Cybernetic Augmentation: What does it mean to be human?
By Mahad Adeel, Year 12 Student at Dubai College
What does it mean to have a perfect human body? Perhaps it is to imagine one without fault or limitations that require assistance. The desire for human perfection comes in many forms, whether it be as simple as not wanting to wear glasses to read or perhaps in more severe cases wanting to bring back a lost limb or body part to be “whole” again.
Human ‘perfection’ has always been a very idealistic concept that has taken many shapes and forms in fiction and real life. For many it is a problematic ideal, when recalling the extremist interpretation of a ‘perfect race’ and eradicating so-called ‘sub-human’ people. Others indicate how the desire for a better form has been a driving factor in progressing the healthcare industry to help bring equity to the disadvantaged, regardless of whether they were born with a disability or endured an experience in which their ability to live life was compromised.
However, as the field of technology continues to grow exponentially, we see another possibility in cybernetics: the enhancement of human ability through augmentation of real human body parts. It is an intriguing field of computational engineering that re-interprets the concept of human idealisation, giving the possibility of super-human traits beyond our physical capability. Perhaps you will be able to install an eye that can see beyond visible light or visualise the movement of sound, or you may be inclined to give yourself a new set of arms capable of greater heavy-duty lifting if your workplace requires the movement of incredibly heavy packages.
Super-Human Cybernetic Augmentation may revolutionise healthcare beyond simply the recovery of the standard — It may introduce layers of upgrading our physical form beyond human limitations. It is a field of robotics that is buzzing with intrigue and experimentation; Its potential future implementation to everyday human life will surely bring forth a technological revolution… and a thousand controversies.
One of the trickiest and most philosophical discussions is: How will Cybernetic Augmentation affect our individual ‘humanity’? Is there something lost from the ‘human experience’ through modifying our existing body parts to match cybernetic advancement, and if so, how much augmentation can we receive until we are ‘no longer human’?
This modernised interpretation of the age-old mind-body dilemma is one that philosophers through all generations have tackled their beliefs for, even if perhaps in more abstract methods during their time. This branch of philosophy, known as Metaphysics, can be reapplied to the exponential growth of real technology over time to understand the core question of this article: How would Cybernetics affect our Humanity?
Setting a Baseline
Before we can discuss how this however, we must set our baseline: What makes us human? Our humanity is defined on many levels; Some say it is due to our ability to sense, process, interpret and understand in a level that allows us to dominate the globe. Whereas, on the contrary, others may believe it is a more abstract concept such as the ability to love, cook, or sin, such that we act within ‘nature’.
Through this, we could infer two separate conclusions about “What makes us human?”: Our complex reasoning and rational thought, and our abilities to live life within human nature. How would augmentation of our body parts affect any of these factors?
The ‘Complex Reasoning’ Argument
When it comes to our complex reasoning and rational thought, it is difficult to really argue there is any effect on our ‘humanity’. It is this same complex reasoning that we use to debate the topic of cybernetic humanity, and how far it can go — But so long as someone is capable of complex reasoning, does it matter if they are only brain and the rest is cyborg? This raises another possibility — If our intelligence is tied to our brain, would a human-like computer brain be human?
Many believe that a computer brain is only a matter of time. In fact, we already have a computer system capable of processing 44 times faster than the human brain — the Japanese Fugaku Supercomputer — with its only limitation being its sheer size and floor space. As miniturisation has been the standard for developing technologies, such as with how the Mobile Phone has reduced the scale of it’s technology to a pocket-sized device, we can hope that as Supercomputers see the same reduction in their scale.
So, what if we were to develop a Cyber-Brain Supercomputer that completely emulates a human one? Through installing it, we may still have rational thought and complex reasoning — Perhaps at a significantly greater rate than any regular human brain could process — But would that humanity still be there? Or by removing the brain removing are we removing our humanity, regardless of whether a replacement has the same memories, thoughts, and potentially even emotions?
This leads us into a paradox known as The Ship of Theseus. Let us imagine a ship that has each of its individual parts replaced over time. Eventually, every individual part of the ship has been completely replaced. Would that ship still be the ‘same ship’, remaining fundamentally the same object, despite having each of its individual components replaced entirely?
This paradox fits neatly into our humanity complex — If we were to replace every limb, organ, and even the brain, with a cybernetic replacement, such that there is no organic part of someone, while preserving their life’s experiences, emotions, and feelings the whole time, would they be human anymore? Or, instead, would they be a robotic system emulating human intelligence? If you say no, despite believing humanity is caused by complex reasoning — Which would most likely be preserved — Then that means there is something more to our humanity than just our ability to reason, which separates ‘human’ from machine.
So how far does it reach? How much of a human can be replaced until they are no longer recognisable as human anymore? This is where we bring up our second avenue for analysis in order to be closer to what can be perceived as truth.
The ‘Human Nature’ Argument
The ‘Human Nature’ argument is a general series of psychological traits shared by all humans, such as our playfulness, ability to feed one-another and cook, ability to experiment and discover, and our ability to form complex relationships. If our humanity is defined by our nature, then would cybernetics compromise this nature?
Cybernetics are integral to help people get back to living their regular, everyday life. A replacement cybernetic arm is supposed to emulate having a real arm so that people can return to using it in their general life, even if as an emulation of a real arm. The same can be applied to hypothetical voice modulators to help mute individuals speak, or bionic ears to help assist hearing where traditional hearing aid proves to be inefficient. Therefore, Cybernetics are designed to help assist human nature, not compromise them.
Human nature has become integral to our species in spite of any artificial modifications and augmentations as we remain able to depict our inherent psychological nature despite any modifications. A disabled man with cybernetic legs can still run and play games with their friends; a chef with a surgically modified arm can still cook. Even if their ability can be enhanced, you can infer that their humanity is still present.
So, revisiting our cybernetic individual who has every organ completely replaced by a cybernetic — If they can play, sing, think, love, and exist with no difference to someone with zero cybernetic enhancements, then they must be as human as anyone else. Their nature, despite being cybernetic, is still human in its core; Regardless of whether they are physically organic, they depict all the traits of being human, and therefore have humanity. This stance is a rather strong argument for why cybernetically augmented individuals are still human: Their nature, the psychological traits that make us human, is still tightly bound to their person. In relation to the Ship of Theseus, you can argue that despite every individual component of the Ship being replaced, it is still the same piece — It serves the same purpose, has the same crew, sails the same seas, its nature as a ship has not changed even if physically it is completely different. Therefore, no matter how much of a human is replaced with cybernetics, if their human nature is intact, they are still human.
Conclusion
Let us lead back into the core question however — How much cybernetic augmentation can someone receive until they are no longer human? This, like many philosophical debates, is not an easy question to answer, and can be approached through the viewpoints shown above.
If you believe humanity is constructed by our inherent human nature, and cybernetic augmentation does not fundamentally alter this nature, then any level of augmentation does not define anybody as any less human, even if the entire body is replaced by cybernetics.
However, if you believe complex reasoning is the root of humanity through our intelligence, you may be reserved to thinking alterations of the system that provides the basis of this complex reasoning is drawing a line between human life and human-like computer intelligence, depending on which factors are in dominant control of the person. If a computer brain is in control, then the cause of reasoning is not human in its structure, and therefore cybernetics can only go as far as not affecting the root of human intelligence to remain human.
While the two arguments above have been outlined in this article, you may still be inclined to believe in neither of those solutions and justifiably approach this reasonably complex question with your own hypothesis. The beauty of philosophy is that, while a collective thought can be grown over time, much of the experience of learning and solving problems is up to an individual’s handling of their personal core ethical and philosophical principles.
The approach we all choose to take will be crucial to how cybernetically augmented individuals are welcomed into society and whether they are seen as any less of a person than someone who has no cybernetics. This complex issue of humanity is one that is impending and real and must be thoroughly understood and debated upon to find the optimal solution if we are to allow cybernetic augmentations to change the way we live our lives.
This article depicts only a fraction of the many deep considerations of how technological advancement will have to be tackled in due time through a philosophical lens. Philosophy and Computer Science meet as science-fiction progressively becomes science-reality, and, as we engineer technological advancement, we must look up and ask ‘How far will we change?’
Perhaps our interpretation of humanity itself will have to be redefined.
