Is John human?

[Borachio]

This is actually a difficult conundrum when it comes to replacing the brain. (Other body parts don't seem to be so problematic, imo.)

At first sight it might seem as if John died with the death of his organic brain. But is this really so? If we imagine his brain functions being gradually replaced by cybernetic ones, how would John himself tell the difference?

And, more crucially, how does replacing the organic components with cybernetic ones differ from the on-going process of renewal and reconfiguration that goes on naturally and organically anyway?

I don't know the answer to this. It seems to be intrinsically tied up with what makes us essentially ourselves, and I don't the answer to that either.

Am I the same person now as I was when I was six years old? The answer seems to be both yes and no.

 

[thecrazyscot]

John is dead. Robot John may have his memories, but he is not the same John.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, he's still a *person*, assuming he's conscious. He stopped being human when he changed his brain, at the very least.

 

[warpus]

I think the brain is the dividing line here--we have artificial replacements for organs and limbs now, although not cybernetic. The brain is the one that can't currently be replaced and thus has the mysticism of humanity still attached to it.

I agree.

As soon as you replace the brain - John dies. At that point John is replaced by a robotic sort of being, whether it's a person or not, it's not a human being.

 

[Borachio]

But what if you could replace half, say, of John's brain? And the cyber and organic halves could interact together.

Where's John then? And if he's still there, and intact, what would happen if you then replaced the organic half?

It's not at all clear to me that John dies with his organic brain, anymore than the 7 year old John has died and been replaced by a 27 year old John, with no cybernetic intervention.

 

[thecrazyscot]

I don't know that is even within the realm of possibility without killing John.

 

[warpus]

But what if you could replace half, say, of John's brain? And the cyber and organic halves could interact together.

Where's John then? And if he's still there, and intact, what would happen if you then replaced the organic half?

You can't just replace half his brain though - when you take out a part of somebody's brain, their personality changes.. for teh most part. Or the person dies. If you remove enough brain, he will die for sure.

If you do it gradually without killing John, then I'd agree that John is still a human being, even after his entire body is robotic.

But I just don't think it's possible to do that. The second you take away any part of his biological brain, you run into "We're gonna F this guy up" issues.

 

[Borachio]

It can't be done now, that's for sure. But it may well be possible in the not too distant future.

Consider that deaf people can have cochlear implants, and that blind people can have their visual cortexes directly stimulated. Aren't these cybernetic enhancements to the organic brain? And don't they work without subtracting anything from what constitutes the individual's sense of themselves?

 

[warpus]

The problem is that you can't just "transfer" somebody's mind from the brain to an electronic or biological device. The "mind" is just the collection of neurons and the way they are connected.

If you transfer these neural connections one by one - they become new connections, and the personality of the person changes.

If you do it gradually, such that the personality of the person changes incredibly gradually, at a similar pace as they do already.. then yeah, in theory it should be possible to gradually "transfer" someone's personality and consciousness onto an electronic device. It's just that it's such a fantastical ask that we're going to see cyborgs, and all the other examples given in this thread, before we even know where to begin to do such a thing.

But yeah, if it's possible, and we do it - I think John would be human - assuming that there is an uninterrupted flow of consciousness between human-John, everything in between, and finally robot-John.

I doubt anything like this will ever happen though - if we ever figure out how to do anything remotely similar to this, we'll use the technology to "add on" to existing brains. Cutting out parts of your biological brain? Why even go there? If you don't do it neuron by neuron it's going to mess you up, like I said.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

This argument usually comes about when talking about the transporter. After you go through the transporter the first time, are you still your original self, or a replacement body with uploaded memories?

For me, it's a difference which makes no difference.

But in the case of a cybernetic brain... Is the Terminator human? Is Data human? No. And neither is John.

I don't know enough about the Terminator to say anything on that. But I would consider Data human. Is he a member of Homo Erectus? No. But if a world where the technology to create artificial life ever arises we will need to rethink the definition of the word "human", because it will no longer be sufficient to think of it in terms only of our own species. Either that or we'll have to revise all of our laws and such to replace the word "human" with the word "person" or whatever we end up using to represent sentient beings with self-agency.

 

[El_Machinae]

I find the 'one neuron at a time' compelling, from a transhumanist perspective. Our current majorproblem is that we don't know what a neuron does that causes consciousness (we're getting better and better at figuring out what they do, computationally, though).

The major test will be whether you can add components of the brain, and then shift your consciousness to that robotic neuroanatomy. If, after replacing the somatosensory cortex for the left hand, you can be aware of your left hand, attending it, then we'll have cracked how to migrate consciousness to circuitry.

Then everything changes. And, until then, it's mostly our choice regarding our velocity to this future.

 

[warpus]

I find the 'one neuron at a time' compelling, from a transhumanist perspective. Our current majorproblem is that we don't know what a neuron does that causes consciousness (we're getting better and better at figuring out what they do, computationally, though).

Conceptually shifting your consciousness one neural connection at a time should be "low key" enough to not disrupt whatever "magic" allows consciousness to happen in the first place. I mean, neurons die and neural connections change all the time - and consciousness is not disrupted. So in theory we should be able to shift a consciousness one piece at a time, even if we don't fully understand how consciousness really works at a "big picture" type of level... or at all.

I think the first question we're going to have to deal with, if such a thing happens, is "Is this new entity a legal person? Does it get the same legal rights as other humans?" and not "Is this entity a human?".. Although both are fascinating questions.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Robot is a fair distinction without the brain, but at the point where this technology becomes practicable (if ever), the distinction might not carry any relevance.

 

[warpus]

That's a good point.

"Is it a human?"

"Well, is this a sandwich? Who cares, just eat it and enjoy."

 

[ArneHD]

Given that every part of John is replaced with identical parts, I'd say that John is human. A better question is whether John is still John.

 

[Triewd]

Human:

The essence of him remains

 

[El_Machinae]

Conceptually shifting your consciousness one neural connection at a time should be "low key" enough to not disrupt whatever "magic" allows consciousness to happen in the first place. I mean, neurons die and neural connections change all the time - and consciousness is not disrupted. So in theory we should be able to shift a consciousness one piece at a time, even if we don't fully understand how consciousness really works at a "big picture" type of level... or at all.

I think the first question we're going to have to deal with, if such a thing happens, is "Is this new entity a legal person? Does it get the same legal rights as other humans?" and not "Is this entity a human?".. Although both are fascinating questions.

One neuron at a time also allows the testing of whether that neuroanatomical structure can contain consciousness. If you look at people with hemiagnosia, they literally lose the ability to be conscious of certain things in the world (which makes you wonder what we're missing). Like when they're asked to draw a clock, or a house, or a cat.

Are you now conscious of the bum you're sitting on? You weren't a second ago. But now your consciousness has migrated to that component of your brain.

It's a very different location than the place you store the song "Royals" (which you can now hear). The neuroanatomy of consciousness is getting more understood, but we don't have a clue how it happens. Like I said, replacing neurons is only useful insofar as we replace what the neuron does that produces consciousness.

If you replaced the logs in a fire, one at a time, with aluminum lookalikes, you'd lose the fire. If you replaced them with self-heating aluminum rods that are programmed to assume the correct temperature, you'd be able to sustain the fire where the logs remain, but you'd still slowly lose the fire.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Given that every part of John is replaced with identical parts, I'd say that John is human. A better question is whether John is still John.

Yes, that's the real question to me, and one I'd have to answer in the negative. I've got no problem considering a robot that is fully sentient human... or "person", or whatever we want to call them to ensure they get the same rights as everyone else... but lacking belief in a soul or lifeforce of any kind I'd have to say that once his brain is replaced with a cybernetic replica he's not really the same person anymore, but a new distinct individual. Where to draw that line I couldn't say though. As long as he has 100% of his biological brain, he's clearly still himself, as soon as it's 100% replaced, he's clearly not, but I don't know if neuroscience is advanced enough yet to really inform as to where the division is as a percentage.

 

[IglooDame]

Well, if they can make one copy of John's brain (and have already duplicated all sorts of other body parts), how about two copies? And then which one is John?

And how soon till we're deploying RAIJBs (Redundant Array of Inexpensive John-Brains) in place of these non-redundant single point of failure conventional brains?

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Well, if they can make one copy of John's brain (and have already duplicated all sorts of other body parts), how about two copies? And then which one is John?

And how soon till we're deploying RAIJBs (Redundant Array of Inexpensive John-Brains) in place of these non-redundant single point of failure conventional brains?

I would say that only the original is "John" and all copies are separate individuals that all happen to think alike and answer to the same name. Give them all 10 years living in different places and they'll all be different people.