Advertisement

International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 197–204 | Cite as

Humans, Animals, and Robots: A Phenomenological Approach to Human-Robot Relations

  • Mark Coeckelbergh
Open Access
Article

Abstract

This paper argues that our understanding of many human-robot relations can be enhanced by comparisons with human-animal relations and by a phenomenological approach which highlights the significance of how robots appear to humans. Some potential gains of this approach are explored by discussing the concept of alterity, diversity and change in human-robot relations, Heidegger’s claim that animals are ‘poor in world’, and the issue of robot-animal relations. These philosophical reflections result in a perspective on human-robot relations that may guide robot design and inspire more empirical human-robot relations research that is sensitive to how robots appear to humans in different contexts at different times.

Keywords

Human-robot relations Human-animal relations Phenomenology Appearance Robot-animal relations 

References

  1. 1.
    Levy D (2007) Love and sex with robots: the evolution of human-robot relationships. Harper, New York Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Saldien J, Goris K, Vanderborght B, Vanderfaeillie J, Lefeber D (2010) Expressing emotions with the social robot Probo. Int J Soc Robot. Available online: doi: 10.1007/s12369-010-0067-6
  3. 3.
    Mori M (1970) Bukimi no tani (The uncanny valley). (Trans KF MacDorman & T Minato). Energy 7(4):33–35 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ihde D (1990) Technology and the lifeworld. Indiana University Press, Bloomington/Minneapolis Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Selinger E (ed) (2006) Postphenomenology: a critical companion to Ihde. SUNY Press, Albany, p 5 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ihde D (1990) Technology and the lifeworld, pp 97–108 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ramey CH (2005) “For the sake of others”: the personal ethics of human-android interaction. In: Proceedings of the android science workshop 2005, cognitive science society. Retrieved May 7, 2009. http://www.androidscience.com/proceedings2005/RameyCogSci2005AS.pdf
  8. 8.
    Olafson FA (1995) What is a human being? A heideggerian view. Cambridge University Press, New York CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Turkle S (1984) The second self: computers and the human spirit. Simon and Schuster, New York Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bartneck C, Kanda T, Mubin O, Al Mahmud A (2009) Does the design of a robot influence its animacy and perceived intelligence? Int J Soc Robot 1:195–204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Breazeal C (2002) Designing sociable robots. MIT Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Breazeal C (2003) Emotion and sociable humanoid robots. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 59(1–2):119–155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Breazeal C (2003) Toward sociable robots. Robot Auton Syst 42:167–175 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coeckelbergh M (2009) Personal robots, appearance, and the good: a methodological reflection on roboethics. Int J Soc Robot 1(3):217–221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reeves B, Nass CI (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications, Stanford. Cambridge University Press, New York Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ishiguro H (2006) The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. Interact Stud 7(3):297–333 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ishiguro H (2006) Android science: conscious and subconscious recognition. Connect Sci 18(4):319–332 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mori M (1970) Bukimi no tani (The uncanny valley) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    MacDorman KF (2005) Androids as an experimental apparatus: why is there an uncanny valley and can we exploit it? In: Proceedings of the android science workshop 2005, cognitive science society. Retrieved May 7, 2009. http://www.androidscience.com/proceedings2005/MacDormanCogSci2005AS.pdf
  20. 20.
    Waiblinger W (2009) Human-animal relations. In: Jensen P (ed) The ethology of domestic animals, 2nd edn. CAB, Wallingford/Cambridge, p 102 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harbers H (2002) Weak ethics, strong feelings. In: Keulartz J, Korthals M, Schermer M, Swierstra T (eds) Pragmatist ethics for a technological culture. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 143–149 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heidegger M (1977) The question concerning technology. In: The question concerning technology and other essays (Trans Lovitt W). Harper and Row, New York. 1953 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Waiblinger W (2009) Human-animal relations, p 104 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lotz C, Painter C (eds) (2007) Phenomenology and the non-human animal: at the limits of experience. Springer, Berlin, pp 13–28 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Heidegger M (1995) The fundamental concepts of metaphysics (Trans McNeill W, Walker N). Indiana University Press, Bloomington, p 195 (1929/1930) Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kuperus G (2007) Attunement, deprivation, and drive: Heidegger and animality. In: Lotz C, Painter C (eds) Phenomenology and the non-human animal: at the limits of experience. Springer, Berlin, pp 13–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sung JY, Grinter RE, Christensen HI (2010) Domestic robot ecology. Int J Soc Robot. Available online: doi: 10.1007/s12369-010-0065-8

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations