| Both sides previous revision Previous revision | Next revisionBoth sides next revision |
| the_animist_paradox [2012-04-07 10:31] – nik | the_animist_paradox [2012-04-07 10:58] – nik |
|---|
| The central claim of "Animism, Rinri, Modernization"((Naho KITANO. Animism, Rinri, Modernization; the Base of Japanese Robotics. ICRA 2007.)) is that an Animist perspective on robotics, is at odds with the Materialist assumption that a robotic subjectivity is realistic, achievable and substrate independent. The animist position suggests ethics as an essential part of robotic development, while a materialist perspective suggests a flexible, rewritable, moral software as something independent. | The central claim of "Animism, Rinri, Modernization"((Naho KITANO. Animism, Rinri, Modernization; the Base of Japanese Robotics. ICRA 2007.)) is that an Animist perspective on robotics, is at odds with the Materialist assumption that a robotic subjectivity is realistic, achievable and substrate independent. The animist position suggests ethics as an essential part of robotic development, while a materialist perspective suggests a flexible, rewritable, moral software as something independent. |
| |
| Conversely, in "Bots on The Ground"((Joel Garreau. Bots on The Ground. Washinton Post, Sunday, May 6, 2007.)), it seems that an imposed subjectivity, identity or intent is inevitable. Hyper-functionalist, mine clearing robots, in a war zone, become trusted companions of the soldiers that use them. Robots designed with no sense of character or personality are imbued with such characteristics by virtue of their involvement inn human activities. | Conversely, in "Bots on The Ground"((Joel Garreau. Bots on The Ground. Washinton Post, Sunday, May 6, 2007.)), it seems that an imposed subjectivity, identity or intent is inevitable. Hyper-functionalist, mine clearing robots, in a war zone, become trusted companions of the soldiers that use them. Robots designed with no sense of character or personality are imbued with such characteristics by virtue of their involvement in human activities. |
| These perspectives provide insight into what may be a deeper relation, a shared contextuality that is often absent in the design, development and deployment of robotic systems. What changes with a materialist to animist shift? Are there points of compatibility?((L. Steels. Talking Heads Experiment. 1998.)) how does this affect the design, engineering and use of robots or semi-autonomous artefacts? | These perspectives provide insight into what may be a deeper relation, a shared contextuality that is often absent in the design, development and deployment of robotic systems. What changes with a materialist to animist shift? Are there points of compatibility?((L. Steels. Talking Heads Experiment. 1998.)) how does this affect the design, engineering and use of robots or semi-autonomous artefacts? |
| |
nik