Tom Poljanšek

This paper presents an alternative model to the rule-following model of social practices and draws implications for the possibility of integrating robots into the social realm. We differentiate between “maximally loose” and “maximally rigid” forms of social practices and show that especially the latter pose a problem for social robotics. Not only is it a technical challenge to enable robots to function like human agents in loose practices, but it can also lead to normative problems. Namely, on the one hand, social robots may cause loose social practices to become too rigid; on the other hand, they present us with the problem that we would have to recognize robots as co-authors of our social practices or even as persons.

In this chapter, I sketch a philosophical framework of shared and diverging worlds and cultural significance. Although the framework proposed is basically a psychologically informed, philosophical approach, it is explicitly aimed at being applicable for agent-based social simulations. The account consists of three parts: (1) a formal ontology of human worlds, (2) an analysis of the pre-semantic significance of the objects of human worlds, and (3) an account of what it means for agents to share a world (or to live in diverging worlds). In this chapter, I will give a brief and concise summary of my account. At the end, I will briefly outline how the proposed framework might be put to use for multiagent social simulation of complex social interaction scenarios involving diverging (cultural) backgrounds.

We argue against the view that human behavior is the benchmark of robotic performance for every kind of social interaction. To the contrary, it is rather human agents who, in what we call ‘functional social interactions,’ aim at simulating social automatons. An important aspect of this simulation is the agent’s attempt to suppress every indication of the existence of a difference between what she experiences from the “‘I’-perspective” and what is perceived by other agents, the “‘me’-perspective”. Although experiencing this difference is not needed for realizing functional interaction it is, however, needed for what we call “close interhuman relationships”.

Based on Husserl’s distinction between mode of living presence (Modus der Leibhaftigkeit) and mode of certainty (Glaubensmodus der Gewißheit), which coincide in normal univocal perception, the paper argues for a distinction between two different types of accordance (Einstimmigkeit) in perceptual experience – local accordance and global accordance. While local accordance is characterized by the unfolding of appearances in agreement with lines of accordance instituted by recent perceptual apprehensions within a certain spatio-temporal domain, global accordance is characterized by the agreement between appearances unfolding in local accordance with previous and simultaneous apprehensions concerning the spatio-temporal surroundings of this domain. As will be shown, to perceive something in local accordance amounts to perceiving it in the mode of living presence, while to perceive something in global accordance amounts to perceiving it in the belief mode of certainty (relative to a certain surrounding). In light of these considerations, an account of the perception of figments and immersion is put forward which does not invoke make-belief or the idea of an as-if-perception.

Current theories of emotions and emotional machines often assume too homogeneous a conception of what emotions are in terms of whether they are experienced as one's own emotions (“internal” emotions) or whether they are perceived as the emotions of other agents (“external” emotions). In contrast, this paper argues, first, that an answer to the question of whether machines can possess emotions requires such a distinction—the distinction between internal emotions-had and external emotions-perceived. Second, it argues that the emotions we perceive in other agents can be explicated as indicators of likely imminent paths or patterns of behavior of those agents. As will be shown, perceiving emotions in others does not necessarily involve the ontological attribution of corresponding emotions-had to the subject which is perceived as exhibiting a particular emotion-perceived. Thus, it will be shown that we can, for example, perceive an agent as angry without (ontologically) attributing anger (as an emotion-had) to that agent. If we apply this reasoning to emotional robots, it follows that there is no deception involved in perceiving a robot as exhibiting a particular emotion, as long as its behavior realizes and continues to realize the behavioral form of that external emotion-perceived. Thus, a robot’s behavior can fully instantiate emotions-perceived. In order to elaborate these claims, the presented view will be contrasted with Gibson’s conception of “affordances.” The final section discusses whether these considerations might have broader implications for our view of human perception in general.

Can machines simulate, express or even have emotions? Is it a good to build such machines? How do humans react emotionally to them and how should such devices be treated from a moral point of view? This volume addresses these and related questions by bringing together perspectives from affective computing and emotional human-machine interaction, combining technological approaches with those from the humanities and social sciences. It thus relates disciplines such as philosophy, computer science, technology, psychology, sociology, design, and art. The volume offers readers interested in the phenomenon of emotional machines new perspectives from a variety of disciplines and addresses fundamental questions that will become pressing in the foreseeable future as emotional machines increasingly populate our everyday lives.

Dass wir alle in einer gemeinsamen Wirklichkeit leben, setzen wir meist unhinterfragt voraus. Sehen Andere die Welt dann doch einmal anders, mag es uns scheinen, als sähen sie diese einfach nicht so, wie sie wirklich ist. Schwerer fällt uns anzuerkennen, dass andere zuweilen in ganz anderen Wirklichkeiten unterwegs sind als wir selbst. - Tom Poljansek zeigt, wie sich die Vorstellung einer Pluralität menschlicher Wirklichkeiten mit der Annahme einer wahrnehmungsunabhängigen Realität vereinbaren lässt, ohne sich in einen Relativismus der vielen Wirklichkeiten zu verlaufen. In Auseinandersetzung mit »kontinentalen« und »analytischen« Ansätzen legt er eine elegante Theorie menschlicher Wirklichkeiten vor, die konstruktivistische und realistische, phänomenologische und naturalistische Motive unerwartet miteinander verbindet.

Since the late nineteenth century ‘Scientific Philosophy’ has become a label ascribed to many research programs. German theoretical philosophy of the early twentieth century was dominated by three different trends—Phenomenology, Neo-Kantianism, and Logical Empiricism: Each trend claimed to represent the ‘Scientific Philosophy’. In this context it is astonishing that we know almost nothing about the relationships between these schools. It is true, all of them rejected the speculative metaphysics found, for example, in German Idealism, but knowledge about other connections is scarce. Starting with the question what exactly ‘Scientific Philosophy’ means and how these meanings relate to each other, a thorough investigation of the connections between all three trends has yet to take place.The main goal of the conference was, therefore, to better understand the relationships of these schools through their notions of ‘Scientific Philosophy’. In this context the works of Edmund Husserl (for Ph ..