I think the term ‘anally retentive’ would, ironically, describe you quite well…

I’m also glad BSG poked it in a ‘modern’ theological/technological sense.

But I think we can’t really compare TV (or media) to real-world applications. In TV or film we live purely within the fantasy of the director and writer. Sadly, out here in the real world, we’re governed by laws of physics (?) that we don’t know much about.

I would have said “rectify” instead of “correct” but I can already hear the sniggering.

I am thankful, finally, for both my asshole and my opinions, which, when expressed, often make me sound like an asshole.

I have to admit, I am fully in support of cybernetics and implants, etc. If it can make us stronger, faster, better, then let’s go. Who wouldn’t want to have an HUD overlay on their eyes. In a strange city, just blink and you pull up an augmented reality overlay of hotspots, landmarks, directions, etc.

I will fully embrace the future.

I think as long as it remains external, it’s not so dangerous. Technology, at the moment, changes our environment. We can adapt to our environment.

If we actually start altering our brains/bodies themselves — and I mean to the extent that we are becoming a new species — then things might be harder. We’ve still ‘Homo sapiens’, as you say, but if that iPhone was somehow lodged in our brain… or we made it so that babies were born with iPhones installed in their brain… would we still be Homo sapiens?

We’re talking about ‘essence’ here, about what makes us human; what separates us from other species, and ultimately what sets us apart from other races — be they aliens… or robots…!

Sure, cybernetic implants will mean that technology is INSIDE us, but when you look at our reliance on the Internet, on mobile technology (iPhone, BlackBerry, etc.) then all we’re doing is avoiding the technology being actually in us. We still have access to the same data that cybernetics would give (more or less); GPS, maps, email, phone, even now augmented reality is happening on a real level.

As for what makes us human… nothing, we’re a species, that’s all. Just as “cat” is a nickname for Felis silvestris catus, “human” is a nickname for homo sapian. When robots become inevitably self-aware they will become a species all to their own. We have a very limited view of “organic” – we believe that metal isn’t organic and that reproduction isn’t the same as production. I think in the coming centuries we’ll be forced to reassess that view.

But I still want to know, if there is a soul, at what stage of robotic enhancement do we become soulless?

Obviously more research needs to be done, re: brains and brain chemistry. And if we wait until we’re ‘masters of the brain’ (and thus ‘masters of the soul’?) what’s to say we can’t give robots a soul…

Several prominant computer programmers and robotics engineers of the last 20 years, while boasting of the technological advancements and the importance of such, have declared that artificial intelligence will never be on the level of “human” because of the issues of souls, morals, ethics, and feeling. When it all boils down to the core, machines are just a series of 1’s and 0’s.

As for humans, I believe that we are a bag of bones powered by a soul. Once the soul is gone, life is gone. Yes, the bag of bones can be re-animated, but if the soul is gone, it’s still just a bag of bones. The soul is what seperates us from the animals and machines. It’s what gives us our deep inner conscience. The moral right and wrong. Ethics may be learned, per say, but even a small child knows when something’s “not fair”. Whereas, even people who are “brain dead” may have their bodies kept alive by machines, the soul has moved on and “life” has ceased.

But, that’s just my opinion. And like assholes, everybodies got one.

So ‘feeling’ is the linchpin, at least for robot vs. human ethics? But when it comes to survival, it should simply be ‘of the fittest’?

That’s why I mention the ’soul’ bit. If we create robots that are identical to us in every way, but stronger, faster, longer-living — should we not try to differentiate between the two species?

I guess I’m asking: In the chasm scenario, when do robots become equivalent to humans? Why would robots ever be ‘worth’ more than a pet cat?

If a robot doesn’t have the capacity to feel or reason, then punishment would indeed be pointless; the robot remains a mere tool of the creator (or customer) and is best treated as you would a badly-made car. If robots become genuinely autonomous, then they would/should count as equivalent to similar humans in all considerations. This includes the chasm-related scenario.

And that ’soul’ stuff? Let’s not worry about something we haven’t ever observed.