Minds and Machines

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 273–286 | Cite as

Children, Robots and... the Parental Role

  • Colin T. A. SchmidtEmail author


The raison d’être of this article is that many a spry-eyed analyst of the works in intelligent computing and robotics fail to see the essential concerning applications development, that of expressing their ultimate goal. Alternatively, they fail to state it suitably for the lesser-informed public eye. The author does not claim to be able to remedy this. Instead, the visionary investigation offered couples learning and computing with other related fields as part of a larger spectre to fully simulate people in their embodied image. For the first time, the social roles attributed to the technical objects produced are questioned, and so with a humorous illustration.


Cognitive epistemology Communicative reciprocity Reductio ad absurdum Relation Variant machine intelligence 


  1. Archer, N., Head, M., Wollersheim, J., & Yuan, Y. (1996). Investigation of voice and text output modes with abstraction in a computer interface, Interacting with Computers, 8(4), Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, pp. 323–345.Google Scholar
  2. Bourdieu, P. (1982). Ce que parler veut dire: L’économie des échanges linguistiques, Fayard.Google Scholar
  3. Brooks, R. (1991). Intelligent room without representation. Artificial Intelligence, 47, 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks, R. (2002). Robot: The future of flesh and machines. London: The Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brooks, R., & Stein, L. (1994). Building brains for bodies. Autonomous Robots, 1, 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Button, G., Coulter, J., Lee, J., & Sharrock, W. (1995). Computers, minds and conduct. Oxford: Polity-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Card, S., Moran, T., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human–computer interaction. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Carroll, J., & Moran, T. (1991). Special Issue of Human–Computer Interaction on Design Rationale, 6(3 & 4), Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Dahlbom, B. (1993). Dennett and his critics. Demystifying mind. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Dascal, M. (1992). Why does language matter to artificial intelligence? Mind and Machines, 2, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 145–174.Google Scholar
  11. Dautenhahn, K. (1997). The role of interactive conceptions of intelligence and life in cognitive technology. Proceedings of the second international conference on cognitive technology, Aug. 25–28, Aizu Japan, IEEE pp. 33–43.Google Scholar
  12. Dautenhahn, K., & Nehaniv, C. L. (2002). The agent-based perspective on imitation, imitation in animals and artifacts. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dennett, D. (1971). Intentional systems. Journal of Philosophy, 8, 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dennett, D. (1987). The intentional stance. Cambridge MA: Bradford/The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dennett, D. (1996). [Kinds of minds] tr. in French; La diversité des esprits: Une approche de la conscience. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
  16. Dreyfus, H. L. (1972). What computers still can’t do. A critique of artificial reason. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fogg, J. & Nass, C. (1997). Silicon sycophants: The effects of computers that flatter. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, May issue.Google Scholar
  18. Gazdar, J. (1979). Pragmatics, implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (Vol. 3). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hofstadter, D. (1979). Godel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden braid. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. Jacques, F. (1976). A terminological note about reference. In G. Ryle (Ed.), Contemporary aspects of philosophy. London: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jacques, F. (1979). Dialogiques, recherches logiques sur le dialogue. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  23. Jacques, F. (1990). «De “On Denoting” de B. Russell à “On Referring” de P.F. Strawson, l’avenir d’un paradigme», Hermès VII: Bertrand Russell, de la logique à la politique. Paris: Editions du CNRS, pp. 91–100.Google Scholar
  24. Luzzati D. (1989). Recherches sur le dialogue homme-machine: modèles linguistiques et traitements automatiques, Thèse d'Etat, Université de la Sorbonne—Nouvelle, Paris III.Google Scholar
  25. Mey, J., & Tamura, H. (1994). Barriers to communication in a computer age. AI & Society, 6, Springer, pp. 62–77.Google Scholar
  26. Milner, P. M. (1999). The autonomous brain: A neural theory of attention and learning. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Norman, D. (2001). How Might Humans Interact with Robots? Human–Robot Interaction and the Laws of Robotology, keynote address. The DARPA/NSF conference on human–robot interaction, San Luis Obispo CA, September.
  28. Peiris, D., Gregor, P., & Alm, N. (2000). The Effects of Simulating Human Conversational Style in a Computer-based Interview. Interacting with Computers (Vol. 12, July n° 6, pp. 635–650). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  29. Putnam, H. (1960). Minds and machines. In S. Hook (Ed.), Dimensions of mind. London: Collier-Macmillan.Google Scholar
  30. Putnam, H. (1975). Mind, language and reality (Vol. 2). Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Putnam, H. (1981). “Brains in a vat” and “a problem with reference”. In Reason, truth and history. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word & object. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Scassellati, B. (2001). Foundations for a theory of mind for a humanoid robot, Ph.D. Dissertation, May 6. Massachussetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  34. Schmidt, C. (1997a). Pragmatically pristine, the dialogical cause. Open peer community invited commentary, on Mele A., Real Self-deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1, Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Schmidt, C. (1997b). The systemics of dialogism: On the prevalence of the self in HCI design. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(11), New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  36. Schmidt, C. (2001). [Mind and machine, concepts for a design community at work (in French)]: L’esprit et la machine, une communauté conceptrice à l’œuvre. Distinctions pour un discours supérieur, Lille: Presses universitaires de Septentrion.Google Scholar
  37. Schmidt, C. T. (2004). Let me introduce you to my non-agent. In H. Schaub, F. Detje, & U. Brüggemann (Eds.), The logic of artificial life. Proceedings of the 6th German workshop on artificial life (pp. 122–127). University of Bamberg, Germany, Berlin: Aka-Verlag/IOS Press.Google Scholar
  38. Schmidt, C. T. (2005). Of robots and believing. Minds and Machines, 15(2), Kluwer, Abstract.Google Scholar
  39. Schmidt, C. T. A. (2006). A relational stance in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. In Magnani L. (Ed.), Computing and philosophy. Associated International Academic Publishers, Pavia Italy.Google Scholar
  40. Schmidt, C. T. A., & Kraemer F. (2006). Robots, Dennett and the autonomous. A terminological investigation. Minds and Machines. Journal for Artificial Intelligence, Philosophy and Cognitive Science, 20(1), Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Searle, J. (1969). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (Vol 3).New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  42. Searle, J. (1975). Speech acts. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. Shotter, J., (1997). AI and the dialogical. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(6), Special Issue, R. Harré (Ed.) on Computation and the mind, pp. 813–828.Google Scholar
  45. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. J. (1986). Relevance: Communication and communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  46. Strawson, P. (1950). On referring. Mind, vol. LIX July n° 235.Google Scholar
  47. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human–machine communication. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Turing, A. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, vol. LIX n° 236.Google Scholar
  49. Turkle, S. (1984). The second self, computers and the human spirit. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  50. Vernant, D. (1996). [Machine Intelligence and the Dialogical Capacity of the Machine] in French; «Intelligence de la machine et sa capacité dialogique», In Rialle V. & Fisette D., Penser l’esprit: des sciences de la cognition à une philosophie cognitive, Grenoble : Presses universitaires de Grenoble.Google Scholar
  51. Watanabe, T. (2002). InterActor: Speech-driven embodied interactive actor. Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication RO-MAN 2002, Sept. 25–27 2002, Berlin. Germany: IEEE, pp. 430–435.Google Scholar
  52. Weng, J., Mcclelland, J., Pentland, A., Sporns, O., Stockman, I., Sur, M., & Thelen, E. (2001). Automous mental development by robots and animals. Science Magazine, 291(5504), The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), pp. 599–600.Google Scholar
  53. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  54. Zlatev, J. (2001). The epigenesis of meaning in human beings, and possibly in robots. Minds and Machines, 11, Kluwer, pp. 155–195.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Le Mans UniversityLaval Cedex 09France

Personalised recommendations