Abstract for Thesis (in English)

 The last few years have seen scientific advancements that were thought to be possible only in the realm of science fiction.  From nuclear transfer to exogenous pregnancies, implantable brain chips to transgenic engineering, cyborg to chimera, we may be taking the next step in our own evolution. As barriers between the species begin to blur and blend, should humans retain special elevated status? How will these affect notions of “personhood”? Possible implications range from affecting the abortion debate to end-of-life decision making to animal rights. If traditional notions of personhood prevail, are we running the risk of denying essential basic liberties to sentient beings?  If modern expanded notions of personhood prevail, do we run the risk of somehow being “degraded” and losing our “human dignity”?  Legal notions of personhood have lagged far behind the philosophical and ethical discourse, yet some courts and legislatures have seen fit to extend the definition by creating legal fictions to recognize such entities as corporations and ships as “persons.”  The law has been notoriously slow in keeping up with ethical issues and technological advances; legislatures are loath to deal with controversy and courts must often wait until litigation arises out of a crisis.  The next several decades will test the flexibility of the law in response to evolving advancements.

In this thesis, I analyze and review the literature of classical ethical, religious and legal definitions of personhood.  I explore which significant developments in biotechnology may affect evolving legal and ethical notions of personhood; I also outline a rubric for considering the definition and scope of the human identity as “person” from different research perspectives, including legal, philosophical, ethical and technological. Finally, I examine whether or not there is a recurrent theme, a common thread, commensurability, some unifying underlying principle, in philosophical and theological perspectives and in the decisions made by courts, legislatures, and governmental agencies.  In my quest for commensurability, I argue that a balancing approach is warranted, resulting in an expanded, evolving notion of personhood.

 

Sommaire Pour la Thèse (en Français)

Les toutes dernières années ont été le témoin de progrès scientifiques qui  jusqu’alorsrelevaient du domaine de la science fiction . Du transfert nucléaire aux grossesses exogènes, des puces  implantées dans le cerveau à l'ingénierie transgénique, du cyborg à la chimère, nous sommes peut-être au seuil de la prochaine étape  dans notre propre évolution. Alors que les frontières entre les espèces commencent  à se confondre, l’être humain devrait-il  retenir son statut spécial au sommet de la pyramide ?Comment  ces changements affecteront-ils la notion de « personne » ? Les implications possibles s’étendent du débat sur l’avortement à la décision de mettre fin à la vie, aux droits des animaux. Si les  notions traditionnelles de personne  prévalent, est-ce que nous courons le risque de nier les  libertés essentielles fondamentales aux êtres sensibles? Si les nouvelles notions élargies de personne  prévalent,  courons-nous le risque de nous dégrader d'une manière ou d'une autre et de  perdre notre  dignité humaine ? Les définitions juridiques de personnalité traînent loin en arrière du discours philosophique et éthique, pourtant certains tribunaux ont jugé valable d’étendre cette  définition en créant des entités juridiques fictives pour assimiler juridiquement  des sociétés commerciales et bateaux à des “personnes”. La loi est sérieusement en retard par rapport aux  questions d’éthique  et au progrès technologique; les corps législatifs sont réticents à aborder les sujets controversés et les tribunaux dovent attendre jusqu'à ce qu’un litige naisse d’une crise. Les prochaines décennies constitueront un test de la flexibilité de la loi pour répondre au progrès scientifique.

J'analyse et passe en revue la littérature qui traite des définitions classiques de la personne éthique, religieuse et juridique. J'explore les développements significatifs de la biotechnologie susceptibles d’ affecter une notions de personne éthique et juridique en constante évolution; j’ esquisse également  un  cadre pour considérer la définition et l’étendue de l’identité humaine comme “personne” , à partir de diverses perspectives de recherche , y compris sur le plan juridique, philosophique, éthique et technologique. Finalement, j'examine s’il existe un  thème commun et récurrent, un fil conducteur,  un principe d'unification fondamental dans les perspectives philosophique et théologique et dans les décisions prises  par les tribunaux, les corps législatifs, et les agences gouvernementales. Dans ma quête  d’éléments communs, j’argumente  qu'une approche équilibrée est justifiée, et qu’elle résulte en une  notion élargie et évolutive de la personne.

Acknowledgements

            I would like to express deep gratitude to my advisor, Kathleen Cranley Glass, for her encouragement as well as her insightful, instructive questions, which consistently guided and stimulated my thinking in this area.  I would also like to thank Professor Walter Glannon and Professor H. Patrick Glenn for opening new vistas of learning; their writings and teachings have been a source of inspiration and enlightenment.  I also wish to acknowledge that part of the title of this paper “at the Margins of Personhood,” as well as many of the ideas presented, was inspired in part by Walter Glannon’s article entitled “Tracing the Soul: Medical Decisions at the Margins of Life.”[1]  I wish to thank my husband, Kim G. Glenn, for his invaluable and unwavering intellectual, emotional and practical support and my sister, Dr. Jeanann S. Boyce, for lending me her expertise, as well as for her emotional and intellectual support. This paper is dedicated my faithful canine companion of 18 years, who recently passed away and who was and always will be a “person” to me.

 

Introduction:

              Advances in biotechnology, specifically, transgenics and artificial intelligence, have led us to a place where no one has gone before: Chimeras[2], cyborgs, artificial life forms, new species, and variations or combinations of all of the above.  As barriers between the species begin to blur and blend, should Homo sapiens retain special elevated status? Currently, human beings cannot be patented, but the definition “human being” has yet to be defined by the courts or the legislature.  Arguments as to what constitutes “personhood” [3] are being closely scrutinized and debated in the fields of religion, ethics, psychology, and law. If traditional notions of personhood prevail, are we running the risk of denying essential basic liberties to sentient beings?  If modern expanded notions of personhood prevail, do we run the risk of somehow being “degraded” and losing our “human dignity?”   Is there a recurrent theme, a common thread, commensurability, some unifying underlying principle, in the decisions made by courts, legislatures, and governmental agencies?  In this paper, I explore traditional and modern notions of personhood, and in my quest for commensurability, I argue that an expanded legal notion of personhood will be warranted for certain new life forms, both transgenic and artificial intelligence.

 

Part I – A Brief Description of the Biotechnology at Issue

A.    Genetic Engineering, Transgenics and the Creation of New Life Forms

1. Genetic Engineering and Transgenics

 

In Greek mythology, the chimera was part lion, part goat, part dragon, which was slain by the hero Bellerephon. In modern day biology, a chimera is a genetically engineered creature created from the DNA of different species. What once was fiction has now become fact; through the process known as DNA recombinant research, scientists are able to splice genes together from different species that would never be able to mate under normal, non-laboratory circumstances.  A review of some of the last few years announcements illustrate the amplitude of the advances:

November 6, 1997 – Boston, Massachusetts - Genzyme Transgenics announces that it has created transgenic mice that can produce human prolactin, a protein which may enhance the body's immune defenses against disease, in their milk. Other therapeutic proteins in the milk of transgenic mice, rabbits, goats and cows, focus on treating autoimmune disorders, such rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, and cancer. [4]

July 22, 1999 – London, England – A British biopharmaceutical company announces that for the first time they have successfully inserted human genes into a pair of lambs, Cupid and Diana, who entered the world implanted with a human gene that gives them the ability to produce human serum albumin, a protein that is essential to the treatment of burn victims and is often used in surgeries. [5]

August 16, 2000 – Blacksburg, Virginia – William Drohan, senior director of plasma development at the American Red Cross, announces that the work of Virginia Tech dairy scientist R. Michael Akers "holds tremendous promise for the large-scale production of life-saving human therapeutic drugs in quantities far greater than could ever be produced through fractionation of human blood.”[6]

January 4, 2002 – undisclosed location in Missouri - Scientists at the University of Missouri announce a possible breakthrough in xenotransplantation; they have created genetically engineered pigs whose organs lack a gene that triggers rejection by the human immune system.[7]

For all the hype about potential benefits, the potential abuses are equally frightening. The International Olympic Committee has concerns that athletes will soon employ genetic engineering to run faster, jump higher, and throw further.[8]  Lawyer George Annas suggests that we need to set up an international criminal tribunal that will ban genetic engineering and xenotransplantation, as well as other forms of possible alterations of humans for fear of endangering the species or creation of a slave race.[9]  The headlines and fears of potential abuses raise the question of just how many genes does one need to be considered “human,” a question that is discussed in a later section of this paper.

  In April 1998, biologist Stuart Newman and biotech critic Jeremy Rifkin applied for a patent for a “humanzee,” part human and part chimpanzee, in a calculated move designed to re-ignite debate about the morality of patenting life forms and engineering human beings.[10]  The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (hereinafter, PTO) denied the patent, acknowledging that, although it has permitted the extensive patenting of biotech-engineered life forms and human DNA, 13^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids the ownership, and they considered this application to be too close to the patenting of human beings.  Since the United States Supreme Court, Congress or Patent Office have never defined what a human being is, the debate still continues about whether or not the PTO as an executive arm of the United States government has the power to define “human being.”

2.  Other Biotech Advances

            Transgenics and genetic engineering are not the only ways that humans have started to re-create or redefine themselves; the Bush administration’s limitations on use of federal funding for new embryonic stem cell line research has re-ignited the debate about whether or not an undifferentiated embryo is a “person.” [11]  Other efforts to change the boundaries include a White House proposal to provide Medicaid health coverage for fetuses and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a bill making it a federal crime to harm a fetus during an attack on a woman (terming a fetus a “person” from the moment of conception, skipping right over the embryo stage).[12]  While this is a debate that is not going to be resolved directly, there are technological developments that will likely change the focus of the debate.  These developments include 1) advancing techniques of the neo-natal intensive care unit, where the threshold of extra-uterine viability has been possibly pushed back to 20 weeks (or five months) gestation[13], 2) the theoretical possibility of male pregnancy[14], and perhaps most importantly, 3) the artificial womb.[15]  While these developments may not directly answer the debate of the moral status of the fetus or embryo, they will remove the maternal-fetal conflict inherent in the present discussions and disentangle the issue from the rights of a woman over her own body.[16]

In an effort to bypass the moral dilemma presented by the use of human embryos, scientists have sought alternate ways to rebuild the body. As of this time, there appears to be only two ways to replace injured or diseased body parts: either “re-growing” them (as with stem cells); or mechanically (as in extensions or prosthetics).  Some possible alternatives to the controversial embryonic stem cells include:

·        Adult stems cells –Rare, hard to isolate and purify, hard to grow in culture, these may not exist for all tissues. Additionally, they are multipotent as opposed to pluripotent, which means that they can form only a limited number of tissues; pluripotent cells can form an unlimited number of tissues.[17]

·        Umbilical cord blood and placentas are rich in multipotent and some pluripotent stem cells, but as of this time, there is no centralized mechanism for harvesting these.[18]

·        Skin and scalp cells may be rich in multipotent stem cells[19]

·        Development of drugs that activate the body's stem cells to let the body repair itself.[20]

·        Parthenogenesis - from the Greek word for "virgin birth." Eggs that can be turned into embryos without being fertilized by sperm, from which stem cells can be extracted. Such embryos ("parthenotes") could never mature, so destruction of them to make stem cells may not raise the same moral issues as destruction of embryos.[21]

·        Cellular reprogramming, also called de-differentiation aims at getting specialized body cells to revert to a primordial state, like stem cells, so they can be turned into various types of tissues.[22]

·        Transdifferentiation aims to turn a cell back to its primordial state in order to turn that primordial cell into another type of cell.[23]

What is the significance of embryonic stem cell research and its alternatives with regard to evolving notions of personhood?  Aside from the issue of whether or not the embryo is a person, the moral peril is not in the replacement or transplantation of injured or disease body parts, but in the use of this technology for enhancement, patentably, commercial profit and the creation of a market for body parts.[24]  In  1984, a leukemia patient, John Moore, had his spleen removed in the course of treatment; unbeknownst to him, his spleen cells had a unique quality.[25]  When his physicians realized this, they used his cells to develop a commercially valuable cell line, without Moore’s knowledge or consent.  Moore filed suit on the grounds of lack of informed consent and on a claim of conversion; the California Supreme Court held that Moore did not retain any property or ownership interest in cells after they left his body.[26] Taking this ruling to its extreme, what if instead of Moore’s spleen cells, it had been his brain cells?  Or a large portion of his organs? Or an entire body transplant?[27]

The notion of property rights in application to one’s body presents some remarkable paradoxes.[28] In the dualistic metaphysic approach, duality of mind and body, the body is treated simply as a material object,[29] and the real “self” or person lies in the abstract or in the continuity of self-consciousness or personal identity.[30] Lori Andrews subscribes to this approach arguing that definitions of personhood rarely focus on the possession of body parts, but rather on sentience or cognitive traits.[31] If persons are purely abstract rational agents, there is no necessary connection between persons and property.[32] Under this approach, theoretically, a cell line derived from Einstein’s brain cells[33] or cell lines from the cloned embryos other celebrities, could be patented cloned and sold, without the donor having a property interest or cause of action for theft of one’s identity, genetic, personal, or otherwise.[34] The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee (CBAC), in its interim report to the Government of Canada[35] recognizes that there is danger of  “commodification of life” in allowing patenting of higher life forms.[36] 

On the other hand, a popular Western point of view is that our personhood is tied to our physical bodies;[37] the “embodiment” approach treats the person as a unique individual who is inseparably unified in mind, body, and spirit.[38] Margaret Jane Radin points out, “Objects are closely bound up with personhood because they are part of the way we constitute ourselves as continuing personal entities in the world.” [39]  Radin proposes a continuum approach for dealing with the property in relation to personhood, proposing that the more “fungible” an item, the less tied to personhood, and the more “personal” an item is, the more it is tied to personhood.[40]  Under this approach, arguably, items such Einstein’s brain cells or cell lines from celebrities would be inseparable from the persons and subject to more protection under the law.

My own experience with individuals facing end-of-life decision-making suggests that they feel once their mind (i.e. their consciousness) is gone, so in essence is their “self.” I have had friends, family, and other loved ones explain, “If my mind is gone, let my body and spirit go.”  Is the brain a nexus of the mind, or perhaps, an expressive conduit? What will happen when we can keep the mind (and brain) going through regeneration or other methods, such as the whole body transplant?[41]  Emerging “neuro-remediation” techniques may soon lead to psychological continuity and change the very definition of death.[42]   In November of 2001, researchers reported reliable ways to coax human embryonic stem cells into becoming brain cells.  Reported in the Journal of Nature Biotechnology, the researchers said they coaxed the stem cells into becoming the three types of brain cells – astrocytes, oligodendrocytes and mature neurons.[43] In one experiment the researchers transplanted about half a million cells into the brains of newborn mice and saw them integrating throughout the brain and propagating.  The results show promise for future development of repairs to brain and nerve injuries, even for those who may have been considered “permanently unconscious.” [44] Certainly, for individuals like Jeffrey Galli, a young man with a severe spinal cord injury, who describes himself as a “brain on a stick”[45], this research represents an important step towards reconnecting with an important part of his “self,” his body. 

Regardless of whether one takes the dualistic metaphysic view or embodiment view of personhood, the advancing technology will change the nature of the debate.  The impact of stem cell research, by holding out promise for repair of injured brain and nerve cells, as well as other body parts, is forcing us to re-examine and re-evaluate who and what we are; so do the advances in the integration of man and computer.   Artificial limbs, retinas, cochlear implants, and other prostheses are redefining who and what we are.

B.  Cyborgs, Artificial Intelligence and Transhumanism

1. Cyborgs - The Merger Of Biological And Nonbiological Systems

 

The notion of cyborgs is no longer science fiction; the latest developments in cybernetics, the integration of living tissue and technology, the melding of man and machine is now taking place, as chronicled below with an overview of the latest developments in this field.   The distinction between “alive” vs. “not alive” or “animate” vs. “inanimate” is one that is becoming increasingly difficult to determine.   Does something have to be conscious to be alive? And what is consciousness?

January-February 1999 -- Ellen M. McGee and Gerald Q. Maguire present one of the first ethical analyses of implantable brain chips[46] and cyborgs. As intelligence or sensory "amplifiers," the implantable chips will generate at least four benefits: l) increasing the range of senses, enabling, for example, seeing infrared light, ultraviolet light and chemical spectra; 2) enhancing memory; 3) enabling "cyberthink" — invisible communication with others when making decisions; and 4) facilitating access to information where and when it is needed.[47] They predict that these enhancements will produce major improvements in quality of life or in job performance.[48] They also predict these devices will be in regular use by the military within 10 years, and adopted by information workers within 15 years, and available for general use in 20 to 30 years.[49]

April 17, 2001 – Chicago, Illinois - Physiologist Sandro Mussa-Ivaldi of Northwestern University's Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago announces that they have combined a mechanical device with living tissue, developing a robot that is controlled by an immature lamprey eel brain.[50],[51]. Instead of attempting to emulate a biological nervous system, the technology goes one step beyond, tapping into the nervous system of a live creature.[52] This new work opens up the long-term possibilities of learning more about how brains work so electronic microprocessors can be developed to help human patients compensate for damage from strokes and other types of nerve trauma.        

Kevin Warwick, a cyberneticist at Reading University, believes that it may even one day be possible to have your brain transferred to a robot when your body dies. It would be extremely difficult, "but mapping the entire brain to a robot can't be ruled out,” he says.[53] More realistic, he says, is connecting electronic devices such as mobile phones directly into our brains.

Summer, 2001 - Linda Griffith, associate professor of bioengineering and chemical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology of Chips, announces the merger of human cells and silicon in a “liver chip,”[54] in the hopes of alleviating the suffering that is caused by lab animals and humans in Phase I clinical trials.  The Boston Globe quoted Griffith as saying “We hope to someday build the human body on a chip.” [55] and took note that in laboratories across the country, the lines between what is alive and what is a machine are being blurred by innovations such as toxin-tracking bacteria mounted on chips and a robotic arm directed by monkey brain waves.[56]

A few months later, scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry announce that they have linked brain cells and silicon chips electronically creating a part-mechanical, part-living electronic circuit.[57] The hope is to develop artificial retinas or prosthetic limbs that are extensions of the human nervous system; to combine the mechanical abilities of electronic circuits with the extraordinary complexity and intelligence of the human brain.[58]

November 2001 – Austin, Texas - Researchers are developing nanocrystals, or quantum dots, that can connect with individual neurons. This will allow for new bioelectronic devices, from brain implants, therapies and prosthetics to neural computers.[59] Technology at the nanoscale (i.e. at or around a billionth of a meter - about 1/80,000 of the diameter of a human hair, or 10 times the diameter of a hydrogen atom) is providing the keys to biological questions, such as the functioning of the immune system, and is leading to the developments of infinitely modifiable connectivity. [60]  This technology is paving the way to the brain-machine interface.

MIT’s Technology Review named the brain-machine interface as one of the technologies that will change the world.[61] In a series of animal and human experiments dating back to 1990, neuroscientists and a team of researchers affiliated with Emory University in Atlanta created a basic but completely functional alternative interface using electrodes surgically implanted in the brain. In 1996, they convinced the FDA to allow two human tests.  Author John Hockenberry, a paraplegic himself in search of alternative remedy to his situation, tells the story of Johnny Ray, a 63-year-old from Carrollton, Georgia, who suffered a brain-stem stroke in 1997, resulting in what is called  "locked-in syndrome,” characterized by complete paralysis of voluntary muscles in all parts of the body (except for those that control eye movement.) [62]  Individuals with locked-in syndrome are conscious and have cognitive function, but are unable to speak or move. The disorder leaves the patient completely mute and paralyzed. Communication may be possible with blinking eye movements.  The team implanted a subcranial cortical implant, physically melded with brain tissue.  Within the next year, Ray was able to control a computer cursor with his thoughts, and also actually started to regain facial movements and expressions.[63]  The implant triggered the motor neurons of his brain to activate and to create new neural pathways to parts of the brain that were, prior to the stroke, underutilized or unused.[64] Similar results have been achieved in more than one study.[65]

And so the question arises again: How much living tissue is needed to make such a cyborg “alive” or “conscious?” And does it make a difference if animal tissue or human tissue is used? And if you modify, alter or enhance the brain, when does it become a different entity? If animal tissue is used, it could conceivably lead to cybernetic organism that may be equally intelligent to, or even possess superior intelligence than the average human.  Such a creation might be incredibly rational and even articulate, but without emotion.  Is the ability to feel pain and pleasure an essential part of being alive and a “person?” Would an intelligent, sentient creation be property or a person? Could he/she/it be patented?  Patents on animal and other life forms are allowed in the United States[66] and likely soon in Canada.[67]   European and Asian patent legislation includes prohibitions on inventions whose commercialization would “offend society’s fundamental and shared moral standards,”[68] and could arguably exclude certain higher life forms.

The next challenge of defining personhood will be exploring notions of “cyberhood”[69] or alternatively, “cyborghood.”  If the Moore case, cited supra, is taken to its furthest reach, the current judicial approach suggests that it would make no difference if animal or human tissue is used.  The Moore ruling ushers in other problematic questions:  Does it matter how much tissue is used? Could a portion of an individual’s brain could be used to create an intelligent part-live, part-machine cyborg and that individual or his estate be left with no property interest or claim in the matter?[70]

 

2. Artificial Intelligence and Transhumanism

            What is Artificial Intelligence?  Before defining artificial intelligence, it might be prudent to first define what is meant by intelligence. Stan Franklin, the author of Artificial Minds, admitted that he and a group of colleagues attempted to tackle the definition of intelligence, and after two years of wrangling, gave up.[71] Webster’s Dictionary defines it as “1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations:  reason ; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests).”[72] Webster’s also defines artificial intelligence as “the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior.”[73]  The American Association of Artificial Intelligence (hereinafter AAAI) defines it as the simulation of human intelligence processes by machines, especially computer systems. These processes include learning (the acquisition of information and rules for using the information), reasoning (using the rules to reach approximate or definite conclusions), and self-correction.[74]

Stan Franklin defines artificial life “as the study of man-made systems that behave in ways characteristic of natural living systems.”[75]

But can it be argued that artificial intelligence can be self-aware and, therefore, have rights?  Ray Kurzweil, author of The Age of Spiritual Machines (1999), argues there is no sharp distinction between human and machine intelligence; that by becoming increasingly “cyborgized” by the use of permanent and removable implants that we are swiftly removing any meaningful difference between man and machine.[76] He speculates that eventually we will be able to achieve immortality by “downloading” our minds into secure spiritual machines.[77]  Kurzweil refers often to “The Singularity,” a phrase borrowed from the astrophysics of black holes. As used by Kurzweil, it refers to the idea that accelerating technology will lead to superhuman machine intelligence that will soon exceed human intelligence, probably by the year 2030.  The foundation of this idea grew from what is now known as “Moore’s law.”  In 1965 Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, half jokingly predicted that computer processing power would double every 18 months.  This prediction has turned out to be an underestimate. Roboticist Dr. Hans Moravec, author of Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind (1998), estimates that the computing power of the human brain is about 10¹⁴ operations per second, and its storage capacity about 10¹⁴  bytes.[78] At the present rate of exponential growth, Kurzweil, Moravec, and others are predicting that the machines will exceed these numbers by 2030 and, at that time, these machines will exceed human intelligence.[79]  Kurzweil has also estimated that by 2030 a $1,000 PC will equal one human mind, and by 2060 it will equal the mental capacity of all humans.  By 2099, assuming our population is 10 billion, one penny will buy computing power with one billion times the mental capacity of all humans, making it accessible to every man, woman, child, and any other life form that might want it. [80]

            But does computing power equal intelligence? What yardstick does one use to measure intelligence? One standard that has been widely used is called the “Turing Test,” an adaptation of an “imitation game” suggested in 1950 by mathematician Alan Turing. In the original version of the imitation game, an interviewer talks to a man and woman through a teletype and has to decide which is which. Turing suggested that a machine take the place of the man or woman and it would be up to the interviewer to decide if he or she were communicating with man or machine.  Any machine that could successfully deceive the interviewer into thinking he/she was talking to another human is deemed to be intelligent.  But the drawbacks of such a test are numerous. First, such a test could conceivably reflect the programmer’s skills, rather than the computer’s. Secondly, such a test is inherently anthropocentric; there are conceivably measures of intelligence that are not measured in humans, such telepathic ability. Additionally, aside from math and language skills, some argue that there are different types of intelligence such as emotional intelligence, musical intelligence, and spatial intelligence.[81]  Despite creators of college entrance exams proclaiming otherwise, intelligence is multifaceted. Author and futurist, Jerome C. Glenn, proposes a “spherical approach” to intelligence, education, and other values and virtues, which may be a more useful way of approaching measures of learning.[82]

 Thomas M. Georges, author of Smarter Than Us?: Intelligent Machines and Human Values (2001), proposes that instead of rigorously defining intelligence, that it should be treated as a compilation of characteristics that is best measured by degree. Those characteristics include:

1)      The ability to store and retrieve knowledge;

2)      Learning from experience and adapting to novel situations;

3)      Discriminating between what is important and what is irrelevant to the situation at hand;

4)      Recognizing patterns, similarities, and differences in complex environments;

5)      Creating new ideas by combining old ideas in new ways;

6)      Planning and managing strategies for solving complex problems;

7)      Setting and pursuing goals;

8)      Recognizing one’s own intelligence and place in the world.[83]

 

Although Georges’ acknowledges that this compilation is limited because it is anthropocentric, by recognizing that intelligence is a matter of degree, he moves away from the black-and-white or “either-or” thinking of a being as either intelligent or not. Georges leaves the door open for the possibility that the list will be open-ended, but his last characteristic of “recognizing its own intelligence and its place in the world”[84] highlights the limitations of a hierarchical worldview, as opposed to a wholistic or interdependent worldview, discussed infra, later. 

 From intelligence, artificial or not, Moravec sees the next step of human “techno-evolution” as opening up the possibility of liberating mere humans from the crippling limitations of their biology.  He sees these super AI machines as our progeny, "mind children" built in our image and likeness; ourselves in a more dynamic, almost invincible, form. He argues that like biological children of previous generations, they will embody humanity's best hope for a long-term future; and that behooves us to give them every advantage.[85]  He envisions a sort of Robo sapiens, a new, post-biological, transhumanist species that will spread across the stars and galaxies, creating a vast interstellar culture.[86]

The Declaration of the World Transhumanism Association, a pro-technology group, outlines a philosophy of balanced deliberation: that the benefits of advancing technologies must be weighed against the potential harm such technologies could inflict on all living beings on this Earth; that short-term gains need to be considered against long-term consequences; that open forums and debate are the best way to implement rational decisions; and that, the well-being of sentient creatures (whether in artificial intellects, humans, non-human animals, possible extraterrestrial species, or some combination thereof) comes first.[87] Although this declaration does not make any reference to religious or spiritual beliefs, its overall philosophy encompasses many principles of modern secular humanism, and also some of the classic principles of moral philosophy.[88]

Part II.  Theological Perspectives of personhood

A. The Judeo-Christian View

Genesis 1:26-31:

 

26	Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have      dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the        earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

 

 

The above biblical quotation has been widely used to justify humanity’s dominance over the other species on this planet; because we (humans) are created in God’s own image,[89] we are deemed to be superior and unique. Because we were given dominion over “…every living thing,” this has been interpreted to mean that man is supreme on this earth and should subdue the other creatures.[90]  This metaphor for a divinely inspired universal hierarchy ranking all forms of higher and lower life has been referred to as the Great Chain of Being.[91] This idea, originally introduced by Aristotle,[92] is a fusion of Greek philosophy and Christian theology, with “man” occupying a unique slot in this chain, and having dominion over lower life forms. This Great Chain of Being has been depicted with God at the very top of the Chain; Angels, a level below; Man at the center level below Angels; Animals, a level below Man; and Plants at the very bottom.[93] I use the term “man” instead of “human” because neither Aristotle nor the Catholic Church (hereinafter “the Church”) recognized the equivalent moral status of humans; Aristotle believed that women, children and slaves were inferior, and that they lacked immortal souls[94]; and the Church’s treatment of women[95] and lower life forms[96] was less than compassionate. McGill scholar Edward Keyserlingk explains that there is general agreement between the Protestant and Catholic analyses of the sanctity of life principle, which are both rooted in the same Judeo-Christian traditions.[97] A basic tenet of the Judeo-Christian belief system is that Man is special because he alone is made in the image of God,[98] and “above all creatures, he is the object of God’s love and attention; the other creatures…were given for man’s use.”[99]  It is from this view that only human life is held sacred, that the focus of Judeo-Christian morality is the protection and care of human beings, and that other creatures may be used to suit humanity’s purposes;[100] and the foundation for the “sanctity of life” doctrine.[101]

This hierarchical view is sympathetic with the prevailing view during the Middle Ages that the Earth was the center of God’s Universe and everything revolved around it and mankind.[102]  The Church was so protective of this belief, when Galileo attempted to promote Copernicus’ observation about the Earth revolving around the Sun and not being the center of God’s Universe, the Church subjected him to the Inquisition, forced him to recant, and imprisoned him for nine years.[103] Only recently, in 1992, did the Vatican admit its error, found Galileo “not guilty” of heresy,[104] though being very careful not to acknowledge that this may change humankind’s status in God’s hierarchy. 

How is this notion of humans holding a uniquely God-given place in the hierarchy reconciled with the scientific evidence of evolution of the species?  In 1950, Pope Pius XII declared that evolution and the Catholic faith do not conflict with one another, provided that one believes in "ensoulment," the idea that God inserted a soul into human beings at some point during evolution.