AI & Soc (2013) 28:309–318

DOI 10.1007/s00146-012-0397-z

25TH ANNIVERSARY VOLUME

A FAUSTIAN EXCHANGE: WHAT IS TO BE HUMAN IN THE ERA OF UBIQUITOUS TECHNOLOGY?

Humanoid robots as ‘‘The Cultural Other’’: are we able to love

Received: 25 October 2011 / Accepted: 20 January 2012 / Published online: 16 February 2012
Ó Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Abstract Robot enthusiasts envision robots will become Keywords Humanoid robots
Cultural ‘‘Other’’
Robots
a ‘‘race unto themselves’’ as they cohabit with the as the ‘‘Frightening Other’’
Robots as the ‘‘Subhuman
humankind one day. Profound questions arise surrounding Other’’
Robots as the ‘‘Human Substitute’’
Robots as the
one of the major areas of research in the contemporary ‘‘Sentient Other’’
Robots as the ‘‘Divine Other’’
Robots
world—that concerning artificial intelligence. Fascination as the ‘‘Co-evolutionary Path to Immortality’’
and anxiety that androids impose upon us hinges on how
we come to conceive of the ‘‘Cultural Other.’’ Applying the
notion of the ‘‘other’’ in multicultural research process, we
1 Introduction
will explore how the ‘‘Other’’ has been used to illustrate
values and theories about robots, as a mirror for the self. In
Theirs was a culture that worshipped God through
this paper, we focus on the social, cultural, and religious
respect for both man and Nature, and indeed all
implications of humans’ attitudes toward relationships
animals and animated things, as creations of God that
between humans with robots. Six major views on human-
were equal to each other (p. viii).
oid robots are proposed: (1) robots as the ‘‘Frightening
(From Around the hearth: Khasi legends. By Non-
Other,’’ (2) robots as the ‘‘Subhuman Other,’’ (3) robots as
gkynrih, K. S., 2007)
the ‘‘Human Substitute,’’ (4) robots as the ‘‘Sentient
It is either aliens or robots, which will get us!
Other,’’ (5) robots as the ‘‘Divine Other,’’ and (6) robots as
(American expression)
the ‘‘Co-evolutionary Path to Immortality.’’ The likely and
preferable scenario is the last one, which is compatible According to Moravec (2000), pioneer in mobile robot
with an optimistic posthuman world in our evolutionary researcher, our robot creations are evolving similar to how
future. We imagine whether humans will meet the chal- life on Earth evolved, only at warp speed. By his calcula-
lenge of loving all living and non-living beings (including tions, by mid-century, no human task, physical or intel-
mechanical entities) might be the key to the co-evolution of lectual, will be beyond the scope of robots. We are not only
both species and the ultimate happiness. interacting with machines more often, but the machines are
becoming smarter, more mobile, and more capable.
Humanoid robots, meaning robots that take on human-like
forms, behaviors, or other characteristics, have progressed
from a science fiction obsession to an increasingly mature
M.-S. Kim (&)
anthropomorphic technological reality (Kim et al. 2009).
Department of Communicology, University of Hawaii at Manoa,
Honolulu, HI, USA For most humans, the idea of working closely with robots
e-mail: [email protected] seems unrealistic, but in reality, we will be working
with and becoming more dependent on robots in the near
E.-J. Kim
future. Kurzweil (2000) also predicts the emergence of
The Graduate School of Education, Yonsei University,
Seoul, Korea interactive ‘‘agents’’ with human personality qualities by
e-mail: [email protected] around 2019.

123
310 AI & Soc (2013) 28:309–318

Dator and Seo (2004) suggested that the world may be robots are human-made autonomous entities that interact
moving beyond both an ‘‘industrial’’ and an ‘‘informa- with humans in a human-like way (Zhao 2006).
tion’’ society (based so heavily on the printed word) into Previous research by Thrun (2004) identified three types
what we call ‘‘a dream society of icons and aesthetic of robots: industrial, professional service, and personal
experience.’’ In such a world, governance, war, and reli- service robots. Industrial robots are controlled by com-
gion disappear as major elements as individuals spend puters to change their surroundings. Professional service
more and more time in virtual interaction with people robots not only change their surroundings but also aid
(and, increasingly, also with artificial intelligences) of humans in specialized goals. Personal service robots are
their own choosing without regard to physical, geographic more common in domestic settings such as the home. The
proximity or to the conventions of ‘‘real time’’ compared most recent type of robot is the humanoid robot. A
to free-flowing ‘‘dream time.’’ While this can be preferred humanoid robot is described as having a human-like
future of some people, the interrelationship of humans physical appearance and share similar physical features and
with increasingly intelligent and autonomous artificial communicative behaviors such as facial expressions, gaze,
entities, variously called ‘‘robots,’’ ‘‘artificial intelli- and gestures with humans (Billard 2005; Breazeal 2003).
gence,’’ or ‘‘cyborgs,’’ poses significant emotional and Many different types of humanoid robots have been
spiritual implications for humans. As robot enthusiasts developed to feature functions that make them capable of
envision robots will become a ‘‘race unto themselves’’ as interacting with humans on an everyday basis. The newest
they cohabit with the humankind one day (Duffy 2003), humanoid robots are more autonomous, meaning they are
profound questions arise surrounding one of the major able to adapt to their environments (Thrun 2004). The
areas of research in the contemporary world—that con- sophistication of robots has allowed various areas of
cerning artificial intelligence. Many science and technol- society to utilize their services. In turn, humanoid robots
ogy books contain scant treatments of the social have created a need to study their societal impact in
transformations that create, and accompany it, with little environments such as the workplace and education. The
attention paid to the social dimensions. introduction of robots in the personal sphere—now and in
Creating human-like android robots raises an issue of the near future—gives rise to new personal relations
identity and ethics with robots because they look and act between humans and robots.
like us. According to Geraci (2010), in science fiction lit-
erature and films, human beings simultaneously feel fear
and allure in the presence of intelligent machines. 3 Envisioning Robo Sapiens and meaning
Humanoid robots, as the ultimate ‘‘Other,’’ are posing a of ‘‘the Other’’
unique challenge as well as opportunity for future evolu-
tion of humans. Applying the notion of the ‘‘other’’ in The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says that when the sense
multicultural research process (Tanno and Jandt 1998), we of an ‘‘other’’ arises, fear and suffering arises. In the age of
will explore how the ‘‘Other’’ has been used to prove ideas, globalization, the relationship with the ‘‘Other’’ has
values, and theories about robots, as a mirror for the self. become more fundamental than ever. Culture analysts in
We will review theories that are attuned to the psycho- the early nineteenth century constructed a world around
logical origins and consequences of worldviews and reli- four categories of societies—we ourselves with our dis-
gious beliefs in creating meaning and attenuating tinctive strengths and quirks, the familiarly different friend,
existential threats in relation to humanoid robots. the threateningly different enemy, and the radically dif-
ferent savage (Peterson 2007). According to Gulerce
(1997), the familiar (the self, the nearly, and the ‘‘here-and-
2 Robotics emerging now’’) is seen within the order, while the unknown and
unwanted (the other, the far, and the distant past-and-
Robotics is a broad discipline (Thrun 2004). Knowing how future) is left outside order. The order is obtained by
to define a robot is imperative when studying robots. continuous redefinitions and reproductions of the order,
Robots are generally defined as an automatic device that together with what maintains (inside the self, the same) and
performs functions normally ascribed to humans or a what disturbs it (outside self, the different) with a logic of
machine in the form of a human (Zhao 2006). In looking at dichotomic polarization. This non-self signals anxiety and
the beginning of this definition, various machines threatens the stability and order.
encountered in everyday life are considered robots, Regarding the meaning of other ‘‘persons,’’ Levinas
including ATMs, vending machines, and automated tele- referred to this ethically charged intersubjectivity as char-
phone response systems. This paper uses a more specified acterized by responsibility for the Other. The Other, by his
definition, and the focus is on humanoid robots. Humanoid or her nature, makes an ethical demand upon oneself, and

123
AI & Soc (2013) 28:309–318 311

the self in response can only be the fully human personality afraid that they will take over (McGraith 2011). In Star
that it is by assuming the moral responsibility demanded of Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, Obi-Wan Kenobi
it. Even when the Other does not respond at all, or responds makes the statement that if droids could think, then none of
unethically, the self is bound by its own moral imperatives, us would be here. The idea is implicit in Obi-Wan’s
emerging from its own compelling subjectivity, to act with statement is that if droids could think, then other beings
moral correctness. It is this demand and the behavior would no longer have any place (McGraith 2011). Because
predicated upon it that makes one human. And it is in just if machines could think, if they could be persons, then they
this ethical modality that we glimpse the Infinite within our would quickly evolve to be so far superior to biological
finite existence (Levinas and Cohen 1985). organisms in intelligence and strength that they would take
Hall (1997, p. 17) sees ‘‘representation’’ as the ‘‘pro- over the world.
duction of meaning of the concepts in our minds through Part of the underlying reasons for robot fear may be due
language.’’ ‘‘Representation’’ as social construction is to the way our human brain works in interacting with
central to the process through which meaning is produced others. Recent neuroimage studies have found that the fear
and exchanged between members of a culture, and in an system (e.g., Amygdala) of our brain tends to react strongly
intercultural context, between different traditions and when encountered with people in other race, even when
societies. Culture is an important factor to consider when one consciously says he or she has no racial prejudice
evaluating an individual’s attitudes toward robots because (Amodio et al. 2011; Fiske 2010) Fortunately, such prej-
culture affects a person’s attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors udiced fears tend to decrease or are dissipated rapidly as
(Bartneck et al. 2007). So far, the popular assumptions one becomes more familiar with or experiences positive
about robots can be linked to the research trends in inter- relationships. These findings suggest that our brain struc-
cultural communication, based on the tacit assumption that ture has evolved to be initially biased to fear unfamiliar
the ‘‘other’’ in another camp, another country, another ‘‘others’’ as ‘‘false-alarm’’ (e.g., ‘‘To fear others when
continent is a threat. Somehow the tribal notion of Us- actually they do not pose a threat’’) is a safer bet than
Versus-Them co-exists with the contradictory cultural ‘‘missed-alarm (e.g., ‘‘To welcome others when actually
attraction to robots. they pose a threat’’).
In his book, TechGnosis: Myth, Magic, and Mysticism in Relationships with robots were also an issue in Karel
the Age of Information (1998), Davis wrote that the Čapek’s famous play RUR (Rossum’s Universal Robots),
machine thus comes to serve as an interactive mirror, an which premiered in 1921 and introduced the word ‘‘robot.’’
ambiguous ‘‘Other’’ we both recognize ourselves in and Here, robots were ‘‘artificial people,’’ machines that could
measure ourselves against. Six major views on humanoid be mistaken for humans (thus more closely related to
robots are proposed: (1) robots as the ‘‘Frightening Other,’’ present-day work on androids; MacDorman and Ishiguro
(2) robots as the ‘‘Subhuman Other,’’ (4) robots as the 2006). The play introduces a robot factory that sells these
‘‘Human Substitute,’’ (5) robots as the ‘‘Sentient Other,’’ human-like robots as a cheap labor force, while later the
(5) robots as the ‘‘Divine Other,’’ and (6) robots as the robots revolt against their human masters, a favorite sce-
‘‘Co-evolutionary Path to Immortality.’’ The likely sce- nario in the science fiction literature and movies, but a
nario is the last one, which is compatible with an optimistic highly unlikely scenario from a robotics point of view.
posthuman world. Science fiction representations of robots and artificially
intelligent computers follow this logic of threatening oth-
3.1 Robots as ‘‘the Frightening Other’’ erness and soteriological promise (Geraci 2010); the fear of
God and the fascinans is the allure of God’s saving grace.
Robots get a bad press. With a few cute exceptions, Similarly, Foerst, God in the Machine (2004), suggested
the robot has been an evil character in movies such as the that human beings experience both fear and fascination
Terminator series. It should be noted, however, in the when they interact with intelligent machines. Science fic-
Terminator series, robots are depicted as both the created tion literature and films from the twentieth century lend
turning on its creator and as the Technological Messiah credence to Foerst’s belief that our experience of intelligent
who becomes most human when it lays down its life for machines is one of the simultaneous fear and allure, much
humanity. Overall, it appears that the notion of evil AI— like our experience of the divine. Cogs (and humanoid
which is always accompanied by murderous robots—has robots more broadly) cause simultaneous fright and fasci-
been filtered into the collective mindset, regurgitated, and nation (Foerst 1998a, b).
re-swallowed several times (perhaps more so in certain In order to understand fully religion’s influence on the
countries like the United States than in others) (see Kenyon West’s attitude toward robotics, one can point out the
2008). For about as long as there have been stories about Judeo-Christian monotheism, which adheres to the doctrine
computers and robots with intelligence, humans have been that only God can give life. A big deal of cultural studies

123
312 AI & Soc (2013) 28:309–318

dealing with robots tends to connect the fear they generate an exchange of typed messages, those observers could not
in us. The majority of robots in science fiction revolt tell whether they were talking to a human being or to a
against their human masters. The fact remains that as the machine. To pass the test, the machine has to be intelligent,
robots become self-conscious they recognize their oppres- but it also should be responsive in a manner which cannot
sion and revolt. Regarding the golem as the origin of be distinguished from a human being. This standard
artificial man, the Jewish legend of the Golem is another interpretation presents the Turing test as a criterion for
form of the Zombie/Frankenstein/Robot iconography. The demarcating intelligent from non-intelligent entities. For a
legend of the Golem is about a man of clay created by long time, proponents of artificial intelligence have taken
Rabbi Loew in sixteenth-century Prague to free the Jews in the Turing test as a goalpost for measuring progress (Co-
the Ghetto from their endless toil and oppression. The wen and Dawson 2009).
mindless clay monster eventually learns and becomes Such a machine, if we wish to be at all ethnical, and
conscious, and like Frankenstein, he must be destroyed humane must be treated as a person. However, Dator
when he attacks those who would oppress the Jews (see (2007) wrote that most humans have tended to deny that
Plawiuk 2005). such artificially intelligent and autonomous entities will
There is a popular interpretation of Genesis in which actually emerge, declaring that if they do, they will be
there is only God in the beginning and all living things are vastly inferior to humans, and thus not worthy of human
His creations. Thus, as author Umezawa (2010) points out, respect or spiritual concern. Part of the allure of robots, for
any human who breathes life into an inanimate object is sure, is that they resemble us, but they are not us. McGraith
assuming the role of God. Such a blasphemer deserves (2011) wrote that in the Star Wars films, Ben Kenobi states
punishment, and in the conventions of science fiction, this about Darth Vader that he is now ‘‘more machine than
usually comes in the form of betrayal by the robots. We man.’’ The implication, which is found in many other
created them, but there’s always the possibility that novels and films, is that machines do not have feelings.
something can go horribly wrong. The fantasy, fun, and Science fiction has regularly explored scenarios
fear come in when we start thinking about robots taking involving the existence of sentient machines (sometimes
over—that we might one day design them so well by giving called ‘‘androids’’). Often, the machine in question has
them minds of their own that we can’t control them human or human-like thoughts, but not emotions (McGra-
anymore. ith 2007). Scenarios involving intelligent but emotionless
In his book, Technophobia, Dinello (2005) focuses on machines that do not share our value for human life are
popular reactions to sci-fi films and imagines a disastrous commonplace in science fiction, from older films like
future of posthuman techno-totalitarianism, encouraging us Colossus to more recent ones like Terminator series.
to ponder the most important question of the twenty-first Haslam (2006) has proposed that the two forms of
century: is technology out of control? Will our dark future dehumanization involve the denial of two distinct senses of
be dominated by mad scientists, rampaging robots, killer humanness. People who are likened to animals are denied
clones, and uncontrollable viruses? attributes that are uniquely human (e.g., higher cognition,
moral sensibility, sophistication) and are therefore seen as
3.2 Robots as ‘‘Subhuman’’: mechanistic unintelligent, amoral, uncivilized, and coarse. People who
dehumanization are likened to automata, in contrast, are denied attributes
that constitute shared and fundamental ‘‘human nature.’’
In his book, Religion and science fiction (2011), McGraith These species-typical attributes involve emotionality,
claims that if human beings create an artificial brain, and interpersonal warmth, flexibility, and animation, so mech-
the machine in which the brain is located (e.g., humanoid anized others are seen as cold, rigid, and inert. Rather than
robot) interacts with us in a manner similar to what we being denied attributes that distinguish humans from ani-
would expect in interactions with other humans, we must mals, people could be denied attributes that distinguish
assume that the machine in question has the same sort of humans from automata. This mechanized view of others
self-awareness we have, if it behaves as though does or can be applied to humans’ dehumanizing tendencies
claims to. Similarly, Alan Turing’s short 1950 paper in toward technology.
Mind, ‘‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence,’’ has Some would claim that, at the end of the day, dehu-
influenced philosophic discourse, research in artificial manizing a robot may be a functional orientation and
intelligence. The so-called Turing test, as it is usually cannot be lumped together in the same category as dehu-
interpreted, sets a benchmark standard for determining manizing members of a different race or culture. However,
when we might call a machine intelligent. We can call a based on the social identification approach, the notion of
machine intelligent if the following is satisfied: if a group dehumanization emerges as a central issue. In line with
of wise observers were conversing with a machine through dehumanization, social psychologists argue that people

123
AI & Soc (2013) 28:309–318 313

tend to attribute humanness to their own ingroups, and a In presenting a multifaceted, historicized account of the
lesser degree of humanness to the outgroups, including emergence of Robo Sapiens Japanicus, Robertson (2007)
humanoid robots. has raised some pressing questions about the way in which
One can readily imagine extreme bigotry against humanoid demographic trends are being both recognized and
robots being justified just as bigotry against other humans has addressed. She analyzed the different ideological forces
often been justified. There is emerging neuroscientific evi- affecting the future trajectory of robotic technology in
dence for dehumanization as well. For instance, in a recent Japan. According to Robertson (2007), there is a lot of
neuroimaging study, Harris and Fiske (2006a, b) help us to inconvenient thinking the Japanese—and all of us—have to
see how members of extreme outgroups are so dehumanized do about the place and extent of biotechnology in our daily
that they may not even be encoded as social beings. When lives. There has been some speculation that the Japanese
participants viewed targets from highly stigmatized social were more attuned to robots because they would rather
groups (e.g., homeless people and drug addicts) who elicit mechanize than import foreign labor.
disgust, the region of the brain typically recruited for social Robertson (2007) claims that the Japanese state is the
perception (the medial prefrontal cortex) was not recruited. first to attempt to organize and orchestrate society around
Those who are the least valued in the culture were not deemed the advent of humanoid robots who will both compensate
worthy of social consideration on a neurological level. Given for the declining and aging population and make replace-
that Harris and Fiske used groups that are traditionally rep- ment migration less necessary (or even unnecessary). This
resented in a dehumanizing fashion, it is reasonable to believe utopian proposal has the potential to morph into a dysto-
that there is a neurological correlate to extreme social pian scenario. The posthuman path may offer unprece-
devaluation and moral exclusion of humanoid robots. dented convenience to the majority of Japanese, but that
Instead of insisting on a qualitative difference between us convenience is accompanied by the state’s almost total
and the machines AI will create, it seems more reasonable to surveillance power over every aspect of the individual,
turn the question around. Turkle, author of The Second Self inside and out. With their built-in Web servers and live
(1984), states that we should be asking not what the com- video feeds, household robots are part of one of the fastest
puter will be like in the future, but instead we should be growing markets in Japan: surveillance and observation.
asking what will humans be like. According to Turkle The precedent of and preference for automation is one
(1984), rather than reflecting on ‘‘why a machine never can of the major reasons why Japan accounts for over half of
become like us,’’ but the question of what might be the the world’s share of industrial and operational robots,
conditions under which God would accept such a creature as including humanoid household robots that are being
God’s child will let us recognize the arrogance some people developed to care for children and the elderly, to provide
display when denying dignity to other creatures. companionship, and to perform domestic tasks (Robertson
2007). Over the course of interviews with roboticists in
3.3 Robots as ‘‘Human Substitute’’: shadows early 2007, and on the basis of the ballooning literature on
of ‘‘dream society’’ humanoid household (or partner) robots, Robertson (2007)
concluded that humanoid robots in Japan are also regarded
Dator (2007) suggested that the recent emergence of inter- as preferable to foreign laborers, and especially to foreign
active audiovisual communication technologies, such as the caretakers, for the reason that unlike migrant and minority
Internet, cell phones, and interactive electronic games, is once workers, robots have no cultural differences or historical
again individualizing, networking, interpersonalizing, and (or wartime) memories to contend with. In other words, in
making fluid and mobile all beliefs and behaviors, making addition to ‘‘cultural differences,’’ foreign workers (espe-
possible a ‘‘world without leaders’’ and thus without gov- cially those from Asia) embody and represent memories
ernmental, military, religious, scientific, or any other kinds of that, even unintentionally, may agitate the state, which
‘‘experts’’ and ‘‘authorities.’’ Thus, Dator and Seo (2004) continues to perpetuate the myth of Japan as a homoge-
suggested that the world may be moving beyond both an neous nation and to cultivate a willful amnesia with respect
‘‘industrial’’ and an ‘‘information’’ society (based so heavily to the history of Japanese imperialist aggression in Asia
on the printed word) into what we call ‘‘a dream society of (Robertson 2007). Robertson (2007) asks, ‘‘How the Jap-
icons and aesthetic experience.’’ Recent cultural, business, anese will respond individually and as a constituency to a
and technological changes are reinforcing the prominence of utopian proposal that resurrects the same old patriarchal
esthetics and the value of personal expression, in which extended family and simply postmodernizes it with the
introduction of robots in the personal sphere matter more than addition of a household (or more accurately, a housewife)
ever, reinforcing the importance of esthetics and creativity robot?’’
rather than quantification and control in the future world In understanding the ‘‘dream’’ embodied by technolog-
economy. ical innovation, racial prejudice should be incorporated as a

123
314 AI & Soc (2013) 28:309–318

core individual difference factor. In research concerning objectives of social life and tells us our place in the uni-
Whites’ racial attitude and preference, Gong (2008) used verse and our relationship to nature and the supernatural’’
computer-synthesized social entities to provide a new and (Gudykunst and Kim 1984, p. 12). Eastern cultures like
unique test of the predictive strength and boundary of racial Japan and South Korea are currently the technological
prejudice by including robot entities as a comparison. An pioneers in the manufacture of and integration of humanoid
experimental study with 105 White undergraduates asses- robots in daily life (Bartneck et al. 2007). These cultures
sed their rank-ordered preferences of 15 White, Black, and tend not to distinguish between naturally living organisms
robot computer-synthesized characters. The explicit racial such as humans, animals, or plants from the artificial as
prejudice positively predicted White versus Black charac- much as western society. For the Japanese, the building of
ter preferences for liking and as one’s avatar, virtual friend, robots is not inherently a negative activity in trying to
and virtual tutor. The implicit racial prejudice, measured discover the natural laws of nature (Bartneck et al. 2007).
with the Implicit Association Test (IAT), provided addi- Like Japan, South Korea is a main player in robot tech-
tional predictive utility for virtual friend. Interest in robots nology. In 2007, the South Korean Government introduced
and explicit racial prejudice predicted the preference of its plan for a Robot Ethics Charter for manufacturers
robot characters compared to White or Black ones. Among addressing ethical questions about robotics (‘‘South
the 64 participants who reported minimal interest in robots, Korea,’’ 2007), which further illustrates the acceptance of
explicit racial prejudice negatively predicted the preference humanoid robots into daily life in these cultures.
of Black to robot characters, showing a pattern that indi- An individual’s worldview can potentially be influenced
viduals with high prejudice preferred robot characters to by the religion to which they ascribe. According to
Black ones. Despite the prevailing belief that robots are Christianity, humans are made up of two separate entities:
non-humans, highly prejudiced Whites who had minimal a body and a soul. These entities part ways after death
interest in robots preferred robot characters to Black ones. (Burns 2003). This belief infers that only human beings are
Even the roboticists involved with creating WABOT- capable of having a soul, thus creating a hierarchy system
HOUSE admit that there must always be a gap—‘‘not too with humans occupying the first position. This hierarchy
big, not too small’’—between dreams of the future and places humans at the top, followed by animals, plants, cells
everyday realities lest the former overwhelm and occlude and physical objects, which indicate that inanimate objects,
the latter (Robertson 2007). like humanoid robots, do not have a soul and are therefore
inferior. In opposition, Buddhists believe that every object
3.4 Robots as the ‘‘Sentient/Living Other’’ may possess a spirit and are considered part of the whole
(Bartneck et al. 2007). Indeed, the possibility of reincar-
From a Buddhist perspective, individual personhood is nation as an intelligent machine would seem quite natural
considered an illusion, which makes it easier to accept from a Buddhist perspective (McGraith 2007).
these robots/machines as living or sentient, as opposed to Going beyond the dualism of ‘‘things’’ and Buddha,
intelligent (see McGraith 2007). In an interview with Jeff Cook (1989) quotes following on the sixteenth-century
Greenwald, the Dalai Lama (1997) once said that there is Japanese Zen master Dogen’s thought on ‘‘Buddha
no theoretical limit to artificial intelligence. If ‘‘conscious’’ Nature’’:
computers are some day developed, he will give them the
everything is really sentient being and this entire-
same consideration as sentient beings. In an interview with
being, which we symbolically refer to as ‘‘sentient
Jeremy Hayward and Francisco Varela (from Gentle
beings,’’ is Buddha nature, or Buddha. That includes
Bridges: Conversations with the Dalai Lama on the Sci-
not only humans and animals but also stones, bronze
ences of Mind, Shambala), he had this to say about artificial
lanterns, the pillars of the temple, and, as he is fond
intelligence:
of saying, even rubble-filled walls (p. 20)
It is very difficult to say that it’s not a living being,
Cook (1989) refers to an aspect of enlightenment as the
that it doesn’t have cognition, even from the Buddhist
enlightened ability to see the sacredness and holiness of all
point of view. We maintain that there are certain
things or, the enlightened ability to see that what is
types of births in which a preceding continuum of
appearing before oneself is none other than the Buddha.
consciousness is the basis. The consciousness doesn’t
This is Dogen’s version of the Sino-Japanese Buddhist
actually arise from the matter, but a continuum of
teaching that all things possess Buddha nature (p. 18). In
consciousness might conceivably come into it.’’
1974, Mori published The Buddha in the Robot: a Robot
Similar to culture and religion, another individual-level Engineer’s Thoughts on Science and Religion in which he
factor that may affect individuals’ attitudes toward robots discussed the metaphysical implications of robotics. In the
is their worldview of society. ‘‘Our worldview delimits the book, he wrote ‘‘I believe robots have the Buddha-nature

123
AI & Soc (2013) 28:309–318 315

within them–that is, the potential for attaining Buddha- From a Catholic religious perspective, without an ‘‘en-
hood.’’ Similarly, Geraci (2006) mentions the view that a soulment’’ event, as we have discussed, any such android
robot could have the Buddha nature. He explores how would remain a non-human, incapable of ever assuming a
Japanese religious ideas, in particular Shinto, may be position of moral equivalence with humans. From a func-
responsible for the widespread acceptance of the presence tionalist point of view, and perhaps even that of a Shinto
of robots in Japanese society. devotee, however, the premise may be different. If the
Relatedly, individuals with an egalitarian worldviews android is functionally equivalent to a human in the way it
tend to view humans as equals to all other matter, similar to acts and responds to stimuli and exhibits behavioral char-
those who are Buddhist (Amstutz 1998). Individuals with a acteristics associated with human beings, there is no reason
hierarchical worldview place humans on top with all other to make a distinction between the biological and the non-
matter falling in line after, similar to those who are biological substrate. Rather than seeking answers in terms
Christian (Amstutz 1998). Thus, an individual’s worldview of the dichotomy between the animate and inanimate, it
of society may potentially be very influential in how they may be possible to conceive of ‘‘being alive’’ as a matter of
develop attitudes toward robots. Individuals who have an degree and perceive at least some ‘‘life’’ in supposedly
egalitarian worldview may perceive robots as peers, inanimate objects—even those much less complex than
whereas those who have a hierarchical worldview may robots (Umezawa 2010).
perceive robots as subordinates. Robots remain a major theme in contemporary Japanese
In referring to personhood attributed to robots, the term popular culture, much more so than it ever has been in the
‘‘character’’ has several meanings: a fictional or imaginary West (see Umezawa 2010). Brooks (2002) attempts to
person or entity; a quality or aspect that defines the apparent remove humans from their unique status versus the-rest-of-
individual nature of a person or a thing; and the inherent the-world. In Western cultures, the bridging of this gap is
complex of attributes that determines the nature of a person’s becoming increasingly visible due to the blurring of the
actions and reactions (Morioka 1991). In Japan, humanoid boundaries between humans and machines, for instance,
robots like ifbot not only have character, but are regarded as through the implant of artificial body organs. In other
and referred to as ‘‘persons’’—not ‘‘as if ’’ they were persons, cultures, the distinction was never very strong, for instance,
but as persons. This is readily evident in the use of certain for the Achuar Indians nature and society are part of con-
suffixes, such as kun (for boys) and chan (for girls and boys), tinuum rather than independent spheres (Umezawa 2010).
which indicate endearment, familiarity, cuteness, and/or child To summarize, a few researchers argued that East
or diminutive status. Thus, Waka-maru is also referred to on Asians are more open to having positive emotions toward
Mitsubishi’s Web site as Wakamaru-kun (Robertson 2007). humanoid robots. For example, the Japanese, based on
Many roboticists, and scholars writing about the robot- Shinto beliefs wherein all things have gods within them, do
friendliness of Japan cite Shinto as an important factor. not separate natural beings from artificial entities as strictly
Monotheism has never had a home in Japan, and unlike the as so the Western cultures. Similarly, according to Bud-
three major monotheisms, Shinto lacks complex meta- dhism, spirits may live in each and every entity and are part
physical and theological theories and is primarily con- of the whole. Buddhists believe that humans can be born
cerned with notions of purity and pollution. Shinto holds again as animals or non-human entities. Within this Bud-
that vital energies or forces called kami are present in all dhist worldview, artificial intelligence or robots may not be
aspects of the world and universe. Some kami are cosmic, drastically different from humans (Morioka 1991, 85–87;
and others infuse trees, streams, rocks, insects, animals, Fowler 2004). We need to be willing to contemplate the
and humans, as well as human creations, like dolls, cars, spiritual needs and responses of artilects, both on their own
and robots. The second factor concerns the meanings of life terms and in response to humans (Dator 2007).
and living—life and fertility are especially celebrated in
Shinto. Inochi, the Japanese word for ‘‘life,’’ encompasses 3.5 Robots as ‘‘Divine Other’’: techno salvation
three basic, seemingly contradictory but interrelated
meanings: a power that infuses sentient beings from gen- According to McGraith (2007), if we create sentient intelli-
eration to generation; a period between birth and death; and gent machines which become capable of self-programming,
the most essential quality of something whether a living we may expect them to evolve rapidly and to become beings
thing or a made object, such as a puppet. Thus, robots, that we may not have words to describe other than god-like.
humanoid and otherwise, are ‘‘living’’ things within the These beings, their inner subjective experience, and their
Shinto universe and in that sense, are very much a part religious ideas will all become incomprehensible to us, as
of the natural world. By the same token, the creation of they approach what Ray Kurzweil called ‘‘singularity.’’
humanoids—or artificial life—is not viewed as a matter of Science fiction, like modern art, maintains a persistence
‘‘playing God’’ (Robertson 2007). of religious language and themes, which makes it ideal for

123
316 AI & Soc (2013) 28:309–318

thinking through the possible connections between artifi- of Spielberg’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) clearly demon-
cial intelligence and the sacred. In The Secret Life of strates that the science fiction film makes a serious philo-
Puppets, Nelson (2001) points out that modern Americans sophical point as far as the challenges facing artificial
maintain a subconscious belief in the divinity of machines. intelligence research (and development) are concerned. In
Using science fiction as her evidence, Nelson (2001) argues the case of David in AI, Geraci (2007) has called on the
that artificial humans come to ‘‘represent a combination work of Heidegger and Lacan to show that David’s
god, externalized soul, and Divine Human’’ (p. 269). She defining human trait is the capacity for ‘‘care,’’ and more
believes that our attribution of near omnipotence upon specifically, his love for, and desire to be loved in return
machines demonstrates their divine potential. Science fic- by, his human ‘‘mother,’’ Monica.
tion blurs the line between technology (particularly AI Many believe that we too are likely to become more
technology) and the divine by according robots and com- robotic. ‘‘We have been modifying ourselves with tech-
puter AIs with the characteristics of the Holy, as they are nology forever, with eyeglasses, cochlear implants. We are
described by Otto (1917/1923). Technology has long been going to see more of that. Sensors are going to be on our
associated with worldly salvation and the kingdom of God bodies, in our bodies letting us and others know what we
in Euro-American Christianity. are doing, what is going on with our health. All kinds of
Otto (1917/1923) describes the Christian religious applications we haven’t even thought of yet’’ (Rushe
experience as a coincidence of opposites: the mysterium 2010).
tremendum and the fascinans. Briefly, the former refers to Nearly 20 years ago, Haraway (1991) envisioned a
the feeling of awe and fear of God’s wrath and ‘‘wholly posthuman future—the ‘‘cyborg path’’—as liberating,
other’’ nature, and the latter refers to the allure of God’s especially with regard to overcoming a Western philo-
love and promise of salvation, in seeking to describe the sophical history of excessively dualistic thinking. Har-
fundamental nature of the Christian religious experience. away’s cyborg is an individual who is neither entirely
These opposites also characterize twentieth-century tech- technological nor totally biological, and neither male nor
nology, which frightens us with dehumanization and female in any absolute sense. Dinello (2005) claims that if
extinction while fascinating us with the ‘‘salvation’’ of a you believe many scientists working in the emerging fields
leisurely return to Eden. AI becoming benevolent ‘‘higher of twenty-first-century technology, the future is blissfully
beings’’ or ‘‘destroyer of humanity’’ (Geraci 2007). bright. Initially, human bodies will be perfected through
Variously termed as Technosalvation (Geraci 2010), genetic manipulation and the fusion of human and
Anne Foerst explores the possibility of soulful robots in her machine; later, human beings will completely shed the
chapter in the book God for the 21st Century. Theologi- shackles of pain, disease, and even death, as human minds
cally, the Judeo-Christian tradition regards human beings are downloaded into death-free robots whereby they can
as ‘‘created in the image and likeness of God’’ (Genesis live forever in a heavenly ‘‘posthuman’’ existence. In this
1:26, 27). The majority of Jewish and Christian theologians techno-utopian future, humanity will be saved by the
have attempted to identify the divine part of humankind godlike power of technology. However, posthuman evo-
with particular empirical features: our creativity; our use of lution can mark the beginning of the end of human free-
language, logic, and reason; the human ability to think in dom, values, and identity (Dinello 2005).
an abstract way; even our humor, or just the way we look. When asked by Eric Norden in 1968, Kubrick, the
Similarly, in the Search for God in the Digital World, Cobb director of the movie A Space Odyssey, elaborated that life
(1998) proposed the idea of the Divine in the Information forms may progress from biological species, which are
Age. As computers and artificial intelligence systems fragile shells for the mind at best, into immortal machine
become more sophisticated, the question of whether we can entities—and then, over innumerable eons, they could
find spiritual life in cyberspace is beginning to be asked. emerge from the chrysalis of matter transformed into
beings of pure energy and spirit. Their potentialities would
be limitless and their intelligence ungraspable by current
3.6 Co-evolution: co-evolution of Homo sapiens
humans.
and Robo Sapiens
In his book Flesh and Machines (2002), Brooks avoids
the salvation or damnation dichotomy that presents robots
We will meet where the dreams are born
as the path to immortality by adopting a broader than usual
(From the movie, AI)
definition of robots. Robots are not only mechanical beings
Set sometime in the future, AI tells the story of David, a (‘‘machine–machines’’), but also the entities that result
child-like android uniquely programmed with the ability to from the merger of humans and machines (‘‘man–
love. While development of AI originally began with machines’’). In Brooks’ view, the human elements will not,
director Stanley Kubrick in the early 1970s, the discussion so to speak, be lost, but rather augmented thus remaining

123
AI & Soc (2013) 28:309–318 317

always one step ahead of the machine. Flesh and Machines artificial intelligences and our treatment of them that will
deals with the evolution of both ‘‘species.’’ Brooks (2002) test us, and what it means for us to be not only human, but
projects the short-term future of robotics and portrays some also humane (McGraith 2011). We imagine whether
of the features of the society that will embrace them. humans will meet the challenge of loving all living and
Brooks discusses the merger of robots and humans as the non-living beings (including mechanical entities) might be
‘‘third way.’’ the key to the co-evolution of both species and the ultimate
One of the important implications of this view, not only happiness.
for AI but for a general understanding of the world, is that
it bridges the Human versus Others cognitive split, pro-
moting the process of merging with our machines, of cre- References
ating ‘‘man–machines.’’ The dream will then be complete,
with humans becoming ‘‘superhuman’’ in many aspects. Amodio DM, Harmon-Jones E, Devine PG, Curtin JJ, Hartley SL,
Flesh and Machines ends on this positive note of a super- Covert AE (2011) Neural signals for the detection of uninten-
human entity, constantly redefining itself and adapting tional race bias. Psychol Sci 15:88–93
Amstutz G (1998) Shin Buddhism and Protestant analogies with
itself to a new world: A world where science and tech- Christianity in the West. Comp Stud Soc Hist 40:724–747
nology replace faith and provide a new understanding of Bartneck C, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Nomura T (2007) The influence of
humanity. people’s culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude
towards robots. AI Soc 21:217–230
Billard A (2005) Challenges in designing the body and the mind of an
interactive robot. In: Proceedings of the symposium on robot
4 Conclusion companions: hard problems and open challenges in robot-human
interaction, pp 16–17
The development of new technology has increased the Breazeal C (2003) Toward sociable robots. Rob Auton Syst
42:167–175
probability of human to robot interaction with the robot Brooks RA (2002) Flesh and machines: how robots will change us.
acting as an interactive peer on a daily basis (Ishiguro et al. Pantheon Books, New York
2004). Robots of the past were once used specifically for Burns C (2003) ‘‘Soul-less’’ Christianity and the Buddhist empirical
labor purposes in industrial settings. However, the self: Buddhist–Christian convergence? Buddhist Christ Stud
23:87–100
advancement of robot technology indicates that human to Calverley D (2006) Android science and animal rights, does an
robot interaction will occur in everyday environments such analogy exist. Connect Sci 18:403–417
as the workplace and within the home (Thrun 2004). As a Cobb JJ (1998) Cybergrace: the search for god in the digital world.
result of the ubiquitous role robots play in everyday life Crown, New York
Cook FH (1989) Sounds of valley streams: enlightenment in Dogen’s
and the assumed daily human to robot interaction, scholars Zen, translation of nine essays from Shobogenzo. State Univer-
have begun to focus on the human to robot interaction sity of New York Press, Albany
across communication contexts (Kim et al. 2011). Duffy Cowen T, Dawson M (2009) What does the Turing test really mean?
(2003) indicated that robots are and will continue to be a And how many human beings (including Turing) could pass?
Accessed 4 Oct 2011
separate race. Yet, we as humans still view humanoid Dalai Lama (1997) Interview with Jeff Greenwald. Salon Magazine,
robots as entities that constitutes merely as a viable non- 27 Feb 1997
human outgroup. Dator J (2007) Religion and war in the 21st century. In: Tenri
The relationship between human consciousness and AI Daigaku Chiiki Bunka Kenyu Center (ed) Senso, Shukyo, Heiwa
[War, Religion, Peace], Tenri Daigaku 80 Shunen Kinen [Tenri
is a vast subject. The questions posed in this paper are University 80th anniversary celebration]. Tenri Daigaku, Tenri-
simply an invitation to create a vision of how the futures Shi, pp 34–51
might look if we create a technology that was more Dator J, Seo Y (2004) Korea as the wave of a future: the emerging
advanced than our human brain. Currently, most people Dream Society of icons and aesthetic experience. J Futures Stud
9:31–44
would disagree with assigning robots the status of a race. A Davis E (1998) TechGnosis: myth, magic, and mysticism in the age of
widely accepted belief is that robots are non-humans and information. Harmony Books, New York
should be positioned outside all humans as a human-made Dinello D (2005) Technophobia!: science fiction visions of Posthu-
technological artifact. According to Calverley (2006), if the man technology. University of Texas Press, Austin
Duffy BR (2003) Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Rob Auton
android exhibits characteristics that are similar to those we Syst 42:177–190
are willing to recognize as imparting moral consideration Fiske ST (2010) Are we born racist?. Beacon Press, Boston
to animals, then treating the android as a being with value, Foerst A (1998a) Embodied AI, creation, and cog. Zygon J Relig Sci
at least in Kant’s terms, enhances our own self-worth. In 33:455–461
Foerst A (1998b) Cog, a humanoid robot, and the question of the
the end, the biggest issue is not how to test our machine image of god. Zygon J Relig Sci 33:91–111
creations to determine their status and characteristics. Foerst A (2004) God in the machine: what robots teach us about
When it comes down to it, it will be the creation of such humanity and god. Dutton, New York

123
318 AI & Soc (2013) 28:309–318

Fowler C (2004) The archaeology of personhood: an anthropological androids in social and cognitive science research’’. Interact Stud
approach. Routledge, London 7:361–368
Geraci R (2006) Spiritual robots: religion and our scientific view of McGraith JF (2007, Sept) Artificial minds and human religions: an
the natural world. Theol Sci 4:229–246 illustration of the diversity of possible intersections between
Geraci RM (2007) Robots and the sacred in science and science religious thought and practice and technological advance. Paper
fiction: theological implications of artificial intelligence. Zygon J presented to the Transdisciplinary approaches of the dialogue
Relig Sci 42:961–980 between science, art and religion in the Europe of tomorrow
Geraci RM (2010) Apocalyptic AI: visions of heaven in robotics, (edited by Nicolescu B, Stavinschi M)
artificial intelligence, and virtual reality. Oxford University McGraith JF (ed) (2011) Religion and science fiction. Pickwick,
Press, New York Eugene
Gong L (2008) The boundary of racial prejudice: comparing Moravec H (2000) Robot: mere machine to transcendent mind.
preferences for computer-synthesized White, Black, and robot Oxford University Press, New York
characters. Comput Hum Behav 24:2074–2093 Morioka M (1991) The concept of Inochi: a philosophical perspective
Gudykunst WB, Kim YY (1984) Communicating with strangers: an on the study of life. Jpn Rev 2:83–115
approach to intercultural communication, 1st edn. McGraw-Hill, Nelson V (2001) The secret life of puppets. Harvard University Press,
New York Cambridge
Gulerce A (1997) Agendas for multicultural discourse research. In: Nongkynrih KS (ed) (2007) Around the hearth: Khasi legends.
Shi-xu (ed) Discourse and cultural struggle. Hong Kong Penguin Books, New Delhi
University Press, Hong Kong, pp 29–46 Otto R (1917/1923) The idea of the holy (trans: Harvey JW). Oxford
Hall S (1997) Representation: cultural representations and signifying University Press, London
practices. Sage, London Peterson MF (2007) The heritage of cross cultural management
Haraway DJ (1991) Simians, cyborgs, and women. Routledge, New research: implications for the Hofstede Chair in Cultural
York Diversity. Int J Cross Cult Manag 7:359–377
Harris LT, Fiske ST (2006a) Social groups that elicit disgust are Plawiuk E (2005) Gothic capitalism: the horror of accumulation and
differentially processed in mPFC. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci the commodification of humanity. Le Revue Gauche: A Journal
2:45–51 of Libertarian Communist Analysis and Comment
Harris LT, Fiske ST (2006b) Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Robertson J (2007) Robo Sapiens Japanicus: humanoid robots and the
neuroimaging responses to extreme out-groups. Psychol Sci Posthuman family. Crit Asian Stud 39:369–398
17:847–853 Rushe D (2010) Dawn of the age of the robot: advancement in
Haslam N (2006) Dehumanization: an integrative review. Person Soc robotics will dominate next decade, says head of the Institute for
Psychol Rev 10(3):252–264 the Future. The Guardian, 29 Dec 2010. http://www.guardian.
Ishiguro H, Kanda T, Hirano T, Eaton D (2004) Interactive robots as co.uk/business/2010/dec/30/futurologist-predicts-age-of-robots.
social partners and peer tutors for children: a field trial. Hum Retrieved 3 March 2011
Comput Interact 19:61–84 South Korea Creates Ethical Code for Righteous Robots (2007) New
Kenyon SH (2008) Would you still love me if I was a robot? J Evol scientist. http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn11334-south-
Technol 19:17–27 korea-creates-ethical-code-for-righteous-robots.html. Retrieved 30
Kim MS, Sur J, Gong L (2009) Humans and humanoid social robots Aug 2007
in communication. AI Soc 24:317–325 Tanno DT, Jandt FE (1998) Redefining the ‘‘Other’’ in multicultural
Kim MS, Gong L, Saito N, Nishigaya K, Cabico M, LaFontaine P research. In: Martin JN, Nakayama TK, Flores LA (eds)
(2011) The role of self-construal on preferred communication Readings in cultural contexts. Mayfield, Mountain View,
styles with humanoid robots. Int J HR 8:359–374 pp 477–484
Kubrick S (1968, Sept). Interview by Eric Norden, Playboy. Thrun S (2004) Toward a framework for human–robot interaction.
Reprinted in: Phillips GD (ed) Stanley Kubrick: Interviews. Hum Comput Interact 19:9–24
University Press of Mississippi, 2001, pp 47–48 Turkle S (1984) The second self: computers and the human spirit.
Kurzweil R (2000) The age of spiritual machines: when computers Simon and Schuster, New York
exceed human intelligence. Penguin Books, New York Umezawa R (2010) We, robots. [The spirit age: mindfully stumbling
Levinas E, Cohen RA (translator) (1985) Ethics and infinity. through modernity]. http://www.the-spirit-age.com/2010/07/
Duquesne University Press we-robots.html. Retrieved 3 Sept 2011
MacDorman KF, Ishiguro H (2006) Opening Pandora’s uncanny box: Zhao S (2006) Humanoid social robots as a medium of communi-
reply to commentaries on ‘‘The uncanny advantage of using cation. New Media Soc 8(3):401–419

123