Human, mutant, cyborg, android, robot?

[Pallas_Athene]

Especially the word “human” is in dire need of a precise definition.

There are a few loose definitions of human, like having been born to a human couple, or having a human DNA, but these definitions are hopelessly vague. From a purely philosophical standpoint, how can we create a “precise definition”, where we say “being X” is a human, but “being Y” is not a human. This brings up the problem of committing a “type #1” error - namely declaring “being X” to be human, when it is not, and committing a “type #2” error by declaring “being Y” to be a non-human, when if reality it is a human.

The error can lead to legal consequences, but those are of secondary importance (at this moment).

To point out the difficulties, consider that a “mutant” may resemble to a human, but the mutation is too strong, and the new being cannot be declared or classified as a “human”.

A “cyborg” is a hybrid organism, which contains both biological and artificial “organs”. When does it cease to be human - if at all?

An android is an artificially “grown” being, which cannot be differentiated from “natural” humans.

A “robot” is a fully artificial being composed of non-organic materials.

The important question is the treatment of these beings. What kind of “rights” should be given to them? I would prefer not to see the wholly negative “nay-sayers”, whose only “contribution” is “this is impossible”, but the board is open to all opinions.

 

[GEddie]

While spirit-minded Thomists are going to hate this, I’d say that to define humandom, it is necessary to start with the body. It is, after all, your body who makes you somebody.

So if (1) there is a living, biological human body, there is perforce a human being. State of health or physical/mental function would be secondary. That body is somebody.

Purely robotic beings (2) would be defined legally. My guess is, however powerful the computational equipment would become, these devices would not have “rights” any more than your iPad. They would remain property, since, after all, they’d be manmade.

The case of cyborgs would depend on the nature of the technology employed and its purpose.

(3): If the biological component was originally the body of a human being, who now for whatever reason requires artificial mechanisms for life; he’d remain a human being, case (1).

(4): If however, the basic being is robotic but has i.e., a cultured human skin, because it requires a sense of touch and artificial skin has yet to be invented; then it would fall into case (2).

ICXC NIKA

 

[Ad_Orientem]

It’s impossible.

I’d say any being with a rational soul has rights (be it human, mutant, alien, or otherwise), but this fact will never be useful in jurisprudence, because the presence of the soul cannot be measured empirically.

And if men can’t agree on when human life begins or ends, I don’t see them agreeing on what it means to be human anytime soon.

 

[GEddie]

It’s impossible.

I’d say any being with a rational soul has rights (be it human, mutant, alien, or otherwise), but this fact will never be useful in jurisprudence, because the presence of the soul cannot be measured empirically.

And if men can’t agree on when human life begins or ends, I don’t see them agreeing on what it means to be human anytime soon.

We can’t agree on human life’s beginning or ending because these questions are both philosophical and physical. And the two fields of knowledge do not speak each other’s language even when based in the same country.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Viki63]

If I recall correctly, Fr Spitzer says that a human being is one who comes from human parents,.

.

 

[MPat]

Especially the word “human” is in dire need of a precise definition.

There are a few loose definitions of human, like having been born to a human couple, or having a human DNA, but these definitions are hopelessly vague. From a purely philosophical standpoint, how can we create a “precise definition”, where we say “being X” is a human, but “being Y” is not a human. This brings up the problem of committing a “type #1” error - namely declaring “being X” to be human, when it is not, and committing a “type #2” error by declaring “being Y” to be a non-human, when if reality it is a human.

The error can lead to legal consequences, but those are of secondary importance (at this moment).

The important question is the treatment of these beings. What kind of “rights” should be given to them? I would prefer not to see the wholly negative “nay-sayers”, whose only “contribution” is “this is impossible”, but the board is open to all opinions.

First, I’ll note that something similar (very similar) has been discussed in the threads like forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=922621 or forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=926619.

Then, the definition is precise enough. A human is a rational animal. If something has an essence that fits this definition, that “something” is a human.

Just like something is a tank of specific type (T-34, Panther or something) if it has been built according to the corresponding blueprint.

Naturally, if “something” is a human, we treat it like a human. If “something” is not a human and we know it, we, um, do not treat it like a human. If we are not sure, we act as if it was a human (a statue at night can also look like a human; in that case it is not a good idea to shoot at it, even if it is not a human).

To point out the difficulties, consider that a “mutant” may resemble to a human, but the mutation is too strong, and the new being cannot be declared or classified as a “human”.

It cannot? When two human gametes merge, we get a human zygote. Genetic disorders do not change that.

To use an example of a tank, a badly done tank of a specific type is still a badly done tank of a specific type. It is not a bicycle.

A “cyborg” is a hybrid organism, which contains both biological and artificial “organs”. When does it cease to be human - if at all?

For example, a stereotypical pirate with a wooden leg and a hook replacing a hand? Sure, that’s a human. Those “artificial ‘organs’” are just prostheses and not parts of that human.

To use an example of a tank, a Sherman tank with sandbags is a Sherman tank and not something else.

An android is an artificially “grown” being, which cannot be differentiated from “natural” humans.

I’d say that at this point it is a bit too hard to imagine what is meant. For example, it is not completely clear if a baby who spent some time in the incubator (clearly a human) would count as one.

A “robot” is a fully artificial being composed of non-organic materials.

A human is a rational animal. A robot is not an animal, thus it is not a human.

Just like a tank model made of plastic is not a tank, even if it looks like one.

 

[rossum]

To point out the difficulties, consider that a “mutant” may resemble to a human, but the mutation is too strong, and the new being cannot be declared or classified as a “human”.

Biologically, every human on earth is a “mutant”. We all have around 100 to 150 pieces of DNA that we did not get from either parent, but which arose from errors in copying or development.

You are going to have to look at the exact impact of each individual mutation to determine the result.

rossum

 

[GEddie]

Originally Posted by Pallas Athene View Post
To point out the difficulties, consider that a “mutant” may resemble to a human, but the mutation is too strong, and the new being cannot be declared or classified as a “human”.

Biologically, every human on earth is a “mutant”. We all have around 100 to 150 pieces of DNA that we did not get from either parent, but which arose from errors in copying or development.

You are going to have to look at the exact impact of each individual mutation to determine the result.

More to the point, if the “being” descended from human life, and can still hold life in the earthly environment, I for one would say that being is human, however changed the embodiment might be.

Really wacky changes to the body by random mutation are usually incompatible with life. So if it is alive and has human parents (or at least human genetic cells), IMNAAHO, it is human, full stop.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Pallas_Athene]

First, I’ll note that something similar (very similar) has been discussed in the threads like forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=922621 or forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=926619.

Thanks for the links. Yes there are many similarities, but that is no a surprise, since the question is a very basic one.

Then, the definition is precise enough. A human is a rational animal. If something has an essence that fits this definition, that “something” is a human.

Sounds like a good start. But how can we find out if that entity is a “rational” animal? This is a crucial question. What about chimps or dolphins, which exhibit “rational” behavior… whatever that is.

Naturally, if “something” is a human, we treat it like a human. If “something” is not a human and we know it, we, um, do not treat it like a human. If we are not sure, we act as if it was a human (a statue at night can also look like a human; in that case it is not a good idea to shoot at it, even if it is not a human).

Agreed, this is a good, logical corollary.

It cannot? When two human gametes merge, we get a human zygote. Genetic disorders do not change that.

It depends on the nature and extent of the discrepancy. See below.

To use an example of a tank, a badly done tank of a specific type is still a badly done tank of a specific type. It is not a bicycle.

And if there is a “good change”, which allows the tank to change shape into a helicopter, and fly away? (Sorry, just watched the dumb movie about the Transformers. )

For example, a stereotypical pirate with a wooden leg and a hook replacing a hand? Sure, that’s a human. Those “artificial ‘organs’” are just prostheses and not parts of that human.

Continuing the previous problem, what about the “pirate”, which can read the emotions of others and even manipulate them? (The “Mule” in Asimov’s Foundation trilogy comes to mind). Or one, which developed gills and is able to breathe as an amphibian? Are these still “humans”, or some kind of “super-humans”? And on the other end of the scale, what about those “entities”, which can only function of a vegetative level?

I’d say that at this point it is a bit too hard to imagine what is meant. For example, it is not completely clear if a baby who spent some time in the incubator (clearly a human) would count as one.

I had something else in mind. A completely artificial being, which is biologically close to a human? Not just an in-vitro fertilized egg, in an artificial womb.

A human is a rational animal. A robot is not an animal, thus it is not a human.

That leads to the 64 thousand dollar question. Why is the “building material” considered so very important. Suppose that the building block is NOT carbon based, but on another molecular structure. What is so “special” about the carbon based (organic) chemicals?

Just like a tank model made of plastic is not a tank, even if it looks like one.

Even if it performs exactly like a tank? It has miniature turret, can shoot small, but deadly projectiles. Some plastics are much lighter and yet much stronger than iron/steel based structures.

 

[GEddie]

Sounds like a good start. But how can we find out if that entity is a “rational” animal? This is a crucial question. What about chimps or dolphins, which exhibit “rational” behavior… whatever that is.

I would say that “human” defines only those minded beings who are human in body.

**If **apes or dolphins, etc, were ever found to possess human-class minds (and I for one do **not **hold that that is or will ever be established), then a new superset of being would need to be coined, to include human life and all of the nonhumans of rational mind.

Aliens are another matter altogether. If they came to Earth from space, their arrival would prove that they had a mind at least as good as our own.

If however, we met them on their world, we would probably define them as animals so that we could strip-mine their planet without annoying guilt feelings.

ICXC NIKA

 

[rossum]

More to the point, if the “being” descended from human life, and can still hold life in the earthly environment, I for one would say that being is human, however changed the embodiment might be.

You will need to consider entities like the HeLa cell line. That is descended from human life, but is by now a line of autonomous cancer cells.

rossum

 

[meltzerboy]

First, I’ll note that something similar (very similar) has been discussed in the threads like forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=922621 or forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=926619.

Then, the definition is precise enough. A human is a rational animal. If something has an essence that fits this definition, that “something” is a human.

Just like something is a tank of specific type (T-34, Panther or something) if it has been built according to the corresponding blueprint.

Naturally, if “something” is a human, we treat it like a human. If “something” is not a human and we know it, we, um, do not treat it like a human. If we are not sure, we act as if it was a human (a statue at night can also look like a human; in that case it is not a good idea to shoot at it, even if it is not a human).

It cannot? When two human gametes merge, we get a human zygote. Genetic disorders do not change that.

To use an example of a tank, a badly done tank of a specific type is still a badly done tank of a specific type. It is not a bicycle.

For example, a stereotypical pirate with a wooden leg and a hook replacing a hand? Sure, that’s a human. Those “artificial ‘organs’” are just prostheses and not parts of that human.

To use an example of a tank, a Sherman tank with sandbags is a Sherman tank and not something else.

I’d say that at this point it is a bit too hard to imagine what is meant. For example, it is not completely clear if a baby who spent some time in the incubator (clearly a human) would count as one.

A human is a rational animal. A robot is not an animal, thus it is not a human.

Just like a tank model made of plastic is not a tank, even if it looks like one.

I think there are just too many findings from research on animal cognition to define humans only as rational animals and, implicitly, non-human animals as non-rational.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

I think there are just too many findings from research on animal cognition to define humans only as rational animals and, implicitly, non-human animals as non-rational.

How would you define “rational”? Does it entail, for example, self-awareness? Ability to reason? Ability to love? Free-will?

 

[Pat_Albertson]

Absolute definitions in all cases will not be possible because of ever-so-slight differences and consequent nit-picking. The majority of cases, however, will be easily classified and reliable statistics will be easy to gather. The philosophy will be a mess, but the experimental science (if it ever comes to exist) will be fairly easy.

 

[GEddie]

You will need to consider entities like the HeLa cell line. That is descended from human life, but is by now a line of autonomous cancer cells.

rossum

Hmmm… Is this cell line able to maintain life if say, poured onto the ground? Or can it only survive in a controlled laboratory situation?

If the second, that would negate “hold life in the earthly environment.”

Still, you have a point, and I should have said: “descended from human life, **forms a minded body, ** and holds life in the earthly environment.”

ICXC NIKA

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Absolute definitions in all cases will not be possible because of ever-so-slight differences and consequent nit-picking. The majority of cases, however, will be easily classified and reliable statistics will be easy to gather. The philosophy will be a mess, but the experimental science (if it ever comes to exist) will be fairly easy.

Very true. And it shows that the philosophy is largely useless when it cannot be substantiated by the reality.

But the nitpicking - as you said - still needs to be performed, because it is on the “edge” where the problems arise.

Hmmm… Is this cell line able to maintain life if say, poured onto the ground? Or can it only survive in a controlled laboratory situation?

Any life needs a suitable environment to survive.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Aliens are another matter altogether. If they came to Earth from space, their arrival would prove that they had a mind at least as good as our own.

If however, we met them on their world, we would probably define them as animals so that we could strip-mine their planet without annoying guilt feelings.

In that case let’s hope that the alien visitors will be more advanced that we are - not just technologically but also ethically. I think Damon Knight had a great short story with the title “To serve Man”. The aliens bring all sorts of gifts, help to cure diseases, alleviate hunger, raise the well-being of all humans. Only at the end it turns out that the manual with this title happens to be a cook-book for the aliens.

 

[MPat]

Thanks for the links. Yes there are many similarities, but that is no a surprise, since the question is a very basic one.

Maybe not that basic… But still, there are arguments that could be reused.

Sounds like a good start. But how can we find out if that entity is a “rational” animal? This is a crucial question. What about chimps or dolphins, which exhibit “rational” behavior… whatever that is.

Let’s look at cartoons, fairy tales. How do we notice that something that looks like a non-rational animal is actually a fictional “philosophical human”? Yes - it talks.

Of course, not any kind of “talking” will do. Parrots can talk, but they do not understand what they are saying. That doesn’t count. Of course, finding out if an animal understands what it is saying is hard in the general case, but, well, who said science must be easy to do?

There are still other methods. For example, tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FirstContactMath mentions getting the “candidate” to list prime numbers.

The point is that rationality includes working with something abstract - universals, essences, numbers as such.

And if there is a “good change”, which allows the tank to change shape into a helicopter, and fly away? (Sorry, just watched the dumb movie about the Transformers. )

OK, get something like that done “accidentally”, with no separate blueprints, and we’ll discuss that.

It depends on the nature and extent of the discrepancy. See below.

Continuing the previous problem, what about the “pirate”, which can read the emotions of others and even manipulate them? (The “Mule” in Asimov’s Foundation trilogy comes to mind). Or one, which developed gills and is able to breathe as an amphibian? Are these still “humans”, or some kind of “super-humans”? And on the other end of the scale, what about those “entities”, which can only function of a vegetative level?

Actually, the “pirate” was meant as an example of a “cyborg”…

And in most of these cases we are dealing with humans. Someone that is a human with more abilities is still a human.

I had something else in mind. A completely artificial being, which is biologically close to a human? Not just an in-vitro fertilized egg, in an artificial womb.

Sorry, looks like I just cannot imagine that at the moment…

That leads to the 64 thousand dollar question. Why is the “building material” considered so very important. Suppose that the building block is NOT carbon based, but on another molecular structure. What is so “special” about the carbon based (organic) chemicals?

Because it has been specified in the “blueprints”? Thus completely changing the material means completely changing the essence.

It might be that this new being would still be a “philosophical human”. For example, if I understand correctly, the “robots” in the “Transformer” movie you saw were fictional “philosophical humans”. Actually, almost all fiction tends to be about “philosophical humans” - it is hard to think of any work of fiction dealing with plants or rocks as such.

Even if it performs exactly like a tank? It has miniature turret, can shoot small, but deadly projectiles. Some plastics are much lighter and yet much stronger than iron/steel based structures.

The important point is that even then it is not a tank of the same type.

Very true. And it shows that the philosophy is largely useless when it cannot be substantiated by the reality.

But the nitpicking - as you said - still needs to be performed, because it is on the “edge” where the problems arise.

I guess that shows the main difference between your position and our position. You do not seem to consider essences, thus you have to make a definition of a human that fits every instance. We do accept essences, thus we only need a definition that fits the “ideal” case.

To go back to tanks, it is easy to find out that the “ideal” T-34 is a tank, and it is possible to find out if some object was supposed to be a T-34 (in practice that might be hard if T-34 is an enemy tank and enemy tries to deceive us - but who says intelligence (or science) is supposed to be easy?).

But making a definition of a tank for “non-ideal” cases is insanely hard (it must fit a tank that was hit, or lost a track, but must not fit an armoured car etc.). Of course, I would say that is not a point supporting non-existence of tanks, but a point supporting existence of blueprints (and essences)…

In fact, Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tank&oldid=676691984) gives a definition (“A tank is a large type of armoured fighting vehicle with tracks, designed for front-line combat.”) that does mention “essences” (design).

 

[GEddie]

Theoretically, a noncarbon based biology is possible, but most likely on another world with much higher temperature.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Of course, not any kind of “talking” will do. Parrots can talk, but they do not understand what they are saying. That doesn’t count. Of course, finding out if an animal understands what it is saying is hard in the general case, but, well, who said science must be easy to do?

Very true. That is why the problem is so difficult. And that is why the Turing test was devised.

The point is that rationality includes working with something abstract - universals, essences, numbers as such.

Sounds like a very promising start. But there are people with the IQ of 60 and below, who are unable to conceptualize at all. And there are certain kinds of autistic people who cannot think in the abstract. When you mention the word “dog” to them, they run a “movie” of all the dogs they encountered… but they are unable to perceive a “generic dog”. I only bring these up to show the serious problems of deciding who would count as a “rational being”. On the other hand, members of the raven family have amazing problem solving skills.

OK, get something like that done “accidentally”, with no separate blueprints, and we’ll discuss that.

Mutations are accidental. There is no need for a blueprint. In the world of evolving, self-modifying computer programs the end result cannot be predicted from the starting parameters. And the end result can be very much superior compared to the original.

And in most of these cases we are dealing with humans. Someone that is a human with more abilities is still a human.

I have no problem with that. But biologically speaking a human is someone who can interbreed with other humans. What if the seriously mutant person is unable to interbreed with “old timey humans”? Now, if we disregard the DNA, then our stance is getting very similar, maybe even identical.

Sorry, looks like I just cannot imagine that at the moment…

It is not necessary that we could “imagine” all the particulars. An android is an artificial “human” grown in a vat, which is a human-like biological structure. Does it count as a “human”? The beauty of these thought experiments is that we explore very farfetched, but still possible ideas. We are in the world of “what if”-s.

Because it has been specified in the “blueprints”? Thus completely changing the material means completely changing the essence.

Oh yes… the famous “essence”. I will reflect on it below.

The important point is that even then it is not a tank of the same type.

The same “type”? What does that mean? Isn’t the size considered to be an “accident” in the Thomistic world of philosophy? (Assuming that you subscribe to the philosophy of Aquinas). If you do, then the material is just an “accident”, the size is just an “accident”.

I guess that shows the main difference between your position and our position. You do not seem to consider essences, thus you have to make a definition of a human that fits every instance. We do accept essences, thus we only need a definition that fits the “ideal” case.

Now you put your finger on the crux of the problem. I am not against the concept of “essence” on a theoretical ground. The definition of “the essence is what makes something what it is” is reasonable and logical - at the first approximation. The problem comes when you try to apply it to a special case. What is the “essence” of a “chair”? Just ponder it to see the difficulties. Something we can sit on? But we can sit on a table, or a chamber pot or even on a rock, and we do not call those chairs.

Consider the cyborgs. We start with a bona-fide human being, and keep on replacing its biological tissue with artificial prostheses - one at a time. You said that the different building blocks will change the “essence”. I would think that having an artificial hip-joint does not make the person’s “essence” disappear. So, is the building material part of this nebulous “essence”?

To go back to tanks, it is easy to find out that the “ideal” T-34 is a tank, and it is possible to find out if some object was supposed to be a T-34 (in practice that might be hard if T-34 is an enemy tank and enemy tries to deceive us - but who says intelligence (or science) is supposed to be easy?).

But making a definition of a tank for “non-ideal” cases is insanely hard (it must fit a tank that was hit, or lost a track, but must not fit an armoured car etc.). Of course, I would say that is not a point supporting non-existence of tanks, but a point supporting existence of blueprints (and essences)…

The “duck principle” comes to the rescue. In other words, as long as the functionality remains, it is a “tank”. Once the functionality is lost, we have pile of junk.