Group Knowledge

There is knowledge in groups or communities, e.g. in the\ud scientific community, that such and such is the case, and\ud that in some cases groups as groups know; and in all\ud these cases there must be or have been actual knowers.\ud Accordingly, there is knowledge available in social groups,\ud and this knowledge can be "picked up� and had by\ud individual members as knowledge. My main concern in this\ud paper is to give an account of group beliefs and knowledge\ud in the sense that the group members as a group believe or\ud know something. A central case here is normatively\ud binding group belief and knowledge. In such a case the\ud group is obligated to reason and act on the truth of the\ud content of the belief in question. I will assume that a group\ud cannot know unless its members or at least some of them\ud know the item in question. The general ground for this\ud assumption is that group properties supervene on their\ud members' relevant properties (see Tuomela 1995 Chapter\ud 6, for a discussion). A group's normatively binding belief\ud concerning a topic will accordingly depend on its members,\ud beliefs, indeed we-mode "acceptance� beliefs, about the\ud topic and on their relevant "interconnections" concerning it.\ud We-mode acceptance belief centrally involves the idea of\ud functioning fully as a group member (see Tuomela 2002a,\ud 2003a for the we-mode). A member"s private or I-mode\ud beliefs may differ from his relevant we-mode beliefs

Response to Bernhard Schmid

Peer reviewe

Response to Frank Hindriks

Peer reviewe

Response to David Schweikard

Peer reviewe

A We-mode Account of Group Action and Group Responsibility

Peer reviewe

Cultural robotics : The culture of robotics and robotics in culture

Copyright 2013 Samani et al.; licensee InTech. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly citedIn this paper, we have investigated the concept of "Cultural Robotics" with regard to the evolution o social into cultural robots in the 21st Century. By defining the concept of culture, the potential development of culture between humans and robots is explored. Based on the cultural values of the robotics developers, and the learning ability of current robots, cultural attributes in this regard are in the process of being formed, which would define the new concept of cultural robotics. According to the importance of the embodiment of robots in the sense of presence, the influence of robots in communication culture is anticipated. The sustainability of robotics culture based on diversity for cultural communities for various acceptance modalities is explored in order to anticipate the creation of different attributes of culture between robot and humans in the futurePeer reviewe

Response to Raul Hakli and Pekka Mäkelä

Peer reviewe

Response to Kirk Ludwig

Peer reviewe

Response to Michael Schmitz

Peer reviewe