When would cybernetics no longer make a person be human?

[Mayhem]

then you are using incorrect definitions. I already posted the definition of adaption.



adaption = process in which animals change to better suit the environment. This is a short term process and doesn't change the overall species much.


[/LIST]

evolution = long term process in which species change from multiple adaptions and become something different.

Nothing in your quote about evolution says anything about adaptations.

Both definitions agree with what I am saying.

Adaptation = active process (does not change the species)

Evolution = passive process (does change the species)

[Orange Joe]

Nothing in your quote about evolution says anything about adaptations.

How do animals change again? Whats that word we have been using?

Both definitions agree with what I am saying.

Adaptation = active process (does not change the species)

Evolution = passive process (does change the species)

And how does either of those comments refute my claim?

To repeat. my claim = adaption is part of the evolution process.

I even quoted two of the leading researchers of evolution saying the same thing. So at this point you are just ignoring evidence and I see no point in continuing.

[Mayhem]

How do animals change again? Whats that word we have been using?

Generally by genetic mutation or hybridization. At least according to darwin.

And how does either of those comments refute my claim?

To repeat. my claim = adaption is part of the evolution process.

I even quoted two of the leading researchers of evolution saying the same thing. So at this point you are just ignoring evidence and I see no point in continuing.

You made the claim that something triggers evolution (remember the earth temperature rising example you gave?), but evolution is happening all the time, nothing suddenly triggers it.

[Orange Joe]

Generally by genetic mutation or hybridization. At least according to darwin.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/e...tion-survival/

An adaptation is a mutation, or genetic change, that helps an organism, such as a plant or animal, survive in its environment.

You made the claim that something triggers evolution (remember the earth temperature rising example you gave?), but evolution is happening all the time, nothing suddenly triggers it.

Adaption can be triggered by outside influences. Did you not read the definition of adaption?


This is getting boring. You are refusing to accept any evidence, while failing to provide anything evidence to counter. I'm done.

[Mayhem]

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/e...tion-survival/

Adaption can be triggered by outside influences. Did you not read the definition of adaption?

Ok, despite using a different definition than the one two posts ago, it still says nothing about mutation or genetic change being triggered. You just don't seem to understand the difference in a species reacting to something and a species changing into something.

This is getting boring. You are refusing to accept any evidence, while failing to provide anything evidence to counter. I'm done.

You are really not understanding any of the things you're reading and keep insisting on being right for no reason at all.

I'll challenge you to find me one example of a species mutating due to a changing environment and how the species knew before mutating what mutation would actually help it survive the changing environment.

Are species somehow clairvoyant?

[Shadowferal]

It's going in circles at this point. You said it yourself, creodonta were too big and too slow, the obvious solution if changing conditions could trigger evolution in a sense that the species itself changes would be to become smaller and faster.

Carnivoran and creodonta existed at the same time.
The one evolved. Carnivores became smaller and faster and even changed becoming less carnivorous, some becoming omnivorous, even herbivorous.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmf...seems we've careened wildly off the topic.

I suppose it was going to happen given the subject.

[Orange Joe]

Ok, despite using a different definition than the one two posts ago, it still says nothing about mutation or genetic change being triggered. You just don't seem to understand the difference in a species reacting to something and a species changing into something.



You are really not understanding any of the things you're reading and keep insisting on being right for no reason at all.

I'll challenge you to find me one example of a species mutating due to a changing environment and how the species knew before mutating what mutation would actually help it survive the changing environment.

Are species somehow clairvoyant?

I already did. Galapagos islands....... They don't know before..... They know after when the one that mutates is able to breed more and spread said gene.....

[Shadowferal]

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...ate-180953133/

Relevant?

[Mayhem]

I already did. Galapagos islands....... They don't know before..... They know after when the one that mutates is able to breed more and spread said gene.....

This is ridiculous. You don't even see that you contradict yourself.

The finches migrated there. The migrated finches already were fit to survive or else they would've gone extinct, therefore nothing could possibly trigger a need for mutations. The mutations that happened we're not a reaction to anything, because mutations don't happen as a reaction, they happen all the time regardless.

The Galapagos island finches are also a really bad example because there are 18 species that all share a common ancestor, meaning that many different mutations survived. They didn't need to evolve to survive, quite the opposite.

[Orange Joe]

This is ridiculous. You don't even see that you contradict yourself.

The finches migrated there. The migrated finches already were fit to survive or else they would've gone extinct, therefore nothing could possibly trigger a need for mutations. The mutations that happened we're not a reaction to anything, because mutations don't happen as a reaction, they happen all the time regardless.

The Galapagos island finches are also a really bad example because there are 18 species that all share a common ancestor, meaning that many different mutations survived. They didn't need to evolve to survive, quite the opposite.

Not my claim. I pmed you rather then derail thread further.

[Tabrotar]

Ok, despite using a different definition than the one two posts ago, it still says nothing about mutation or genetic change being triggered. You just don't seem to understand the difference in a species reacting to something and a species changing into something.



You are really not understanding any of the things you're reading and keep insisting on being right for no reason at all.

I'll challenge you to find me one example of a species mutating due to a changing environment and how the species knew before mutating what mutation would actually help it survive the changing environment.

Are species somehow clairvoyant?

The easierst way to see this is the one species of butterflys which almost ll had a really dark color bcs of all the smoke/pollution in the early 20th century and the ones which were white allmost all got eaten and then with better cleaner air it was reversed, the white ones had the better camuflage and the darke rones were eaten by the birds.

[Xorzor]

Jax from Mortal Kombat would be considered enhanced, since only his arms are cybernetic. On the flip side, Sektor is entirely robotic (he was a nasty human too if MK9 is anything to go by), so I'd consider him no longer human.

In WH40K, Space Marines are still considered somewhat human-ish, despite their many advantages. Many AdMech are borderline, being almost entirely mechanical, and some go over the proverbial line, replacing their brains with computers. Surprisingly, some within the AdMech consider this a bit extreme.

In The Walking Dead, some CDC person tells the original group about how the virus kills off most brain function before restoring only a fraction of it. Who you are deep-down is gone, and only the most basic instincts are brought back. What makes you YOU is gone for good.

All in all, many believe the human consciousness resides in the brain. Call it a house for the "soul" if you like. Altering that I would say does declassify someone from being human. Technically, at least. It seems nothing is either quite that crystal-clear black-and-white.

[Flarelaine]

It's a bit tangential, but I'll just drop this link here to one of my favourite science fiction short stories.

[unbound]

When all arms and legs are replaced?
When the torso is replaced?
When the heart is replaced?
When the brain is replaced with a computer that is able to download the person's personality on it?

TBH, this is just the modern version of the Ship of Theseus problem. Simply stated, from Wikipedia, "If it is supposed that the famous ship sailed by the hero Theseus in a great battle was kept in a harbour as a museum piece, and as the years went by some of the wooden parts began to rot and were replaced by new ones; then, after a century or so, every part had been replaced. The question then is if the "restored" ship is still the same object as the original."

There are a lot of resolutions to that problem, and no actually correct answer that can be universally accepted.

[Magical Mudcrab]

This is emotion, not reason.

Replace a neuron with an artificial neuron. Is it no longer a human being? It's one neuron. It probably doesn't affect anything, really. Hell, it could not work at all, and probably wouldn't be that big an impact.

Now, make it two. Has it changed, yet?

At exactly which neural replacement count does someone go from "human being" to "soulless robot"? I need a precise number.

There's nothing magical about the lump of fatty tissue inside our skulls. No reason to think it's not replaceable, if out of our technological reach at the moment.

I agree that if someone were to have the hypothetical neuron replacement, that individual should still be treated like a human; they're still an intelligent, self aware being. Their humanity shouldn't be taken away from them.

However, and this could just be my own ignorance of how the brain works or perhaps I'm not philosophically sophisticated enough, but if you replaced someone's neurons with artificial neurons, would they still be the same person? The brain stores information and you're replacing parts of the brain, are you copying the information stored in the neurons over to the artificial ones, or are we going to assume the organic brain would rebuild the connection? And if you're copying the information, at what point are you a copy and not the original? Is there even a difference? If you replaced a person's memories and thoughts with copies, would the original you die, and a copy be born, ignorant of the change that had occurred; are you the same person, or just effectively the same? Even if we assume that they are the same person, if the neurons were to build connections in a different manner than the person's original brain, wouldn't that mean they'd effectively become a different person by virtue of the change? These questions start going way off topic, but the more I consider whether you would be the same person the more I realize there's a rabbit holes all over the place that require a higher degree of understanding about science and philosophy than I currently have.

[Endus]

I agree that if someone were to have the hypothetical neuron replacement, that individual should still be treated like a human; they're still an intelligent, self aware being. Their humanity shouldn't be taken away from them.

However, and this could just be my own ignorance of how the brain works or perhaps I'm not philosophically sophisticated enough, but if you replaced someone's neurons with artificial neurons, would they still be the same person? The brain stores information and you're replacing parts of the brain, are you copying the information stored in the neurons over to the artificial ones, or are we going to assume the organic brain would rebuild the connection? And if you're copying the information, at what point are you a copy and not the original? Is there even a difference? If you replaced a person's memories and thoughts with copies, would the original you die, and a copy be born, ignorant of the change that had occurred; are you the same person, or just effectively the same? Even if we assume that they are the same person, if the neurons were to build connections in a different manner than the person's original brain, wouldn't that mean they'd effectively become a different person by virtue of the change? These questions start going way off topic, but the more I consider whether you would be the same person the more I realize there's a rabbit holes all over the place that require a higher degree of understanding about science and philosophy than I currently have.

It's a Ship of Theseus thing.

If a single neuron isn't enough to say "this is no longer the same person", or even "this is no longer a person at all", why would 2 replaced neurons be the margin? Or 3?

Continue up to full brain replacement. At which specific point do you go from "the same person" to "not the same person"? Why doesn't this apply to brain damage, where you lose neurons? You can create arbitrary answers to these questions, but they will be arbitrary, and not based on any amount of reason or logic.

People change over time, anyway, so "change" itself isn't really a basis for anything, either.

Maybe the new neurons are far more efficient, and the person effectively becomes more intelligent, able to reason more effectively and more rapidly. Why is this change a bad thing? And, here's the real kicker, why is this different from any other brain therapy, whether pharmacological or surgical?

We can literally cut out half a person's brain, and we still consider them to be the same person, and definitely still a person. They're probably gonna change a bit as a result, obviously, but it doesn't call their humanity into question. So why would it if we replaced the missing half with an artificial replacement? Why is that the tipping point for humanity?

[Shadowferal]

Continue up to full brain replacement. At which specific point do you go from "the same person" to "not the same person"? Why doesn't this apply to brain damage, where you lose neurons?

It's not others' perceptions that matter in that regard. It's the person that suffered such damage whose perceptions matter. If severe enough...and if the person is self-aware enough...(hmm...although Phineas Gage might address the issue from your initial point)

[ParanoiD84]

The Flesh is Weak.

[Shadowferal]

The Flesh is Weak.

But the spirit is sooo willing!

[Endus]

It's not others' perceptions that matter in that regard. It's the person that suffered such damage whose perceptions matter. If severe enough...and if the person is self-aware enough...(hmm...although Phineas Gage might address the issue from your initial point)

The Phineas Gage case is a perfect example of what I'm driving at, though.

His friends and family saw him as a different personality, due to the damage he'd suffered.

No one seriously tried to make the argument that Phineas Gage had died and this was a new individual, or that he was no longer a person, though. That's the argument that's being made, here; that replacing "too much" means you're no longer a person, a human being. That's what I'm calling into question. Would you be the same person? Maybe not. Maybe better, maybe worse, maybe just different. And maybe, yes, pretty much exactly the same. But none of those are relevant to the question of whether you're still a person at all, or if your old self "died" and this is some new entity. You changed, that's it.