squeeeb

with advancements in technology, higher affluency, and lots of soldiers losing limbs, there are lots of people getting artifical limbs and such. even old people are getting new knees and hips. they can replace a good number human body parts right now, so here is my question...

you get an artificial arm. ok, then a leg. ok, then a heart, a hip, other limbs, etc etc. lets say we have the technology and ability to replace everything on a human. how much can you replace until you are so artificial you aren't human? at what point do you lose your "humanity'?

what if you replace everything but the brain? what if you replace only the limbs and brain? how much of a cyborg can you be until you are no longer a human?

__________________
onward to mayhem!

telekinetic

If you have a human brain and blood, and were born to a human mother, you're human.

Although I think the traditional 'cyborg' definition is some percentage of artificiality by mass.

__________________
twisted no more

Willravel

I'm not 100% human, but it doesn't bother me. I had heart surgery that involved installation of a Dacron tube in place of an aorta. Dacron is a company that produces polyethylene terephthalate synthetic fibers, in other words a thermoplastic polymer resin. The same resin is common in plastic bottle production (imagine a 20 oz. bottle of coke). Here's the thing: I'm alive. Before worrying about being human I worry about being alive.

Do I consider myself human? Sure. At what point would I no longer consider myself human? If I ever upgrade to circuits and wires, without anything of my current body, then I'd be something else. A cyborg, or organism that uses both natural and artificial systems (like me!), is still human.

Charlatan

This is a question I have thought about and asked of friends.

I don't have an answer other than to say that I know what it feels like to be human. Having originally been human (ie born from the genetic code of two other organic humans), I am human.

If you were to replace everything with machinery would I still be human? It would depend on the efficiency of the machinery. If it was able to keep my experience and "self" intact to a state that I wouldn't know the difference, I would argue that I am still human.

The question is would others react to me as such. Given the current levels of prejudice I would argue that other "natural humans" would discriminate.

I think the point at which that discrimination would end would be if I had an organic brain. I believe we humans are (will be) brain-centric. If you don't have soft tissue for a brain, you will not be considered human (though I suspect that computers could be just as efficient, at some point in time, to work as well as an organic brain).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

roachboy

the question seems based on the idea that being human is a sum of its parts.
so that if you switched enough parts, you'd change the whole.
do you seriously believe that?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

abaya

Interesting. What about people who have not had their bodies replaced, but whose minds/selves/experiences have left them? Such as dementia/Alzheimer's. Are they still human?

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

squeeeb

i think they would still be human. their dna is still human, their species is still human. just because the brain is on the fritz doesn't make them less human, it's just like having a bad kidney.

it's not that i believe or disbelieve. i just wonder *if* you switched enough parts, would you no longer be human, and if so, at what point?

__________________
onward to mayhem!

roachboy

but unless you assume that being human is a sum of parts, the question makes no sense.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

ratbastid

That which defines us as a human being isn't and never has been corporeal.

squeeeb

hmmm....then by those standards, lets say being human is the sum of parts...

__________________
onward to mayhem!

Saint

First you have to ask yourself what it means to be human. I wasn't aware we defined them by how many limbs you have or lose.

I suppose in taxonomy you define them by their features, which are just products of their genes. Nonetheless, unless we alter the genome, won't we always be human? regardless of the other physical modifications. I mean we all still call Stephen Hawking human, and he isn't exactly a paragon of our race (physically).

cyklone

If you have a car and throughout the life of that car you gradually replace bits of it as they breakdown until you get to a point 20 years down the track when you have replaced everything except the radiator cap, is it still the same car? In one sense yes, but in another sense no. The identity of the car is based upon our perception of continuity and same is true for being human. If you were able to replace every part of the body throughout one's lifetime there would still be a perceived sense of continuity by the self and by the observers and so still regarded as human.
The lay concept of human is to a large degree based upon perception rather than scientific analysis. However, if one uses a scientific definition of human, the argument then shifts to whether the one remains the same "person" when every part is replaced. Again this is more about perceived continuity.

Charlatan

Actually, cyklone, we do replace most, if not all of our cells during our lifetime. We are constantly shedding old cells and replacing them new ones.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Painted

correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the only cells that are never replaced (divided) are the cells that make up the brain?

__________________
I came across a nice rack at the department store

QuasiMondo

My first thought is that once you replace the brain, you're not human. Or, at the very least, you're not you. If you think about Alzheimer's patients, as their brain deteriorates, they lose themselves, literally. They don't just forget who you are, they forget who they are as well. The brain contains the pieces of the puzzle that make up you. If you replace that with an artificial reproduction, it's not really you, it's just a copy of the genuine article.

The brain is what makes you human. Lose your mind, lose your humanity.

__________________
Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer.

-From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator

Ourcrazymodern?

I think the brain defines the thing while it thinks it is what it is. A totally artificial body with a human brain in it, if the brain still thought (knew?) it was human, should qualify.
Qualifying: We ain't there yet. Joints, limbs, even hearts and external organs like dialysis machines leave the rest of this fantasy for the future.
Ever read "Jack the Bodiless"?

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

asaris

I wonder in what sense the term 'human' is being used here; more specifically, what function the term is imagined to be used for. If it's merely being used scientifically, to denote the member of a particular species, I have no particular opinion, though I would suspect that once you have no organic components you would cease to be human in that sense. But if by human you mean a member of particular community, particularly a community of citizens with rights, I don't think you would cease to be a member of that community merely by a replacement of organic with non-organic material, even if that replacement was total.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

ratbastid

Okay, but I question the big "equals sign" you have between brain and mind.

Some day in the future we may be able to copy our consciousness into computers. Will we still be human? We may be able to teleport ourselves via a mechanism that destroys one copy of us and recreates another copy of us elsewhere (like Star Trek transporters do). Will the re-constituted "you" still be you?

By my estimation, the one thing that distinguishes a human being is this: a human being makes meanings. Everything always means something to a human being. It's uncontrollable and unstoppable, and it's intrinsic to the creature that a human being is. And, as far as we can tell, it's unique to human beings. Dogs and cats don't make meaning. They have instinct, but that's different. If you think about, for instance, the turing test... What that actually is is a test to see if a system can communicate and receive symbolic meaning. Any system that can, we call "Artificial Intelligence".

So, as long as you can still make meaning, regardless of how much of you is meat and how much is metal, I say you're still human.

QuasiMondo

If I make a replica of the Mona Lisa an exact copy in every way, can it ever be the original Da Vinci masterpiece? Would it become that if I were to destroy the original?

In my opinion, you may still be considered 'human', but when you're copied, you =/= you.

__________________
Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer.

-From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator

Ourcrazymodern?

This is the first time I've experienced disagreeing with the one who speaks the truth.

Expectedly, it's very small: Animals other than us have their own meanings,
which we, the HUMANS, are incapable of understanding.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

ratbastid

Maybe, but how would you know?

jbw97361

Ok, lets say that its 500 years from now and upon death your mind can be uploaded into a computer and held until a new body can be grown for you from an old cell. Then your program, "jbw97361.exe" is put into the new body. Clearly before hand you are human. Clearly afterwards you are human. But during the in-between time?

I say it all lies in perception. If you believe yourself to be human, then you are human.

*tangental synapse firing one* What about serial killers? Don't many people say "its almost like they are not human"?

*tangental synapse firing two* What about animals that think they are human... or at least on the same plane as their owner/master?

__________________
JBW

kramus

The fact that we are born of women is not (IMHO) a slam dunk. Those who live among us and yet are not human do exist - Ted Bundy, Charles Ng, Mr. BTL et al. These "people" live amongst us, but are not part of our community. Humans are social animals - in a viable, caring and mutually supportive way. The freaks and snakes who dwell within our social manifestations as a cover in order to feed their dark and empty souls are not human, though they may be loved by their parents and by their children.
On the other hand, a person who through disease or accident has lost themselves is still human because they have willingly shared in and contributed to society when they were themselves. People who through genetic misfortune will never share in society are human because they never consciously and selfishly used society for their own ends. They are unfortunates, not inhuman.

__________________
And now to disengage the clutch of the forebrain ...
I'm going with this - if you like artwork visit http://markfineart.ca

Baraka_Guru

I don't think we can cherry-pick who is human and who isn't based on one's actions. Ted Bundy was human. He was an extremely miserable human, but a human nonetheless. A human being is certainly capable of doing what he did, just as a human being is capable of doing what Leonardo da Vinci did. We as a society like to trick ourselves into thinking that the most terrible things are beyond us--that we are incapable of such things--therefore they must be inhuman things.

Moreover, I do not believe we can pinpoint the boundaries of humanity by measuring the "authenticity" of our bodies, externally or internally. Our humanity doesn't reside in our brain. Knowing our bodies are temporary, why place the stock of our humanity in it? I think there is more to it than this. We gauge humanity not by our physical dimensions but by our actions and experiences, both good and evil. It is for this reason that we are still moved by both Ted Bundy and Leonardo da Vinci.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Johnny Rotten

Are you saying that a person's humanity depends on their moral or ethical state of mind? Most times, psychosis is a result of brain damage, chemical imbalance, abuse, or a combination thereof -- but I think you bring up an interesting twist.

__________________
"The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine

cyklone

The philosophical community defines a difference between being a human and being a "person" which would be useful to this discussion. A person may have all those qualities which you define as human but not be genetically human eg. an enhanced animal, alien or artificial intelligence. A human must be genetically human, but may not be or may no longer be a person, eg. someone suffering severe alzheimer's or someone so mentally deficit that they cannot function or meaningfully interact.
Personally I've met people who could be defined genetically as human but I would prefer to disown them and called them barely qualified as a person (politicians??) and I have met animals (my dog), who could almost qualify as a gentle person.

noodlebee

Pardon me for intruding. I'm not too good with words.

This question makes me think somewhat on a tangent to the question "how can you tell a person has grey hair?" Do you start to count how many hairs a person has and divide a fraction? How accurate would that math formula be? Technology already allows us to have replacement for things like limbs and internal organs. When that happens, it is like a percentage of your human body taken away.

cyklone also makes a very good point above me. But maybe "person" is not the exact word. Is "soul" or "spirit" better? Because in the example of your dog, he/she does not interact with humans the way 2 humans interact with each other. And usually "person" is used to signify "human", whereas "soul" or "spirit" seems to be more liberally used.

tecoyah

In my view.....there need be only two criteria to make a human:

1) Homo Sapien DNA

2) A functional Human Brain that knows, it is human

Ourcrazymodern?

In much the same way as anybody knows anything.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

MexicanOnABike

i was thinking about this and i think, you stop being human when you start changing it yourself. so someone in a coma was a human but is just sleeping so they're still human. someone who get's his legs/arms blown off in the war is still human.

But someone who will remove his own arms/organs to replace with something non-human is someone who's destroying what makes him human. once we start putting chips and computers in our brains, that's the day we stop being really human.

__________________

- Movie Reviews - Ratings-

Ourcrazymodern?

Damn! & I wanted a communication device implanted behind my ear.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

kramus

I have heard estimates that our society has developed about as far as a 10 year old when it comes to mature judgement, empathy and the strength/ability to hurt/do good. We can see glimpses of what we may eventually be. We can also see where we are able to either destroy ourselves or transform ourselves into some horrible cripple of a race which tears itself down more than it builds on it's gifts. We know that the most terrible things are well within our capabilities. The key is how to choose what to do, and what not to do, and how to make those choices in such a way as to ensure positive possiblilities remain probable.
This is different from destroying in the name of belief or commitment. Someone once said that just because there has been a belief held by so many for so long, it still can be wrong. Beliefs such as religeon are very powerful and soothing when we are faced with the idea of our own death. They are still wrong, and terrible in their twisted power to warp people. I wouldn't want that warping to be the impetus for judging whether or not someone is human. That leads to genocide, or the apocalypse as created by men. A ten year old will hurt others out of fear, immaturity, self interest or as a result of programming. That child also can choose to bring gifts to others with their heart, out of love, foresight and a desire to do good. That child can be our society choosing to grow wiser and better in spite of our capacity for being inhuman to each other.
This is why I think we Can "cherry-pick". Because we can choose to be humans or act as animals. The dangerous animals need to be put down, or put away, until the day when eventually we will develop the tools and resources to truly heal some of them. I agree that we gauge humanity by our actions. Inhuman actions by healable humans are one thing. Inhuman actions by inhuman "people" are another.

As I said, inhuman actions by healable humans are one thing. Inhuman actions by inhuman "people" are another. If they can't be cured or quarantined, then they ought to be put down as we do with crippled animals.
Again, please don't confuse these sorts with those who are caught up in untenable situations. I think a combatant who behaves in a beastly manner is different than a Bundy. You can help most of the child soldiers in Angola. You cannot help Charles Ng. It is the scale of the problem that daunts us. We can forgive ourselves when we have had a chance to grow up a bit more.
btw, the good done in the name of religeon is wonderful. I just wish we were able to do good without the trappings of that superstitious albatross of religeous thought that bows the back of our collective societies.
I don't judge the level of humanity in anyone by the amount of hardware wired into their wetware. That is a different conversation.
My 2 cents, anyway.

__________________
And now to disengage the clutch of the forebrain ...
I'm going with this - if you like artwork visit http://markfineart.ca

Plan9

I'm no longer human when I lose my wang.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

ShadowShift

You could change everything about you but your brain and still be human, your body is just your body, it's the human's brain that makes us so intelligent and gives us conciousness, put for instance a monkey's brain into a human body and it's not a human, but then there's human brain in monkey and, oh I don't know.

Hain

Sorry to bring up an old thread but this gives me a rather interesting notion. Human is just a word that applied to psyche, morality, flesh, etc. Why not work this from the other direction?

OK, we can replace everything in you, including the brain. A big petabyte hard drive and processors exists to make a physical dump of your brain allowing you to still exist, make memories, make judgments, learn, even have questions of morality.

Now we take that initially inanimate robot and teach it, have it learn, make it "grow up." It was sufficient for a human to implanted into a robot. Now the robot is thinking of its own volition. Is it human? Does it have a consciousness?

Now we step back and take away the complexity.

This is a far more interesting idea. AI and consciousness. Because what happens if an AI is conscious. Would we be really allowed to deem it artificial? What place would it have in the grand scheme of things? If our consciousness is something special, what about its?

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

levite

Even though I believe in the soul, somehow the bridge connecting soul to body seems to be in the brain. So I'm gonna go with the brain. I think it doesn't matter how many limbs or organs you get replaced, so long as your brain is the original one. As for hypothetical consciousness-transfers into artificial receptacles...I'll grapple with that one when it looks a little more possible.

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

Hain

It isn't so much about the soul, unless we are equating our consciousness as the soul. We can attack this even though such fantastic technology does exist, and probably will not exist for as long as I live.

The idea is what do we think of ourselves when we can create consciousness in other things. Are we any less special? Is the other consciousness any less special? What questions would this new consciousness ask? Could it ask any questions if we didn't acknowledge its conscious presence? Would we recognize its sentient state?

-Off topic- //my speech must be old by now//
I believe consciousness to be something transcending human form, something as integral to the universe as are the laws of physics. Consciousness is just a by product of action/reaction taken to a far extreme. It has evolved, and has yet to finish evolving. When we can create consciousness in "artificial" things, are we any less artificial than us?

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

allaboutmusic

Your soul makes you human I think, if not your spirit. I won't pretend to enough enough about either to put forward a convincing argument about it at this point.

Plan9

I think the life training of our brain inside our body makes us human. The wants, the needs, the limitations, the sensations, getting older, explosive diarrhea, etc.

Without that experience as a basis for our personalities... I doubt we'd be very "human" as far as we currently define it.

...

I'm not body proud. I would gladly give up my limbs for robotic pincers, laser cannons, pogo legs, cybernetic panther claws, etc.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

prosequence

No longer human? Right after you die would be my answer. Then you're just a mass of cells no different than the bugs having you for buffet.

__________________
And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...