Philosophy & Technology

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 285–307 | Cite as

“Embodying” the Internet: Towards the Moral Self via Communication Robots?

  • Johanna SeibtEmail author
  • Marco Nørskov
Special Issue


Internet communication technology has been said to affect our sense of self by altering the way we construct “personal identity,” understood as identificatory valuative narratives about the self; in addition, some authors have warned that internet communication creates special conditions for moral agency that might gradually change our moral intuitions. Both of these effects are attributed to the fact that internet communication is “disembodied.” Our aim in this paper is to establish a link between this complex of claims and past and ongoing research in phenomenology, empirical psychology and cognitive science, in order to formulate an empirical hypothesis that can assist development and evaluation of recent technology for embodied telecommunication. We first suggest that for the purposes of interdisciplinary exchange, personal identity is formally best represented by a selection function that (for temporal intervals of variable length) “bundles” capacity ascriptions into identificatory narratives. Based on this model, we discuss which cultural changes engendered by the internet affect the construction of personal identity in ways that diminish our ethical sensitivies. In a second step, working from phenomenological claims by Martin Buber, we argue that disembodied communication severs two modes of cognitive function, preconceptual and conceptual, which tie together moral motivation, self-experience, and identity construction. We translate Buber’s claims into the theoretical idiom of the “theory of cognitive orientation,” a psychological theory of motivation that links up with recent research in embodied cognition. In a third step, we investigate whether the embodiment of the internet with communication robots (e.g., telenoids) holds out the prospect of reverting this structural change at least partially. We conclude by formulating an empirical hypothesis (for researchers in cognitive science) that has direct import, we submit, on the question whether embodied telecommunication promises a new form of ethically sensitive self-constituting encounter.


Personal identity Embodied internet communication Teleoperated communication robots Cognitive orientation Embodied cognition Philosophy of dialogue Second person cognitive science Moral cognition 


  1. Back, M. D., Stopfer, J. M., Vazire, S., Gaddis, S., Schmukle, S. C., Egloff, B., et al. (2010). Facebook profiles represent actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science, 21(3), 372–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bickhard, M. H. (2003). Process and emergence: normative function and representation. In J. Seibt (Ed.), Process theories: crossdisciplinary studies in dynamic Categories (pp. 121–155). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Bickhard, M. H. (2010). Interactive knowing: the metaphysics of intentionality. In R. Poli & J. Seibt (Eds.), Theory and applications of ontology. Philosophical perspectives (pp. 207–229). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buber, M. (1932). Zwiesprache. Berlin: Schocken.Google Scholar
  5. Buber, M. (1979). Ich und Du. 10th edition, first appeared in 1923. Heidelberg: Lambert Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. Calvo, P., & Gomila, A. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cognitive science: an embodied approach. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, A. (1997). Being there: putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cocking, D. (2010). Plural selves and relational identity. In J. Van den Hoven & J. Weckert (Eds.), Information technology and moral philosophy (pp. 123–141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Csepeli, G. (2009). Masquerade in the Blogroom. In K. Nyíri (Ed.), Engagement and exposure (pp. 112–119). Vienna: Passagen.Google Scholar
  10. Dreyfus, H. (2001). On the internet. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Ess, C. (2009). Always on? Ethical and political dimensions of mobile communication technologies. In In K. Nyíri (Ed.), Engagement and exposure (pp. 17–27). Vienna: Passagen.Google Scholar
  12. Ess, C. (2010). The embodied self in a digital age: possibilities, risks, and prospects for a pluralistic (democratic/liberal) Future? Nordicom Information, 32(2), 105–118.Google Scholar
  13. DET ETISKE RÅD (Danish Ethical Council) (2010). Sociale robotter-Udtalelse fra Det Etiske Råd.; accessed Oct. 31, 2011.
  14. Gallagher, S. (2003). How the body shapes the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gallagher, S. (2008). Understanding others: embodied social cognition. In P. Calvo & A. Gomila (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive science: an embodied approach (pp. 439–453). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Guye-Vuilleme, A., Capin, T., Padnzic, I., et al. (1999). Nonverbal communication interface for collaborative virtual environments. Virtual Reality, 4, 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heidegger, M. (1927). Sein und Zeit, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 15th edition 1979Google Scholar
  18. HSL (2007). Cisco experimenting with an on-stage telepresence experience. Accessed 24. March 2011.
  19. Ihde, D. (2004). A phenomenology of technics. In D. M. Kaplan (Ed.), Readings in the philosophy of technology (pp. 137–159). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  20. Jensen, L. (2003). Coming of age in a multicultural world: globalization and adolescent cultural identity formation. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 189–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kant, I. (1786). Immanuel Kant: Was heißt: sich im Denken orientieren? In: Schriften zur Metaphysik und Logik 1. Werkausgabe hgg. von Wilhelm Weischedel. stw 188. 1. Aufl. Frankfurt/Main 1977.Google Scholar
  22. Kraut, R., Patterson, V., Lundmark, S., et al. (1998). Internet paradox: a social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kreitler, S. (2001). An evolutionary perspective on cognitive orientation. Evolution and Cognition, 7, 81–97.Google Scholar
  24. Kreitler, S. (2002). Consciousness and states of consciousness. Evolution and Cognition, 8, 27–42.Google Scholar
  25. Kreitler, H., & Kreitler, S. (1976). Cognitive orientation and behavior. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Kreitler, S., & Kreitler, H. (1986a). Types of curiosity behavior and their cognitive determinants. Archives of Psychology, 138, 233–251.Google Scholar
  27. Kreitler, S., & Kreitler, H. (1986b). Individuality in planning: meaning patterns of planning styles. International Journal of Psychology, 21, 565–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kreitler, S., & Kreitler, H. (1987). Psychosemantic aspects of the self. In T. Honness et al. (Eds.), Self and identity: individual change and development (pp. 338–358). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Kreitler, H., & Kreitler, S. (1990). The cognitive foundation of personality traits. New Yorlk: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kreitler, H., & Kreitler, S. (2004). The motivational and cognitive determinants of defense mechanisms. Advances in Psychology, 136, 195–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lang, Bernhard (1963). Martin Buber. (Herbert Lang & Cie: Bern).Google Scholar
  32. Ling, R., & McEwen, R. (2010). Mobile communication and ethics: implications of everyday actions on social order. Etikk i Praksis, 4(2), 11–25.Google Scholar
  33. Mahmoud, H. (2011). Conflict defines origin: identity transformations of sudanese refugees in Cairo. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 28(3), 263–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1987). The tree of knowledge: the biological roots of human understanding. Boston: New Science Library.Google Scholar
  35. Meredith, B. (2008). Telstra chief hosts conference as hologram. Accessed 24. March 2011.
  36. Meteyard, L., Rodriguez Cuardrado, S., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G. (in press). Coming of age: a review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. DOI: Cortex (Special Issue: Language and the Motor System).
  37. Nagy, E. (2009). The emergence of second-person cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Science, 13(12), 502–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nishio, S., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2007). Geminoid: teleoperated android of an existing person. In A. C. de Pina Filho (Ed.), Humanoid robots: new developments (pp. 343–352). Vienna: I-Tech Education.Google Scholar
  39. Nørskov, M. (2011). Prolegomena to Social Robotics, Ph.D. Dissertation at Aarhus University, Denmark.Google Scholar
  40. Noë, A. (2004). Action in perception. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Ogawa, K., Nishio, S., Koda, K., Balistreri, G., Watanabe, T., & Ishiguro, H. (2011). Exploring the natural reaction of young and aged person with telenoid in a real world. Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, 15(5), 6.Google Scholar
  42. O’Regan, J., & Noë, A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 939–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Petitot, J., Varela, F., Pachoud, B., & Roy, J.-M. (Eds.). (1999). Naturalizing phenomenology: issues in contemporary phenomenology and cognitive science. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Reddy, V. (2008). How infants know minds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Schilbach, L., et al. (2006). Being with virtual others: neural correlates of social interaction. Neuropsychologia, 44, 718–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Seibt, J. (2005). Kognitive orientierung als epistemisches abenteuer. In W. Stegmaier (Ed.), Orientierung—philosophische perspektiven (pp. 197–224). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  48. Seibt, J. (2011). Beyond the “identity” paradigm: conflict resolution and the dynamics of self-understanding. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 28(3), 229–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sicart, M. (2009). The ethics of computer games. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Stutzman, F. D., & Hartzog, W. (2009). Boundary regulation in social media (October 8, 2009). Available at SSRN:
  51. Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information/sur les sciences sociales, 13(2), 65–93.Google Scholar
  52. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  53. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  54. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Watkins, J., & Watkins, H. (1992). Ego state therapy in the treatment of dissociative disorders. In R. Kluft (Ed.), Clinical perspectives on multiple personality disorder (pp. 277–298). New York: American Psychiatric Pub.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department for Philosophy and the History of IdeasAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations