Folk-ontological stances toward robots and psychological human likeness

Overview

• This paper discusses the concept of attributing mental states to robots and the philosophical implications of this practice.
• It explores the notion of "ontological commitment" - the idea that by attributing mental states to robots, we are making a commitment to the reality of those mental states.
• The paper identifies different "folk-ontological stances" that people may have towards robots, such as realism, non-realism, eliminativism, reductionism, fictionalism, and agnosticism.
• It also discusses instrumentalism as a folk-epistemological stance, which concerns how people understand the cognitive capabilities of robots.
• The paper argues that people's folk-ontological stances can influence their perception of the human-likeness of robots.

Plain English Explanation

When we interact with robots, we often attribute mental states to them, such as thoughts, beliefs, and feelings. But what does it mean to "attribute" a mental state, and what are the philosophical implications of doing so?

The paper suggests that by attributing mental states to robots, we may be making a commitment to the reality of those mental states. In other words, we might be suggesting that the robot actually has genuine mental states, rather than just simulating them.

The paper explores different ways that people might think about the "minds" of robots. Some people might be realists, believing that robots truly have mental states. Others might be non-realists, thinking that the mental states we attribute to robots are not real. There are also other possible stances, like eliminativism (rejecting the idea of robot minds altogether) or fictionalism (treating robot minds as useful fictions).

The key point is that the way we think about robot minds can influence how we perceive the human-likeness of robots. Understanding these different perspectives can help researchers in human-robot interaction better understand how people relate to and interact with robots.

Technical Explanation

The paper explores the philosophical question of whether attributing mental states to robots necessarily implies a commitment to the reality of those mental states. It argues that, on a plausible interpretation of "attribution" and "ontological commitment," it is not clear how mental state attribution can occur without any ontological commitment.

Drawing inspiration from the debate on scientific realism, the authors identify a provisional taxonomy of "folk-ontological stances" that people may hold towards robots. These include realism (believing robot minds are real), non-realism (robot minds are not real), eliminativism (rejecting the idea of robot minds), reductionism (reducing robot minds to physical processes), fictionalism (treating robot minds as useful fictions), and agnosticism (being unsure about the reality of robot minds).

The paper also discusses instrumentalism as a "folk-epistemological stance," which concerns how people understand the cognitive capabilities of robots. Instrumentalists may attribute mental states to robots without necessarily believing those states are real.

Through this analysis, the authors argue that people's folk-ontological stances towards robots and humans can influence their perception of the human-likeness of robots. They suggest that a "folk-ontological turn" in human-robot interaction research could help explicitly determine what beliefs people have about the reality of robot minds.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a thoughtful and nuanced exploration of the philosophical issues surrounding the attribution of mental states to robots. By drawing parallels to the scientific realism debate, the authors offer a robust framework for understanding the various ways people may conceptualize robot minds.

One potential limitation of the paper is its reliance on philosophical thought experiments rather than empirical data. While the authors' taxonomic approach is compelling, it would be valuable to see how these folk-ontological stances manifest in real-world human-robot interactions. Further research could explore the relationship between people's ontological beliefs and their perceptions of robot intelligence and human-likeness.

Additionally, the paper does not deeply engage with the ethical implications of different ontological stances towards robots. As debates around robot rights and moral status continue, understanding how people's beliefs about robot minds shape their ethical considerations would be a valuable area of inquiry.

Overall, this paper offers a thought-provoking contribution to the philosophical understanding of human-robot interaction. By encouraging a "folk-ontological turn," the authors highlight the importance of explicitly examining people's beliefs about the nature of robot cognition and consciousness.

Conclusion

This paper delves into the philosophical implications of attributing mental states to robots. It argues that such attribution may inherently involve an ontological commitment to the reality of those mental states, contrary to the common view that this attribution can be made without such a commitment.

The paper presents a taxonomy of different "folk-ontological stances" that people may hold towards robots, ranging from realism to eliminativism. It also discusses instrumentalism as a folk-epistemological stance that concerns how people understand robot cognition.

The key insight is that people's underlying beliefs about the nature of robot minds can significantly influence their perceptions of robot intelligence and human-likeness. This suggests that explicitly examining these folk-ontological stances could be a valuable direction for human-robot interaction research.

By encouraging this "folk-ontological turn," the paper contributes to a deeper understanding of the complex psychological and philosophical factors that shape human-robot relationships.