AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 455–460 | Cite as

You and I, robot

25th Anniversary Volume A Faustian Exchange: What is to be human in the era of Ubiquitous Technology?

Abstract

I address a number of issues related to building an autonomous social robot. I review different approaches to social cognition and ask how these different approaches may inform the design of social robots. I argue that regardless of which theoretical approach to social cognition one favors, instantiating that approach in a workable robot will involve designing that robot on enactive principles.

Keywords

Social robots Social cognition Theory of mind Theory theory Simulation theory Interaction theory Enactive cognition 

References

  1. Auvray M, Lenay C, Stewart J (2009) Perceptual interactions in a minimalist virtual environment. New Ideas Psychol 27(1):32–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron-Cohen S (1995) Mindblindness: an essay on autism and theory of mind. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Blackburn J, Gottschewski K, George E, Niki L (2000) A discussion about theory of mind: from an autistic perspective. Proceedings of Autism Europe’s 6th international congress, Glasgow, 19–21 May 2000. Available from: http://www.autistics.org/library/AE2000-ToM.html
  4. Breazeal C (2002) Designing sociable robots. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruner J, Kalmar DA (1998) Narrative and metanarrative in the construction of self. In: Ferrari M, Sternberg RJ (eds) Self-awareness: its nature and development. Guilford Press, New York, pp 308–331Google Scholar
  6. De Jaegher H, Di Paolo E, Gallagher S (2010) Does social interaction constitute social cognition? Trends Cogn Sci 14(10):441–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Di Paolo EA (2000) Behavioral coordination, structural congruence and environment in acoustically coupled agents. Adapt Behav 8:27–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Di Paolo EA, Rohde M, Iizuka H (2008) Sensitivity to social contingency or stability of interaction? Modelling the dynamics of perceptual crossing. New Ideas Psychol 26(2):278–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Di Paolo EA, Rohde M, Jaegher De (2010) Horizons for the enactive mind. In: Stewart J, Gapenne O, Di Paolo EA (eds) Enaction: toward a new paradigm for cognitive science. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 33–87Google Scholar
  10. Gallagher S (2005) How the body shapes the mind. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gallagher S (2007) Simulation trouble. Soc Neurosci 2(3–4):353–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gallagher S (2008) Inference or interaction: social cognition without precursors. Philos Explor 11(3):163–173MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gallagher S (2011a) In defense of phenomenological approaches to social cognition: interacting with the critics. Rev Philos Psychol. doi: 10.1007/s13164-011-0080-1 Google Scholar
  14. Gallagher S (2011b) Narrative competency and the massive hermeneutical background. In: Fairfield Paul (ed) Hermeneutics in education. Continuum, New York, pp 21–38Google Scholar
  15. Gallagher S, Hutto D (2008) Understanding others through primary interaction and narrative practice. In: Zlatev J, Racine T, Sinha C, Itkonen E (eds) The shared mind: perspectives on intersubjectivity. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 17–38Google Scholar
  16. Gallese V, Sinigaglia C (2011) What’s so special about embodied simulation? Trends Cogn Sci 15(11):512–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldman AI (2005) Imitation, mind reading, and simulation. In: Hurley S, Chater N (eds) Perspectives on imitation II. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 80–91Google Scholar
  18. Goldman AI (2006) Simulating minds: the philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of mindreading. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hutto DD (2008) Folk psychological narratives: the socio-cultural basis of understanding reasons. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Murray L, Trevarthen C (1985) Emotional regulations of interactions between two-month-olds and their mothers. In: Field TM, Fox NA (eds) Social perception in infants. Ablex Publishing, Norwood, pp 177–197Google Scholar
  21. Nadel J, Carchon I, Kervella C, Marcelli D, Réserbat-Plantey D (1999) Expectancies for social contingency in 2-month-olds. Dev Sci 2(2):164–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sacks O (1995) An anthropologist on mars. Vintage Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Stormark KM, Braarud HC (2004) Infants’ sensitivity to social contingency: a double video study of face-to-face communication between 2- and 4-month-olds and their mothers. Infant Behav Dev 27(2):195–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Trevarthen CB (1979) Communication and cooperation in early infancy: a description of primary intersubjectivity. In: Bullowa M (ed) Before speech. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 321–348Google Scholar
  25. Zahavi D, Parnas J (2003) Conceptual problems in infantile autism research: why cognitive science needs phenomenology. J Conscious Stud 10(9–10):53–71Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lillian and Morrie Moss Chair of Excellence in PhilosophyUniversity of MemphisMemphisUSA
  2. 2.Cognitive Science, School of HumanitiesUniversity of HertfordshireHatfieldUK

Personalised recommendations