Organic statue - human being?

[Spock]

Let’s consider a thought experiment. Suppose that biochemists, and associated other scientists figure out a way to build or grow a biological “statue”, which looks like a human being. It is all composed of organic material, it has a DNA which falls into the category of “human DNA”. It has a brain, too, but it does not function, there is no chemical-electical activity. (As such, none of the other organs “work” either.) I think we can all agree that it is truly just a statue, nothing more.

Now the fun begins. Let’s suppose that the experimenters are able to “switch on” some very limited brain activity, namely the area of the brain, which controls breathing. Now the statue’s muscles, which control the rise/fall of the rib-cage are active, the statue is “breathing”, the air moves in and out of the lungs. Breathing consumes energy, so now the heart must be “turned on”, to deliver the nutrients to the muscles. So the experimenters switch on the area of the brain, which controls the heart. To produce the necessary nutrients, the statue is hooked up to an IV tube and fed intravenously. Now we have a partially active statue.

Now, making the process short, the experimenters keep “turning on” different parts of the brain. At the end of the process the “statue” will become fully functional, “it” can be “decoupled” from the sustaining machinery, and “it” start “its” independent life. No outsider can ever know how “she” (assuming the gender was female) came into existence.

There are a few questions here, worthy to be contemplated.

The first one: “Should she be granted a fully human status?”.

The second one: “At which point of the process does she become a human?”. (provided, of course that one answers the first one affirmatively).

The third one: “Should these artificial humans (androids) be forced to wear a distinctive sign so that they could be told apart from the ‘real’ humans?”.

Caveat: I am aware that this scenario is very farfetched. It may never come to pass, even if the technology will be there (why wouldn’t be?). But it has serious philosophical implications. What makes us human? If you wish to bring in the concept of the “soul” into the analysis, by all means, do so. However, tell us, at which point of the process the “ensoulment” takes place? (I would very much prefer not to see empty posts declaring that this scenario is impossible, and should not even be contemplated. If that is what you think, please don’t post. Empty posts only waste bandwidth and they are annoying. But, of course, it is your choice.)

 

[Tietjen]

Let’s consider a thought experiment. Suppose that biochemists, and associated other scientists figure out a way to build or grow a biological “statue”, which looks like a human being. It is all composed of organic material, it has a DNA which falls into the category of “human DNA”. It has a brain, too, but it does not function, there is no chemical-electical activity. (As such, none of the other organs “work” either.) I think we can all agree that it is truly just a statue, nothing more.

Now the fun begins. Let’s suppose that the experimenters are able to “switch on” some very limited brain activity, namely the area of the brain, which controls breathing. Now the statue’s muscles, which control the rise/fall of the rib-cage are active, the statue is “breathing”, the air moves in and out of the lungs. Breathing consumes energy, so now the heart must be “turned on”, to deliver the nutrients to the muscles. So the experimenters switch on the area of the brain, which controls the heart. To produce the necessary nutrients, the statue is hooked up to an IV tube and fed intravenously. Now we have a partially active statue.

Now, making the process short, the experimenters keep “turning on” different parts of the brain. At the end of the process the “statue” will become fully functional, “it” can be “decoupled” from the sustaining machinery, and “it” start “its” independent life. No outsider can ever know how “she” (assuming the gender was female) came into existence.

There are a few questions here, worthy to be contemplated.

The first one: “Should she be granted a fully human status?”.

The second one: “At which point of the process does she become a human?”. (provided, of course that one answers the first one affirmatively).

The third one: “Should these artificial humans (androids) be forced to wear a distinctive sign so that they could be told apart from the ‘real’ humans?”.

Caveat: I am aware that this scenario is very farfetched. It may never come to pass, even if the technology will be there (why wouldn’t be?). But it has serious philosophical implications. What makes us human? If you wish to bring in the concept of the “soul” into the analysis, by all means, do so. However, tell us, at which point of the process the “ensoulment” takes place? (I would very much prefer not to see empty posts declaring that this scenario is impossible, and should not even be contemplated. If that is what you think, please don’t post. Empty posts only waste bandwidth and they are annoying. But, of course, it is your choice.)

I’m happy to see that you answered your own question, “What makes us human?” In your scenario, it can only be assumed that this statue will always remain something other than man (specifically female since you identified it as such). Perhaps, someday man will be able to take all the physical matter that makes up a human being and impose a mechanical working heart, liver, brain, etc. into the “it.” However, without the soul (which only God can supply) “it” will never be an actual human being. As to your question, “… at which point of the process the ‘ensoulment’ takes place?” That would be at conception. Since there was no conception included in the scenario, I think it safe to assume that there is no soul, and thus no human being.

 

[Spock]

I’m happy to see that you answered your own question, “What makes us human?”

No, I did not. On the very contrary, I am asking: what is the difference between this being and a real human. I did not tell about my answer to the posited questions, since I did not want to “contaminate” the thread. It is my experience that most posters will immediately talk about my response, rather than tell their own opinion.

In your scenario, it can only be assumed that this statue will always remain something other than man (specifically female since you identified it as such).

Why do you assume that? What is the difference? That is the cruical point of the question.

Perhaps, someday man will be able to take all the physical matter that makes up a human being and impose a mechanical working heart, liver, brain, etc. into the “it.” However, without the soul (which only God can supply) “it” will never be an actual human being. As to your question, “… at which point of the process the ‘ensoulment’ takes place?” That would be at conception. Since there was no conception included in the scenario, I think it safe to assume that there is no soul, and thus no human being.

Let me see if I understand you correctly:

Do you say, that it would be perfectly ok to abuse, kill or torture this “being” since “it” is not a human being, despite the fact that no one can tell the difference between “it” and a “real” human? Is “it” just a clever imitation? “It” would exhibit a “pain response” when tortured, but it would be an error to assume that “it” actually feels pain? “It” could conduct a long conversation with you, and you could not tell about “its” origin. “It” could perform any task what a “real” human can perform. I think you would take a horrible risk by defining this “being” a “non-human”.

And a question: how do you know that real humans have a soul, but this being does not? If you cannot devise an objective method to tell if there is a soul or not, then you are in danger of making a serious mistake, namely you treat this being as an object, but in reality “it” does have a soul. By the way, - according to my best knowledge - the Church does not have dogma about the moment of “ensoulment”. So the lack of conception is not a valid argument for declaring this “being” a “non-human”.

 

[inocente]

The first one: “Should she be granted a fully human status?”.

Of course.

The second one: “At which point of the process does she become a human?”. (provided, of course that one answers the first one affirmatively).

Immediately. It would be immoral to withdraw life support at any point before she’s independent when we know she is physically human and capable of mentally being fully human.

The third one: “Should these artificial humans (androids) be forced to wear a distinctive sign so that they could be told apart from the ‘real’ humans?”.

That would just support a new and even more spectacularly irrational form of racism.

 

[lauraabarlow]

No debate or soul-searching on my part, just a general comment. This brings to mind the movie a few years ago called artificial intelligence, about a robotic boy who is programmed to actually experience love and interact like a normal boy. It/he even sat at a dinner table and after being taunted by his human brother actually ate vegetables, leading to an emergency mechanical intervention to restore his lost functions. A very sad movie that made me cry being that he like Walt Disney Pinnochio wanted nothing more than to be a normal boy and to be loved by his mommy. Of course, for those who saw the movie, the robot boy went through a lot of trials a tribulations-nearly being killed-off by burning until he cried out in pain, leading to his being released-leading to questions on whether or not there is that possibility of robot kids actually being like other kids-raising questions on them actually feeling pain, love, and so forth-ethical questions arising from this. The ending of course was that the earth and humanity vanished from earth’s flooding and such, and the robot boy being found by the friendly aliens who recreated his earth mom from the strands of her hair he kept in his pocket all these years (1000 yrs). He survived but was found frozen in ice by the friendly aliens who wanted to know what humans were like and that boy was the only link to their research. Of course, I also think of Data from Star Trek always trying to learn how to experience human feelings-there is just so much ethical and morality issues involved here, what is right and not right and making sure abuses don’t happen-and that one question that always arises, “Is it right to play God by inventing a human-like robot or creature, or cloning another animal or person?” Many questions with no concrete answers comes to mind a lot with these issues.

 

[Spock]

Of course.

Strongly agreed!

Immediately. It would be immoral to withdraw life support at any point before she’s independent when we know she is physically human and capable of mentally being fully human.

Now this is very interesting. When the first phase of the process is finished, there is an “organic statue”. At that moment it is a whole lot of organic material, which does not develop on its own (though it would decay if left alone). The next part of the process is not really a “life support”, it would be the “start of life”, the activity of the organic material. At the beginning of “switching” the brain on there is not even a vegetative existence. The “statue” is just like a freshly deceased human, with the difference that the human cannot be “rebooted”, while the statue can be “started” (or IPL’ed ).

Is there an obligation to start the process? If she is already considered a full human, then I would agree. But I don’t think so. In my opinion she becomes a fully human when the brain reaches the level of activity which allows the “statue” to act as a human does - beyond the mere vegetative functioning. To paraphrase Forrest Gump: “human is as human does”.

Let me tell my reasons for this. Suppose that the “statue” is made of inorganic material - caeteris paribus. The underlying material does not matter, only the functionality of the material matters. There is nothing spcial about a “carbon-based” existence as compared to “silicon-based” existence. To substantiate this, let’s play two more thought experiments.

1. Start with an ordinary human, who is very accident-prone. When she suffers an accident, we substitute the lost organ with a human transplant. Obviously that does not affect her “human-ness”. When all her organs - except her brain - has been switched with transplants, we shall start the final process. Replace her neurons with other ones, one at a time. The functionality of the brain is not disrupted, her personality is still the same. Whould you agree?
2. Same starting point, same accident-prone person. But this time we replace each organ with an artificial prothesis. Does she lose her “human-ness”? I don’t think so. Whether her legs are made of calcium-bone and muscle, or titanium and artificial-muscle-like stuff, she still walks. The activity is the same, regardless of the underlying material. Now when all her parts are replaced except her brain, we shall replace each neuron with an artificial neuron, which is silicon-based, but acts exactly as the original one. Again, the functionality of the brain is still the same. Does she lose her personality? Of course not.

So we can - hopefully - agree that our humanity comes from our functionality. When we act as a human, we are human. Anyone who acts as a human, is a human. If we ever meet an alien species, which acts as we do, we should declare them “honorary human”, with the same rights and priviliges we enjoy. Moreover, if by some strange mutation some members of animal kingdom (probably a great ape or a dolphin) would exhibit human traits of thinking, we should embrace them as “brothers and sisters”.

That would just support a new and even more spectacularly irrational form of racism.

Strongly agreed!

 

[Spock]

No debate or soul-searching on my part, just a general comment. This brings to mind the movie a few years ago called artificial intelligence, about a robotic boy who is programmed to actually experience love and interact like a normal boy. It/he even sat at a dinner table and after being taunted by his human brother actually ate vegetables, leading to an emergency mechanical intervention to restore his lost functions. A very sad movie that made me cry being that he like Walt Disney Pinnochio wanted nothing more than to be a normal boy and to be loved by his mommy. Of course, for those who saw the movie, the robot boy went through a lot of trials a tribulations-nearly being killed-off by burning until he cried out in pain, leading to his being released-leading to questions on whether or not there is that possibility of robot kids actually being like other kids-raising questions on them actually feeling pain, love, and so forth-ethical questions arising from this. The ending of course was that the earth and humanity vanished from earth’s flooding and such, and the robot boy being found by the friendly aliens who recreated his earth mom from the strands of her hair he kept in his pocket all these years (1000 yrs). He survived but was found frozen in ice by the friendly aliens who wanted to know what humans were like and that boy was the only link to their research. Of course, I also think of Data from Star Trek always trying to learn how to experience human feelings-there is just so much ethical and morality issues involved here, what is right and not right and making sure abuses don’t happen-and that one question that always arises,

Very nice story. Thanks for sharing it.

“Is it right to play God by inventing a human-like robot or creature, or cloning another animal or person?” Many questions with no concrete answers comes to mind a lot with these issues.

We started to “play God” ages and ages ago. Ever since we started to manipulate our evnvironment by planting vegetables and domesticing animals for food. When we started to collect beneficial materials to cure diseases. Why stop here? The questions which arise are, of course hard, and diffcult. But that is not a good reason to declare: “we shall stop our innovations here and now”. Besides, humans are incurably curious (pardon the lousy pun) and someone will break through the new frontiers. We just have to be careful.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

… my dear friend ,

… in my opine : a man is composed of body and soul , the original definition of death is the soul leaves the body , i don’t think man can create the soul and indeed soul and body are one but can be separated , so i think the soul created by god must be present from conception to have human life , without the soul there is no life , so perhaps what you are saying is can we bring a dead person back to life ? the answer is no , but jesus did this and i’ve heard stories of saints doing this also , but god is the miracle worker here , so god is restoring the soul , i don’t think we can bring a dead person to life in any event without gods miraculous help , history shows this , on another point : do we have a soul ??? , well , do you know that on average every single cell in our body is completely replaced every ten years ??? , this would mean an 80 y.o. person has had 8 completely new bodies generated in their life , yet they know they are still the same person as all over 10 y.o. should also testify , we mature and gather more memories etc etc but remain the same person , so we are a soul in a body seems pretty convincing to me personally , but the soul and body are really one as said , that’s my thoughts dear friend ,

… god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[JDaniel]

Let’s consider a thought experiment. Suppose that biochemists, and associated other scientists figure out a way to build or grow a biological “statue”, which looks like a human being. It is all composed of organic material, it has a DNA which falls into the category of “human DNA”. It has a brain, too, but it does not function, there is no chemical-electrical activity. (As such, none of the other organs “work” either.) I think we can all agree that it is truly just a statue, nothing more.

Now the fun begins. Let’s suppose that the experimenters are able to “switch on” some very limited brain activity, namely the area of the brain, which controls breathing. Now the statue’s muscles, which control the rise/fall of the rib-cage are active, the statue is “breathing”, the air moves in and out of the lungs. Breathing consumes energy, so now the heart must be “turned on”, to deliver the nutrients to the muscles. So the experimenters switch on the area of the brain, which controls the heart. To produce the necessary nutrients, the statue is hooked up to an IV tube and fed intravenously. Now we have a partially active statue.

Now, making the process short, the experimenters keep “turning on” different parts of the brain. At the end of the process the “statue” will become fully functional, “it” can be “decoupled” from the sustaining machinery, and “it” start “its” independent life. No outsider can ever know how “she” (assuming the gender was female) came into existence.

There are a few questions here, worthy to be contemplated.

The first one: “Should she be granted a fully human status?”.

Spock:

Interesting wording! As though it is “we” who grant ‘human status’. (Unfortunately, throughout the course of human history, it has often been “we” who assumed that power.) Now, if by that you mean, "should she be granted all of the rights and amenities that are customarily reciprocated to one another, then, by all means, “Yes.”

The second one: “At which point of the process does she become a human?”. (provided, of course that one answers the first one affirmatively).

At the first moment of neuro-muscular activity. Immediately prior to that, the ‘statue’ is a good example of material cause. There is no ‘reason’ that man cannot participate in creation. He already does.

The third one: “Should these artificial humans (androids) be forced to wear a distinctive sign so that they could be told apart from the ‘real’ humans?”.

Only if her breeding genetics were to be avoided.

God bless,
jd

 

[Tietjen]

No, I did not. On the very contrary, I am asking: what is the difference between this being and a real human. I did not tell about my answer to the posited questions, since I did not want to “contaminate” the thread. It is my experience that most posters will immediately talk about my response, rather than tell their own opinion.

In your caveat, you asked the question, “What makes us human?” The very next sentence after this question indicates that you at least recognize the obvious answer to your question since you are the one who introduced “the concept of the soul” as a means to respond to the question. If you had indeed wished to NOT contaminate the possible answers and opinions concerning the “what if” scenario you presented, you should have simply introduced the scenario, and left out any preconceived ideas as to how readers would respond, let alone attempt to regulate or require further explanation should they respond with a concept relating to the soul. But, it’s your thread and you can of course ask a question however you wish.

Why do you assume that? What is the difference? That is the cruical point of the question.

I assume that because it is the only rational thing to assume. Unless this experiment has already taken place and outcome gleamed as having been a success. If not, throwing together tissues, organs and other biologicals in an attempt to “make” a living breathing human being can in fact be safely assumed improbable.

Let me see if I understand you correctly:

Do you say, that it would be perfectly ok to abuse, kill or torture this “being” since “it” is not a human being, despite the fact that no one can tell the difference between “it” and a “real” human?

No. Just as I see it as wrong to mutilate a corpse. The corpse has no soul remaining in the body, yet I don’t go around kicking them.

Is “it” just a clever imitation? “It” would exhibit a “pain response” when tortured, but it would be an error to assume that “it” actually feels pain? “It” could conduct a long conversation with you, and you could not tell about “its” origin. “It” could perform any task what a “real” human can perform. I think you would take a horrible risk by defining this “being” a “non-human”.

I believe that argument to be rather speculative, since this situation has never occurred. The best that you can say is that this is your opinion on the matter. My opinion then would have equal weight in this argument and that opinion would be that without a soul infused to the body by God, the human-type life you are describing will not exist. Therefore, one could very well say simply that what was created was a statue; however, one could not intelligently say that it was/is an actual human woman.

And a question: how do you know that real humans have a soul, but this being does not?

I suspect that this question is in fact the “actual” question that you desire to be answered. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that my arguments pro the existence of souls will not satisfy you. This, because a soul cannot be touched, seen, smelt, tasted, or heard outside of the heart of the individual who questions natural law or God’s will. I know that humans have souls because faith tells me that the creator of human life, God, gives us souls. I know that “this being” does not have a soul, because it’s creator, man, is incapable of giving it a soul.

If you cannot devise an objective method to tell if there is a soul or not, then you are in danger of making a serious mistake, namely you treat this being as an object, but in reality “it” does have a soul.

Nonsense, there are some objects that I don’t even treat as objects (IE - a craft that my child made when he was in pre-school). Don’t make the mistake that MY humanity is based on whether something has a soul or not. My humanity is based entirely on whether a soul exists within me. How I treat other human beings, animals, and even “objects” is a result of the existence of a soul within MY body not whether one exists inside another’s body.

By the way, - according to my best knowledge - the Church does not have dogma about the moment of “ensoulment”. So the lack of conception is not a valid argument for declaring this “being” a “non-human”.

Well, I believe that you are mistaken on that point. However, I need to step away from the computer for a while and cannot list sources on that matter but to suggest to you that in Psalm 51:5 David refers to himself as a sinner since his conception. However, sinfulness is a spiritual quality so David must have had a spirit (soul) at conception.

 

[inocente]

The “statue” is just like a freshly deceased human, with the difference that the human cannot be “rebooted”, while the statue can be “started” (or IPL’ed ).

Is there an obligation to start the process?

I said the statue is immediately and always human by going further into a sci-fi scenario. Suppose we walk into an unoccupied lab and find her in a cryogenic state. There’s no one to ask about who she is or what’s going on, we’re totally on our own. We assume she’s “normal” because we’ve never even heard of biological statues.

The missing lab guys left behind a procedure for bringing her to life and we’re reasonably sure it will work. We estimate it will take an hour and just then a colleague rushes in to say the power will go off permanently in sixty-five minutes time. If we don’t start the procedure now she will defrost and decay once the power fails. Our only moral action is to treat her as human and start the process to bring her to life.

Now change the scenario in any way you like, it seems to me that not bringing her to life would always be immoral. The morality seems to be about her potential to be human rather than what we think we know of her potential.

When all her organs - except her brain - has been switched with transplants, we shall start the final process. Replace her neurons with other ones, one at a time. The functionality of the brain is not disrupted, her personality is still the same. Whould you agree?

Yes.

So we can - hopefully - agree that our humanity comes from our functionality. When we act as a human, we are human. Anyone who acts as a human, is a human. If we ever meet an alien species, which acts as we do, we should declare them “honorary human”, with the same rights and priviliges we enjoy. Moreover, if by some strange mutation some members of animal kingdom (probably a great ape or a dolphin) would exhibit human traits of thinking, we should embrace them as “brothers and sisters”.

Not sure. Let’s go deeper into sci-fi. Say some rich dude is dying so we make a robot in human form, take the exact state of his brain and download it into the robot. For the sake of the story let’s ignore any potential immaterial elements and just suppose this works.

For a giggle we go one step further. We simulate the brain using conventional chips which we distribute across twenty computer rooms worldwide, linked to the robot by high-speed wireless links. We switch the robot over to this new brain, and if we did our job right rich dude never notices, he still thinks his consciousness is squarely in the robot’s head.

For further light relief we make another robot the same as the first, and every so often switch rich dude between the robots. He’s sitting there as robot #1 chairing a meeting when suddenly he’s robot #2 falling out of an aircraft, then just as he screams in panic we switch him back to robot #1.

Well, where is rich dude’s humanity – under a headstone with his old body, up in heaven, in one of the robots, one or more of the simulators, whizzing around the Internet? I think the issue is that we think of rich dude as having an essence, as being a soul, but we never got round to defining exactly what we mean, it’s all very fuzzy. This applies whether or not we’re religious, whether we define the soul in any given way, none of us can really put our finger on exactly what it is to be human.

 

[tonyrey]

Since the organic statue operates mechanistically it lacks autonomy, emotions and a a conscious mind.

 

[Spirithound]

The next part of the process is not really a “life support”, it would be the “start of life”, the activity of the organic material.

Is there an obligation to start the process? If she is already considered a full human, then I would agree. But I don’t think so. In my opinion she becomes a fully human when the brain reaches the level of activity which allows the “statue” to act as a human does - beyond the mere vegetative functioning. To paraphrase Forrest Gump: “human is as human does”.

I would like to start with this post since I agree with Innocente’s first responses. I would say no, there is no obligation to start the process of giving the statue life. It starts out basically as a corpse, and I think we can agree that there simply cannot arise any obligation to enliven a corpse.

Now, in contrast to your view, I believe this “former statue” becomes fully human as soon as she is given any function at all. That is, when some part of the brain is activated. I believe in the soul, and the soul is indivisible, thus whenever part of it is present, it is wholly present. Brain function implies the presence of the soul. Human is not simply as human does; human is as human is.

Let me tell my reasons for this. Suppose that the “statue” is made of inorganic material - caeteris paribus. The underlying material does not matter, only the functionality of the material matters.

1. Start with an ordinary human, who is very accident-prone. When she suffers an accident, we substitute the lost organ with a human transplant. Obviously that does not affect her “human-ness”. When all her organs - except her brain - has been switched with transplants, we shall start the final process. Replace her neurons with other ones, one at a time. The functionality of the brain is not disrupted, her personality is still the same. Whould you agree?

Ah, well whether her personality is the same seems more like an empirical question, but I agree that she is the same person.

1. Same starting point, same accident-prone person. But this time we replace each organ with an artificial prothesis. Does she lose her “human-ness”? I don’t think so. Whether her legs are made of calcium-bone and muscle, or titanium and artificial-muscle-like stuff, she still walks. The activity is the same, regardless of the underlying material. Now when all her parts are replaced except her brain, we shall replace each neuron with an artificial neuron, which is silicon-based, but acts exactly as the original one. Again, the functionality of the brain is still the same. Does she lose her personality? Of course not.

I again agree that she is the same person, and still a person, at that.

So we can - hopefully - agree that our humanity comes from our functionality. When we act as a human, we are human. Anyone who acts as a human, is a human. If we ever meet an alien species, which acts as we do, we should declare them “honorary human”, with the same rights and priviliges we enjoy. Moreover, if by some strange mutation some members of animal kingdom (probably a great ape or a dolphin) would exhibit human traits of thinking, we should embrace them as “brothers and sisters”.

However, I disagree with you that our humanness comes from our functionality. Humanness is conferred by the presence of a human soul, which in turn can provide functionality, barring any physical limitations.

Let me ask you, if our humanity is conferred by our functionality, does that imply that someone who is more able at various tasks is more human than one who is less able?

 

[Spock]

Interesting wording! As though it is “we” who grant ‘human status’. (Unfortunately, throughout the course of human history, it has often been “we” who assumed that power.)

In the eyes of the law we certainly do.

Now, if by that you mean, "should she be granted all of the rights and amenities that are customarily reciprocated to one another, then, by all means, “Yes.”

Sounds good. Your wording is excellent.

At the first moment of neuro-muscular activity. Immediately prior to that, the ‘statue’ is a good example of material cause. There is no ‘reason’ that man cannot participate in creation. He already does.

So the “breathing corpse”, before any other functionality is turned on, is already a “full-blown human”? And should be treated as such?

Only if her breeding genetics were to be avoided.

Ouch. I doubt that you would endorse the practise of the Nazis who forced the Jews to wear the yellow star to differentiate them (and hopefully prevent their breeding). According to your response to the first question these beings should be treated as humans. Is it acceptable to mark them as different, just because they might start to practise propagating their genes?

 

[Spock]

And all the other good science fiction writers. Especially Stanislaw Lem who was the greatest thinker in the 20th century.

 

[Spock]

I would like to start with this post since I agree with Innocente’s first responses. I would say no, there is no obligation to start the process of giving the statue life. It starts out basically as a corpse, and I think we can agree that there simply cannot arise any obligation to enliven a corpse.

Agreed.

Now, in contrast to your view, I believe this “former statue” becomes fully human as soon as she is given any function at all. That is, when some part of the brain is activated. I believe in the soul, and the soul is indivisible, thus whenever part of it is present, it is wholly present. Brain function implies the presence of the soul.

Interesting. Other posters deny that this being has (or can have) a “soul”. Now the simple brain activity of making “breathing” is not self-sustaining. Without turning other parts “on” it will cease in a short time. Are we obliged to continue?

Human is not simply as human does; human is as human is.

That is what we are talking about. What “is” human? The functional definition, which I suggested is something that can be used. Without it, what can we use to differentiate a human from a non-human?

Ah, well whether her personality is the same seems more like an empirical question, but I agree that she is the same person.

I again agree that she is the same person, and still a person, at that.

Wonderful. Two more points to agree on! A champange is called for. Cheers!

However, I disagree with you that our humanness comes from our functionality. Humanness is conferred by the presence of a human soul, which in turn can provide functionality, barring any physical limitations.

Unfortunately this is not helpful at all. Since the “soul” cannot be detected, we can never know if any “being” has a soul or not.

Let me ask you, if our humanity is conferred by our functionality, does that imply that someone who is more able at various tasks is more human than one who is less able?

Excellent question. Indeed it is something to conetmplate. Human functionality is an extremely broad category. We consider someone a human, who has an IQ of 50, who cannot sustain himself, who needs constant care. Of course it is better to err of the side of caution, and risk to declare someone human, rather than to deprive someone of a human status. But we must draw the line somewhere. I don’t think we can draw a precise line and say: “everyone on this side is a human”, the others are “super-human” or “sub-human”. It is a matter of definition.

 

[Spock]

I said the statue is immediately and always human by going further into a sci-fi scenario. Suppose we walk into an unoccupied lab and find her in a cryogenic state. There’s no one to ask about who she is or what’s going on, we’re totally on our own. We assume she’s “normal” because we’ve never even heard of biological statues.

The missing lab guys left behind a procedure for bringing her to life and we’re reasonably sure it will work. We estimate it will take an hour and just then a colleague rushes in to say the power will go off permanently in sixty-five minutes time. If we don’t start the procedure now she will defrost and decay once the power fails. Our only moral action is to treat her as human and start the process to bring her to life.

Now change the scenario in any way you like, it seems to me that not bringing her to life would always be immoral. The morality seems to be about her potential to be human rather than what we think we know of her potential.

That is an excellent analysis. But it is based upon our ignorance. If we know that she has never been “functional” do we still have an obligation to flip the switch and start (not “resume” nor “restart”) the process?

Yes.

Not sure.

Very interesting. As long as we operate on fully organic material, we agree. When we switch into inorganic, there seems to be a difference. Let’s examine your reasons.

Let’s go deeper into sci-fi. Say some rich dude is dying so we make a robot in human form, take the exact state of his brain and download it into the robot. For the sake of the story let’s ignore any potential immaterial elements and just suppose this works.

Sure thing. Nothing impossible about it.

For a giggle we go one step further. We simulate the brain using conventional chips which we distribute across twenty computer rooms worldwide, linked to the robot by high-speed wireless links. We switch the robot over to this new brain, and if we did our job right rich dude never notices, he still thinks his consciousness is squarely in the robot’s head.

Undoubtedly true.

For further light relief we make another robot the same as the first, and every so often switch rich dude between the robots. He’s sitting there as robot #1 chairing a meeting when suddenly he’s robot #2 falling out of an aircraft, then just as he screams in panic we switch him back to robot #1.

Ah, here we need to dig a bit a deeper. Now we have two copies, and both think that they are the “real” continuation of the original. And they are both right. I don’t think that making two or more copies is a good idea, but it can happen (maybe by accident). But if we ever make two copies, then both should be considered a “continuation” and both should be treated equally.

Well, where is rich dude’s humanity – under a headstone with his old body, up in heaven, in one of the robots, one or more of the simulators, whizzing around the Internet? I think the issue is that we think of rich dude as having an essence, as being a soul, but we never got round to defining exactly what we mean, it’s all very fuzzy. This applies whether or not we’re religious, whether we define the soul in any given way, none of us can really put our finger on exactly what it is to be human.

No question about it. It sure is fuzzy, and impossible to decide.

 

[Spock]

There is no accounting for individual taste. I cannot have enough of “The Cyberiad”. Aldiss is wonderful. No, I have not read Helliconia, but I will get it from the library. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[Spock]

I would not even try to make a prediction. Look at the different answers given by different believers.

There is a good chance of that. After all humans tend to exploit each other, too. One can only hope that the basic human attitude will change for the better - eventually.

 

[razredge]

Have you seen Blade Runner? This is much like the replicants of the movie.

I think such a creature would have a soul, if it really does have a human mind and consciousness (creating those is the hard part) - there’s no reason to say they aren’t human just because they weren’t born.