Moral Psychology and Artificial Agents (Part Two): The Transhuman Connection

Moral Psychology and Artificial Agents (Part Two): The Transhuman Connection

Michael Laakasuo, Jukka R. I. Sundvall, Anton Berg, Marianna Drosinou, Volo Herzon, Anton Kunnari, Mika Koverola, Marko Repo, Teemu Saikkonen, Jussi Palomäki
Copyright: © 2021 |Pages: 16
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-4894-3.ch011
OnDemand:
(Individual Chapters)
Available
$37.50
Current Special Offers
No Current Special Offers
TOTAL SAVINGS: $37.50

Abstract

Part 1 concluded by introducing the concept of the new ontological category – explaining how our cognitive machinery does not have natural and intuitive understanding of robots and AIs, unlike we have for animals, tools, and plants. Here the authors review findings in the moral psychology of robotics and transhumanism. They show that many peculiarities arise from the interaction of human cognition with robots, AIs, and human enhancement technologies. Robots are treated similarly, but not completely, like humans. Some such peculiarities are explained by mind perception mechanisms. On the other hand, it seems that transhumanistic technologies like brain implants and mind uploading are condemned, and the condemnation is motivated by our innate sexual disgust sensitivity mechanisms.
Chapter Preview
Top

Defining Transhumanism

The term “transhumanism” was originally defined by biologist and first UNESCO director, Julian Huxley, as a belief in the possibility of “man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing the new possibilities of and for his human nature” (1957). Whereas Huxley emphasized both the spiritual and communal aspects of this enterprise, the term was later adopted by thinkers focused on the technological aspects of human improvement; that is, human cognitive and physical enhancement or alteration going beyond our normal limits. Today, transhumanism is an umbrella term for philosophical, religious, aesthetical, social and political movements, engineering, various research projects, worldviews, and lifestyles claiming that: a) the current state of humanity is not the endpoint of its evolution, and b) humanity can (and maybe should) take conscious action to guide its own evolution through technological means (O’Connell, 2018; Thompson, 2014; see also Lin et al., 2014a; 2014b).

Complete Chapter List

Search this Book:
Reset