What is a man?

[jimmy]

We are in the midst of a technological revolution. The context in which we live is radically changing. With smart phones and other new devices we are increasingly becoming connected. But it is only just beginning. We are reaching the point where it may be possible to enhance the capabilities of a person with implants. There have been studies on brain implants that helped Alzheimer’s patients, and there have been studies on the use of brain-computer interfaces in which it is possible to transmit a message directly from one persons brain to another. What is it going to be like in thirty or fifty years? Will it be possible to augment a persons memory or emotions or other abilities with implants? If that is the case, then what is a man? Up until recently man has lived in close contact with nature. It has been clear that he is an animal, and he is the king of creation. Now he is more connected to technology than to nature, and the connection to technology is only going to grow. What is it to be a man? Is there a point at which we have gone too far with our attachment to technology, or is technology an equal exchange with nature?

 

[Oreoracle]

I think the question itself is flawed. Technology is part of nature. When a beaver builds a dam to aid its survival and improve its quality of life, one doesn’t normally regard it as unnatural, yet mankind is so arrogant as to regard its own creations as somehow “above” nature.

 

[GEddie]

I think the question itself is flawed. Technology is part of nature. When a beaver builds a dam to aid its survival and improve its quality of life, one doesn’t normally regard it as unnatural, yet mankind is so arrogant as to regard its own creations as somehow “above” nature.

There is no need for the question IMNAAHO.

If you are born into human life and body, have male DNA, and are of adult age, you are a man. Full stop!

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Sheadad]

I look at it a little differently in terms of technology. The evidence that shows our continued evolution is clear in our desire to increase our use of technology, which includes the use of computers, tablets and smartphones. We obviously have a strong pull towards these devices worldwide, and find them exciting, challenging and powerful in their usefulness as they connect people in a way never before seen on earth.

Maybe being connected with advanced technology is what God has intended for us at this time, considering the huge increase in population over the last 100 years. It could be that recent inventions are providential, considering that before mechanization, almost nothing changed technologically since the dawn of man. It’s possible that man is changing, and woman too!

 

[CruxMihiAncora]

I think the question itself is flawed. Technology is part of nature. When a beaver builds a dam to aid its survival and improve its quality of life, one doesn’t normally regard it as unnatural, yet mankind is so arrogant as to regard its own creations as somehow “above” nature.

:clapping:

 

[jimmy]

I think the question itself is flawed. Technology is part of nature. When a beaver builds a dam to aid its survival and improve its quality of life, one doesn’t normally regard it as unnatural, yet mankind is so arrogant as to regard its own creations as somehow “above” nature.

I don’t doubt that that is technology. I am not questioning the value of technology. The question is whether a principle can be pushed to such a point that the underlying idea is transformed into something completely different than the original.

For example the idea of America; could you push individual principles (I.e.freedom of speech) of the American idea in a way that would transform the whole idea into something more like its opposite?

No one here seems to think my question has any value. Ok, an extreme example of what I am saying is the movie the matrix? Does the state of humanity in that move (plugged in as batteries to feed the system) constitute human? Everyone wants to reduce what it is to be human to genetics (of course that is a necessary component) and ignore context. It would seem that no one thinks that the way someone lives has a bearing on what he is.

 

[jimmy]

There is no need for the question IMNAAHO.

If you are born into human life and body, have male DNA, and are of adult age, you are a man. Full stop!

ICXC NIKA.

I actually meant it in the more general sense. That said, does living as a battery like in the movie the matrix constitute human?

 

[Oreoracle]

No one here seems to think my question has any value. Ok, an extreme example of what I am saying is the movie the matrix? Does the state of humanity in that move (plugged in as batteries to feed the system) constitute human? Everyone wants to reduce what it is to be human to genetics (of course that is a necessary component) and ignore context. It would seem that no one thinks that the way someone lives has a bearing on what he is.

I think there are two questions being asked at once here. The first sounds like a variant of the “heap problem”, which is a question of the form “How many grains of sand do I have to gather together before it’s a heap?”, “How many parts of a car do I have to replace before it’s a new car?”, or more generally “How much of something do I have to change before it’s fundamentally different?”

Heap problem variants are tempting, but the answers are pretty boring. You could ask how many mechanical parts have to augment our organic bodies before we are no longer organic, and I would say the “threshold” one has to pass to change from “human” to “machine” would just be a matter of convention, like all of language. It’s probably better to think of any shift from human to machine as continuous, anyway, rather than as a discrete, sudden fundamental change.

The second question it seems you’re asking is whether a definition of “human” needs to include how we behave. Again, language is a matter of convention. I’m sure many people would like that sort of definition. (It is also essential to any effort behind dehumanizing and enslaving/slaughtering a group of people–define “human” so the target group is disqualified from the label.) But the biological definition pays no heed to actions, and rightly so, because the humanity behind our behavior or the lack thereof doesn’t concern the field of biology.

 

[MTarcisius]

Man is a being of both spirit and body. Can alterations to the body change this? My opinion would be that the body can be basically replaced and the creature remains man if the spirit remains present.
This leaves the question of if there is a certain point at which the spirit will leave the body during alterations. In my opinion the spirit will remain in the altered body, but the health of the spirit would be in question.
If these technologies are developed and employed with self and world centered motivations then these technologies will do irreparable damage to the spirit. However it the technologies are developed and employed selflessly and for the glory of God then they should only strengthen the spirit. Thus you can see that motivations may have a greater influence than just the actions.
In conclusion I would say that even through technological advancements of the body, we will remain men, but these advancements could still have a great cost.

In reference to The Matrix I have thought about this quite a bit. It is linked to the idea of what is “real”. Morpheus alludes to that “real” may be as simple as electrical impulses interpreted by the brain. I have recently begun to define “real” as anything that exists. Now this would include abstract ideas such as love. You can even take it further to say that everything known is real because it exists at some level - this could be a person, place, thing, or simply an idea.
Thus I would say that those who are plugged in are still human because they still choose, act, feel and think - even if they never move. Plus their motivations and intents are still very real. Thus I believe that these souls would still be held accountable for judgement as men.

A note on motivations. Obviously countless atrocities have happened with supposedly good motivations, so for this post try to consider “good motivation” to be motivation coming from God.

 

[Rhubarb]

A featherless biped with broad flat nails, according to Plato with some help from Diogenes.