Normative Affordances Through and By Technology: Technological Mediation and Human Enhancement.

Niklas Alexander Döbler; Clemens Bartnik

doi:10.9781/ijimai.2022.09.006

Authors

Niklas Alexander Döbler University of Bamberg https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7935-727X
Clemens Bartnik University of Amsterdam

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2022.09.006

Keywords:

Affordances, Ethics, Human Enhancement, Postphenomenology, Technology

Supporting Agencies

The authors want to thank Albrecht Kleinlein for his proofreading. Special thanks to Claus-Christian Carbon for his guidance in the creation process of the manuscript. This is an extended version of a text, that was presented at the 1st International Conference on Disruptive Technologies Tech Ethics and Artificial Intelligence (DiTTEt 2021), held from 9/15-9/17 in Salamanca (Spain) and can be found here: DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-87687-6_15. Modifications include improving language and style, elaborating arguments, and adding the section discussing Human Enhancement.

Abstract

Human activity is fundamentally embedded in and constituted by technology. In this regard, technology influences not only how people experience the world, but also which possibilities for action offered by the environment (affordances) can be perceived and ultimately acted upon. As having socio-cultural and normative aspects, affordances are deeply relational to the technological human form of life. Postphenomenology describes several human-technology relations and their perception and action mediating effects. Therefore, it provides a suitable framework to examine how technology mediates the perception of affordances and leads to different behavioral outcomes. Technology can reveal hitherto hidden affordances but can also result in the manipulation and concealment of action possibilities. Both aspects can be deliberately controlled by using a particular technology and/or interfering with the technological hermeneutic process. Technological mal-functions, limitations, purposeful corruption, or human error can disrupt the hermeneutic qualities of technology and may lead to false conclusions about affordances and respective maladaptive behavioral outcomes. Technology can also be applied to humans to form “better” versions of them. One consequence of these so-called Human Enhancement technologies is the emergence of different affordances for the enhanced individual and the possible establishment of new affordances inside a form of life. Manipulating the perception and emergence of affordances through technological mediation or Human Enhancement can have severe political and ethical consequences. It is necessary to engage in an open debate about the perception and action mediating power of technology and the human reliance on them in our current and future form of life.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ihde, D., Technology and the lifeworld. From garden to earth, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1 Jan. 1990, 226.

Gibson, J. J., The theory of affordances, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1 Jan. 1979.

Withagen, R., and Costall, A., “What does the concept of affordances afford?,” Adaptive Behavior, 1 Jan. 2021. doi: 10.1177/1059712320982683.

Lanamäki, A., Devinder, T., and Stendal, K., “What does a chair afford? A Heideggerian perspective of affordance,” Selected Papers of the IRIS, Issue Nr 6, 1 Jan. 2015, URL: https://aisel.aisnet.org/iris2015/2

Rietveld, E., and Kiverstein, J., “A rich landscape of affordances,” Ecological Psychology, Vol. 26, No. 4, 1 Jan. 2014, pp. 325–352. doi: 10.1080/10407413.2014.958035.

Ramstead, M. J. D., Veissière, S. P. L., and Kirmayer, L. J., “Cultural affordances: Scaffolding local worlds through shared intentionality and regimes of attention,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 7, 1 Jan. 2016. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01090.

Coeckelbergh, M., “Technology games: Using Wittgenstein for understanding and evaluating technology,” Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 24, No. 5, 1 Jan. 2018, pp. 1503–1519. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9953-8.

Allenby, B. R., and Sarewitz, D. R., The techno-human condition, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1 Jan. 2011, 222.

Coeckelbergh, M., Human being @ risk. Enhancement, technology, and the evaluation of vulnerability transformations, Springer, 1 Jan. 2013.

Ihde, D., and Malafouris, L., “Homo faber revisited: Postphenomenology and Material Engagement Theory,” Philosophy & Technology, Vol. 32, No. 2, 1 Jan. 2019, pp. 195–214. doi: 10.1007/s13347-018-0321-7.

Malafouris, L., How things shape the mind. A theory of material engagement, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1 Jan. 2013, 304.

Rietveld, E., Denys, D., and van Westen, M., “Ecological-enactive cognition as engaging with a field of relevant affordances: The skilled intentionality framework (SIF),” The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition, edited by A. Newen, L. de Bruin and S. Gallagher, Oxford University Press, 1 Jan. 2018, pp. 41–70.

Verbeek, P.-P., What things do, Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA, 1 Jan. 2005.

Verbeek, P.-P., Moralizing technology. Understanding and designing the morality of things, University of Chicago Press, 1 Jan. 2011, 200.

Klenk, M., “How do technological artefacts embody moral values?,” Philosophy & Technology, Vol. 34, No. 3, 1 Jan. 2021, pp. 525–544. doi: 10.1007/s13347-020-00401-y.

Tollon, F., “Artifacts and affordances: from designed properties to possibilities for action,” AI & SOCIETY, 1 Jan. 2021. doi: 10.1007/s00146-021-01155-7.

Dings, R., “Meaningful affordances,” Synthese, Vol. 199, 1-2, 1 Jan. 2021, pp. 1855–1875. doi: 10.1007/s11229-020-02864-0.

Aagaard, J., “Introducing postphenomenological research: a brief and selective sketch of phenomenological research methods,” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol. 30, No. 6, 1 Jan. 2016, pp. 519–533. doi: 10.1080/09518398.2016.1263884.

Ihde, D., Embodied technics, Automatic Press, 1 Jan. 2010.

Ihde, D., Technics and praxis, D. Reidel, Dodrecht, 1 Jan. 1979.

Verbeek, P.-P., “Cyborg intentionality: Rethinking the phenomenology of human–technology relations,” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1 Jan. 2008, pp. 387–395. doi: 10.1007/s11097-008-9099-x.

Verbeek, P.-P., “Toward a theory of technological mediation: A program for postphenomenological research,” Technoscience and postphenomenology. The manhattan papers, edited by J. K. Berg, O. Friis and R. C. Crease, Lexington Books, Lanham, 1 Jan. 2016.

Chemero, A., “An outline of a theory of affordances,” Ecological Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1 Jan. 2003, pp. 181–195. doi: 10.1207/S15326969ECO1502_5.

Stoffregen, T. A., and Mantel, B., “Exploratory movement and affordances in design,” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 29, No. 3, 1 Jan. 2015, pp. 257–265. doi: 10.1017/S0890060415000190.

Boer, B. de, “Explaining multistability: postphenomenology and affordances of technologies,” AI & SOCIETY, 1 Jan. 2021. doi: 10.1007/s00146-021-01272-3.

Withagen, R., Poel, H. J. de, Araújo, D., and Pepping, G.-J., “Affordances can invite behavior: Reconsidering the relationship between affordances and agency,” New Ideas in Psychology, Vol. 30, No. 2, 1 Jan. 2012, pp. 250–258. doi: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.12.003.

Gaver, W. W., “Technology affordances,” Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems Reaching through technology - CHI ‘91, edited by S. P. Robertson, G. M. Olson and J. S. Olson, ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 1 Jan. 1991, pp. 79–84.

Heras-Escribano, M., and Pinedo, M. de, “Are affordances normative?,” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 15, No. 4, 1 Jan. 2016, pp. 565–589. doi: 10.1007/s11097-015-9440-0.

Gier, N. F., “Wittgenstein and forms of life,” Philosophy of the Social Science, Vol. 10, 1 Jan. 1980, pp. 241–258.

Froese, T., “Scientific observation is socio-materially augmented perception: Toward a participatory realism,” Philosophies, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1 Jan. 2022, p. 37. doi: 10.3390/philosophies7020037.

Warren, W. H., “Perceiving affordances: visual guidance of stair climbing,” Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, Vol. 10, No. 5, 1 Jan. 1984, pp. 683–703. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.10.5.683.

Ihde, D., “Stretching the in-between: Embodiment and beyond,” Foundations of Science, Vol. 16, 2-3, 1 Jan. 2011, pp. 109–118. doi: 10.1007/s10699-010-9187-6.

Boer, B. de, Molder, H. t., and Verbeek, P.-P., “‘Braining’ psychiatry: an investigation into how complexity is managed in the practice of neuropsychiatric research,” BioSocieties, 1 Jan. 2021. doi: 10.1057/s41292-021-00242-8.

Heersmink, R., “Varieties of artifacts: Embodied, perceptual, cognitive, and affective,” Topics in Cognitive Science, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1 Jan. 2021, pp. 573–596. doi: 10.1111/tops.12549.

Renk, J., Chernobyl [TV-series], 1 Jan. 2019.

Rietveld, E., and Brouwers, A. A., “Optimal grip on affordances in architectural design practices: an ethnography,” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1 Jan. 2017, pp. 545–564. doi: 10.1007/s11097-016-9475-x.

Clark, A., and Chalmers, D. J., “The extended mind,” Analysis, Vol. 58, No. 1, 1 Jan. 1998, pp. 7–19.

Wheeler, M., and Clark, A., “Culture, embodiment and genes: unravelling the triple helix,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, Vol. 363, No. 1509, 1 Jan. 2008, pp. 3563–3575. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0135.

Heersmink, R., “Extended mind and cognitive enhancement: moral aspects of cognitive artifacts,” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1 Jan. 2017, pp. 17–32. doi: 10.1007/s11097-015-9448-5.

Wheeler, M., “The reappearing tool: transparency, smart technology, and the extended mind,” AI & SOCIETY, Vol. 34, No. 4, 1 Jan. 2019, pp. 857–866. doi: 10.1007/s00146-018-0824-x.

Weckert, S., “Google Maps hacks,” URL: http://www.simonweckert.com/googlemapshacks.html Last accessed 11/01/2022 [retrieved 11 January 2022].

Korzybski, A., Science and sanity; an introduction to Non-Aristotelian systems and general semantics, Lancaster, 1 Jan. 1933.

Warner, J. S., and Johnston, R. G., “GPS spoofing countermeasures,” Homeland Security Journal, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1 Jan. 2003, pp. 19–27, URL: https://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LAUR-03-6163.

Coeckelbergh, M., “Human development or human enhancement? A methodological reflection on capabilities and the evaluation of information technologies,” Ethics and Information Technology, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1 Jan. 2011, pp. 81–92. doi: 10.1007/s10676-010-9231-9.

Allhoff, F., Lin, P., Moor, J., and Weckert, J., “Ethics of human enhancement: 25 Questions & answers,” Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1 Jan. 2010, pp. 1–39. doi: 10.2202/1941-6008.1110.

James, D., “The ethics of using engineering to enhance athletic performance,” Procedia Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1 Jan. 2010, pp. 3405–3410. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2010.04.165.

Buchanan, A. E., Beyond humanity? The ethics of biomedical enhancement, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1 Jan. 2011, 286.

Browne, T. K., and Clarke, S., “Bioconservatism, bioenhancement and backfiring,” Journal of moral education, Vol. 49, No. 2, 1 Jan. 2020, pp. 241–256. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2019.1576125.

Bostrom, N., “Transhumanist values,” Ethical Issues for the 21st Century, edited by F. Adams, Philosophical Documentation Center Press, 1 Jan. 2003, pp. 3–14.

Hauskeller, M., Better humans? Understanding the enhancement project, Acumen, Durham, 1 Jan. 2013, 223.

Dupuy, J.-P., “Cybernetics Is antihumanism: Advanced technologies and the rebellion against the human condition,” H± transhumanism and its critics, edited by G. R. Hansell and W. Grassie, Xlibris, Philidelphia, 1 Jan. 2011, pp. 227–248.

Sandberg, A., “Morphological Freedom - Why we not just want It, but need it,” The Transhumanist Reader, edited by M. More and N. Vita-More, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, West Sussex, 1 Jan. 2013, pp. 58–64.

Szocik, K., Norman, Z., and Reiss, M. J., “Ethical challenges in human space missions: A space refuge, scientific value, and human gene editing for space,” Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1 Jan. 2020, pp. 1209–1227. doi: 10.1007/s11948-019-00131-1.

Kirsh, D., “Adapting the environment instead of oneself,” Adaptive Behavior, Vol. 4, No. 3/4, 1 Jan. 1996, pp. 415–452. doi: 10.1177/105971239600400307.

Pustovrh, T., Mali, F., and Arnaldi, S., “Are better workers also better humans? On pharmacological cognitive enhancement in the workplace and conflicting societal domains,” NanoEthics, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1 Jan. 2018, pp. 301–313. doi: 10.1007/s11569-018-0332-y.

Bostrom, N., and Roache, R., “Ethical issues in human enhancement,” New waves in applied ethics, edited by J. Ryberg, T. Petersen and C. Wolf, Pelgrave Macmillan, 1 Jan. 2008, pp. 120–152.

Clynes, M. E., and Kline, N. S., “Cyborgs and space,” Astronautics, 1 Jan. 1960, 26–27/74-76.

Yetisen, A. K., “Biohacking,” Trends in biotechnology, Vol. 36, No. 8, 1 Jan. 2018, pp. 744–747. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.02.011.

Barfield, W., “The process of evolution, human enhancement technology, and cyborgs,” Philosophies, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1 Jan. 2019, pp. 1–14. doi: 10.3390/philosophies4010010.

Clark, A., Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1 Jan. 2003.

Coeckelbergh, M., New romantic cyborgs. Romanticism, information technology, and the end of the machine, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1 Jan. 2017, 332.

Martel, M., Cardinali, L., Roy, A. C., and Farnè, A., “Tool-use: An open window into body representation and its plasticity,” Cognitive Neuropsychology, Vol. 33, 1-2, 1 Jan. 2016, pp. 82–101. doi: 10.1080/02643294.2016.1167678.

Weser, V. U., and Proffitt, D. R., “Expertise in tool use promotes tool embodiment,” Topics in Cognitive Science, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1 Jan. 2021, pp. 597–609. doi: 10.1111/tops.12538.

Vignemont, F. de, “Embodiment, ownership and disownership,” Consciousness and Cognition, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1 Jan. 2011, pp. 82–93. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2010.09.004.

Kieliba, P., Clode, D., Maimon-Mor, R. O., and Makin, T. R., “Robotic hand augmentation drives changes in neural body representation,” Science robotics, Vol. 6, No. 54, 1 Jan. 2021. doi: 10.1126/scirobotics.abd7935.

Clark, A., “Re-inventing ourselves: The plasticity of embodiment, sensing, and mind,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, Vol. 32, 1 Jan. 2007, pp. 263–282. doi: 10.1080/03605310701397024.

Döbler, N. A., and Carbon, C.-C., “Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: A human enhancement story,” Translational Medicine Communications, Vol. 6, 1 Jan. 2021. doi: 10.1186/s41231-021-00104-2.

Greely, H. T., “Regulating human biological enhancements: Questionable justifications and international complications,” Santa Clara Journal of International Law, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1 Jan. 2006, pp. 87–110.

Carbon, C.-C., “Psychology of design,” Design Science, Vol. 5, No. 26, 1 Jan. 2019. doi: 10.1017/dsj.2019.25.

Ireni-Saban, L., and Sherman, M., “Cyborg ethics and regulation: ethical issues of human enhancement,” Science and Public Policy, 1 Jan. 2021. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scab058.

Danaher, J., “Hyperagency and the good life – Does extreme enhancement threaten meaning?,” Neuroethics, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1 Jan. 2014, pp. 227–242. doi: 10.1007/s12152-013-9200-1.

Haff, P., “Humans and technology in the Anthropocene: Six rules,” The Anthropocene Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1 Jan. 2014, pp. 126–136. doi: 10.1177/2053019614530575.