Advertisement

Intentionality but Not Consciousness: Reconsidering Robot Love

  • Viktor KewenigEmail author
Chapter
  • 705 Downloads

Abstract

Robots already assist humans in a wide spectrum of domains. As technology evolves, social interaction with robots will become more frequent and propagate into the most private social spheres. In his seminal book “Love and Sex with Robots”, Levy (Love and sex with robots. New York, NY: Harper; 2007) sets out his reasons for being optimistic about this development. His thought-provoking arguments have been opposed on feminist and ethical grounds. Feminists argue that sex robots reinforce gender inequalities. Ethical concerns centre around the outside and the inside of robots. First, it is argued that human autonomy is violated in human–robot relationships because robots cannot be part of reciprocal loving relationships. Second, it is worried that we will enter a “Slavery 2.0” if we program conscious beings according to our needs and preferences. I argue that with a certain conceptual understanding of the mind, these objections can be met. There will certainly be good reasons for resisting my arguments; thus the main point of this paper is to point out the importance of conceptual assumptions for ethical arguments over emerging technologies.

Keywords

Sex robots Ethics Philosophy of mind David levy 

References

  1. Balas, B., & Tonsager, C. (2014). Face animacy is not all in the eyes: Evidence from contrast chimeras. Perception, 43(5), 355–367.  https://doi.org/10.1068/p7696CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bekey, G. (2005). Autonomous robots. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Buss, S., & Westlund, A. (2018). Personal autonomy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2018 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/personal-autonomy/
  4. Cabibihan, J. J., Javed, H., Ang, M., Jr., & Aljunied, S. M. (2013). Why robots? A survey on the roles and benefits of social robots in the therapy of children with autism. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(4), 593–618.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0202-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carruthers, P. (2000). Phenomenal consciousness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castelli, F., Happé, F., Frith, U., & Frith, C. (2000). Movement and mind: A functional imaging study of perception and interpretation of complex intentional movement patterns. NeuroImage, 12(3), 314–325.  https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2000.0612CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Chalmers, D. (1996). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Danaher, J. (2017a). Robotic rape and robotic child sexual abuse: Should they be criminalised? Criminal Law and Philosophy, 11(1), 71–95.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-014-9362-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Danaher J. (2017b). Symbols and their consequences in the sex robot debate. Talk given at TEDxWHU on the 06.03.2017. Retrieved May 30, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32-lWF66Uu4
  10. Dehaene, S., Lau, H., & Kouider, S. (2017). What is consciousness, and could machines have it? Science, 358(6362), 486–492.Google Scholar
  11. Deska, J. C., Almaraz, S. M., & Hugenberg, K. (2016). Of mannequins and men: Ascriptions of mind in faces are bounded by perceptual and processing similarities to human faces. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(2), 183–190.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616671404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Devlin, K. (2015). In defence of sex machines: Why trying to ban sex robots is wrong. http://theconversation.com/in-defence-of-sex- machines-why-trying-to-ban-sex-robots-is-wrong-47641
  13. Dworkin, G. (1976). Autonomy and behavior control. The Hastings Centre Report, 6(1), 23–28. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2307/3560358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frankfurt, H. (1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. The Journal of Philosophy, 68(1), 5–20. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 2024717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gutiu, S. (2012). Sex robots and roboticization of consent. Paper presented at the We Robot 2012 conference, Coral Gables, Florida, April 2012.Google Scholar
  16. Hauskeller, M. (2017). Romantic sweethearts for transhumanists. In Robot sex: Social and ethical implications (pp. 203–219). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Jackson, F. (1982). Epiphenomenal qualia. The Philosophical Quarterly, 32(127), 127–136.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2960077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jacob, P. (2014). Intentionality. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford, CT: Stanford University, Metaphysics Research Lab. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/Google Scholar
  19. Kant, I. (1785). Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten (Groundwork of the metaphysic of morals). Ditzingen, GE: Reclam.Google Scholar
  20. Langton, R. (1993). Speech acts and unspeakable acts. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 22(4), 293–330. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265469Google Scholar
  21. Levy, D. (2007). Love and sex with robots. New York, NY: Harper.Google Scholar
  22. Levy, D. (2013). Roxxxy the “Sex robot” – real or fake? Lovotics, 1, 1–4.  https://doi.org/10.4303/lt/235685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Looser, C. E., & Wheatley, T. (2010). The tipping point of animacy: How, when, and where we perceive life in a face. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1854–1862.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610388044CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Maurer, D., Le Grand, R., & Mondloch, C. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 255–260.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01903-4CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Millikan, R. (1989). Biosemantics. Journal of Philosophy, 86(7), 281–297.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2027123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nyholm, S., & Frank, L. E. (2017). From sex robots to love robots: Is mutual love with a robot possible? In Robot sex: Social and ethical implications (pp. 219–242). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Papineau, D. (2001). The status of teleosemantics or how to stop worrying about swampman. The Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 79(2), 279–289.  https://doi.org/10.1080/713659227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Papineau, D. (2002). Thinking about consciousness.  https://doi.org/10.1093/0199243824.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2016). Adolescents and pornography: A review of 20 years of research. The Journal of Sex Research, 53(4.5), 509–531.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1143441CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Petersen, S. (2007). The ethics of robot servitude. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 19(1), 43–54. http://stevepetersen.net/petersen-ethics-robot-servitude.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Raz, J. (1986). The morality of freedom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1093/0198248075.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Realbotix. (2018). Retrieved June 11, 2018, from https://realbotix.com
  33. Rey, G. (2008). (Even higher-order) intentionality without consciousness. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 243(1), 51–78. https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-philosophie-2008-1-page-51.htmGoogle Scholar
  34. Richardson, K. (2008). The asymmetrical ‘relationship’: Parallels between prostitution and the development of sex robots. SIGCAS Computers & Society, 45(3), 290–293.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2874239.2874281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2015). The unifying moral dyad liberals and conservatives share the same harm-based moral template. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(8), 1147–1163.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215591501CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Scott, B., Nass, C., & Hutchinson, K. (2005). Computers that care: Investigating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied computer agent. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62(2), 161–178.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Searle, J. (1980). Minds, brains and programs. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–457. http://cogprints.org/7150/1/10.1.1.83.5248.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sharkey, N., Van Wynsberghe, A., Robbins, S., & Hancock, E. (2017). Our sexual future with robots. In Foundation for responsible robotics consultation report. The Hague, The Netherlands: Foundation for Responsible Robotics.Google Scholar
  39. Sills, J., Spatola, N., & Urbanska, K. (2018). Conscious machines: Robot rights. Science, 359(6374), 400–400.Google Scholar
  40. Singer, I. (2001). Explorations in love and sex. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  41. Sparrow, R. (2017). Robots, rape and representation. International Journal of Social Robotics, 9(4), 465–477. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12369-017-0413-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sullins, J. P. (2012). Robots, love and sex: The Ethics of building a love machine. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 3(4), 398–408. http://people.ict.usc.edu/~gratch/CSCI534/Readings/Ethics-of-robot-sex.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Synthea Amatus. (2018). Retrieved May 30, 2018, from http://syntheaamatus.com/product-category/ai-dolls/
  44. Takanobu, H. (2008). Dental patient robot. In V. Bozovic (Ed.), Medical robots. New York, NY: Power Kids Press. http://www.intechopen.com/books/medical_robotics/dental_patient_robotGoogle Scholar
  45. Tapus, A., & Matarić, M. J. (2006). Towards socially assistive robotics. International Journal of Robotics Society Japan, 24(5), 576–578.  https://doi.org/10.7210/jrsj.24.576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  47. Wiese, E., Metta, G., & Wykowska, A. (2017). Robots as intentional agents: Using neuroscientific methods to make robots appear more social. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1663.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01663CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations