Robots and Art pp 191-209

Part of the Cognitive Science and Technology book series (CSAT)

Being One, Being Many

Chapter

Abstract

If the current development of robotics indicates its future, we will be soon able to create robots that are exactly identical, intentional agents—at least as far as their software is concerned. This raises questions about identity as sameness and identity in the sense of individuality/subjectivity. How will we treat a robotic agent that is precisely the same as multiple others once it left its inanimate appearance behind and by its intentionality claims to be individual and subjective? In this chapter we show how these issues emerged in the implementation of the artwork ‘The Swarming Heads’ by Stelarc.

References

  1. 1.
    Clark A (2009) Dispersed selves. Leonardo Electronic Almanac 16(4–5)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Simondon G (2012) Technical mentality. In: De Boever A, Murray A, Roffe J, Woodward A (eds) Gilbert Simondon: being and technology. Edinburgh University Press, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zwijnenburg PJ, Meijers-Heijboer H, Boomsma DI (2010) Identical but not the same: the value of discordant monozygotic twins in genetic research. Am J Med Genet Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genet 153(6):1134–1149Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smith M (ed) (2005) Stelarc: the monograph. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA and LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Metzinger T (ed) (2000) Neural correlates of consciousness: empirical and conceptual questions. MIT pressGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brambilla M, Ferrante E, Birattari M, Dorigo M (2013) Swarm robotics: a review from the swarm engineering perspective. Swarm Intell 7(1):1–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wallace RS (2009) The anatomy of A.L.I.C.E. In: Epstein R, Roberts G, Beber G (eds) Parsing the turing test. Springer, Netherlands, pp 181–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kroos C, Herath DC, Stelarc (2011) From robot arm to intentional agent: the articulated head. In: Goto S (ed) Robot arms. Advances in robotics, automation and control, InTech, pp 215–240Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kroos C, Herath D, Stelarc S (2012) Evoking agency: attention model and behaviour control in a robotic art installation. Leonardo 45(5):133–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Andreopoulos A, Tsotsos JK (2013) 50 Years of object recognition: directions forward. Comput Vis Image Underst 117(8):827–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yang H, Shao L, Zheng F, Wang L, Song Z (2011) Recent advances and trends in visual tracking: a review. Neurocomputing 74(18):3823–3831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Herath DC, Kroos C, Stelarc (2012) Encounters: from talking heads to swarming heads. In: Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction. HRI ’12, pp 415–416Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thrun S, Burgard W, Fox D (2005) Probabilistic robotics. MIT pressGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herath DC, Kroos C, Stevens C, Burnham D (2013) Adopt-a-robot: a story of attachment (or the lack thereof). In: Proceedings of the Eights Annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction. HRI ’13, Tokyo, JapanGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moon Y (1999) The effects of physical distance and response latency on persuasion in computer-mediated communication and human–computer communication. J Exp Psychol Appl 5(4):379–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Delaherche E, Chetouani M, Mahdhaoui A, Saint-Georges C, Viaux S, Cohen D (2012) Interpersonal synchrony: a survey of evaluation methods across disciplines. IEEE Trans Affect Comput 3(3):349–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cowley SJ, Vallée-Tourangeau F (2013) Cognition beyond the brain. Computation, interactivity and human artifice. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jeffries S (2014) Neil Harbisson: the world’s first cyborg artist. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/may/06/neil-harbisson-worlds-first-cyborg-artist. Accessed 03 Oct 2015
  19. 19.
    Grassian S (2006) Psychiatric effects of solitary confinement. Wash. UJL & Pol’y, 22, 325Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goodman N (2002) The serotonergic system and mysticism: could LSD and the nondrug-induced mystical experience share common neural mechanisms? J Psychoactive Drugs 34(3):263–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tomasello M, Carpenter M, Call J, Behne T, Moll H (2005) Understanding and sharing intentions: the origins of cultural cognition. Behav Brain Sci 28:675–691Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the wild. MIT pressGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kohler E, Keysers C, Umilta MA, Fogassi L, Gallese V, Rizzolatti G (2002) Hearing sounds, understanding actions: action representation in mirror neurons. Science 297(5582):846–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fabbri-Destro M, Rizzolatti G (2008) Mirror neurons and mirror systems in monkeys and humans. Physiology 23(3):171–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marchesini R (2015) Dialogo ergo sum: subjectivity, posthuman and nonhuman alterities. In: Curtin university CCAT symposium ‘what is philosophical ethology?’, Perth, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hauskeller M (2012) My brain, my mind, and I: some philosophical assumptions of mind-uploading. Int J Mach Conscious 4(01):187–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal ProcessingUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK
  2. 2.Faculty of Education, Science, Technology and MathematicsUniversity of CanberraCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations