The Talos Principle

post by kranalee · 2016-02-21T19:37:35.513Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 8 comments

Contents

8 comments

Dear members of Less Wrong, this is my very first contribution to your society and I hope that you might help me to get out of my confusion.

 

Back a few months ago, I tested for the first time a video game created by Croteam Studio which is called 'The Talos Principle'.

 

At the time, i was astonished by all the philosophical questions that the game was rising. It has kinda changed the way I see the world now, also the way I see myself.

 

I wanted to share my thoughts with you on the subject of 'What does being a Human mean ?'

 

 

 

First, I'd like to introduce you to this principle.

 

In Greek mythology, Talos was a giant automaton made of bronze which protected Europa in Crete from pirates and invaders.

 

He was known to be a gift given to Europa by Zeus himself.

 

He was so strong that he could crush a man's skull using only one hand, and so tall that he could circle the island's shores three times daily.

 

He was able to talk, think and act like he wanted to. (Except he had to obey Europa's will)

 

Even though his body was not organic, he was composed of a liquid-metal flowing through his veins who behaved like blood.

 

 

 

And here is how the principle begins. What is the fundamental difference between Talos and us, Human ?

 

Considering the fact that like us, he's able to think by himself, move thanks to his will and communicate like everybody does. Is he really different from us ? Sharing our own culture, history and language don't make him Human as well ?

 

I'm pretty sure that your first thought might be 'No way ! We are part of a biological specie. We have nothing in common with a synthetic being'.

 

But does our body really defines us as a Human Being ?

 

From a strict biological point of view, Sir Darwin would say yes, of course. And we won't be able to argue with that.

 

But if you take a Human being, for instance Platon, and you just cut his leg off and replace it with a synthetic prosthesis.

 

Would this person still be Platon ?

 

It appears that the answer to this question is yes, according to all the people who suffered from any kind of accidents which led them to give up a part of their body.

 

They were still the same. Of course they suffered from phantom pains and others psychological damages, but in the end, they remain the same as before.

 

Let's get back to our example. Now imagine that this synthetic-leg-equipped-Platon just had an accident that has made him lose his right arm. Profused with empathy, you accept to give him a prosthethic one.

 

Now, would this person still be Platon ?

 

Again, the answer is yes. Indeed, these accidents would not leave a man without leaving any kind of trauma, but he is still able to think and act like a normal Human. Thus we are assuming that he's still one of us, and that he's still himself.

 

So, how many times do we have to repeat the process in order to touch something that we can't exchange with anything synthesis in order to preserve Platon's Humanity (and sanity).

 

The answer appears to be the brain.

 

Deleting Brain remains the same as deleting our being. We can live with artificial heart, lungs, stomach, etc. but we can't live without our natural brain.

 

 

 

The brain is one of the biggest unknowns in the Human body. Doctors are claiming that we only know less of the half of how does the brain work, mystify it by the same time.

 

But still, we can resume the brain to its physical material. Estimated to contain 15-33 billion neurons each connected by synapses to several thousand other neurons which communicate with one another by means of long protoplasmic fibers called axons carrying trains of signal pulses called action potentials to distant parts of the brain or body targeting specific recipient cells.

 

Indeed, even if we do not really know for sure how every cell interacts with others we know that everything is bounded by chemistry. Every kind of information transfer can be reduced to a chemical reaction, something physical.

 

Every thought of our being started and ended with a chemical reaction. And we know how to replace a chemical reaction by another. We know how to simulate a potential transfer and thus we are today able to simulate a very simple brain on a computer.

 

( You may want to check the Blue Brain Project which illustrates everything that i'm writing. This simulation does not consist simply of an artificial neural network but involves a biologically realistic model of neurons )

 

 

So if in a close future we are able to simulate correctly a Human's brain, and therefore a whole Human body as well, can we considerate it as a Human being ?

 

Being aware of the material reality of the brain might make you think twice about yourself and your specie in general.

 

How do you describe a human being now ? Would you describe Talos as a human being as well ? Or just call it a being, refusing to give him the title of 'Human' because of the biological difference between you and it ? Therefore, can a man entirely simulated in a computer still be called human ?

 

Also, do not forget how the body influences the brain. Just look back on what happened to you during puberty, when sex desire overwhelmed you, making you impossible to remain calm. This happened thanks to chemicals, but it's still very interesting to see how a single chemical can have a huge influence on your consciousness.

 

I'm for now in a haze, so instead of lying on my bed thinking, i'd rather ask for your point of view. I'm very curious, would you kindly give it to me ?

 

Thanks for reading it all, I'll see your reactions in the comment section below.

 

[By the way, i'm a 19 years old french engineering student, i beg for your pardon concerning my english expression]

8 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.