Where do you stop being human?

[Goodchild]

Something I think about occasionally, particularly with the advancement of technology and the possibilities of the future.

If a person has a prosthetic leg, are they still human? Of course. What if they have two artificial legs? Artificial arms? A plastic heart? All still human.

As our technology grows it seems inevitable (barring catastrophe of course) that we'll reach a point where every part of the human body is replaceable by artificial man-made parts ... even perhaps to the point of artificial neurons.

So at what point would a person stop being human through artificial replacement? If a future human steadily had every body part replaced with artificial items, including the neurons of their brain, would they still be human? Would they still be the same person?

I see no reason to feel that they would no longer be human even though they are now 100% artificial. I also can't imagine why they wouldn't be the same person anymore if every part that makes them who they are was replicated in detail (the neurons and other parts of the brain). Which makes me wonder, would a being created from scratch using the same parts be human as well even though they never had a strictly biological beginning?

[4321lynx]

Something I think about occasionally, particularly with the advancement of technology and the possibilities of the future.

If a person has a prosthetic leg, are they still human? Of course. What if they have two artificial legs? Artificial arms? A plastic heart? All still human.

As our technology grows it seems inevitable (barring catastrophe of course) that we'll reach a point where every part of the human body is replaceable by artificial man-made parts ... even perhaps to the point of artificial neurons.

So at what point would a person stop being human through artificial replacement? If a future human steadily had every body part replaced with artificial items, including the neurons of their brain, would they still be human? Would they still be the same person?

I see no reason to feel that they would no longer be human even though they are now 100% artificial. I also can't imagine why they wouldn't be the same person anymore if part that makes them who they are was replicated in detail (the neurons and other parts of the brain), makes me wonder, would a being created from scratch using the same parts be human as well even though they never had a strictly biological beginning?

This is asked often, usually in connection with Artificial Intelligence rather than what you ask about the "humanity" of the, shall we say, "resultant being".

IMHO it is at present a very theoretical, in fact hypothetical, question about a hypothetical situation unlikely to be faced in real life anytime soon. The complexity of the brain seems to be wholly unappreciated even by the scientifically inclined posters here. There is an obsession with AI, and sure, some parts of brain function may soon be imitated to a certain lesser or greater extent, but a wholly independent, functioning, thinking, feeling being is the stuff of science fiction.

See WIKI for some measure of what might be involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurons#The_neuron_doctrine


The neuron doctrine
The neuron doctrine is the now fundamental idea that neurons are the basic structural and functional units of the nervous system. The theory was put forward by Santiago Ramón y Cajal in the late 19th century. It held that neurons are discrete cells (not connected in a meshwork), acting as metabolically distinct units.

As with all doctrines, there are some exceptions. For example glial cells may also play a role in information processing.[18] Also, electrical synapses are more common than previously thought,[19] meaning that there are direct, cytoplasmic connections between neurons. In fact, there are examples of neurons forming even tighter coupling; the squid giant axon arises from the fusion of multiple neurons that retain individual cell bodies and the crayfish giant axon consists of a series of neurons with high conductance septate junctions[citation needed].

Cajal also postulated the Law of Dynamic Polarization, which states that a neuron receives signals at its dendrites and cell body and transmits them, as action potentials, along the axon in one direction: away from the cell body.[20] The Law of Dynamic Polarization has important exceptions; dendrites can serve as synaptic output sites of neurons[21] and axons can receive synaptic inputs[citation needed].


[edit] Neurons in the brain
The number of neurons in the brain varies dramatically from species to species.[22]One estimate puts the human brain at about 100 billion (10^11) neurons and 100 trillion (10^14) synapses.[22] Another estimate is 86 billion neurons of which 16.3 are in the cerebral cortex and 69. in the cerebellum.[23] By contrast, the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans has just 302 neurons making it an ideal experimental subject as scientists have been able to map all of the organism's neurons. By contrast, the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster has around 100,000 neurons and exhibits many complex behaviors. Many properties of neurons, from the type of neurotransmitters used to ion channel composition, are maintained across species, allowing scientists to study processes occurring in more complex organisms in much simpler experimental systems.


Though what you pose is a fascinating question for philosophical musing & discussion.
Would Xtians try to preach to such a creation? If you made it are you its god? etc...:)

[Goodchild]

Sure, it's absolutely science fiction right now. But then, when I was a child communicators that you carried around and flipped open to talk to someone else were a science fiction seen on Star Trek :) I'm still waiting for flying cars, however.

You hit on why I posted this in the philosophy forum rather than the science forum. I'm not so interested in the possibility of such a thing (though I imagine it to be inevitable unless we end our species or advancement somehow) as I am the variety of questions such a thing brings up. As the topic of the thread asks, at what point of replacement do we stop considering a being to be 'human'? The only possible point I could guess to be valid would be replacement of portions of the brain as the body is basically just the mobile support unit for the human brain and unnecessary other than for those two purposes (mobility and support). The brain is what makes us who we are and separates humans from our closest relatives such as chimps.

But positing the existence of brain replacement technology, would we be able to consider a completely artifical being as still human and would they even still be the same individual? The question of whether the consciousness would survive such replacement really fascinates me for some reason.

Like you ask (a good question), would there be any purpose for the religious to evangelize such creatures? Whether through replacement or construction these beings don't seem like they would be subject to the typical reasons given for needing 'salvation'. They're essentially immortal and not really even descended from human lineage anymore/at all.

[Danhalen]

I think there needs to be a distinction made between "human" and "person." I am not sure an entirely "human" being could be completely artificial. I know this presents problems for people with prosthetics, but I have no problems saying those people are not entirely human, but are entirely people. On the other hand, personhood ought to be available to anything with the same cognitive and communication skills as us. I would think a sufficiently intelligent bird could be a person (ala Locke or Hume, I can't remember which).

The tricky part is when we decide how to determine what persons we should extend our morality to. If it is just humans then amputees get screwed which is hardly fair. If it's all things classifiable as people then we potentially extend our moral attitudes to really smart birds as well as children (should I jump in front of a speeding car to save a really smart flightless bird?).

[Eudaimonist]

It might help to ask: what is the purpose you have in mind for the concept "human"?

This question is much like the old Ship of Theseus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_theseus) paradox.

The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned [from Crete] had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.

—Plutarch, Theseus

Is the ship, with all its parts replaced, still the ship of Theseus?

I think this example should point to the truth that whether or not we consider this the "same" ship depends on our purpose for this designation. If the effort to maintain this ancient ship is for historical or symbolic reasons, so that people may glance at the ship that looks exactly like the ship alleged to belong to Theseus, even if the original planks are long rotted away, then it is still the ship of Theseus.

However, if one is interested in the original planks, perhaps in order to conduct some research into the quality of the wood used in Theseus's time, then it is not the ship of Theseus.

The purpose you have for the concept may determine its application. And so with asking whether or not a transhuman is still human.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[DMB]

It's like that stuff about not stepping twice into the same river.

[dug_down_deep]

It's a matter of definitions, right? Like Danhalen alluded to, the moral element comes in when we try to decide if a thing is a person, with feelings and judgment, and those sorts of things.

[Ray Moscow]

Something I think about occasionally, particularly with the advancement of technology and the possibilities of the future.

If a person has a prosthetic leg, are they still human? Of course. What if they have two artificial legs? Artificial arms? A plastic heart? All still human.

As our technology grows it seems inevitable (barring catastrophe of course) that we'll reach a point where every part of the human body is replaceable by artificial man-made parts ... even perhaps to the point of artificial neurons.

So at what point would a person stop being human through artificial replacement? If a future human steadily had every body part replaced with artificial items, including the neurons of their brain, would they still be human? Would they still be the same person?

I see no reason to feel that they would no longer be human even though they are now 100% artificial. I also can't imagine why they wouldn't be the same person anymore if every part that makes them who they are was replicated in detail (the neurons and other parts of the brain). Which makes me wonder, would a being created from scratch using the same parts be human as well even though they never had a strictly biological beginning?

I suppose it comes down to how we define "human". Personally I'd think of any sentient being as "human" or equivalent, even if they were AI.

Luckily Star Trek has explored the question for us, several times.

For me, the harder bit is where to draw the line of "humanity" for nonsentient or less sentient beings. A whale, for example, has a large, complex brain. Could it be sentient? If so, shouldn't we treat it as effectively "human"?

How about a retarded person with the mind on par with a chimp? Still human, surely, even if not so smart.

How about chimps?

[Rilx]

By the fact that dead structures are replaced by cold artificial parts cannot be inferred that living structures were replacable.

Besides, though pigs could fly, they wouldn't be birds.

[Danhalen]

By the fact that dead structures are replaced by cold artificial parts cannot be inferred that living structures were replacable.Nor does it infer they were not replaceable.

Besides, though pigs could fly, they wouldn't be birds.Would they still be pigs?

[Nohweh]

No, they would be flying pigs. And much venerated for all their anticipation.

If the brain were replaced with all its function and conditioning, then the person would be the same. We are machines.

[Eudaimonist]

No, they would be flying pigs. And much venerated for all their anticipation.

I agree.

If the brain were replaced with all its function and conditioning, then the person would be the same.

It would seem that way, but it begs the question of whether or not a substitute brain really could behave in an identical way to the biological brain it replaced.

We are machines.

Are we? Or is this an old analogy?

And what is the concept "machine" being contrasted with? Is anything not a "machine"? If nothing is not a machine, what is being said here?


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Ray Moscow]

We are biological "machines" -- but much more complex than any other sort of "machine" produced so far.

[Eudaimonist]

We are biological "machines" -- but much more complex than any other sort of "machine" produced so far.

You could be right, but what is a "machine"?

I ask because this is the philosophy board.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[nygreenguy]

We have many good definitions on what constitutes a species, so its easy to define when someone isnt a human. A better question is when do they stop being a person.

[Garnet]

I stop being human anytime I have to get out of bed before 9 am.



Oh, you said where not when.

*ducks and runs*

[dug_down_deep]

We are not machines. That is not what the word means. It's a minor detail in the context of this discussion, but mistaking an analogy for an identity can cause mistakes to develop. For one thing, on a board largely populated by atheists, the issue of teleology should make one skeptical of the idea that people are machines.

[Eudaimonist]

For one thing, on a board largely populated by atheists, the issue of teleology should make one skeptical of the idea that people are machines.

Please expand on this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Hex]

By the fact that dead structures are replaced by cold artificial parts cannot be inferred that living structures were replacable.Nor does it infer they were not replaceable.

How about cosmetic replacements for or augmentation of the body?

Would replacing a functional, living, but displeasing body part make you less human?

And, I agree with NYGG - The difference between being a 'human' and being a 'person' may be an important point in interpreting the OP ...

[dug_down_deep]

For one thing, on a board largely populated by atheists, the issue of teleology should make one skeptical of the idea that people are machines.

Please expand on this.


eudaimonia,

Mark
I just mean that machines are designed to carry out functions. People are not designed.

[Goodchild]

I just mean that machines are designed to carry out functions. People are not designed.

Do you mean to say "not consciously designed"? Because I imagine it could be argued that we are designed by our DNA for the function of spreading copies of that DNA.

[dug_down_deep]

Well, sure, but then you could also argue that people are for the same 'purpose'. And then what happens to being a person, with moral responsibility and judgment, and all that? If you smear out the design distinction, you lose the measure by which you can determine 'humanity', in the non-biological sense.

All that smearing is damaging to the discussion, is really my point.

[nygreenguy]

Do you mean to say "not consciously designed"? Because I imagine it could be argued that we are designed by our DNA for the function of spreading copies of that DNA. We may be driven by our DNA, but we are in no way "designed" by it.

[Eudaimonist]

Well, sure, but then you could also argue that people are for the same 'purpose'. And then what happens to being a person, with moral responsibility and judgment, and all that? If you smear out the design distinction, you lose the measure by which you can determine 'humanity', in the non-biological sense.

All that smearing is damaging to the discussion, is really my point.

That's an excellent point.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Ray Moscow]

I just mean that machines are designed to carry out functions. People are not designed.

Do you mean to say "not consciously designed"? Because I imagine it could be argued that we are designed by our DNA for the function of spreading copies of that DNA.

I would say that we, and all other living things, are "designed" by the algorithms of natural selection -- just not "consciously designed".

[dug_down_deep]

"Designed", but not designed.

[Goodchild]

How about "built" rather than "designed"? Which would imply that we are organic machines and perhaps that there's no real difference between being built organically or mechanically? But I'm not sure I really want to concede that we are nothing more than highly complex machines built by DNA for the purpose of spreading that DNA.

[dug_down_deep]

Well, that's probably because we're obviously so much more! There may be DNA spreading mechanisms involved with our humanity, but there's also intention, and intentionality. And other stuff that machines don't have.

[Rilx]

From my POV, we're not built or designed. We are evolved by separating us from environment as systems which can conserve more energy in their structures than our local environment. We are self-organized energy sinks of our environment, which is a vital part of our existence, i.e. our humanity in the OP sense. Nothing has built nor designed the salty ocean water which still is a major part of our body.

BTW, I think that time has passed Richard Dawkins. The dilemma is that too many wanted to throw the baby away with wash water.

[dug_down_deep]

Well, as you just mentioned, the baby is the bathwater. ;)

[reddhedd]

To answer the OP:
Same as being christian, IMO...when you believe you're human, when you identify yourself as human, you are.

[HinduWoman]

I thought being human meant being able to think and identify yourself as a member of the human species about whose individual members you feel certain emotions.

That is not going to change just because you get a mechanical part. Otherwise people with wooden legs would not think of themselves as real humans.

[Valheru]

Let's have some gedankeneksperiments.

Would a living, cognising, self-aware brain floating in a tank be considered human? If so, what makes it human? The ability to think and be self-aware?

If not, what makes it not human? The lack of richness that comes about from living in a body and having your body interact with the world? That would then imply that a quadriplegic like Stephen Hawking, for example, isn't human, and I think few would regard that as an acceptable dividing line.

The upshot is that physical state (and varying levels of it) are irrelevant, and the only thing that matters is a human way of thinking and feeling at the core of your consciousness. Even if you could transplant your mind into a machine, and you could still have identical human thoughts, feelings and cognitive abilities as before, you would be human.

If you have a prosthesis, you're not less human. If you have a pacemaker or artificial heart, you're not human. The same goes for your brain, which is but another (arbitrary) part of your body. If you had a prosthetic brain, with the exact same functionality as the biological part, you'd still be human.

But therein lies the qualifier: "Exact same functionality". We have strengths and weaknesses in our cognition that make us human - emotions, self-delusion, love, and the ability to remember or forget are all parts of the bigger whole.

If the only important part of being human - the cognitive part, was modified to blunt or supercharge these abilities, you'd no longer be wholly human. Imagine not being able to forget ANYTHING. Imagine having instant, 100% recall of EVERY SINGLE input you've ever received. Imagine not being able to forget anything, either. Imagine not being able to self-delude. Imagine not having fear of death. Imagine being constantly in fear of death if the power trips... I could go on and on.

That shit is straight outta the twilight zone, and IMO is not human.

[Goodchild]

If the only important part of being human - the cognitive part, was modified to blunt or supercharge these abilities, you'd no longer be wholly human. Imagine not being able to forget ANYTHING. Imagine having instant, 100% recall of EVERY SINGLE input you've ever received. Imagine not being able to forget anything, either. Imagine not being able to self-delude. Imagine not having fear of death. Imagine being constantly in fear of death if the power trips... I could go on and on.

That shit is straight outta the twilight zone, and IMO is not human.

Except for the fact that there are humans with such abilities as total recall and we still consider them to be human :)

[Valheru]

Except for the fact that there are humans with such abilities as total recall and we still consider them to be human :)

Photographic memory is far from absolute total recall, though. I'm talking about the sort of experience where your mind is a video recorder and you can recall how many puffs you had of that cigarette you smoked 10 years ago.

AFAIK people with photographic memory still need to make a conscious effort to remember stuff, but once it's in it's in. Time will still erase it, but it just takes much longer.

[Goodchild]

Except for the fact that there are humans with such abilities as total recall and we still consider them to be human :)

Photographic memory is far from absolute total recall, though. I'm talking about the sort of experience where your mind is a video recorder and you can recall how many puffs you had of that cigarette you smoked 10 years ago.

AFAIK people with photographic memory still need to make a conscious effort to remember stuff, but once it's in it's in. Time will still erase it, but it just takes much longer.

I was talking about actual total recall though, not photographic memory. I remember reading an article not to long ago about a very small number of people that actually can remember such things as exactly what they were watching on TV on May 9th, 1985 and what was happening in the show :)

[Cath B]

I don't have any point to make here except to say that this thread puts me in mind of Anne McCaffrey's Ship Who Sang stories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ship_Who_Sang

...parents of children who are born with severe physical handicaps but highly developed minds are given the option of allowing them to become "shell people"; encapsulated as children in a titanium life-support shell and specially trained for tasks that a "normal" human would be unable to do. These children, after coming of age, are employed in various manners (in the books, mostly as interstellar spacecraft brainships or as the "brains" of cities) to work off the debt of their creation and training.

[Hevvin Machine]

I doubt that we "traditional" humans will have anything to say about who is and who is not human. More likely beings who are different enough and numerous/powerful enough to shed the moniker human, will decide for us who is and who is not human. When somebody/somebodies comes along who don't want to be associated too closely with those icky humans, they will decide that they aren't human and there won't be anything to be done about it.
Hev