But now let us try to imagine something that is neither organism nor robot,
but a combination of the two. Perhaps we can think of it as an organism—robot
or “orbot.” That would clearly be a poor name, for it is only “robot” with the
first two letters transposed. To say “orgabot”, instead, is to be stuck with
a rather ugly word.
We might call it a robot-organism, or a “robotanism”, which, again, is ugly,
or “roborg”. To my ears, “roborg” doesn't sound bad, but we can't have that.
Something else has arisen.
The science of computers was given the name “cybernetics” by Norbert Weiner a
generation ago, so that if we consider something that is part robot and part
organism and remember that a robot is cybernetic in nature, we might think of
the mixture as a “cybernetic organism”, or a “cyborg”. In fact, that is the
name that has stuck and is used.
To see what a cyborg might be, let's try starting with a human organism and
moving toward a robot; and when we are quite done with that, let's start with
a robot and move toward a human being.
To move from a human organism toward a robot, we must begin replacing portions
of the human organism with robotic parts. We already do that in some ways. For
instance, a good percentage of the original material of my teeth is now
metallic, and metal is, of course, the robotic substance par excellence .
The replacements don't have to be metallic, of course. Some parts of my teeth
are now ceramic in nature, and can't be told at a glance from the natural
dentine. Still, even though dentine is ceramic in appearance and even, to an
extent, in chemical structure, it was originally laid down by living material
and bears the marks of its origin. The ceramic that has replaced the dentine
shows no trace of life, now or ever.
We can go further. My breastbone, which had to be split longitudinally in an
operation a few years back, was for a time held together by metallic staples,
which have remained in place ever since. My sister-in-law has an artificial
hip-joint replacement. There are people who have artificial arms or legs and
such non-living limbs are being designed, as time passes on, to be ever more
complex and useful. There are people who have lived for days and even months
with artificial hearts, and many more people who live for years with
pacemakers.
We can imagine, little by little, this part and that part of the human being
replaced by inorganic materials and engineering devices. Is there any part
which we would find difficult to replace, even in imagination?
I don't think anyone would hesitate there. Replace every part of the human
being but one—the limbs, the heart, the liver, the skeleton, and so on—and the
product would remain human. It would be a human being with artificial parts,
but it would be a human being.
But what about the brain?
Surely, if there is one thing that makes us human it is the brain. If there is
one thing that makes us a human individual, it is the intensely complex
makeup, the emotions, the learning, the memory content of our particular
brain. You can't simply replace a brain with a thinking device off some
factory shelf. You have to put in something that incorporates all that a
natural brain has learned, that possesses all its memory, and that mimics its
exact pattern of working.
An artificial limb might not work exactly like a natural one, but might still
serve the purpose. The same might be true of an artificial lung, kidney, or
liver. An artificial brain, however, must be the precise replica of the brain
it replaces, or the human being in question is no longer the same human being.
It is the brain, then, that is the sticking point in going from human organism
to robot.
And the reverse?
In my story “The Bicentennial Man”, I described the passage of my robot-hero,