I recently read a review of a book about unresolved questions in philosophy. One mentioned was "Can a robot be human?"

My thoughts:

According to biological definitions, a human is a member of the species Homo sapiens and a species is a group of individuals capable of interbreeding. So if we make a robot capable of producing human sperm we're set, right?

Most people wouldn't agree, however. This is probably to do with intelligence - a sperm machine is not human because it doesn't have human intelligence. One test in AI (whose name I forget) is that if a human could not tell the difference (in conversation) between a computer and a real human we would declare that true artificial intelligence. So, if we crack that, do we then have a human?

I would say no. A robot might be indistinguishable from a human but it is not human. Fundamentally, computers do not think like humans - they think in binary logic. If they appear human that is simply a convincing illusion, not true human intelligence.

But then what exactly is the difference, the thing that makes it a robot?

Well, yeah. But other than that?

I'm not sure that list answers the question at hand. Presuming a robot making sperm, bones flesh and organs strike me as no farther stretch. Presuming a robot making sperm there must be human dna and that comes from a mother and a father I'd think. And the other four are tricky to prove or disprove in a person so if this robot could pass a Turing test I'd be hard pressed to draw a line.

And to look at it from the other side, using the list to stop someone from being counted as human, there are some implications I'm not sure I like. Organ transplants or replacements, cloning and brain damage come to mind fast.

I'd use a purely biological definition centering on being created through cell growth controlled by human dna.

I knew you'd say that....and put it in the list just for you 


........flesh, bone, brain, kidney, liver, unique DNA derived from mother and father.......how is this not a human clone?


Again...seems to me this is a clone.


Absence of unique DNA would make it a clone of someone elses DNA.....and sperm makes it male....what of the female?


Really?  First....are you human?
-Absence of emotion......do you not have emotion? Laugh, cry, sad, happy, mad?

-Absence of conscience.....do you not ponder over your decisions and how they might be perceived by or effect others?

-Absence of soul.......if you are not religious, theres no point in discussing.

-Absence of decision tree comprised using the above......do you NEVER make an emotional or moral, ethical decision that may defy logic?


Who has EVER advocated persons receiving organ transplants or sustaining brain damage as NOT being human?  How does either one change the individuals unique human DNA profile?

Cloning is a bridge not crossed....but may be under construction.


This could be used to define a clone, could it not?

I can imagine a bunch of life support systems keeping human parts live, even functional or necessary. Certainly in the realm of science fiction, but not ridiculous.

I'd suggest that it'd be difficult to prove to someone other than myself that these things are true and not faked.

A person with some one else's (or a pig's, or a machine) organ no longer has a unique dna, if you test from the transplant you get a result that could match some one else. I pretty sure brain damage can stop one from making decisions. And I'd expect brain damage could kill emotions or conscience. Not to touch souls. I'm not saying you are calling organ recipients nonhuman, but I read into the list some greyspace that could be used to that effect.

Yes. I'd say a clone of a human is a human.

I'd be fine with accepting robots as human, as soon as robo-hookers become affordable.

What exactly is a soul?