skip to main content
10.1145/3532525.3532528acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesahConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Transhumanism as a Philosophical and Cultural Framework for Extended Reality Applied to Human Augmentation

Authors Info & Claims
Published:26 May 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

We propose transhumanism as a philosophical and cultural framework for contextualizing, characterizing, and examining physical-digital environments designed to amplify, augment, mediate, and extend human sensorimotor abilities and intelligence. To this end, we connect transhumanism with Milgram’s Reality-Virtuality continuum, Mann’s reality mediators, and Baudrillard’s concept of the hyperreal to discuss innovations in human augmentation with the technology of Extended Reality (XR). We discuss three prototypes for human augmentation implemented with XR technology designed to be worn or integrated in the environment, for which we present implications in relation to the three core conditions for transhumanism (global security, technological progress, and wide access) and four levels at which XR determines human augmentation (instrumentation, integration, control, and sensation). In the context where transhumanism can characterize the bridging state between being human and posthuman in a world that becomes into being, we conclude with the need for an XR ethics specifically addressing human augmentation.

References

  1. 1998. Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle. https://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/precaution-3.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Yomna Abdelrahman, Pascal Knierim, Pawel W. Wozniak, Niels Henze, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2017. See through the Fire: Evaluating the Augmentation of Visual Perception of Firefighters Using Depth and Thermal Cameras. In Proc. of the ACM Int. Joint Conf. on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing(UbiComp ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 693–696. https://doi.org/10.1145/3123024.3129269Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. F. Allhoff, P. Lin, J. Moor, and J. Weckert. 2010. Ethics of Human Enhancement: 25 Questions & Answers. Stud Ethics Law Technol. 4, 1, Article 4(2010), 39 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Ronald T. Azuma. 1997. A Survey of Augmented Reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 6, 4(1997), 355–385. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Ronald T. Azuma. 2019. The road to ubiquitous consumer augmented reality systems. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 1, 1 (2019), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.113Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Jean Baudrillard. 1994. Simulacra and Simulation (translation by Sheila Faria Glaser. University of Michigan Press. https://www.press.umich.edu/9900/simulacra_and_simulationGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Nick Bostrom. 2005. Transhumanist Values. Review of Contemporary Philosophy 4 (May 2005). https://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/values.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. N. Bostrom. 2014. Introduction - The Transhumanist FAQ: A General Introduction. In Transhumanism and the Body, Mercer C. and Maher D.F. (Eds.). Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY, USA, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137342768_1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. P. Brey. 1999. The ethics of representation and action in virtual reality. Ethics and Information Technology 1 (1999), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010069907461Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Philip Brey. 2000. Method in computer ethics: Towards a multi-level interdisciplinary approach. Ethics and Information Technology 2 (2000), 125–129. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010076000182Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Maurizio Caon, Vincent Menuz, and Johann A. R. Roduit. 2016. We Are Super-Humans: Towards a Democratisation of the Socio-Ethical Debate on Augmented Humanity. In Proc. of the 7th Augmented Human Int. Conf.(AH ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 26, 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2875194.2875223Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Vinton G. Cerf. 2013. Augmented Intelligence. IEEE Internet Computing 17, 5 (sep 2013), 95–96. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2013.90Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. M. Cranford. 1996. The social trajectory of virtual reality: Substantive ethics in a world without constraints. Technology in Society 18, 1 (1996), 79–92.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Kevin Fan, Jochen Huber, Suranga Nanayakkara, and Masahiko Inami. 2014. SpiderVision: Extending the Human Field of View for Augmented Awareness. In Proc. of the 5th Augmented Human International Conference(AH ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 49, 8 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2582051.2582100Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Leah Findlater, Steven Goodman, Yuhang Zhao, Shiri Azenkot, and Margot Hanley. 2020. Fairness Issues in AI Systems That Augment Sensory Abilities. SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing125, Article 8 (mar 2020), 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3386296.3386304Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Luciano Floridi. 2015. Commentary on the Onlife Manifesto. In The Onlife Manifesto, Luciano Floridi (Ed.). Springer, Cham, 21–23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Lourdes Velázquez G. 2021. New Challenges for Ethics: The Social Impact of Posthumanism, Robots, and Artificial Intelligence. Journal of Healthcare Engineering 2021, Article 5593467(2021). https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5593467Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Richard L. Gregory. 1981. Mind in Science: A History of Explanations in Psychology and Physics. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Jan Gugenheimer, Mark McGill, Samuel Huron, Christian Mai, Julie Williamson, and Michael Nebeling. 2020. Exploring Potentially Abusive Ethical, Social and Political Implications of Mixed Reality Research in HCI. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI EA ’20). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3375180Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Steve Harrison and Paul Dourish. 1996. Re-Place-Ing Space: The Roles of Place and Space in Collaborative Systems. In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work(CSCW ’96). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1145/240080.240193Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. 1969. The Science of Logic (A.V. Miller trans.). Humanity Books, Amherst, MA, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Martin Heidegger. 1977. The Question Concerning Technology (translation by William Lovitt). Harper Colophon Books, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. S. Holm and J. Harris. 1999. Precautionary principle stifles discovery. Nature 400, Article 398 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1038/22626Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Hiroshi Ishii, Craig Wisneski, Scott Brave, Andrew Dahley, Matt Gorbet, Brygg Ullmer, and Paul Yarin. 1998. AmbientROOM: Integrating Ambient Media with Architectural Space. In CHI 98 Conference Summary on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’98). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 173–174.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Shunichi Kasahara, Kazuma Takada, Jun Nishida, Kazuhisa Shibata, Shinsuke Shimojo, and Pedro Lopes. 2021. Preserving Agency During Electrical Muscle Stimulation Training Speeds up Reaction Time Directly After Removing EMS. In Proc. of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 194, 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445147Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Ben Kenwright. 2018. Virtual Reality: Ethical Challenges and Dangers. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 37, 4 (2018), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2018.2876104Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Tobias Langlotz, Jonathan Sutton, Stefanie Zollmann, Yuta Itoh, and Holger Regenbrecht. 2018. ChromaGlasses: Computational Glasses for Compensating Colour Blindness. In Proc. of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173964Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Pedro Lopes, Alexandra Ion, Willi Mueller, Daniel Hoffmann, Patrik Jonell, and Patrick Baudisch. 2015. Proprioceptive Interaction. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 939–948. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702461Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. R.L. Mace, G.J. Hardie, and J.P. Place. 2015. Accessible Environments: Toward Universal Design. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315714301Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Michael Madary and Thomas K. Metzinger. 2016. Real Virtuality: A Code of Ethical Conduct. Recommendations for Good Scientific Practice and the Consumers of VR-Technology. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 3 (2016), 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2016.00003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Steve Mann. 1999. Mediated Reality. Linux J. 1999, 59es (March 1999), 5–es. https://doi.org/www.linuxjournal.com/article/3265Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Steve Mann, Tom Furness, Yu Yuan, Jay Iorio, and Zixin Wang. 2018. All Reality: Virtual, Augmented, Mixed (X), Mediated (X,Y), and Multimediated Reality. https://doi.org/arxiv.org/abs/1804.08386 arxiv:1804.08386 [cs.HC]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. V. Menuz, T. Hurlimann, and B. Godard. 2013. Is Human Enhancement also a Personal Matter?Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (2013), 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9294-yGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Andy Miah. 2012. Ethics Issues Raised by Human Enhancement. In Values and Ethics for the 21st Century. BBVA, 167–197. https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/books/values-and-ethics-for-the-21st-century/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Paul Milgram and Fumio Kishino. 1994. A Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays. IEICE Trans. Inf. Sys. E77-D, 12 (1994), 1321–1329.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Max More. 2013. The Proactionary Principle. Optimizing Technological Outcomes. John Wiley & Sons, UK. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118555927.ch26Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Alan F. Newell and Peter Gregor. 2000. ”User Sensitive Inclusive Design”-in Search of a New Paradigm. In Proc. on the Conference on Universal Usability(CUU ’00). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/355460.355470Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Jun Nishida, Soichiro Matsuda, Hiroshi Matsui, Shan-Yuan Teng, Ziwei Liu, Kenji Suzuki, and Pedro Lopes. 2020. HandMorph: A Passive Exoskeleton That Miniaturizes Grasp. In Proc. of the 33rd ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology(UIST ’20). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 565–578.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. C. Pamparău and R.-D. Vatavu. 2021. FlexiSee: Flexible Configuration, Customization, and Control of Mediated and Augmented Vision for Users of Smart Eyewear Devices. Multimedia Tools and Applications 80 (2021), 30943–30968.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Bogdan Popoveniuc. 2016. Philosophy of the Singularity. The Global Brain, An Ethics of Thinking Without the Human. EIKON, Bucharest.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Stefan Poslad. 2009. Ubiquitous Computing: Smart Devices, Environments and Interactions. John Wiley & Sons, UK.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Kathy Pretz. 2019. Transhumanism: Where Physical and Digital Worlds Meld. IEEE Spectrum (2019). https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-institute/ieee-news/transhumanism-where-physical-and-digital-worlds-meldGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Erick Jose Ramirez. 2021. The Ethics of Virtual and Augmented Reality: Building Worlds. Routledge, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003042228Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Roberto Saracco. 2018. Transhumanism: Evolving the Human Body III. https://cmte.ieee.org/futuredirections/2018/08/10/transhumanism-evolving-the-human-body-iii/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. S.K. Semwal, R. Jackson, C. Liang, J. Nguyen, and S. Deetman. 2021. Preservers of XR Technologies and Transhumanism as Dynamical, Ludic and Complex System. In Proceedings of the Future Technologies Conference. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63089-8_19Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Esther Shein. 2019. Exoskeletons Today. Commun. ACM 62, 3 (feb 2019), 14–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3303851Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Richard Skarbez, Missie Smith, and Mary C. Whitton. 2021. Revisiting Milgram and Kishino’s Reality-Virtuality Continuum. Frontiers in Virtual Reality 2 (2021), 27. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2021.647997Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Mel Slater, Cristina Gonzalez-Liencres, Patrick Haggard, Charlotte Vinkers, Rebecca Gregory-Clarke, Steve Jelley, Zillah Watson, Graham Breen, Raz Schwarz, William Steptoe, Dalila Szostak, Shivashankar Halan, Deborah Fox, and Jeremy Silver. 2020. The Ethics of Realism in Virtual and Augmented Reality. Frontiers in Virtual Reality 1 (2020), 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2020.00001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Stefan L. Sorgner. 2020. On Transhumanism (translation by S. Hawkins). Penn State U. Press. https://www.psupress.org/books/titles/978-0-271-08792-4.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Maximilian Speicher, Brian D. Hall, and Michael Nebeling. 2019. What is Mixed Reality?. In Proc. of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300767Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. J.S. Spiegel. 2018. The Ethics of Virtual Reality Technology: Social Hazards and Public Policy Recommendations. Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (2018), 1537–1550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9979-yGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Bernard Stiegler. 1998. Technics and Time: The Fault of Epimetheus. Stanford University Press. https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=2333Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Keisuke Suzuki, Sarah N. Garfinkel, Hugo D. Critchley, and Anil K. Seth. 2013. Multisensory integration across exteroceptive and interoceptive domains modulates self-experience in the rubber-hand illusion. Neuropsychologia 51, 13 (2013), 2909–2917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.08.014Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Radu-Daniel Vatavu. 2022. Are Ambient Intelligence and Augmented Reality Two Sides of the Same Coin? Implications for Human-Computer Interaction. In Proc. of the CHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 8 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519710Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Radu-Daniel Vatavu, Annette Mossel, and Christian Schönauer. 2016. Digital Vibrons: Understanding Users’ Perceptions of Interacting with Invisible, Zero-Weight Matter. In Proc. of the 18th Int. Conf. on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services(MobileHCI ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 217–226.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Luke Vink, Viirj Kan, Ken Nakagaki, Daniel Leithinger, Sean Follmer, Philipp Schoessler, Amit Zoran, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2015. TRANSFORM as Adaptive and Dynamic Furniture. In Proc. of the 33rd ACM Conf. Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI EA ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 183.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. John Waterworth and Kei Hoshi. 2016. Human-Experiential Design of Presence in Everyday Blended Reality: Living in the Here and Now. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30334-5Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Ludwig Wittgenstein. 1961. Logico-Philosophicus, trans. D.F. Pears & B.F. McGuinnes. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Jacob O. Wobbrock, Krzysztof Z. Gajos, Shaun K. Kane, and Gregg C. Vanderheiden. 2018. Ability-Based Design. Commun. ACM 61, 6 (may 2018), 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1145/3148051Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Faye Y. Wu and H. Harry Asada. 2015. ”Hold-and-manipulate” with a single hand being assisted by wearable extra fingers. In Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation(ICRA ’15). 6205–6212. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2015.7140070Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Jing Yang, Yves Frank, and Gábor Sörös. 2019. Hearing Is Believing: Synthesizing Spatial Audio from Everyday Objects to Users. In Proceedings of the 10th Augmented Human International Conference 2019(AH2019). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 28, 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311823.3311872Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  1. Transhumanism as a Philosophical and Cultural Framework for Extended Reality Applied to Human Augmentation

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      AH2022: 13th Augmented Human International Conference
      May 2022
      56 pages
      ISBN:9781450396592
      DOI:10.1145/3532525

      Copyright © 2022 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 26 May 2022

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate121of306submissions,40%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format