While I was on my way home from my grandparents’ apartment, I started reflecting on what should be considered normal. Surely, there are some standardized understandings about, say, hair due, clothes, music we often listen to, behavior towards others, worldly view, etc. However, if I see a person with blue Mohawk haircut and lots of piercing, listening to Psyclon Nine and preaching that Jesus is a c**t, does this necessarily make him not-normal? Perhaps 99 per cent of the people who see him (including me) will think he’s not normal, because of his pronounced differentiation from what society considers “normal”. But when I was thinking about it, what should really be considered normal? I guess normal is considered to be the most common way of behaving/looking/thinking/etc. All of us, however, are not really able to be uniform in our opinions and we all have differences, so according to every individual, normal should have different meaning than it does for another one. Furthermore, isn’t it not-normal to behave and act out of accordance with your beliefs and understandings? If a person has a clear idea of what he is doing, what are the up and down sides of his choice, then society shouldn’t judge that person for not being similar to others.

I think that if, hypothetically, in future there is a way to retrieve memory from an organic body in a digital storage drive that could be implemented in an human-like-android that could represent the dead person, I would be a keen supporter. I even thought that if I and a friend of mine die, we could continue our lives in mechanical bodies, because the tissues and organs are not important to me; my memory and ability to reason and think logically are.

I imagine that if I share this with people, they will condemn me for such blasphemous thought. “How would you even dare thinking to manipulate life that God himself has given? What has gotten in to you? Are you crazy?!” My imaginary answer would be “We manipulate life in hospital through surgeons, life supporting systems, vaccines, x-rays, etc. Plus, I don’t consider the idea that God has given life adequate at all; I regard life as a mere coincidence, and thus, I think we are free to manipulate it as we see fit.”

“The dead are gone, and they shouldn’t be bothered in their afterlife” – at least that’s what movies say. And now my perspective; isn’t the thing that really matters to people the communication between each other? I think that if science is able prolong that communication, it should. My fear the people will condemn me, is because I suppose they will think that converting a consciousness from living to mechanical body is utterly unethical. Sure, it sounds strange, but as long as there is an interesting, personal conversation, things like body shouldn’t matter. I believe it’s similar to the example when someone tries to explain the difference between a house and a home. The place we make a permanent living is a type of projection we associate with our experiences and feelings. Likewise, the body is just an avatar that we use to indicate that we interact with another person. However, as we know from the web, avatars can change, but the user himself remains the same.

Note: The whole thing is just in my head – I haven’t brought up the topic in front of anyone; it was just an interesting situation for me to think about. The human-like-android is used in context because that’s the only way I could lay down the ethical issue of manipulating living organisms.