Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
What makes a person a person in the legal sense is not the number of artificial body parts, but the presence of a person. After replacing how many body parts will a person lose their identity? If personality is not lost, then why should humanity be lost?
You can also recall the paradox of the ship of Theseus, even when all the boards were changed, the ship was still the ship of Theseus, although, in fact, not a single atom from the former object remained in it. A person has his own status by right of birth and no one can alienate him even after replacing all body parts, as long as the person is alive, because, as the respected N. Kotov correctly noted, legally information about belonging to the human race is inalienable, as are human rights. Moreover, it is unlikely that it will ever be possible to legally justify its alienation(information). By the way, a document on the rights of robots has been written for a long time, another thing is that it has not yet been ratified by both robots and humans, but, de facto, it is very close to human rights documents. Here you can read about the concept of robot rights.
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/artificial-personal-autonomy-and-concept-of-robot-rights
Perhaps the answer is more likely to be found in transhumanist thought. In practice, any organ transplant or integration of bionic prostheses does not reduce the number of people in a person. A person with bionic prostheses and accessories does not cease to be a person in any way, but can be called a “cyborg”.�
The term “cyborg”, unfortunately, has been mixed up in the mass consciousness with the term “android”, which means a humanoid robot. “Androids”in reality are called silicon-silicone robots, but in science fiction robots created with the use of biotechnologies can also be called robots. At the same time, they don't stop being robots.
Terminology becomes more difficult in fantasy worlds where we have artificially created de facto people, such as in the “Blade Runner”universe. “Replicants” are not “people” because of their artificial origin and characteristics, but they are not “robots”, they are just that a separate category.
The question of the “human–robot” division can begin from the moment when we get the ability to supplement and replace parts of the brain. As mentioned in the previous answer, if you imagine the installation of some artificially produced (even bioengineered) “controller”in the place of the brain, its body can be considered a robot.
On the other hand, as was mentioned in the comment, if we take as a basis the supremacy of mind, consciousness over the supremacy of matter, brain, then if an artificially produced “controller” will have a completely copied human consciousness from the human brain, then both it and the body can continue to be considered a person.�
But continuing, then a completely artificial robot with a copied human consciousness can also be considered a person. However, all this reasoning really goes deep into transhumanism and philosophy. In practice, it is not known how humanity will behave when approaching such opportunities in science and engineering.
After replacing the brain, it will be considered a robot. Otherwise, it's more like a cyborg. Well, or a person with prosthetics. While humanity is not ready to call cyborgs people with prosthetics.