Farlander Central

What Would You Do to be More Than Human?

Opening statement by Nephus:

I've always been a fan of the cyberpunk genre. Every time I see some blurb on techtv about a blind guy who has been given basic vision again through the implantation of wires into his brain attached to a small camera or implants that give hearing to those who have never had it, I always say to my friends, "Shadowrun is now."
The thing is, all of these kinds of articles have been related to returning things to the disabled. What about adding what was never there in the first place?
The Gift of Magnetic Vision

I knew elective surgery and implants were happening all the time, but I've never heard of anything like this before.

Giggles wrote:

Hm. This actually raises some interesting questions about the morality of using technology to augment a person's weaknesses. If you had this implant, what would stop you from attacking a rocket launcher to your back? A ridiculous example, of course, and unlikely, but every advancement in this field brings us a little closer to that. And what about the biological end of it? If you lost your legs and an eye to a car crash, and you replaced the eye with a cybernetic implant and the legs with cyborg limbs, are you technically still a human, or something else? While I support the use of technology to aid humanity, you have to wonder-when have you stopped aiding humanity, and started updating hardware?

Actually the same issue was tackled in Asimov and Silverberg's book 'The Positronic Man' (later made into that Robin Williams farce, gaargh), which, although a work of fiction, did address really interesting issues about what makes a human human. Andrew eventually came to the conclusion that what makes a person isn't all the augmentations he's got (as in, implants and artificial organs doesn't make a person less human), but human mortality - the fact that their brains, the seat of their beings, unlike other organs is irreplaceable and must die.

Of course, seeing it from a scientific point of view, I would have to agree with the logic (that the neural pathways in our brains are what makes us us), but if you're going to talk about Homo sapiens sapiens, then I suppose we would be human for as long as our genetic composition isn't tampered with, regardless of whatever cybernetic augmentations we receive. Because implants and augmentations are like, well, a boob job - it enhances you, but it's not written in your DNA and you're not going to be able to pass it on to anybody. For the same reasons, I don't believe that hypothetical DNA therapies (like replacing a faulty insulin-coding gene with a working one) would make people less human either, because you're only playing around with variations of the human genetic code; however, if we receive augmentations in the form of, say, genes from microbes that encode enzymes that can break down cellulose, which humans obviously do not have....

Uh oh, then this brings us to the topic of DNA integration. The thing is that humans have formed a strange partnership with microoorganisms over the course of evolution, as have all other organisms. In fact, the mitochondrion is hypothesised to be a microbe who formed a fruitful partnership with a larger cell, and over time lost its 'microbial' identity and became part of the cell (I could give you scientific documentation on that), and a large hunk of our DNA comprises integrated foreign DNA anyway. And to make matters more complicated, organisms have a case of 'jumping genes' (transposon elements - genes don't stay static, but actually erm, hop and shuffle around, to put things simply). If we take all of that into consideration, then what exactly defines our human identity? Gaargh, I'm raising even more questions. Maybe we should stick to the age-old, 'I think, therefore I am', no?

Oh God, I've gone off-track, haven't I. I'm sorry! Back to Cyberpunk!

Krelian wrote:

This is quite interesting... what makes a human a human, or on a broader scale, what constitutes sentient life? An amputee with an artificial leg still classes as human, as does the person wih a cochlear implant, a pacemaker, etc. What about a brain in a jar, or in some sort of artificial body? Surely that would class as human too, or some derivative thereof. Surely as long as that brain can still function the person would be alive in some sense of the word. So, the irreplacable organ is the brain... or is it? It seems to me that the brain itself doesn't matter so much as what's in it. Thus if a person's mind, their memories, their 'self', could be encoded onto some other medium (a computer, for example), perhaps they wouldn't be human, but wouldn't they still be alive?

So, then, if the medium doesn't matter, what sets us apart from the machine? Problem solving, pattern matching, memory, the capability for complex thought? Even learning and the ability to grow doesn't separate us so much as we might think? What then, do we have that a form of artificial intelligence couldn't? A soul? Without getting metaphysical, perhaps what makes us alive is the capacity for emotion. Love, hate, fear, it seems those are the things that define us as sentient life. A computer could surely simulate feelings, but until it can actually feel them, not just produce a certain response on command, I don't think it could be considered alive.

Maybe I'm way off in left field, or perhaps I'm not even in the ballpark, but it was interesting to ponder. Perhaps death is what defines us. Only by dying, or at least the ability to die, do we know that we live. Just as there is no joy without pain, perhaps there is no life without death. Duality, opposites defining each other through balance and harmony... there's another interesting thought. I've rambled enough though for one sitting.

Krelian wrote:

Only by dying, or at least the ability to die, do we know that we live. Just as there is no joy without pain, perhaps there is no life without death.

"Call no man happy until he is dead." Herodotus, wasn't it? He had a point there.

The definition of 'human' and 'humanity' are rather tetchy. I would be inclined to say that we are humans who identify ourselves as such, but then it would be excluding other parties such as those afflicted with mental disabilities or disorders that prevent them from conceiving such a notion or making the association. I'd say what makes us human isn't the appearance or the body parts, but the 'human essence', but that's dangerously bordering on the metaphysical.

Thus if a person's mind, their memories, their 'self', could be encoded onto some other medium (a computer, for example), perhaps they wouldn't be human, but wouldn't they still be alive?

I'm not really sure where I stand on that issue. I don't think that the mere imprint of a person's memories onto an electronic medium would qualify as 'human' or 'alive' because what it would be is a memory, a recording or archive (while memories may play a part in making us human, I don't think it's solely responsible for our being human), but maybe if that encoding contained imprints of the original neural pathway, and that 'imprint' was self-aware and still capable of thought and functioning as if it had remained in its human shell, then that 'record' may be considered sentient in some way, and 'alive'. Of course, if one is going to be pernickety and insist on arguing along the lines of science, then 'alive' would be considered the continued functioning of the cells in the body (especially those in the brain) - but surely being alive means a great deal more than?

Without getting metaphysical, perhaps what makes us alive is the capacity for emotion. Love, hate, fear, it seems those are the things that define us as sentient life.

I think this would be only valid if you're discussing the human--alive issue. I think that sentience is more of being aware of one's surroundings and having the ability to react to it (be it animate or inanimate objects) - in which case, humans would not be the only sentient beings on this planet, and that the definition of sentience should be changed to include phenomena that are innate to some other organisms but are beyond our grasp.

This is actually one of the most stimulating discussions I've found at the Off Topic forum!

Krelian wrote:

KFarlander wrote:

I'd say what makes us human isn't the appearance or the body parts, but the 'human essence', but that's dangerously bordering on the metaphysical.

Essence indeed, but what is that? Were I Christian, I'd say God gave each of us an immortal soul and leave it at that... but I'm not, and that'd take all the fun out of the debate anyway . So, then, what is it that defines us, that sets us apart? Our genes are what make us human, I suppose, but that's far from being the full picture. Our essence is unique, perhaps, but it seems impossible in defining humanity to separate our traits and capabilities (self awareness, feelings, etc) from our physical form. Removing our body from the equation would, I think, render us no longer human, but perhaps no less alive.

I don't think that the mere imprint of a person's memories onto an electronic medium would qualify as 'human' or 'alive' because what it would be is a memory, a recording or archive (while memories may play a part in making us human, I don't think it's solely responsible for our being human), but maybe if that encoding contained imprints of the original neural pathway, and that 'imprint' was self-aware and still capable of thought and functioning as if it had remained in its human shell, then that 'record' may be considered sentient in some way, and 'alive'. Of course, if one is going to be pernickety and insist on arguing along the lines of science, then 'alive' would be considered the continued functioning of the cells in the body (especially those in the brain) - but surely being alive means a great deal more than?

Perhaps I'm grasping the wrong words for my meanings, as I meant not memories alone but a functioning copy of the human mind. At the moment, I'm gravitating towards the idea that a functioning mind, whether artificially created or copied from a human host (perhaps a dying person's 'essence' copied to a hard drive?), would be far from human but no less alive. A different organism, of course, with different strengths and weaknesses (imagine the ability to travel through the internet at incredible speeds, or the possibility of being copied, or the ease of deletion), but still alive in a more philosophical sense of the word. We tend to consider life as "things that are like us", meaning biological organisms that grow, live, die, etc. It's hard to comprehend something with different limitations, a different set of rules, let alone decide whether it's truly alive.

Good point, I often get lost in my rambling and I usually make less sense than I intend. Emotion, on perhaps a lesser scale, extends to more life forms than just humans though. Take a dog, for instance. They may not feel love or hate (or perhaps they do), but they obviously can experience fear. Take my dog, for instance. A while back, when that tree fell in my back yard, my dog was incredibly frightened, and couldn't settle down for quite a while. I'm reminded of a part of the Silmarillion, when the fathers of the Dwarves are first created.

From The Silmarillion:

Then Aulë took up a great hammer to smite the Dwarves; and he wept. But Ilúvatar had compassion upon Aulë and his desire, because of his humility; and the Dwarves shrank from the hammer and wore afraid, and they bowed down their heads and begged for mercy. And the voice of Ilúvatar said to Aulë: 'Thy offer I accepted even as it was made. Dost thou not see that these things have now a life of their own, and speak with their own voices? Else they would not have flinched from thy blow, nor from any command of thy will.'

This is a rather strange reference, I suppose, but it seems to fit. Besides, all roads lead to Rome, and all threads lead to LOTR.

This is actually one of the most stimulating discussions I've found at the Off Topic forum!

I'm glad, I'm enjoying myself as well, and hopefully not sounding like too big a fool in the process.

Krelian wrote:

Perhaps I'm grasping the wrong words for my meanings, as I meant not memories alone but a functioning copy of the human mind. At the moment, I'm gravitating towards the idea that a functioning mind, whether artificially created or copied from a human host (perhaps a dying person's 'essence' copied to a hard drive?), would be far from human but no less alive.

Ah yes, I see what you're getting at. Sorry, I think I misread your last - I thought you were referring to memories alone. Yeah, we see more or less eye-to-eye. Emotions do extend to other life forms other than humans (my dog is a big old fake - you wouldn't believe some of the things she does to solicit attention and sympathy)... Although I find really amazing that even though plants and fungi do not exhibit emotion (or at least in any form that we find recognisable), that they are nevertheless able to communicate with one another, and that they are in fact the pioneers of networking and the internet - maybe it's something worth considering in our quest to re-define sentience, no?

Krelian wrote:

KFarlander wrote:

Although I find really amazing that even though plants and fungi do not exhibit emotion (or at least in any form that we find recognisable), that they are nevertheless able to communicate with one another, and that they are in fact the pioneers of networking and the internet - maybe it's something worth considering in our quest to re-define sentience, no?

I'm not so well read in current scientific discoveries, but I do seem to remember a study showing some semblance of emotional response in plant life. I can't back any of this up with evidence or studies though, I haven't a clue where I heard it. It brings up an interesting idea though... we, as humans, see things in terms of how they compare to us. Just because communication, emotion, or even thought doesn't evidence itself in a way that we can readily recognize and understand doesn't mean it's not there.

For a quick side-track into the realm of abstract spiritual concepts, let's examine the idea of God, or at least the human conceptualization of a divine being. As I'm most familiar with Christianity, it's easy to point out where people have humanized (?) the concept of God. People assume that this divine being is male, that it looks and functions similarly to a human, and even that we, with our limited capacity for understanding, should be able to comprehend it. People see God not as some sort of ethereal divine being but more in terms of a glorified human. Regardless of religion, it's interesting to see how people have adjusted the concept to make it easily understood.

Perhaps we humans understand this world even less than we think we do. There is much we take for granted, things that few ever even give any thought. I'm rambling again though, so perhaps it's best I stop and actually do some work for once.

Krelian wrote:

For a quick side-track into the realm of abstract spiritual concepts, let's examine the idea of God, or at least the human conceptualization of a divine being. As I'm most familiar with Christianity, it's easy to point out where people have humanized (?) the concept of God. People assume that this divine being is male, that it looks and functions similarly to a human, and even that we, with our limited capacity for understanding, should be able to comprehend it. People see God not as some sort of ethereal divine being but more in terms of a glorified human. Regardless of religion, it's interesting to see how people have adjusted the concept to make it easily understood.

To borrow the term from Pratchett, anthropomorphic personification. The thought of a God that is all-powerful and omnipresent and all is something that humans, with their limited scope of understanding, are unable to grasp. And so to make God more tangible, easier to relate to, people shape God in their own likeness. I've heard Christian fundamentalists lambast people of other religions for worshipping idols; however, my personal opinion is that they are not worshipping the idols per se, but are in fact using them as an anchor of some sort, so that their prayers and such will have a direction and focus, because it's easier to pray to something that has a defined shape than an unseen ethereal force. Um, I'm treading on dangerous grounds again, aren't I?

Giggles wrote:

Well, the base belief of religion-in a deity of some kind-comes from a need of comfort. Its a difficult world to live in with a lot of wrong, so people prefer to think that there is somebody watching out for them, a divine father figure. In other words, a god. Whether or not the idea is true or can be backed up is irrelevant-it brings comfort to them, so they will believe it. It also has to do with a base fear of death-what happens to us after we die? Death itself is incomprehensible to a human mind-the lack of everything. No seeing eternal blackness, no not hearing, just-nothing. The belief in an afterlife is a base reaction to fear.

I'll add more later.

Krelian wrote:

An infinite number of ways to define what is human? I don't think it's as complex as that. A human, as I see now, is a mind and a body. Perhaps not a fully-functioning mind, nor a fully-functioning body, but it seems you have to have both. I'm still not decided on all this, I'm only speaking what's on my mind, but it would seem that if you remove the mind from the body and place it into another inhuman body, the creature ceases to be a human. There's the question of where you draw the line, but I think the real puzzling question is how to define life.

On the subject of God, the unstable ground we keep skirting, it makes quite a lot of sense. Idols, personification, anything to put such an immaterial concept into terms we can understand. It's an easy way of simplifying the world around us, but it seems to skew our perspective.

Also, without an open mind, the unknown seems to keep people from questioning...

Whether or not the idea is true or can be backed up is irrelevant-it brings comfort to them, so they will believe it

Lack of understanding seems to push us to extremes, regardless of the truth. People often reject things that don't fit with their world view, whether there's evidence or not. We all, to some extent, believe what we want to, though some seek truth more than others.

Wow, this thread is all over the place.

DISCOURSES