The question posed in the title is a particular example of a wider question: What makes us human? Are we nothing but the sum of our parts, or is there something more to it?

I believe that consciousness and self-awareness is what defines a ‘self’. Put another way, to be ‘you’ necessitates knowledge that you are ‘you’. Unlike some, I do not believe our physical bodies play any part in defining who or what we are.

And hence the question. Were a human mind to be transplanted into a robotic body, would that person still be the same? Still be human? That is, if you accept in the first place that there is a greater meaning, a quality that can be possessed, that makes us who we are. Personally, I say absolutely.

For the sake of argument, postulate that the mechanical body has a ‘brain’ that is structurally identical to the human brain the consciousness was transferred from. Surely it would be nonsensical to argue that somehow the trait of ‘humanity’ has been lost in the movement. Perhaps not…

The possibility of something more than just consciousness can also be entertained. The concept of a ‘soul’. Removed from its religious context, the idea of a soul is simply the concept of an immaterial facet to human existence. Perhaps synthesised by our consciousness, perhaps existing naturally like our physical body. Maybe even God-given, if you’re into that sort of thing.

The presence of a soul could complicate the original question considerably, dependent on beliefs about its origin. I would say that it is more likely for the soul to be dependent on our consciousness than our physical body. There’s no evidence for nor against a soul’s existence, and thus I remain largely agnostic to the concept.

Certainly there is a part of me that likes to believe in a ‘spark’. Somewhat unscientific, but…pleasing.

Originally published on Blogger