Could It Be Possible to "Manufacture" Humans?

[C.A.]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Science is not that difficult to understand. Depending on the branch of science, an individual only needs to adjust and adapt to the "system" of the science of our world. Remember where science came from? Simple questions that leads to observations and then further in-depth analyzations. I haven't really encountered any discussions(here) that requires me to research some science facts. I do have my high school biology, chemistry, and physics on my belt---no matter how inferior it may seem.

I didn't say ALL hypothesis'. I was concentrating on that "rare earth hypothesis". If you think you can come with explanations or opinions regarding that matter, then please exercise it.

Its not that the discussions need no research, its that you entered the discussions without good knowledge of the subjects, or you do not seem to display a deep understanding of the subjects discussed.

I won't talk about those subjects here, but remember that time when someone said you're behave like a borderline troll? Its because you come into threads trying to discuss thinking that you understand the subjects well, but you actually don't. You sound extremely confident of your points, but those points and opinions you bring up often do not contribute to the thread and instead make you sound like a troll.

What you learn in school don't make you scientific, you're just as 'scientific' as everyone else who attends school. People who discuss in these scientific threads are people who actually did their own research, read up on various science topics that's outside school syllabus.

I'm not sure what about the rare earth hypothesis that makes you think its a true or not true question.

I'll just say that it will take us at least 2.5 million years to find out whether there's life in our closest neighboring galaxy, Andromeda. Its not a question of whether there's life elsewhere, its whether we even have a chance to find it. Can you point a telescope in the same direction for 2.5 million years and be so lucky that the radio signal will be traveling directly into your radio telescope.

If we may not even have the chance to find anything, we can't prove whether its true or not true.

[ClockWorkAngel]

Let us go back into topic shall we?

What we need to discuss here is what defines a "human".

Though science will more than likely lead us to a phase of existence when it may be important to redefine or define what a "human" is; more than likely because at some point there will be an instance of inorganic components transcending into sentience, or organic components transcending upwards to an abstract, inorganic form.

It does have several scientific parts in it, but in a way it is mostly philosophical.

Philosophy; as we know is quite a BS thing, and leads to huge flame wars. But let's try to keep it civil anyways.

So what makes something human? I'm sure that in the cases that may one day arise; of discovering some sort of alien race or that robots may don sentience. But I do not believe we would refer to them as human; especially if their forms are completely different!

Human, in my opinion is the term to describe the species Homo sapiens sapiens and their subsequent evolutions; whether or not they may transcend or evolve. If we do transcend to an inorganic form; we will not be able to evolve as per other organic beings; it would be purely based on our own advances. In that case, a human would be a being organic or inorganic that can trace its ancestors back to the original humans.

Reproduction would be possible in a way; even when one transcends flesh because once one understands the procedure of reproduction and how it subsequently progresses over time; using a mix of two abstract beings' traits or perhaps electrical genes would allow reproduction. Of course whether or not we would ever do something like that is beyond me.

It would of course be dependent on what would we be able to feel as, abstract immortal beings? Will we retain our emotions? Something that is purely chemical? Would replacing those chemical reactions with some sort of electrical sequence, make it any more real or fake? It will be dependent on how we will be able to measure our abilities, and how the brain functions.

I'm sure, whatever the result is we may find some that makes it perhaps feel less than human in a way and more like a machine.

[Vexx]

Jan-Poo has mostly articulated my thoughts on the matter so I won't echo him.

I will note that I think the sensory inputs available to an intellect have a great deal to do with one's perception of and reaction to the environment and other entities around one.

Therefore, unless a robot/AI has sensory input similiar to human input (at a minimum) then it is highly unlikely that their model of reality and philosophy of existence will overlap a human. That might make it a bit difficult for them to relate to us and vice versa.

What defines sentience? Many animals are sentient but lack the evolutionary bits that permit them to reach the level humans have (the human ability to share data and maintain data past a generation). Dogs are shown to have the reasoning power of a human two-year old and much more maturity emotionally (thank goodness they're socially cooperative in nature).

When an AI based on a neural system simulation reaches the point where it asks not to be neurally reset ("killed"), that's going to be a fascinating moment.

As for the irrelevant discussion of "miracles" earlier, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic (to unscientific people)". Anything that isn't expressly forbidden by quantum mechanics is possible.(though probably unlikely).

[Thingle]

Depends on your definition of a "Human". Biologically, certainly. Why not? But philosophically it's a little bit difficult as we have to grapple with the issue of individuality, which comes with each and every human. I mean, you could clone people, but can individual personality be artificially created? If so, what makes it "real"? That is, in order to pass off as "Human".


Science, because of its empirical nature tends to be too materialistic (ergo, a tunnel-vision) . Because "Humanhood" is not a purely material issue, it is inadequate. Therefore you can talk about science all day and still not be able to reach this point using it alone. You can all talk about the technical, chemical, mathematical, psychiatrical definition of individuality or the hows of constructing artificial personality if you want, but that's the extent of it. Anything further, such as discussion of its authenticity as a "human" characteristic, or the authenticity of the "end product" (that is, the manufactured human) as a "human" is already in the philosophical realm. Unfortunately, you need to cross that in order to define a "human".

Which discipline is the BS now? Mr. ClockworkAngel.

[Thingle]

Sorry for the Double post, but this is an entirely different talking point.

Personally, I don't think "Humans" can be manufactured, because of my definition of a human as the consciousness of a living homo sapien. The mortal shell is not the human per se, but the consciousness. That consciousness has innate uniqueness in a sense that it can "potentially" be copied but that copy cannot replace the original in entirety. Ever asked why dead bodies are referred to as Mr.A's remains rather than Mr.A?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Jan-Poo has mostly articulated my thoughts on the matter so I won't echo him.

I will note that I think the sensory inputs available to an intellect have a great deal to do with one's perception of and reaction to the environment and other entities around one.

Therefore, unless a robot/AI has sensory input similiar to human input (at a minimum) then it is highly unlikely that their model of reality and philosophy of existence will overlap a human. That might make it a bit difficult for them to relate to us and vice versa.

What defines sentience? Many animals are sentient but lack the evolutionary bits that permit them to reach the level humans have (the human ability to share data and maintain data past a generation). Dogs are shown to have the reasoning power of a human two-year old and much more maturity emotionally (thank goodness they're socially cooperative in nature).

When an AI based on a neural system simulation reaches the point where it asks not to be neurally reset ("killed"), that's going to be a fascinating moment.

As for the irrelevant discussion of "miracles" earlier, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic (to unscientific people)". Anything that isn't expressly forbidden by quantum mechanics is possible.(though probably unlikely).

Although I wrote something similar that first bolded paragraph in the first page, I am starting to question myself after my friend started insulting me regarding my disillusional thoughts about society. I am person who perceives things in shades of gray rather than black and white like him, so I am not much of a decision maker and often less realistic w.r.t to the place I live in.

Our input is based directly on the things we come in contact with, be it people or such. Most people tend to detract away from the socially inept or the eccentric ones, i.e people who they cannot communicate in the same wavelength with, and thus criticise them for being different. The model of reality becomes so subjective that it spawn hypercynical and/or hyperidealistic sentiments present in the more vocal believers of many ideologies and religions.

It is possible for a robot to be able to relate to us if we program them appropriately, i.e if you like Physics, loading a whole chunk of encyclopediae would be able to make it relate to you, but its ability to process information on a questioning basis would be proportionate to the processor it has.

I have a theory of how emotions actually come about, and that would be based on the fear of pain or the unknown. For example, a person who fears pain wouldn't want to risk his limbs running the gauntlet in Afghanistan. He would be happy in the presence of "safety" until something hits him hard, then he starts experiencing "negative" emotions.

Maybe in my next post I would have more collected explanations. I am getting tired of living.

Originally Posted by Cipher

It also cannot be disproven..now you do the rest...i can't resist..

I can, with a single line. Assuming "God" is a divine being, can I see a photo of him?

You are really under-equipped in terms of experience in life and alternate perceptions from the POV of others. I understand because of the prohibitions of exchanges of the latter, but for the former, you can gain them by doing simple but "stupid" things. How can you know something without trying it out? Personally, I think I am a very stupid person because I know way too little for my own good, I have never fired a weapon with an precise range of beyond a click (FN MAG doesn't count, it has an EFFECTIVE range of beyond a click, not PRECISE), I have never had sex, I have never smoked anything beyond controlled tobacco, and most of all, I have never had enough money to spend on courses I want to go or bribe a CERN guy to let me into the cyclotron.

Believing is a choice, and I respect people who question their own beliefs, and dared go against it to test the flaws of the WRITTEN rationale behind it. You can do whatever you want, you just have to bear the consequences later (even if they come in the afterlife). Since you seem to be a Christian, read up on the Parable of Talents.

P.S I say truthfully, I have the urge to neg-rep you, but I think that it is pointless since you are still going to be around anyway even with that.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Thingle

Sorry for the Double post, but this is an entirely different talking point.

Personally, I don't think "Humans" can be manufactured, because of my definition of a human as the consciousness of a living homo sapien. The mortal shell is not the human per se, but the consciousness. That consciousness has innate uniqueness in a sense that it can "potentially" be copied but that copy cannot replace the original in entirety. Ever asked why dead bodies are referred to as Mr.A's remains rather than Mr.A?

Actually, that's a philosophical distinction (mind-body duality). If one thinks consciousness is an artifact of complexity arising from the source matter (the brain/sensory system), then one could argue that the "remains of Mr. A" are all that is left once the system fails to function.

The discussion really isn't being kept tight enough (my fault as well) since we're having to discuss what conscioussness or sentience might be before we can discuss the "manufacture of humans" (which is kind of an arm-waving phrase in itself; since it could mean a variety of things).

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

It is possible for a robot to be able to relate to us if we program them appropriately, i.e if you like Physics, loading a whole chunk of encyclopediae would be able to make it relate to you, but its ability to process information on a questioning basis would be proportionate to the processor it has.

Anything purely programmed is a finite state machine with well-defined results, ergo not sentient. An ability to self-modify programming based on new input and new experience is absolutely critical before anything like "sentience" can be asserted. The brain rewires/reprograms itself constantly based on functionality usage, new input, etc. So any artificial attempt at sentience is really going to have to include a substantial learning core (though a large base of "the easy stuff and data" would be a good start).

[Thingle]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The discussion really isn't being kept tight enough (my fault as well) since we're having to discuss what conscioussness or sentience might be before we can discuss the "manufacture of humans"

nah we're just going to the root of the issue by talking about sentience.

[monir]

Originally Posted by Metropolisforever

(NOTE: Usually, whenever I post a serious thread, it gets deleted as "pointless". Well, you know what? This is NOT a pointless thread - there is absolutely no way this thread is pointless. Please, please, PLEASE don't delete it. )

wa~ wa~ wa~... whining and whinging. You start a thread and then, don't even attempt any follow up posts to any of the views presented in this thread. More importantly, why aren't you letting folks know your intention behind starting this thread? You see why we found a lot of your thread pretty pointless? There are bunch of posts that are already off-topic. I really can't stand thread starters who just want to start a topic for the heck of it and then, disappear all together.

Anyway, bunch of off-topic posts are removed from the thread. If you aren't sure what to discuss in this thread, or about the subject of discussion, then please leave this thread alone. Going off-topic, and sounding off with one another about issues that has nothing to do with the topic at hand makes this thread vulnerable to disappearance or premature closing.

[synaesthetic]

To the OP:

No. A robot is a robot, no matter how intelligent or sentient or emotional it is, or how much it looks like a human. It's still an artificially created inorganic machine.

It doesn't have human DNA and it cannot breed with a human, therefore it isn't a human.

Would an intelligent, sentient robot with emotions be a person? On that aspect, yes, yes it can. But it can't be human.

/thread

[Liddo-kun]

Originally Posted by C.A.

And the 'next step' in human evolution is already taking place.

Scientists have worked on implants for some time, but now implants that allow humans to interact with computers, machines and even the internet wireless is already a reality. Scientists believe that in less than 50 years, you can literally upload your entire brain into a computer or download all sorts of data into your brain.

And when robotics, cybernetics and other mechanical advancements catch up, you can upload your mind into a mechanical body and live without aging. And when nanotechnology, claytonics and other advanced nanomaterial technologies become common place, robots and humans will look and function exactly the same and everyone would be a robot.

'Humans' will become 'robots', with quantum computers millions of times more powerful than the human brain. Actually you may not even need a body, you're going to exist as an 'electronic' or 'quantum being'. As long as you have your consciousness in data format, you will live.

Imagine yourself as a data being, you can 'travel' between planets, solar systems and even galaxies at the speed of light. You just have to send your data to your destination and you'll be 'flying' there at the speed of light. You can own several 'avatars', your physical robotic bodies made of indestructible nanomachines. All of them are you and you'll be existing in multiple places in the universe.

So why keep a human body when humans can advance to the next level? When our brains can no longer keep up with the data flow, upgrade yourself by uploading your consciousness into a quantum computer. With humanity's processing speed exponentially increased, technological advances will exponentially increase as well.

The theory of human consciousness becoming downloadable into a universal program network of sorts sounds like a grim future to me.
If that's the method of becoming immortal in the future, then I'm glad to not to be able to see/experience it.

No offense C.A.


Now, on the concept of robots being treated a humans...
I'm reminded of the anime "Astroboy" (the classic version), it's an anime where a robot boy who has the ability to think like a human is eventually treated as a human being. However, looking at reality... technology that would give a machine free will is far from being available these days. And I don't see a reason why such machines should be created.

[Vexx]

Frankly, I see more practical initial applications for mobile sentient AI --- something with the awareness of a dog or cat but able to speak and having a large information database. Use: household companions and guide assistants for the disabled and others. If you watch Bladerunner, such things are hinted at when we visit the synthetic organism engineer's home. Of course, Bladerunner also grimly visits the idea of the natural end-game for such entities with the replicants and their tragic situations.

[monir]

The best anime that is right now dealing with this topic is Eve No Jikan. I was so tempted to merge this thread in several occasion with the Even No Jikan thread.

[Vexx]

I don't know why I forgot about that as an example -- Eve no Jikan is superb at examining certain aspects of these issues.

[Daniel E.]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I don't know why I forgot about that as an example -- Eve no Jikan is superb at examining certain aspects of these issues.

Because it only airs an episode every two months or so?

Regardless, it is an awesome anime that does show some of the things being discussed here.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by roriconfan

^ and human vegetables should be treated as plants?

This problem comes from the dual definition of human.

A human body without a consciousness fulfills the organic human definition.
A human consciousness in an artificial body fulfills the spiritual human definition.
An artificial body without a counsciousness doesn't fulfill any.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

To the OP:

No. A robot is a robot, no matter how intelligent or sentient or emotional it is, or how much it looks like a human. It's still an artificially created inorganic machine.

It doesn't have human DNA and it cannot breed with a human, therefore it isn't a human.

Would an intelligent, sentient robot with emotions be a person? On that aspect, yes, yes it can. But it can't be human.

/thread

As I said before, you could have two different concepts of "human", you abide to the organic one since you think that possessing a DNA is a necessary part of the definition. However there can be another possible definition of "human".

If you don't mind I'd like to make a theoric example that might challenge the "organic" definition of human.

Let us think about a "full cyborg" like the ones seen in robocop2 or ghost in the shell, in other word, a complete robot body connected to a human brain. The only organic part would be the brain and nothing else.

Is this being a human or a robot?

Technically this being has lost any kind of organic self reproduction ability. On the outside it looks exactly as any kind of robot of the same technological level.
His whole body is not composed of cells, but it is manufacted.
However the brain is the same as in any other human.

Let me rise the challenge.
Suppose we get the same situation but in this case the brain is enhanced with cybernetic implants. In other words there are artificial neural connection to the organic brain. These connections serve to the purpose of expanding the neocortex, allowing the brain to reach an even higher degree of intelligence.
Is this being still a human?

Let me rise the challenge.
What if the cyberimplants go as far as replacing some of the original organic parts of the organic brain?
Is this being still a human?

Think carefully about what to answer to this question, because as a matter of facts, people who have born with a congenital underdevelopment of the brain are still considered human. Also people who have suffered any kind of brain damage (even a whole lobotomy) are still considered human. So saying that someone who has lost part of his original brain is no longer a human is a dangerous statement.

So let me rise the challenge.
What if 1/4 of the brain is replaced?
What if 1/3 of the brain is replaced?
What if 1/2 of the brain is replaced?

and finally

What if the whole brain is replaced?

Where is the boundary that separate the human from a non human?

[Nosauz]

Well you speak at robots, their bounded by rules, programs, things that humans don't have to follow. Society may say mass murder is a horrible thing and goes against human nature yet there are people who still are willing to commit these kinds of atrocities. It's the ability to be able to do anything, whether its of the greatest of goods, or the darkest, most vile actions, as a human we are able to choose whether or not one can and cannot do. Whereas robots in their maximum capacity are still bound by protocols, rules, that govern their "thought" they may have their own "thoughts" but in the end they are still controlled by the underlining code that makes them "alive."

Even in Aismov's world robots are bound by laws that govern them. They may do things that at first seem contrary to the laws, but infact are just those laws intrepreted in a different sense.

[SaintessHeart]

I think we have spoken enough about robots. I was thinking of another form of manufacture as we speak. Manufacturing humans, like the GS style of manufacturing coordinators (in which the third generation are objects of love which bear no fruit).

Is it possible to crossbreed humans with animals, i.e catgirls?

[roriconfan]

Some fruit are the result of the combination of different fruits (genes and stuff) and look nothing like their "parents"

[GuidoHunter_Toki]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

This problem comes from the dual definition of human.

A human body without a consciousness fulfills the organic human definition.
A human consciousness in an artificial body fulfills the spiritual human definition.
An artificial body without a counsciousness doesn't fulfill any.





As I said before, you could have two different concepts of "human", you abide to the organic one since you think that possessing a DNA is a necessary part of the definition. However there can be another possible definition of "human".

If you don't mind I'd like to make a theoric example that might challenge the "organic" definition of human.

Let us think about a "full cyborg" like the ones seen in robocop2 or ghost in the shell, in other word, a complete robot body connected to a human brain. The only organic part would be the brain and nothing else.

Is this being a human or a robot?

Technically this being has lost any kind of organic self reproduction ability. On the outside it looks exactly as any kind of robot of the same technological level.
His whole body is not composed of cells, but it is manufacted.
However the brain is the same as in any other human.

Let me rise the challenge.
Suppose we get the same situation but in this case the brain is enhanced with cybernetic implants. In other words there are artificial neural connection to the organic brain. These connections serve to the purpose of expanding the neocortex, allowing the brain to reach an even higher degree of intelligence.
Is this being still a human?

Let me rise the challenge.
What if the cyberimplants go as far as replacing some of the original organic parts of the organic brain?
Is this being still a human?

Think carefully about what to answer to this question, because as a matter of facts, people who have born with a congenital underdevelopment of the brain are still considered human. Also people who have suffered any kind of brain damage (even a whole lobotomy) are still considered human. So saying that someone who has lost part of his original brain is no longer a human is a dangerous statement.

So let me rise the challenge.
What if 1/4 of the brain is replaced?
What if 1/3 of the brain is replaced?
What if 1/2 of the brain is replaced?

and finally

What if the whole brain is replaced?

Where is the boundary that separate the human from a non human?

The response "what makes us human is our brain" has obvious limitations. Imagine a creature with a human brain in the body of an ape: would she/he feel human? Would we regard her/him as human? I'd think not.

Now what about memory, intelligence, emotion? Well I think most pet owners know that animals have emotion, or something close to it. They can be sad, happy, angry and they can remember what they have been taught. Clearly memory, intelligence, emotions, consciousness or even the sense of right and wrong are not completely unqiue to humans. However only in our species has cognitive abilities reached unique levels of sophistication.

If we differ from animals in general (from apes in particular), by our cognitive capacity I'd change the question of "what makes us human?", to "what makes our brain unique?". A viable answer to that could be our Cerebral Cortex. But is that even enough to call something human?