In this blog post, we’ll imagine a future where robots are virtually indistinguishable from humans and reflect on the physical, mental, and social conditions necessary for recognizing robots as human, as well as the concept of human dignity.
How can we distinguish between humans and robots?
About 300,000 years ago, Homo sapiens—the ancestors of modern humans—appeared on Earth. Since then, humanity has established itself as one of the most influential species on Earth, developing civilization and shaping the future. It is said that God created beings in His own image and called them “human.” Perhaps mirroring even God’s desire to create beings in His own image, humans have long sought to create new beings resembling themselves, and these efforts have led to the advancement of modern robotics technology. And these long-standing efforts are no longer mere fantasy. This is because research is actually underway to create robots with human-like appearances and functions through the combination of artificial intelligence and robotics. The movie ‘Ghost in the Shell’ is set in a future that takes this imagination to its extreme. If there were robots that were indistinguishable in appearance, possessed artificial intelligence and emotions, and even had physical abilities superior to those of humans, could we call them human?
We cannot simply say that a wind-up watch and a digital watch belong to entirely different categories just because their operating principles differ. Although their basic operating principles differ, they perform the same function—displaying time—which is why watch companies manufacture both wind-up and digital watches. Similarly, if a robot’s appearance and functions were identical to those of a human, and if its ability to think and move were the same—differing only in its operating principle—we would find it difficult to distinguish between the robot and a human. If anyone were to argue that robots cannot possess emotions, it is worth considering that human emotions and mental processes are also based on the complex biological functions of the nervous system and the brain. Given that stimuli received through the senses are processed by the nervous system, and that emotions and cognitive functions arise as countless neurons in the brain exchange electrical and chemical signals, it is difficult to categorically deny the possibility that a robot equipped with electronic circuits and artificial intelligence might exhibit emotions or emotional responses similar to those of humans. Of course, it has not been scientifically proven that current robots experience subjective emotions in the same sense as humans. However, we cannot definitively conclude that a robot cannot be human based solely on whether its physical components consist of protein or not. This is why we cannot definitively state that a “robot” is not human, even if it is called a “robot.”
Can robots perform the same functions as humans?
If so, we must consider whether robots can perform functions exactly like humans. Even with current technology, many industrial robots are already taking over the physical labor previously performed by humans. In 2024, approximately 542,000 new industrial robots were installed worldwide, and through the integration of artificial intelligence and robotics, robots’ ability to perceive their surroundings and adapt to tasks is rapidly advancing. Furthermore, advances in biomedical engineering are driving the development of prosthetic technologies—such as robotic arms and legs that move in close synchronization with the actual body. However, current humanoid robots have not yet reached the level where they can perform all human physical functions identically, and they exhibit limitations in speed, precision, reliability, and repeatability compared to traditional industrial robots. Therefore, while it is possible that the gap between the physical and physiological capabilities of robots and humans will narrow significantly in the near future, it is difficult to determine exactly when this will happen or to what extent.
Many people likely consider intelligence and the ability to reproduce as functions that only humans can perform. Are robots truly incapable of performing these functions?
Let’s consider intelligence, the most important function possessed by humans. Humans have advanced civilization to its current state through their superior intelligence. Human intelligence is characterized not only by the ability to store and process information but also by the capacity to generate new ideas and knowledge based on existing information and to apply them by connecting them to personal experience. In the past, generating new information was considered an area difficult for artificial intelligence to tackle, but today’s AI has advanced to the point where it can propose new hypotheses, design new materials and molecules, and generate ideas for solving scientific problems.
However, it is difficult to view AI as capable of fully verifying the validity of its own new ideas or of forming knowledge based on broad experience and self-awareness, as humans do. As of 2026, while AI’s ability to make scientific discoveries is advancing rapidly, systems capable of autonomously producing new scientific discoveries are still in their early stages, and human verification and judgment continue to play a crucial role. Therefore, machines that cannot independently develop self-knowledge and self-awareness are likely to remain mere information-processing systems, and whether they qualify to be called “human” remains a subject of debate. The movie ‘Ghost in the Shell’ expands this discussion of intelligence to a more advanced level by depicting a world where cyberbrains and cyborg technology have advanced.
Another function unique to humans is the ability to reproduce through procreation, just as other living organisms do. Through sexual reproduction, humans create new individuals that combine their parents’ genetic information, and this process plays a crucial role in maintaining the genetic diversity of the species. From the perspective of the species, this is a vital element for preserving the biological species known as “humans.” However, from the individual’s perspective, it is also a very harsh reality. It is not acceptable by common sense to cease calling a person “human” simply because they have lost their reproductive capacity, whether congenitally or acquired. Therefore, it is difficult to view reproductive capacity as an essential personal condition for being human. Furthermore, from the perspective of the species, if a robot replicates and improves its own components to create a second-generation robot, this can reasonably be said to constitute reproduction or self-replication for the robot. Of course, current robots do not engage in biological reproduction like humans, nor do they transmit genetic information in the same way as humans. However, if they can use their own structure and information to create new entities and continuously improve them, it can be said that robots perform the functions of reproduction and self-replication in a manner distinct from humans.
Where do human dignity and selfhood originate?
Therefore, robots can perform functions of intelligence, reproduction, or self-replication in their own right, and furthermore, they may even perform functions superior to those of humans. If their physical appearance is identical to that of modern humans, robots should rightfully be recognized as a new category of human beings. Just as with digital watches and mechanical watches. However, there is a certain reluctance to readily treat factory-produced robots as human beings equivalent to those living today. This reluctance likely stems from human dignity.
Human dignity arises from the sense of self that each individual possesses and the recognition that this self is a unique being. Unlike robots, which can be mass-produced in factories, humans cannot be created in large numbers as identical individuals, and when they grow old and reach the end of their lives, they eventually die. This series of processes endows each human individual with a sense of self and individuality, thereby conferring dignity upon their existence. However, as technology advances day by day, this perception must change. Let’s consider the case of cloned humans, for example. How should we treat a replica created by cloning oneself? If asked whether we should treat such a replica—which is identical to other humans—as a subhuman being, we would naturally answer “no.” This is because that replica can also possess the same functions, desires, and sense of self as other humans. Therefore, it can be argued that human dignity in the future will stem not from the “uniqueness of the self” but from the “self” itself.
Furthermore, the movie ‘Ghost in the Shell’ challenges the inherent distinction between humans and robots through technological advancement. In the film’s future world, biomedical engineering has advanced to the point where various body parts—such as arms and legs—can be replaced with artificial devices; people can even transplant their memories and consciousness into a robot’s body and live on in a form different from their original biological body. If a person were to enter a robot’s body while fully preserving their memories, would they no longer be human? If not, then since they are no longer the person they once were, they would technically be considered dead—but when, then, can we say that person died? Is it right to describe an individual—who possesses the exact same memories, appearance, and functions as they did just yesterday—as dead? If these questions seem confusing, let’s examine them from a legal perspective that determines eligibility for membership in society. If we were to deem someone “dead” simply because they have been placed in a robot’s body—despite possessing the same memories, appearance, and functions—and consequently file a death certificate, remove them from the resident registry, exempt them from taxes, and no longer treat them as a member of society, our society’s legal order could fall into serious chaos. Therefore, even if a person has taken on a robot’s body, as long as they retain the same memories as yesterday and function in the same way, they must be regarded as the same individual. In other words, if an entity is a member of this society, possesses the self-awareness of being human, and performs functions similar to those of a human, we can call it a “human.”
Can we grant human rights and obligations to robots?
Throughout human history spanning thousands of years, societies that have assigned different rights to individuals performing the same duties have often deepened social conflict and polarization, ultimately leading to major social upheavals. In a future society where robots and humans—possessing the same functions and sense of self—perform the same duties, yet only humans enjoy rights while robots do not, robots with self-awareness and their own desires are likely to resist such discrimination. Even from the perspective of social stability, if robots are beings with a sense of self and functions equivalent to those of humans, we must discuss the rights and obligations commensurate with that status. On the other hand, what fuels fear of robots is the possibility that they could be physically superior to humans today. The notion of physically superior robots dominating humans has been a recurring theme in many movies and novels. Such themes have further highlighted the differences between robots and humans and have even fostered the perception that robots cannot become human. However, in human society as well, physical and mental abilities vary from person to person; even though some people are smarter or stronger than others, each individual is granted freedoms and obligations within the framework of the law. Similarly, even if we define robots as human, as long as we establish appropriate laws, obligations, and rights, we can accept robots as members of society. In fact, within current robotics, discussions regarding the safety, autonomy, responsibility, and interaction with humans of robots equipped with artificial intelligence are becoming increasingly important.
Therefore, we must define robots that meet certain conditions as human and treat them accordingly. These conditions are, first, the ability to perform physical, mental, and social functions equal to or superior to those of other humans; second, the clear establishment of corresponding legal provisions; and, finally, the possession of a definite sense of self-awareness by such an entity. Of course, applying these conditions to actual laws and social institutions will require resolving new issues, such as how to verify self-awareness, to what extent to recognize human-like capabilities, and how far to extend a robot’s rights and obligations. Nevertheless, treating robots that meet the above conditions as human beings is certainly worth discussing.
