Full Body Prosthesis as related to legal rights

[Lady_of_Ravens]

Current lore, as I understand it, has IPCs considered legally non-persons who are generally barred from citizenship (and likely holding public office and such as well). But what about MMI's with fully-human brains? Like, lets say a nice old lady with the horrible bone cancer and tits down to her knees forgoes years of agonizing nanotherapy and has her brain plopped into an MMI and installed into an attractive 14yo shell (her husband picked it out for her special). Is she still considered a human, with citizenship and all the corresponding rights?

[Zundy]

Current lore, as I understand it, has IPCs considered legally non-persons who are generally barred from citizenship (and likely holding public office and such as well). But what about MMI's with fully-human brains? Like, lets say a nice old lady with the horrible bone cancer and tits down to her knees forgoes years of agonizing nanotherapy and has her brain plopped into an MMI and installed into an attractive 14yo shell (her husband picked it out for her special). Is she still considered a human, with citizenship and all the corresponding rights?

 

Wuh oh! Looks like some was just opened the 'Transhuman' box!

[Eliot Clef]

I don't believe this has been established. I know that full-body prosthetics are disqualified from the same positions as IPCs, although to be truthful I'm not certain why. (Possibly because enforcement of the difference would be too difficult.)

[Frances]

There is no IPC loremaster at the moment.

However, aren't there very big differences between androids (artificial intelligences) and cyborgs (brains in jars)?

The former could be considered as a non-person/nonsentient, while the latter would obviously still be a person. This brings up some pretty weird and funny questions, though. For example, how can NT use brains to power lawed cyborgs, and are these beings sentient or not? (And if so, isn't that basically slavery?)

[Zundy]

I remember devs saying they wanted to avoid the whole 'brain in a jar transhuman' question because of the potential implications it would bring but I would like to see clarification on it! Would be coolies man.

[Eliot Clef]

I remember devs saying they wanted to avoid the whole 'brain in a jar transhuman' question because of the potential implications it would bring but I would like to see clarification on it! Would be coolies man.

 

We've had them in play for a long time before IPC code was revamped into Shells. I know Katelynn Mcmullen has been playing a full-body prosthesis for a long while now in particular, though I haven't seen her in a while. They've been at least somewhat in the lore since Shells were put in. If we were trying to avoid this, we've failed.

As I think I mentioned in another recent post on this subject, one of the explicit goals of Shells was to introduce Ghost in the Shell-style cyborgs options. It's the primary reason IPCs can have a human, unathi, or tajaran exterior.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

The Aurora is a haven of bright minds that constantly strive to push the limits of acceptability. This means that it is a hotbed of radical liberalism and self-expression in a universe that's a bit more restrained. That means, lore-wise, there are restrictions on these things to explain why we don't have a bizarre trans-humanist explosion in our otherwise sci-fantasy setting's outlook on shells, even if it makes our players (and thus their characters) whine.

 

But what about MMI's with fully-human brains? Like, lets say a nice old lady with the horrible bone cancer and tits down to her knees forgoes years of agonizing nanotherapy and has her brain plopped into an MMI and installed into an attractive 14yo shell (her husband picked it out for her special). Is she still considered a human, with citizenship and all the corresponding rights?

 

Even our IC legal systems haven't answered this question yet. How do you tell them apart, at a glance? You probably can't unless you're a super good roboticist.

Someone becoming a cyborg for medical porpoises would most likely just be considered to have been put in super life-support, so they're still a person. Just up and deciding to become a cyborg because "holy shit mom it's not a phase cyborgs are cool" would also have the person legally considered a person with the rights.

However, what's in the law and what's actually enforced are usually two separate things. MMI's in shells would just find their lives mysteriously start to fall apart as they're barred from all the things positrons are barred from, since most people can't tell the difference. The general public in our canon also has a fear of trans-humanism, so they can't advance socially, politically, or many other ways really.

This might seem really annoying to the Aurora residents, who are like "all rights all sentients", but them's the beats.

[Dreamix]

Why can't we just use the definition of life, to determine what might have rights?

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.

Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.

Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.

Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.

Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.

Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms, "with an error rate below the sustainability threshold."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology

I imagine, a brain in a MMI cannot control it's robot parts like radiators, voltage, current, etc. So, shells/cyborgs can't do homeostasis by themselves.

Organization. Brain?

Metabolism, can't do. Unless you count using (electric) energy to move, and stuff.

Growth, not really.

Adaptation, not really? Unless putting yourself into a MMI is considered to be adaptation.

Response to stimuli. Sort of, yes?

Reproduction, nope. Unless you count cloning (from brain matter?) as a type of reproduction.

We can also change the definition of life to fit our needs, making robotic/mechanical parts "alive".

The whole transhumanism-thing is hard.

[MagnificentMelkior]

Why can't we just use the definition of life, to determine what might have rights?

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.

Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.

Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.

Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.

Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.

Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms, "with an error rate below the sustainability threshold."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology

I imagine, a brain in a MMI cannot control it's robot parts like radiators, voltage, current, etc. So, shells/cyborgs can't do homeostasis by themselves.

Organization. Brain?

Metabolism, can't do. Unless you count using (electric) energy to move, and stuff.

Growth, not really.

Adaptation, not really? Unless putting yourself into a MMI is considered to be adaptation.

Response to stimuli. Sort of, yes?

Reproduction, nope. Unless you count cloning (from brain matter?) as a type of reproduction.

We can also change the definition of life to fit our needs, making robotic/mechanical parts "alive".

The whole transhumanism-thing is hard.

The determination that synthetics are alive is not enough to determine that they deserve rights. Monkeys are alive too. What is relevent is whether the people who decide these things take the pragmatic "If its not human, we give them only what rights we must. Human supremacy above all other considerations" approach, or the star trek "We can thrive as a specie AND be morally benevolent." approach.

[Dreamix]

(...)

The determination that synthetics are alive is not enough to determine that they deserve rights. Monkeys are alive too. What is relevent is whether the people who decide these things take the pragmatic "If its not human, we give them only what rights we must. Human supremacy above all other considerations" approach, or the star trek "We can thrive as a specie AND be morally benevolent." approach.

Let me add something, then. What I'm proposing is, only living and sentient beings deserve rights. Non-living AND/OR non-sentient beings can be made slaves, or whatever (that would explain why cyborgs have laws, and stuff). That would be sort of interesting, I believe.

[Lady_of_Ravens]

How can this possibly be a new/undecided legal issue when MMIs have been around for, literally, centuries? Yes, AIs are new, and shells that look like people might be new (though that's a stretch), but they were putting brains in jars back when humanity was first colonizing mars. A certain amount of non-legal discrimination makes sense, particularly with certain people being afraid and resentful of robots, but considering them legally subhuman for hundreds of years would require a willingness to ignore the basic humanity of people who retain all their mental faculties, eloquence, and humanness, beyond what's generally found in an egalitarian society.

Also, fun fact: animals are sentient. No, really, look it up. They are. The word everyone is looking for here is "sapient".

[Guest]

even if it makes our players (and thus their characters) whine.

 

Then let them have cheese with their whine!

Anyway, I think a couple differences between the two groups should be noted.

 

• Organics think naturally, and rely on introspection in order to reflect on their experiences. Robots must be programmed to think, and even then, their thinking isn't natural, now is it?
• Robots are ultimately machines, they are programmed to obey. Organics have the freedom of free will and free thought.
  
• Organics are ultimately fully organic, robots are not. Cyborgs in this setting are only brains in a shell.
  
• An organic can make another organic, and an organic can also make a robot. A robot can only make another robot, not another organic.

 

It should also be noted for the record that the cyborgs here are not true cyborgs. A cyborg in any other fiction would most likely be a full organic who has undergone mechanical organ replacement or cybernetic enhancement. The cyborgs here are just brains in metallic shells, and that's it.

Edit: Okay, no, wrong. Still, I think the justification for borgs is still fishy.

[Zundy]

Meh just say:

Borgs brains are mind-wiped then reprogrammed for whatever task is required. The reason why they're prefered over silicon chipsets is because the organic brain allows for introspection within the borgs mental programming, where as a silicon CPU doesn't.

Posi-brains can do this as well (hence IPC's), however the posi-brain has to be pretty much taught/programmed how to "think" with varying degrees of success.

Sapient Cyborgs (SC's) are just non-mind wiped brains in a robot shell.

Finally for ease you can just say you can't place posi or silicion in an organic frame because current MMI tech doesn't provide a suitable link for this yet due to the way an organic body functions and no one cares enough to really research this (though I'm sure some one some where is for maximum nightmare mode).

[Uberzweihander]

Sorry to necro this thread, but I do have a on-topic question relating to this, and didn't want to make a superfluous thread doing so. In regards to the information displayed in the Mendell City Bugle ( http://aurorastation.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=2981&start=10#wrap ), will Full-Body prosthetics require collaring?

Personally, I'd be leaning towards a firm yes, or if not, SOME form of state-issued ID that declares you are not a shell or IPC.

The reason I'm asking, is because I'm not sure what or how my FBP, Frank Hardie, would react, and just want a foundation for what he'd be saying; don't want to pull things outta my ass after all!

[Lady_of_Ravens]

Unless something has changed that I'm unaware of, all IPCs get tagged regardless of brain-type.

[Owen]

Yeah, all unbound synthetic units, IPCs, get tagged with collars. They are currently not in the new baycode but they all get tagged.

[Carver]

Yeah, all unbound synthetic units, IPCs, get tagged with collars. They are currently not in the new baycode but they all get tagged.

Unless something has changed that I'm unaware of, all IPCs get tagged regardless of brain-type.

IPC = Integrated Positronic Chassis, if it is an IPC, then by definition, it cannot have anything other than a Positronic brain. The term Shell is there to solve this issue, as it by definition is not locked to either type of brain.

In short;

IPC = Positronic, and only Positronic

Shell = MMI (Sapient, Xeno, or Uplift) /or/ Positronic