingering loyalty or sense of belonging to it? Following this vein of thought, if a new identity did form and the subject no longer considered itself connected to biological humans, would the empathy be measured as directed toward other beings similarly expatriated from their biological origins? Or would the connecting empathy between the subject and biological humanity be the only measure? #thiscyborglife
@Laura Woody: @jrghoull: @punknubbins: Actually my answer is one of PK Dick's answers. I don't think there is a "right" answer. But thinking about it that way makes you realize just how difficult a question it is. It may become a serious issue in the future if we do create an AI or have humans whose conscious is completely removed from their original physical bodies. How will these new thinking, feeling creatures be treated? What sort of rights will they have? If you kill an AI that has self-awareness, human or greater intelligence and feelings, is it murder? What if we have genetic experimentation on animals that creates a dog with human level intellect? No easy answers here, but you certainly can't draw the line at some arbitrary percentage of biological makeup. #thiscyborglife
I would argue that the % is lower then the poll eludes. The "body" has more ties to the "mind/soul" then we realize.
If I replace almost my entire body, enabling my static personality/mind to live forever, and I still human? The possibility of Death may contribute to being "human".
Assuming that the majority of Gizmodo readers are "dorks/nerds" ("dorks/nerds" being less physically blessed. Yes, huge generalization/sterotype), would a "Brad Pit" type be more inclined to attach his humanity to his physical body? #thiscyborglife
I'm going to break everyone's heart here and go with, 'when you have a robotic ding dong'... since that didn't come up like fifty times this week. #thiscyborglife
@NeoAkira: True, however, your parameters for what is human did not include the replacement of natural part with robotic. You merely stated that humans are brains and reproductive organs. You statement was that the basic fundamentals a person needs are quality of organic reproduction (period) and a organic brain (period) to qualify for club of humanity "you are no longer human if you lack...". Not "if you replaced with artificial..." Your vagueness was the cause of my query, and not reason enough to be snarky.
Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way. Maybe it's an outward, rather than inward classification. For instance, if we have a robot that is indistinguishable from humans, i.e. you can dissect it and it looks human, it behaves exactly like a human etc., then maybe we should call it human. Our interactions with this robot, after all, would be exactly the same as our interactions with a human. So to us, other definitions, such as what the robot is actually made of, would be immaterial. #thiscyborglife
@Hello Mister Walrus: We differentiate species by very minor dissimilarities. Is a Neanderthal human? Being completely artificial might warrant a different name or even kingdom. Homo Robotus perhaps? #thiscyborglife
@pɹɐoqʎǝʞuǝʞoɹq: I guess my original post was a bit disorganized. What I was trying to say is that maybe classification differences are irrelevant if they do not affect the outside world. Perhaps we should instead classify things based on their functions and appearances, not their origins, since functions and appearances are the only things that have any effect on our lives. #thiscyborglife
@Hello Mister Walrus: I think people deep down value the genuine. If you thought your wife was faithful, would that be enough for you? How heart wrenching is it when you find out she had been deceiving you for years? Is the mere illusion enough for you? Or does truth extend beyond what you can see and detect? Would a faked mona lisa be of the same value to you as the original? Would a fake Macbook be of same value to you? Is truth something in itself, or just what I see right now? The point is, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and its a robot, its still a robot. #thiscyborglife
@pɹɐoqʎǝʞuǝʞoɹq: I still subscribe to the belief that what you don't know and doesn't harm you doesn't harm you. However, I can respectfully understand other people valuing intangible things that cannot be observed. It looks like we'll have to leave it at that for now. #thiscyborglife
At what point would our cyborg-selves cease to be human?
I think humor has to be involved somehow, as it generally relies on an understanding of at least some sections of a social construct.
If you get to the point where you're just seeing data without seeing the overlying social connections, you're probably pretty robotic and not cyborg-ey.
Examples of robotic humor:
Robot Seinfeld: I'VE GOT THIS PAIN ALL ALONG THE DIODES IN MY LEFT ARM. WHAT IS THE DEAL WITH THAT.
Robot Internet Humor: ALL YOUR BASE 10 ARE BELONG TO US. #thiscyborglife
From a biological standpoint I would submit that as long as viable DNA for reproduction is still part of the equation, then we retain our "badge" of humanity. However far we might go with merging our bodies and consciousness with inorganic structures, we are still human if we retain the ability to reproduce evolutionarily unique (and mutable) offspring. If we upload consciousness into a computer, retaining no original genetic material then we cease to be human by any biological standard, and must make a new determination on what we have become. At that point organic natural selection is no longer in effect. All reproduction (or replication) becomes a byproduct of our own styled algorithms and datasets, a purely intellectual exercise (even if based on algorithms that mimic biological processes).
I'm not saying that's good, bad, right, or wrong... just my opinion on classification of our species. We could still refer to ourselves as human, (and I think we would) but I think there would be a new classification. Homo Sapiens Secundum Corporis, perhaps? #thiscyborglife
@met2art: are you saying that what distinguishes us as a species (biologically) is the ability to reproduce? I can think of a few other ways to distinguish myself from a beaver (the kind with lots of hair that eats wood, hah!). #thiscyborglife
@Erik Dell: No, I was merely ilustratin gmy opinion of the point at which we cease being organic beings, and when our DNA, which defines us Homo Sapiens, ceases to be apropos to our replication.
If a human brain is uploaded into the same hardware as a self-aware artificial intelligence, and both have the capability to replicate themselves (identically, or with approximations of generational mutation) how do you define the distinction between them? If both have the same levels of perception, the same ability to make judgments, and moral decisions... how do you distinguish which one is human, except by accepting a declaration of such? In a purely digital existence where any bits can be shifted to represent any dataset, how can a purely digital version of humanity be distuinguishable from an artificial intelligence which can replicate the same dataset and exhibits the same behavior? It's my opinion that at that point, the essence of humanity is altered and requires new classification, even if it still behaves in ostensibly "human" fashion. However, I believe that there would be many fundamental alterations in perceptions of behavior, morality, thought and action with such a massive change. #thiscyborglife
thinking back to the old Starlord/2000AD strip .. to quote
"Ro-Busters is a commercial rescue organisation run by Howard Quartz, known as "Mr. 10 Per Cent" because 90% of him is robotic (a 'person' must have at least 10% organic matter to qualify as human)." #thiscyborglife
11/14/09
Of course, this depends on the very definition of what a human is... #thiscyborglife
11/13/09
"More Human Than Human is our motto." -Tyrell (from Blade Runner)
11/13/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/13/09
to be human is to have sentience, reason, and language, and to reside in this universe. no animal or computer yet fits the bill. #thiscyborglife
11/13/09
If I replace almost my entire body, enabling my static personality/mind to live forever, and I still human? The possibility of Death may contribute to being "human".
11/13/09
***huge generalization coming up***
Assuming that the majority of Gizmodo readers are "dorks/nerds" ("dorks/nerds" being less physically blessed. Yes, huge generalization/sterotype), would a "Brad Pit" type be more inclined to attach his humanity to his physical body? #thiscyborglife
11/13/09
11/13/09
As such, I would say you're no longer human if you don't have all of the following:
Your original organic brain, and your original organic reproductive system. #thiscyborglife
11/13/09
11/13/09
aha, I knew someone like you might make a response like that.
This article is talking about replacing parts of our body with robotic components. Does your mother have a robotic uterus now? #thiscyborglife
11/14/09
11/14/09
But otherwise, no.
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
I think humor has to be involved somehow, as it generally relies on an understanding of at least some sections of a social construct.
If you get to the point where you're just seeing data without seeing the overlying social connections, you're probably pretty robotic and not cyborg-ey.
Examples of robotic humor:
Robot Seinfeld: I'VE GOT THIS PAIN ALL ALONG THE DIODES IN MY LEFT ARM. WHAT IS THE DEAL WITH THAT.
Robot Internet Humor: ALL YOUR BASE 10 ARE BELONG TO US. #thiscyborglife
11/13/09
11/13/09
I recognize pain, but I don't really care that it's there.
I often don't catch the punch-lines in jokes and I'm more intensive at looking at data than google.
I'm made of pure flesh though.. except my fillings.
I laughed at the base 10 joke xD #thiscyborglife
11/13/09
11/13/09
I'm not saying that's good, bad, right, or wrong... just my opinion on classification of our species. We could still refer to ourselves as human, (and I think we would) but I think there would be a new classification. Homo Sapiens Secundum Corporis, perhaps? #thiscyborglife
11/13/09
11/13/09
If a human brain is uploaded into the same hardware as a self-aware artificial intelligence, and both have the capability to replicate themselves (identically, or with approximations of generational mutation) how do you define the distinction between them? If both have the same levels of perception, the same ability to make judgments, and moral decisions... how do you distinguish which one is human, except by accepting a declaration of such? In a purely digital existence where any bits can be shifted to represent any dataset, how can a purely digital version of humanity be distuinguishable from an artificial intelligence which can replicate the same dataset and exhibits the same behavior? It's my opinion that at that point, the essence of humanity is altered and requires new classification, even if it still behaves in ostensibly "human" fashion. However, I believe that there would be many fundamental alterations in perceptions of behavior, morality, thought and action with such a massive change. #thiscyborglife
11/13/09
Flesh uncovered, after all #thiscyborglife
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
Huh. I guess my answer falls into the "As long as you still have your brain" category. #thiscyborglife
11/13/09
"Ro-Busters is a commercial rescue organisation run by Howard Quartz, known as "Mr. 10 Per Cent" because 90% of him is robotic (a 'person' must have at least 10% organic matter to qualify as human)." #thiscyborglife
11/12/09
11/12/09