Skip to main content

Heideggerian AI and the Being of Robots

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Synthese Library ((SYLI,volume 376))

Abstract

Current Heideggerian AI (HAI) is the attempt to revise the fundamentals of Artificial Intelligence based on Heidegger’s philosophy. While the debate is much monopolized with questions regarding the role of representations, there is overall agreement that HAI should be conceived to foster development of AI techniques, on the assumption that Heidegger’s ontological analysis of humans (Dasein) should apply to artificial systems. We argue this is inconsistent with Heidegger’s philosophy, as it denies ontological meaning to categories such as robot and human, considered the same type of beings. The aim of this paper is to steer HAI towards the question of our pre-ontological notions of artificial systems, and robots in particular. We present a provisional ontological analysis that considers robots specific, non-human and non-animal beings, which we derive from the relationship between robots and work. Robots are those machines that perform human labour – because in practice they can only transform it, their being is one that cannot be fulfilled.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    “¿No comprendería Heidegger, en efecto, el proyecto de la IA como el fastigio de la metafísica, como la tecnificación más nefanda?” Masís 2009 (Wouldn’t Heidegger understand the AI Project as the pinnacle of metaphysics, as the most abominable technification (own translation).

  2. 2.

    The dominant view of rationalism “offers us a picture of an agent who in perceiving the world takes in ‘bits’ of information from his or her surroundings and then ‘processes’ them in some fashion, in order to emerge with ‘this picture’ of the world he or she has; who then acts on the basis of this picture to fulfill his or her goals, through a ‘calculus’ of means and ends” (Taylor 1993, p. 204).

  3. 3.

    Are robots imperfect copies of biological systems, the “purest” form of autonomy? Or are animals and humans genuine examples of robotic systems, i.e., “biological robots”? The problem may not be so much the reductionist view of humans, but the dismissal of the possibilities of robotics beyond the artificial animal or human.

  4. 4.

    As Heidegger qualified his own analysis of Dasein, cf. Heidegger 1962, p. 38.

  5. 5.

    In Heidegger’s terms an existentiell, an ontic understanding in the everyday life of such beings

  6. 6.

    Thinkers such as Lukács have argued that doing work is an exclusively human ontological feature. We argue that this is shared with robots.

  7. 7.

    In the play, a scientist is in principle capable of replicating entire humans, with all their organs and functions. Nevertheless, R.U.R. Corporation is dedicated to create robots, beings with the same capacities of humans, physical and intellectual, but little vital needs beyond those strictly required performing their labour.

  8. 8.

    It could be argued that there are some robots, such as classic automata, and much of today’s research, which only aim is to amuse or entertain. Nevertheless, entertainer is a job: the same way automata were toured in circuses, today’s robots performers as well as company robots perform work.

References

  • Agre, P. E. (1997). Computation and human experience. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle (1968) Complete works. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, R. A. (1991). Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence, 47(1–3), 139–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, R. A., & Steels, L. (Eds.). (1995). The artificial life route to artificial intelligence: Building embodied, situated agents. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, B. G. (1972). Review of Hubert Dreyfus’ what computers can’t do: A critique of artificial reason. Stanford: Department of Computer Science, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Čapek, K., & Selver, P. (1928). RUR (Rossum’s universal robots): A play in three acts and an epilogue. London: H. Milford, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (1998). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Beistegui, M. (2005). The new Heidegger. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. (1978). Why not the whole iguana? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 103–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dieguez Lucena, A. J. (2009). Thinking about technology, but in Ortega’s or in Heidegger’s style? Argumentos de razón técnica: Revista española de ciencia, tecnología y sociedad, y filosofía de la tecnología, 12, 99–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, H. L. (1965). Alchemy and AI. The Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, H. L. (1972). What computers can’t do: A critique of artificial reason. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, H. L. (2007). Why Heideggerian AI failed and how fixing it would require making it more Heideggerian. Philosophical Psychology, 20(2), 247–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (trans: Macquarrie, J. & Robinson E.). New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M. (1982). The question concerning technology, and other essays. New York: Harper Perennial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M. (1993). The end of philosophy. Basic writings (pp. 427–449). New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M. (2001) Introducción a la filosofía, Editorial Cátedra/Ediciones de la Universidad de Valencia, Madrid. Translation by Manuel Jiménez Redondo. Original text Heidegger, M. (2001). Einleitung in die Philosophie (Vol. 27). Vittorio Klostermann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenaw, S. (2008). Hubert L. Dreyfus’s critique of classical AI and its rationalist assumptions. Minds and Machines, 18(2), 227–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiverstein, J., & Wheeler, M. (Eds.). (2012). Heidegger and cognitive science. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klir, G. J. (1991). Facets of systems science, volume 15 of IFSR international series on systems science and engineering (2nd ed.). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Langton, C. G. (1986). Studying artificial life with cellular automata. Physica D, 22, 120–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masís, J. (2009). Fenomenología Hermenéutica e Inteligenca Artificial: Otra Urbanización de la ‘Provincia Heideggeriana. Proceedings of Primeras Jornadas Internacionales de Hermenéutica. Buenos Aires, Argentina.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCorduck, P. (1979). Machines who think: A personal inquiry into the history and prospects of artificial intelligence. San Francisco: Wh freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1968). The artificial intelligence of Hubert L. Dreyfus: A budget of fallacies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattison, G. (2000). Routledge philosophy guidebook to the later Heidegger. London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouse, J. (2008). Heidegger on science and naturalism. In G. Gutting (Ed.), Continental philosophies of science (pp. 121–141). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharkey, N. E., & Sharkey, A. J. C. (2007). Artificial intelligence and natural magic. Artificial Intelligence Review, 25, 9–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (1993). Engaged agency and background. In C. Guignon (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Heidegger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (1995). Philosophical arguments. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toda, M. (1962). The design of a fungus-eater: A model of human behavior in an unsophisticated environment. Behavioral Science, 7(2), 164–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, S. W. (1991). The animat path to AI. In J.-A. Meyer & S. W. Wilson (Eds.), From animals to animats: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior (pp. 15–21). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winograd, T. A., & Flores, C. F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Norwood: Ablex Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziemke, T. (2008). On the role of emotion in biological and robotic autonomy. BioSystems, 91(2), 401–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlos Herrera .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Herrera, C., Sanz, R. (2016). Heideggerian AI and the Being of Robots. In: Müller, V.C. (eds) Fundamental Issues of Artificial Intelligence. Synthese Library, vol 376. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26485-1_29

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics