What's a "human"?

[Jebus]

So Henry Markham got half a billion euros funding from Europe for his ambitious project to build a cyber-brain, i.e. create a complete 'virtual' brain: a computer program that works exactly like the human brain does, with the same processes, limitations and capabilities.
He aims to complete it some time after 2020 (when he thinks computers will be powerfull enough to compute as a human brain does), although sceptics say it probably won't ever happen.

But what if it does? To me, it raises a shitload of questions about what that 'virtual brain' is - i.e. is that program then not a human? If it thinks, reasons and - if it really is a perfectly modeled brain - feels like a 'natural' human does, then why wouldn't it be? Sure, it has no body - but that's like saying a completely physically paralysed person isn't human anymore because his body doesn't work anymore.

It's hard to draw a line, you know - if you, for instance, get a massive stroke, and parts of your brain get replaced by some hypothetical cyberware, you're still human, right? And what if your entire brain is so damaged all they can do is download everything into hardware and install that into your cranium - then are you still human? I think you are, yes: a human isn't defined by the fact that their brains are squishy and organic, but by the conciousness that it has.

If this program would be a perfect copy of a functioning human brain, then logically it would have conciousness too. Would it then not be entitled to all the same rights a 'natural' human has? And if so, what would the consequences be? Wouldn't it then be allowed to marry and have children? To go to school? Be protected from child labour? Be protected from experimentation? Own property? Inherit? Recieve welfare? And wouldn't a virtual human be functionally immortal? How does that work, then? Does it get a state pension from the age of 65 to eternity?

I'm thinking on this way more than I should, probably, but I can't seem to stop pondering on this.

 

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

What's a "human"?

A miserable little pile of secrets?

AIs so advanced that they are indistinguishable from humans...eh, I wonder if we'll ever get there but even if we did I think they'll never make them exactly human-like to prevent questions like these to be raised.

It's hard to draw a line, you know - if you, for instance, get a massive stroke, and parts of your brain get replaced by some hypothetical cyberware, you're still human, right? And what if your entire brain is so damaged all they can do is download everything into hardware and install that into your cranium - then are you still human? I think you are, yes: a human isn't defined by the fact that their brains are squishy and organic, but by the conciousness that it has.

Eh, that's a bit different though. In that case you were human from the start and replaced parts out of necessity.

 

[Tagaziel]

We don't understand consciousness yet, so it's a moot question.

 

[Jebus]

We don't understand consciousness yet, so it's a moot question.

That's not a valid point. If the virtual brain experiences a state that for all intents and purposes, and by any measure we use, is identical to our "consciousness", there's no reason to discriminate against it despite our lack of knowledge on the essence of consciousness.

 

[Per]

You are not a human in this forum, Jebus. You are not a human in any forum.

And what if your entire brain is so damaged all they can do is download everything into hardware and install that into your cranium - then are you still human? I think you are, yes: a human isn't defined by the fact that their brains are squishy and organic, but by the conciousness that it has.

If the robot brain has a consciousness, it's not your consciousness, though. At best, it's a thing that thinks it's you. Why should we be giving rights to Jebus-things? It doesn't make sense.

 

[Jebus]

You are not a human in this forum, Jebus. You are not a human in any forum.

As divinity made human, I'm at the very least partly human.

And what if your entire brain is so damaged all they can do is download everything into hardware and install that into your cranium - then are you still human? I think you are, yes: a human isn't defined by the fact that their brains are squishy and organic, but by the conciousness that it has.

If the robot brain has a consciousness, it's not your consciousness, though. At best, it's a thing that thinks it's you. Why should we be giving rights to Jebus-things? It doesn't make sense.

How would you figure it's not "your" consciousness? Consciousness isn't some abstract power separate from your body, it's the sum of the functions of your brain. Apparently, the 'center' for your consciousness is situated somewhere in the anterior cortical regions of your brain. If the 'robo brain' is made to be an exact replica of your brain (if not in shape, then at least in contents), the 'conciousness' of this robo-brain would, in fact, be 'your' conciousness. I don't see any reason why not. That's like saying that if you're clinically dead for a few minutes while they install some kind of fully-functioning robot heart, and you're successfully revived, you're not living 'your' life anymore but the life of your robo-heart.

 

[donperkan]

My brain hurts now.

I know, we'll build a synthetic brain and command it to answer what consciousness is.

As a precaution it must be vulnerable to 9mm bullets.

 

[Dead Guy]

If the robot brain has a consciousness, it's not your consciousness, though. At best, it's a thing that thinks it's you. Why should we be giving rights to Jebus-things? It doesn't make sense.

How would you figure it's not "your" consciousness? Consciousness isn't some abstract power separate from your body, it's the sum of the functions of your brain. Apparently, the 'center' for your consciousness is situated somewhere in the anterior cortical regions of your brain. If the 'robo brain' is made to be an exact replica of your brain (if not in shape, then at least in contents), the 'conciousness' of this robo-brain would, in fact, be 'your' conciousness. I don't see any reason why not. That's like saying that if you're clinically dead for a few minutes while they install some kind of fully-functioning robot heart, and you're successfully revived, you're not living 'your' life anymore but the life of your robo-heart.

This is the same line of reasoning used in movies like the 6th day. Even if the clones they make of you have the exact same brain and memories, they'll still just think they're you. You still died, your original stream of conciousness has stopped. It can't just magically transfer to another organism because it has the exact same memories and brain.

Hypothetically they'd probably be Jebus for all intents and purposes to everyone else, act like him, think like him, think they are him, except to the original Jebus, who's dead. Original organic Jebus wouldn't experience what robo-brain Jebus would, is the point.

Maybe this isn't what you're arguing exactly, it's probably not really the original topic anyway.

 

[Crni Vuk]

the brain most probably will not work.

 

[mobucks]

Reading this made me thing of GiTS. Great anime that explores much of the issues that might creep up if this technology ever really exists.

 

[34thcell]

What if the brain parts are replaced bit by bit by identical components, so the individual's perception of consciousness maintains continuity? What about resurrection? How do we know we haven't "died" and are living a new consciousness everytime we wake up? How do we know our consciousness isn't being replaced every second?

 

[Wintermind]

It would just be a sentient robo brain. Not human. How is this complicated?

 

[34thcell]

Because I'm talking about a brain's parts being replaced gradually, as in you have a surgery that replaces one millionth of the part that creates consciousness and then you go on living normally for a while until the next surgery. At which point is the original "human" consciousness dead?

 

[Wintermind]

That's not what I was responding to and while you're bickering about it skynet is going to take over

 

[AskWazzup]

Some arguments on this topic:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex5EPHe1kdk[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFiQX1qKjgQ[/youtube]

It's a complicated topic, but when you think about quantum physics and the way those microscopic particles work, it's pretty unclear how you would have to create an artificial brain, that works just like the real one. How does one create a valid brain, without having the complete knowledge of how it actually works. So i think, here Searles arguments are kind of interesting.

A thing that i thought about, that parallels this, is if i would try to recreate mozart's music writing exactly how mozart would write. I would have all his works to look at and compare, so i could write in the same fashion, but i could never write like him, as i do not have the same meaning between the notes i wrote and the ones he did, as i don't have the same exposure to life as he did and a plethora of other things.

 

[Jebus]

If the robot brain has a consciousness, it's not your consciousness, though. At best, it's a thing that thinks it's you. Why should we be giving rights to Jebus-things? It doesn't make sense.

How would you figure it's not "your" consciousness? Consciousness isn't some abstract power separate from your body, it's the sum of the functions of your brain. Apparently, the 'center' for your consciousness is situated somewhere in the anterior cortical regions of your brain. If the 'robo brain' is made to be an exact replica of your brain (if not in shape, then at least in contents), the 'conciousness' of this robo-brain would, in fact, be 'your' conciousness. I don't see any reason why not. That's like saying that if you're clinically dead for a few minutes while they install some kind of fully-functioning robot heart, and you're successfully revived, you're not living 'your' life anymore but the life of your robo-heart.

This is the same line of reasoning used in movies like the 6th day. Even if the clones they make of you have the exact same brain and memories, they'll still just think they're you. You still died, your original stream of conciousness has stopped. It can't just magically transfer to another organism because it has the exact same memories and brain.

Hypothetically they'd probably be Jebus for all intents and purposes to everyone else, act like him, think like him, think they are him, except to the original Jebus, who's dead. Original organic Jebus wouldn't experience what robo-brain Jebus would, is the point.

Maybe this isn't what you're arguing exactly, it's probably not really the original topic anyway.

Never saw that movie.

Here again, though, you're treating "stream of conciousness" like it's something not inherent to the brain. I'd better not go on a tangent on why the concept of "soul" is bullshit, but let's just say that's probably a matter of opinion.

Still, aside from the concept of identity versus biological origin, it doesn't take away from the original question: if this synthetic brain thinks like me, acts like me, feels like me, experiences like me and has the same conciousness as me, then why shouldn't it have the same rights as I do? Wouldn't it essentially be exactly like me except for the biological part? Does that matter?

 

[AskWazzup]

Still, aside from the concept of identity versus biological origin, it doesn't take away from the original question: if this synthetic brain thinks like me, acts like me, feels like me, experiences like me and has the same conciousness as me, then why shouldn't it have the same rights as I do? Wouldn't it essentially be exactly like me except for the biological part? Does that matter?

I think this is kind of a moot question, as if it would have ALL of your characteristics it would be you and it would of course be treated as a human. But the main thing is that this is all hypothetical, the same as one would ask - what if i were a god and inherit all of his characteristics. The more important question that precedes that, is what exactly are those characteristics and is it possible to achieve them.

 

[Dead Guy]

Here again, though, you're treating "stream of conciousness" like it's something not inherent to the brain.

Hmm, I think you misunderstood me. What I mean is that two identical brains won't have a shared consciousness just because they're identical, and therefore I don't think that you'd be ressurected, so to speak, in a robo-brain identical to yours, even if the new consciousness, should it arise, would think so. I very much do think that consciousness is inherent to the brain. But also that each individual consciousness is confined to the respective organism.

As for 34thcell's proposed scenario, I honestly have no idea. Maybe?

 

[Jebus]

Still, aside from the concept of identity versus biological origin, it doesn't take away from the original question: if this synthetic brain thinks like me, acts like me, feels like me, experiences like me and has the same conciousness as me, then why shouldn't it have the same rights as I do? Wouldn't it essentially be exactly like me except for the biological part? Does that matter?

I think this is kind of a moot question, as if it would have ALL of your characteristics it would be you and it would of course be treated as a human. But the main thing is that this is all hypothetical, the same as one would ask - what if i were a god and inherit all of his characteristics. The more important question that precedes that, is what exactly are those characteristics and is it possible to achieve them.

Yes, it's hypothetical, but if you give €0.5 Bln for research on building a "software brain" you're going to have to start thinking on how you're going to treat it if it does, in fact, achieve conciousness (by all intents and purposes). I don't think it would qualify as "life", but I do believe a concious "cyber-brain" would count as a 'person' in most respects. All respect? Difficult to say. Would it not be slavery if we treated a concious cyber-brain like we do a computer? Would it not be murder if we deleted it? Wrongfull imprisonment if we turn it off?

 

[AskWazzup]

Yes, it's hypothetical, but if you give €0.5 Bln for research on building a "software brain" you're going to have to start thinking on how you're going to treat it if it does, in fact, achieve conciousness (by all intents and purposes). I don't think it would qualify as "life", but I do believe a concious "cyber-brain" would count as a 'person' in most respects. All respect? Difficult to say. Would it not be slavery if we treated a concious cyber-brain like we do a computer? Would it not be murder if we deleted it? Wrongfull imprisonment if we turn it off?

That's what i'm thinking about too and as i said, it's first necessary to build a theoretical basis for what is considered human, or at least human enough to be treated in the same respects. We are talking about consciousness as the main factor, but what if it isn't, or if it is, or if something else is? That's i think wherein the main problem lies, they are trying to run in front of the train in that aspect. And that's also why i think the 2020 is not a super realistic timetable, if we even can't get bug free video games, that are pathetically minute when compared to a mind, what are his chances to strike at least a partial success in this. Though i applaud his ambition and maybe we will get a better insight into the human mind because of it.