As advancements in deep learning and artificial intelligence usher in an era where the human body and brain can be replaced by machines, the philosophical and ethical question of whether these beings can be called human is becoming increasingly relevant.
AI, led by deep learning, is getting better every day. Deep learning, which uses statistical techniques to derive answers, is still far from the category of strong AI, which is AI with intelligence. However, devices that use deep learning are capable of transforming humans. In the previous sentence, “transforming humans” means using tools that humans can use, equipment that can be worn, and devices that can be implanted to expand the limits of the average human. Examples include simple calculators and computers, artificial organs, RFID chips, and chips implanted in the brain to help compute information. Humans who use these tools go beyond the ordinary human and literally become superhuman.
The emergence of superhumans raises the question of the extent to which we can still be called human if we are replaced by machines. This is not just a matter of science and technology, but also of philosophical and ethical issues. For example, where does human dignity and autonomy come from, and will these qualities still be valid for beings that are fused with machines? Also, how should we address the new classes of inequality and social conflicts that arise as superhumans emerge? The fusion of machines and humans is not just a technological innovation, but a new challenge for humanity.
To answer this question, we will compare mild to extreme cases to see which are human and which are not. In the end, we will conclude that humanity is undefinable because we cannot draw a precise line between being human and not being human, and that if something is indistinguishable from a human, it is human.
First, let’s consider the case of modern humans who use computers and smartphones without any devices implanted in their bodies. There is an incomparable difference in computational capabilities between a person who is completely devoid of electronics and a person who is proficient with various electronic devices. However, no one would say that a person is not human just because they use electronics. Even if an artificial intelligence machine makes decisions for you in every situation, we can conclude that you are a human being because you are the one who makes the decisions, even if only formally.
Let’s take a look at a case where a part of the body is replaced by a machine. First, imagine a person who loses a limb and uses an artificial limb, or a person who burns their skin and uses artificial skin. Even now, there are people who use prosthetic limbs and prosthetic hands, and they live their lives as human beings. And almost no one would call them less than human. They may not be able to walk or pick up objects without prosthetics, but in every other way they are just like everyone else. In particular, they are making the same mental judgments as anyone else, so ultimately they are no different, which is to say, there is no reason to say they are not human. By extension, even if all of your organs are artificial, you’re still human because you still think and make the same judgments.
But what happens when a machine-replaced organ transcends human capabilities beyond mere auxiliary functions? Consider, for example, an artificial heart that functions much more powerfully and efficiently than a natural heart, or an artificial arm that works much more powerfully and precisely than human muscles. The discussion of how these augmented physical capabilities affect human identity becomes more complex. While there is no doubt that these enhancements can contribute to improving human lives, there is also the potential for them to blur the definition of what it means to be human.
In the previous example, the brain is ultimately human because it thinks and judges in the same way, so if the brain is artificial, we would have to conclude that it is not human. In other words, the brain determines what is human and what is not human. Also, if the whole body is human, but the brain is an artificial brain made of a CPU, then it is a machine in human disguise. However, it is not possible to determine the presence or absence of a brain.
Consider the following scenario. If you put a chip in a person that enhances their brain function, is this person a person? If you put in a chip that modulates input so that you can hear better, or visual data so that you can see better, is that person a person? The answer is yes, because if you take that chip out, the person’s abilities are reduced, but the person continues to live. However, if a part of your brain gets cancer or fails, and you remove it and replace it with a machine, you are not a person because you cannot continue to live if you remove the machine.
In this way, it’s not a matter of 0’s and 1’s, with or without a brain. If it has even a partial brain, the conclusion that it is human is also ambiguous. This is because it is difficult to define a human being if it has only one cell and the rest are all machines. In that case, if you attach one human brain cell to an A.I., you can claim that it is human.
In the above case, if the non-brain part of a human is replaced by a machine, it is human because it has normal thinking and judgment. If the brain is replaced, the presence or absence of a brain cannot determine humanity. In the end, it is impossible to define what is human and what is not human at any given moment. We can simply conclude that if a person is born as Homo sapiens, they are human, but there’s a little more to think about.
If an android that is completely indistinguishable from a human is mixed into society, it could live a life that is no different from a human. In the end, we can come to the final conclusion that if the brain is socially indistinguishable, whether it consists of a CPU or a real brain, then it is right to recognize it as a person. The important question is how humanity will accept these changes and how we will establish new social and ethical standards. In the coming era, “human” will no longer be a fixed concept, but a constantly changing definition. This will provide both new challenges and opportunities for humanity.
