Can a synthetic be human?

This argument has been explored discreetly by countless sci-fi novels/movies/games for a long time.

Should a synthetic being with human thought processes and emotions be treated as a human?

No, because it is not human, despite what it is or looks like.

However, it should recieve most, if not all, benefits of humans, and should be fully subject, or at least mostly, to the law.

Kind of like when most people thought negro's were an inferior species because of their skin color, the synthectic would be the same (or close) thing.

It can be treated as a different (maybe even equal) species, but technicaly it's not human and should probably not be treated as such.

depends on the way they conduct themselves.

if they are human in every way except that they are made, then yes, treat them as human.

if they are different (such as more powerful, have emotional instability, are immature because of short life-span) then they should be regulated.

I think it all really depends on the details of said robot; whether or not it can feel pain or, more importantly, whether or not it can "die."

If a robot lacks the ability to die, or be killed, they really cannot be considered human, or benefit from human rights. Not being able to die completely removes the romanticism of humanity. The ultimate sacrifice of death is not experienced by one who can simply be repaired.

There is no romanticism in sending in a battalion of robots to fight a war for you. There is no romanticism involved with a robot giving his life for a cause, only to be repaired a few days later.

My reasoning is a bit old fashioned and based more on valued principle rather than true fairness and reasoning, but I must vote on my instinct. No

I agree very much with RT. You can't program emotion. You can portray it, but you can't program it.

untill it recieves the basic heart mind and has the quality of a human then no.. but i still say that it's not human cause it has no soul...

rzgrz wrote:it has no soul...

'steady RT, don't over react. He didn't mean anything by it...'

I agree very much with RT.

apocalypse now?

If it's not alive, I would not treat it as such. Humans are alive, so in my eyes a robot isn't Human. Humanoid in form, but not Human.

Short answer: No
Long answer: Not really. Sure, a robot can display human tendencies, think, feel, and even know emotion, but technically they're still made of metal.

*Insert Goebbels' Rant here*
They are not like us! They can NEVER be like us! If they think they can be like us, they'd better run like Hell!

OK, aside from that, a Synthetic will be like a copy of the Mona Lisa. It won't be the real thing, and it won't deserve all the special protection. But if the 'mind' is largely generated outside the control of humans, and it passes the Turing Test, then it should at least have basic human rights. And I would absolutely enjoy talking to it.

Finally, it doesn't have a soul. If you're going to get ripped about me referring to the 'soul', then sue me. I think the Big Bang theory is wrong, but I don't go overboard when I see someone refer to it. And Toaster, I admire your earlier restraint when it was mentioned.

well i agree with bb on the law part but you can not make something human that isn't human or organic in nature Ex: like an alien species

I think the Big Bang theory is wrong

Well now you're just egging me on...

CivBase wrote:I agree very much with RT. You can't program emotion. You can portray it, but you can't program it.

Very wrong you are. We are barely short of the technology to create digital(not so much synthetic) brains, exact copies or recreations of our own structure. This argument depends on whether or not you believe a soul exists in which true emotions come from. If you do, then we cannot possibly create a being with emotions. Otherwise, if you believe the brain alone creates it, then we can certainly do it with technology.

Now robots are not my thing, but I study computational neurobiology as my main hobby. Let me say right now that giving the creation senses is the easier part. A sense can be described as something as simple as a source of information that helps one perceive it's envioment.(sp) While the eye is a hard object to tackle, sight can be a couple of pixels sent into the brain for each time-step. Scientists have also come up with solutions to hearing, touch, smell, and even taste.

The fact is though, if one day we create a sentient being with the mind of a human, it is still not a biological human. No matter how close we get, we can never achieve the creation of a true human being, and therefore it should not be considered human. Should these creations be given the same advantages? If they think and behave on the same level as us, then of course.

Now, I believe that the Bible is telling the truth when it says that God gives us a soul, but I am not sure for certain what that soul is. It could be another part of us operating in a completely different realm, as most believe. It could also be possible that our soul is simply our mind taken out of our bodies. This is not as ridiculous as it sounds. For example, say I create a digital brain. I can put that brain in a 3d world to operate in a 3d body. Now, I can still take that brain out of the body and put it wherever I want. Digital brain emulation itself is proof that a mind can operate in a non physical state.

Just a theory. I just wish to discover whether or not I can make bob conscious.

Dud Doodoo wrote:I just wish to discover whether or not I can make bob conscious.

Frog blast the vent core!!

Dud wrote:Now, I believe that the Bible is telling the truth when it says that God gives us a soul,

Though I disagree with the concept of a "soul," I have to give it to the bible on this one. There is a superficialness to humanity. It is not based only on our reasoning and thought processes and emotions, but also on romanticism. We can give the ultimate sacrifice, robots cannot.

The ultimate solution to this question is probably to simply vow never to create such a thing as a robot with human emotions.

As the great UNSC AI once said, "Life is made precious only by death."

You sure it was him? Because I remember something very similar being said on BSG...

It could've been from Battle Star Gallactica, but he's who I heard it from

ReconToaster wrote:I think it all really depends on the details of said robot; whether or not it can feel pain or, more importantly, whether or not it can "die."

If a robot lacks the ability to die, or be killed, they really cannot be considered human, or benefit from human rights. Not being able to die completely removes the romanticism of humanity. The ultimate sacrifice of death is not experienced by one who can simply be repaired.

There is no romanticism in sending in a battalion of robots to fight a war for you. There is no romanticism involved with a robot giving his life for a cause, only to be repaired a few days later.

My reasoning is a bit old fashioned and based more on valued principle rather than true fairness and reasoning, but I must vote on my instinct. No

umm...there isnt much romance in war....
and
Angry Robot+Immortality=X_X
it would be nice to have an immortal robot army to keep the peace instead of our soldiers
and i thin robots would be needed to be segregated.
the6y would be discriminated against and eventually cause an Irobot kinda revolution...not good

don wrote:umm...there isnt much romance in war....

A man making the ultimate sacrifice of death for the defense of what he believes in... That's the romance of war. The appeal, the beauty.

Don wrote: it would be nice to have an immortal robot army to keep the peace instead of our soldiers

too much power

but

HARRISON FORD WILL SAVE US if anything goes wrong.

ReconToaster wrote:

don wrote:umm...there isnt much romance in war....

A man making the ultimate sacrifice of death for the defense of what he believes in... That's the romance of war. The appeal, the beauty.

Don wrote: it would be nice to have an immortal robot army to keep the peace instead of our soldiers

too much power

romanticist....
aint no romance to it in my eye.
and its only too much power when it becomes used for gain.

BB wrote:HARRISON FORD WILL SAVE US if anything goes wrong.

Deckard is too sympathetic

ReconToaster wrote:

Deckard is too sympathetic

...


WILL SMITH WILL SAVE US if anything goes wrong!

BBJynne wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:

Deckard is too sympathetic

...


WILL SMITH WILL SAVE US if anything goes wrong!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Win.