Human. Cyborg. Robot. Android. All the aforementioned titles should instill images of separate entities that look, feel, and act in their own distinct ways. But, the question remains, are all of those entities truly all that different. Sure, you may think and derive several characteristics unique to any one of the titles hold, and though each does hold unique identifiers, the lines and definitions of the subjects undoubtedly blur the closer one examines them. A human may be defined as an organic being under the genus Homo sapiens, a robot may be an inorganic machine, a cyborg may be a meld of organic material and inorganic machinery, and a synthetic organism may be an inorganic machine design to replicate the actions and mannerisms of an organism, but, when one looks past the literal definitions, the differences each entity hold melt away and the observer is left with many similar looking beings. When one strips the fabricated definitions put onto items and beings by “officials”, he or she can derive that many of those same items and beings are in actuality not too different. Similarities shared by seemingly different beings, especially those outlined in the beginning of the post, can be thoroughly examined if one considers the shared empathy all have the capabilities of expressing. Empathy is a characteristic that overlaps boundaries and has the capability to shred definitions claiming entities are grossly different when in fact they are not.
In order to show that classic definitions are not capable of encompassing the entirety of a concept, being, or thing, one must first decipher what the definition is and what it claims to be. In regards to humans and humanity, one classically defines the terms as, “a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens)” (Merriam-Webster). Though the dictionary definition gives a proper biological definition of the topic, it fails to encompass the true meaning of what it is to be human. Being human has more to do with the thoughts, feelings, desires, and capacity for rational and emotional thought than belonging to a specific genus. When one sits and ponders what it truly means to be human, he or she does not consider the Latin genus and scientific definition of human, but rather considers the emotional and theological aspects of human life. To be human is to think, adapt, decide on right and wrong, and have a moral code that dictates one’s life. One may say that it is this ability to follow moral and adapt oneself to decide right and wrong that delivers humanity from robots and computers, but recent updates in technology have cause this distinction to become outdated and irrelevant. However, before delving into how recent technological advances have blurred the lines of humanity and technology, one must understand what cyborgs, robots, and synths are.
A cyborg is defined as, “a bionic human” (Merriam-Webster). This vague description can be explained further as a human-computer hybrid that relies on both biological and mechanical/electronic parts to survive and function. When one expands the dictionary definition, he or she understands that the cyborgs is like a computer driven machine, but instead of a computer, the cyborg is driven by a human brain. Because the cyborg is driven by a brain, it has the capabilities to think, act emote, and empathize like humans do. A cyborg merely differs from the human in physical make‑up of the body, but remains consistent in the mental and physiological aspect of humanity. Robots on the other hand are different in their physical and physiological make‑up.
Unlike cyborgs, robots and androids are machines that do not rely on nor consist partly of biological life. Robots, are defined as, “a machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (such as walking or talking) of a human being” or, “a similar but fictional machine whose lack of capacity for human emotions is often emphasized” (Merriam-Webster). Similarly, an android is, “a mobile robot usually with a human form” (Merriam‑Webster). These three definitions differ slightly, but agree on one major point, an android is a robot, and a robot is a machine. However, if one thinks of robots as a modern machine, he or she can tweak the definition to a more apt and suitable classification. By changing machine to modern machine, one can assume that the machine is controlled not through mechanical means, but via a motherboard or other form of microcontroller. An example of a robot abiding by this new definition can be found in the novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Though robots in this novel are referred to as androids, they coincide with the definition previously given, and are controlled via a microcontroller. Having a microcontroller is important for various reasons, but perhaps the most significant of the reasons harkens back to the recent technological advances. The advancement in question is known as “Evolutionary Computation” and can be studied further in a paper by Kenneth O. Stanley and Risto Miikkulainen, of The University of Texas at Austin, titled Evolving Neural Networks through Augmenting Topologies. In short, the paper defines how computer topologies (i.e. the configuration of how data is received and digested buy a computer) can be created so that they mimic the evolutionary process that life undertakes to become more suitable for certain situations, the same process that has allowed humans and brain powered devices to be capable of thought, emotion, desire, and empathy.
Because each of the previously mentioned definitions has not changed to cover a more complete mental and similarly constructed concepts for non‑biological beings, the outdated notion that all of the previous entities are completely distinguishable and separate from each other stands; such a notion is wrong and should not be considered valid in a scientific or academic sense. As technology improves and advances the line between what is and what is not human will begin to blur and the distinctions many hold dear to their own personal identification will cease to hold true. Though controversial, this statement will hold true due to the evidence laid out previously in the paper showing how microcontrollers will begin to think, act, and process in the same way evolution has allowed a humans brain to function. As a result of the new application of computer topology, or Evolutionary Computation, robots, androids, and non‑brain‑powered machines will begin to show empathy and become more humanlike in their demeanor.
When one considers how to classify humanity, he or she defaults to considering what a normal human is. A baseline human is necessary for having a consistent control group to compare the mental and processing capabilities of cyborgs, robots, and androids to. In deciding what normalcy is, one need only to refer to book edited by Leonard J. Davis titled the Disability Studies Reader: Second Ed., and specifically Part One chapter one titled “Constructing Normalcy: The Bell Curve, the Novel, and the Invention of the Disabled Body in the Nineteenth Century”. In this piece of literature, Davis states, “We rank our intelligence, our cholesterol level, our weight, height, sex drive, bodily dimensions along some conceptual line from subnormal to above-average.”(3). Here, Davis is showing that humanity is based on the idea of normalcy. He claims that humans compare ourselves, on the basis of every conceivable idea or concept, to an ideal or average human. Humans have developed tests for intelligence, cholesterol level, weight, height, sex drive, and body dimensions in order to find some baseline that humanity considers normal. Using that anecdotal information on why information is used to find an average, one may assume that eventually, robots, cyborgs, and androids will begin to be judged along the same guidelines. Continuing that thought, due to advances in technology, Moore’s Law, which states that computer capabilities and the performance of computational parts will double approximately every two years, and Evolutionary Computation, robots, cyborgs, and androids will become equal to and even surpass humanity’s capability to think, emote, and empathize.
A scenario which shows a machine that has advanced to the point of feeling, living, emoting, and empathizing as humans do is enacted in the Philip K. Dick novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? In his novel, Dick portrays a post nuclear disaster San Francisco where a man, Rick Deckard, is tasked with finding and “retiring” (killing) androids on Earth. The struggle arises when the newest model of android, the Nexus 6, comes out on the market. Nexus 6 androids are so human‑like that the test to determine if the subject being tested is an android, the Voight‑Kampf test which uses empathetic response to determine humanity, nearly fails. Being so similar to humans shows that the Nexus 6 androids have evolved to a point that their microcontrollers are nearly replicating human emotion and empathy; a process such as this evolutionary one can be replicated by a cybernetic subject that runs an evolutionary computational algorithm. Within the novel, an android by the name of Roy Baty shows he has the ability to empathize for other androids by trying to do what is best for them. He saves them from a doomed life of slavery and tries to present them with a better life on Earth. Not only can he empathize, but he shows he can love as well, which he shows by sharing his love for his wife, Irmgard; Roy shows two emotions many think robots and androids cannot show. Because Roy has the capability to emote and empathize, he displays his ability to evolve and adapt in becoming more human‑like.
In addition to explaining that cybernetic being will eventually have the ability to empathize and emote, like Roy Baty, one must account for differences in the ability to empathize, otherwise known as the difference in ability to learn empathy, as shown in human beings. Such difference are brought to light by Allie Grasgreen in her article titled “Empathizing 101”. I her article, Grasgreen states,” The general consensus among empathy scholars is that the answer [to can empathy be taught] is yes…” (para 4). The fact that many scholars agree empathy can be learned allows one to assume that so too can computers learn. One may deduce that computers can learn because when evolutionary computation allows microcontrollers within a robot, android, or cyborg to be equal with a developed human brain, then so too can those microcontrollers learn and interact as a human can. Once the microcontrollers can learn and adapt like a human brain can, then, logically, one can assume they can show emotion and empathy equal to the human brain. Such a deduction can be exemplified through the transitive property of equivalency in math, which states if a=b, and b=c, then a=c. Likewise, if an androids microcontroller or processor has the same functional ability to a human brain, and a human brain can show emotion and allow for empathy, then an androids microcontroller or processor can show emotion and allow for empathy.
Based on several concepts and natural laws, such as evolutionary computation, Moore’s Law, and the transitive property of equivalency, a clear decision regarding cyborgs, robots, and androids of the future can be made. Historically, many considered empathy to be the deciding factor distinguishing the difference between human, animal, and machine. As time progresses, machines will develop faster and become ever increasingly humanlike. Eventually, it is clear that the distinction between what is machine and what is human will cease to exist. One truth will hold firm however, it must be the decision of humanity to create the cyborgs, robots, and androids that can feel emotion and show empathy, and therefore it is humanity that is in charge of its own fate. Regardless of whether one considers reality or the large, fictional world created by Philip K. Dick in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, humans must be the ones to set forth the desires and social requirements necessary for the development of such machines. Humans must make the decision to create or program the cybernetic beings before they become a reality. However, based on previous examples of human curiosity and the quest for knowledge, one may assume with a high likelihood that eventually, cybernetic beings will exist, and furthermore, they will have the ability to uncannily emulate the processes of the human brain. At that point, one may return to the question of can empathy and the processes of the brain really distinguish us from robots? However this time, the question may produce a different answer.
Work Cited
“Cyborg.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam‑Webster, 2017. 9 October 2017.
“Human.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam‑Webster, 2017. 9 October 2017.
“Robot.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam‑Webster, 2017. 9 October 2017.
Davis, Lennard J. The Disability Studies Reader. 2nd ed., Routledge, 2006
Dick, Phillip K. Do Androids Dream of El
ectric Sheep? Del Rey, 2017.
Grasgreen, Allie. “Empathizing 101.” Inside Higher Ed, 24 Nov. 2010, www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/11/24/empathy.