Robot, or Human?

[Insectoid]

This is just something I thought of on my way home from school one day, and I'd like some opinions.

If somebody has all of their body parts replaced with robotic prosthetics, save their brain, would said person be considered a robot with a human brain, or a human with a robotic body? (think Robocop)

Similarly, if a robot is built and given a human brain, is it considered a human, or a robot?

~Insectoid

[andrew.]

I would consider it whatever it was originally. e.g. a human with robotic body parts would still be human and a robot with a brain would still be a robot.

[Dan]

There both called cyborgs.

Moved to off-topic.

[Insectoid]

Let's ignore the term 'cyborgs'. Personally, I don't like the word. It implies that you are condemning their humanity (assuming they were originally human). A robot with a human's brain would still have human memories, from when the brain was still attached to the human, it would think almost exactly like a human, but is it human?

[ecookman]

howa bout a humanoid

[Dan]

insectoid @ 29th November 2008, 11:23 am wrote:

Personally, I don't like the word. It implies that you are condemning their humanity

I don't think the word is ment to imply anything other then part humman part robot. Thats like saying you don't like the word Centaur becues you are condemming horse's for there horsanity (yes i know i just made up that word).

[md]

I'm with Dan on this one. Part man, part robot == cyborg. Or Cybernetic Human if you prefer.

There are no negative connotations attached.

[Zeroth]

The only negative connotation is one you apply. This is much like the question of the axe, where you replace the handle then the head... is it still the same axe?

[gianni]

Zeroth @ Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:46 am wrote:

The only negative connotation is one you apply. This is much like the question of the axe, where you replace the handle then the head... is it still the same axe?

I'm still not sure...

[DemonWasp]

I sense a chainsword.

Honestly though, this topic has already been dealt with in society. People who have had limbs amputated and replaced with artificial limbs are still people. People relying on artificial hearts and lungs to survive are still people.

Really, the only organ we haven't dealt with is the brain - if we take a braindead human and replace the grey matter with a computer, what are they then? Do they have the same rights as any other human? This is, of course, ignoring the questionability of creating such a creature.

[Dan]

DemonWasp @ 10th December 2008, 3:56 pm wrote:

Honestly though, this topic has already been dealt with in society. People who have had limbs amputated and replaced with artificial limbs are still people. People relying on artificial hearts and lungs to survive are still people.

There still people but also tehcicaly cyborgs witch is more awsome.


I think the deffetion of person and humman are not the same, we just have not realy found any non-hummans who are also persons :p

[Insectoid]

To build on demonwasp's point,

If a robot is built and given a human brain, does it share all the rights of humans? I suppose this is what I menat when I began this thread, I just didn't know it at the time. Likely, someone whose limbs are gradually replaced with cybernetics would keep all their rights (rather difficult to take those rights away), but would something gain rights if it was a robot who was given a human brain?

Say a rat was given a human brain (assuming it could fit inside it's skull). Is it still a rat? or something else?

[Vermette]

What do you consider to be more important to define a person's identity; their body or their mind?

The demarcations (hell, even simply the definitition) of personhood is still a very area of discussion in the philosophical world. There's all kinds of ancient and modern ethical, legal, medical, spiritual etc.. ramifications from whatever you decide.

If you want to learn more about the subject you can read David Hume, John Locke, Bernard Williams, and some other names that are escaping me at the moment.

(And Dan depending who you talk to some think the concept of personhood should be extended to animals. We already do it with corporations.)

[Dan]

Vermette @ 10th December 2008, 10:19 pm wrote:

(And Dan depending who you talk to some think the concept of personhood should be extended to animals. We already do it with corporations.)

And cartoons of fictional peoleop too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7770781.stm and http://www.theage.com.au/national/simpsons-cartoon-ripoff-is-child-porn-judge-20081208-6tmk.html:

Quote:

The main issue of the case was whether a fictional cartoon character could "depict" a "person" under law.

Wether X should be consdiered a person and if X is condisered a person is a rather diffrent question. Laws do not allways fallow morality or even common sence it seems.