How Does Homo Digitalis Empathize?

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

How Does Homo Digitalis Empathize?

Y.S. Borysenko

H. Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy, the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (Kyiv, Ukraine)

Purpose

The article aimed at identifying the effects of modern digital technologies on the formation of human morality. Theoretical basis. The research base is the practical communicative philosophy. Originality. It lies in the fact that the article considered a moral interaction between a person and artificial intelligence. Conclusions. Nowadays modern digital technologies have acquired a new importance. Previously, they were only passive assistants. But now they are able to actively influence human nature not only from the outside, yet also from the inside. Now they influence not only the form of thoughts but also their character. It is artificial intelligence that is the cause of the phenomenon of the "information bubble" ("echo chamber"). They are formed by mathematical algorithms for each individual user of the Internet. It is because of these algorithms, which are the basis of artificial intelligence, that we can conclude: they are guided only by strategic rationality. Therefore, they relate to the Internet user only as an object. That is why such a situation can also be a manifestation of the expansion of strategic rationality into the lifeworld, which gives rise to social pathologies. New digital technologies (first of all, social networks) are becoming an integral part of a person's everyday life, and therefore the background of his/her life world. Virtual life becomes an important part of real life. However, virtual life is formed by the influence of the information stream, which constantly sets new "trends", including "trends" on morality. That is why a person begins to perceive only those events that are contained in this stream. Moreover, s\he can express his\her empathy only when s/he him/herself is able to join this stream and express it in virtual life.

Keywords: artificial intelligence; Homo digitalis; strategic rationality; moral; social networks; human; individual; personification

Є.С. Борисенко

Інститут філософії імені Г. С. Сковороди, Національна академія наук України (Київ, Україна)

Як співпереживає Homo digitalis?

Since modern technologies have become not just extraneous assistants that only helped and facilitated the performance of work, but actually became a part of a person's everyday life, this could not but affect one's worldview. A lot of research has already been devoted to the influence of modern technologies on human thinking, but it is extremely important to pay attention to the consequences of this influence on human morality, especially against the background of its current crisis.

Statement of basic materials

The modern age has led to the creation of a new type of man -- homo digitalis. Conventionally, we can say that modern technologies began to create a new type of person when analog broadcasting began to be replaced by digital technologies. This is rather a symbolic meaning of the transition to a new era, characterized by the so-called "digitalization". Now technologies penetrate almost all spheres of a person's life, and most importantly - in their everyday life.

Modern technologies are able to create a new person not only in his "corporeal" image, but also in the mental plane. Philosophers have long warned about the danger of the invasion of new biotechnologies. The works of J. Habermas "The Future of Human Nature" and K. M. Mayer- Abikh "Rebellion in Defense of Nature. From Environment to Community" and A. Yermolenko "Social Ethics and Ecology. Human Dignity - Respect for Nature". In them, researchers warn against the possible consequences of the intervention of new technologies in the sphere of human perception and their position in the world. As A. Yermolenko (2020) points out: "...the new "human condition" in the globalized world, defined by the concept of "man as an unfinishable project of history", when man takes control of the further evolution of sapient life on the Earth" (p. 115). Therefore, a person already appears in this sense as a homo creator. Given the possibility of interfering with the biological nature of a person genetically, we can state a number of dangers associated with this. The most important thing is the loss of freedom.

But if the interference in the biological nature of a person either concerns a distant perspective or is still under the control of a person, then the interference in his/her mental world due to the effect of new technologies already exists and carries many unforeseeable dangers. Today, social network algorithms know us better than we know ourselves. Researchers D. Kobelieva and N. Ni- kolaienko (2021) aptly note that "...a person gradually loses him/herself, his/her personality and becomes no longer an information user, but a product of the information environment" (p. 101).

A person becomes a creation of one's own information bubble, which they created specifically for themselves, according to their beliefs and preferences. An illustrative example of the popular video hosting YouTube can be here. If you watch at least a few videos on this platform, the algorithms themselves will suggest both individual videos and entire collections of thematic content for viewing. YouTube creates a personal digital persona for each man, enabling it to recommend videos that are most likely to appeal to that particular user. Video hosting knows your interests well because Artificial Intelligence (AI) analyzes in detail your YouTube/Google search history, YouTube channels you like and topics you are interested in, and based on this data creates an idea about your persona and promotes the most suitable content for you.

Algorithms of the TikTok or Instagram network also work in a similar way -- they are able to record how many minutes/seconds you spent watching a video or image. What's more: now the algorithms of some networks are able to understand whether you liked a video or image, even if you did not interact with it in any way (that is, you did not press the "like" button and did not leave a comment). In addition, the research highlighted in an article in the MIT Technology Review "Hated that video? YouTube's algorithm might push you another just like it" (Kiros, 2022), shows that even if you didn't like the video and left a corresponding reaction (disliked or even sent a complaint), but still watched it in its entirety, YouTube algorithms are very likely to continue to offer you similar content because it caused a strong emotional reaction in you.

Artificial intelligence quite quickly begins to understand the needs of a particular user and to promote to him/her only the information that s/he will look at with the greatest probability. For example, YouTube develops algorithms with the goal of: firstly, showing as much content as possible that the user likes, and secondly, motivating people to return to it again for new views.

In the case of YouTube, this is done for a commercial purpose, because every video is automatically mounted with advertising, which the user must see in order to continue watching or buy a special subscription to watch without it. In addition, in all social networks, there is an opportunity to buy such advertising, as well as to pay for the promotion of your channel on this site.

The effect of algorithms on personality formation leads to two possible problems: ". the use of algorithms for someone's benefit (such as advertising) or, conversely, the absence of any elements of human consciousness in this process. Most fears and discussions are related to the first problem, but in our opinion, the second will have much greater consequences" (Kobelieva & Ni- kolaienko, 2021, p. 107). Therefore, the personality is formed under the influence of strategic rationality, because artificial intelligence is guided by this type of rationality. Communicative rationality, at least at this moment, is not yet available to AI, because it is not capable of selfreflection, since it cannot be aware of itself as a subject, because it is based only on mathematical models. However, the most important sign that AI is guided by strategic rationality is that it sees a person only as an object for analysis: whether it concerns algorithms or, for example, bots in various chat rooms.

An individual whose opinion is formed under the influence of algorithms is not subjected to the quality of opposing opinions, or criticism, instead, receives only that information that already confirms his/her beliefs. In this way, as M. Kultaieva (2020) notes, "the intrusion of information technologies into everyday life changes both the conceptual basis of the definition of a person, differentia specifica and their methodologically relevant image" (p. 15).

Therefore, this is another manifestation of the expansion of strategic rationality into the life world. According to J. Habermas, this provokes the pathologies of modern society. Culture, which is part of the life world and must be formed with the help of communicative rationality, is generated under the influence of strategic tools. And therefore, AI itself begins to be closely interwoven into all structures of a person's daily life, shaping his worldview and even moral consciousness.

Thus, the communicative component of personality formation, which is an important part of, for example, the educational process, is lost. This process should be subject-subjective and involves active communication between the teacher and the student. That is, communicative rationality plays a key role in education. Therefore, education involves the development of not only the cognitive abilities of an individual but also his/her moral development.

The American psychologist L. Kohlberg described the stages in the formation of a person's moral consciousness. He envisaged 3 stages (each of which is further divided into two substages):

I. Pre-conventionalstage - evaluation of one's own actions only in view of their consequences: 1) Fear of punishment - avoidance of undesirable actions. 2) Expectation of encouragement - selfish calculation, action for the sake of profit. At this stage, moral values are quite selfish and hedonistic.

II. Conventional stage - orientation to norms. Origin and development of moral consciousness: 3) A person acts focusing on social expectations. 4) Action according to the norms. The child identifies with norms and expectations. She/he aligns her actions with generally accepted norms, laws, and values, adopted from parents, teachers, coaches, or other important and authoritative persons for her/him. Habermas (1991) notes that the transition to the conventional degree of interaction occurs due to the fact that the perspective of the observer merges with the perspective of the I-Thou relationship and forms a system of action perspectives that can be transformed into one another.

III. The post-conventional stage - the existing norms are not only accepted but also reinterpreted: 5) Understanding and evaluation of norms through the prism of the basic concepts of "life" and "freedom". 6) Norms, values, and laws are considered through the prism of justice. "The postconventional perspective, then, is prior to society; it is the perspective of an individual who has made the moral commitments or holds the standards on which a good or just society must be based" (Kohlberg, 1976, p. 36).

Kohlberg says that there is an intermediate 4.5 stage of development, when a person already begins to think about existing norms, but does not yet reach the correct conclusions. According to A. Yermolenko (1999), "This stage is dangerous because it further exacerbates the crisis of the normative system..." (p. 123). This threatens the emergence of cynicism or moral relativism and skepticism when the old moral norms are rejected or denied, and in their place comes the egoism that is inherent in the 1st and 2nd pre-conventional stages. That is, in fact, there is a significant setback in moral development.

The transitional (4.5) stage has a number of certain characteristics, which were partially described both by Kohlberg himself and by the successors of his tradition, in particular, the American psychologist E. Turiel (1974) gave a rather comprehensive description. Familiarizing ourselves with his work, we can conclude that stage 4.5 has the following characteristics:

The diversity of value attitudes is what doubts raises about the long-recognized general social-ethical norms. Moreover, society is perceived as dictating and imposing these norms.

1. There is doubt about authorities (God, law, etc.). If there is doubt about them, accordingly, a question arises as to the correctness of everything that comes from them (first of all, moral norms).

2. The view of society is changing - it should start regulating itself, and not adopt abstract formal laws and norms.

3. The morality of the conventional stage is perceived as a limitation of personal freedom.

4. All people are perceived as equal among themselves - everyone can be considered a unique individual with his/her own vision of the world and (what is important) his/her own morality. The assessment of people as "good" and "bad" is rejected.

In fact, it can be said that the 4.5 stage ends either with the transition to the post-conventional level or stimulates a conscious or not fully conscious rollback to the previous positions. Let us remember that moral development is closely related to cognitive one. Therefore, if such a development did not take place, it is possible to assume that a person is more likely to be able to go back, being now even more confident in the "correctness" of his/her selfish actions.

It is worth noting that a person goes through all these stages of moral development under the condition of normal education and upbringing with active communication with the teacher, parents, and other people. However, as was shown at the beginning, the intervention of strategic rationality in a person's living space is characteristic of our time. That is why his/her moral development is also problematic. For example, the very relationship in the I-Thou perspective, which is important for the convention stage, is broken, because the subject-subjective communication between the teacher and the student is replaced by the object-object-oriented relationship of a person and AI. That is, the intervention of purposeful rationality in a person's life world coincides with the fact that society is currently at the 4.5 stage of moral development.

Society is becoming more and more individualized and therefore atomized. Common values and ideas are becoming less and less. Authorities disappear, or successful businessmen or politicians, who completely reject morality, or show business stars, who are only business projects, become authoritative. What's more: the increasing importance of virtual reality is causing the idols of millions to become social media characters (for example, Insta-models) who are generally simulacra, since even their appearance can only be a product of Adobe Photoshop and the many filter masks on Instagram or TikTok.

Eventually, the loss of common points of reference leads to the impossibility of joint discourse, because instead of seeking consensus, each side tries to insist on its position, often completely erasing and not even trying to understand the opinion of the other. At the same time, each side of the dialogue tries to appeal mostly not to real facts, using rational arguments, but to emotions, using various manipulations and propaganda. This can be traced both at the highest level - for example, pre-election debates of candidates for the presidency of Ukraine in 2019, or candidates for the presidency of the United States in 2020; and at the lowest one - constant disputes and scandals in social networks. This is not about a dialogue or a discussion, but about a polemic, or else aggressively imposing one's opinion on one another, not aimed at finding a compromise.

In the virtual world, a person can not only create anonymous profiles for the sake of disputes and display his aggression but also write personalized pages on social networks. However, even now this image from social networks may not correspond to reality. On the contrary, now virtuality is starting to rule reality. Another virtual life appears in a person as if separated from reality. In your profile on social networks, it becomes possible to create your own image, which a person is ready to show to others, and then try to adjust your real life to the canons of virtual life.

However, these canons themselves are dictated by mass culture, because social networks have long become part of it. As Maria Kultaieva (2020) points out: "...a person who is objectively attached to digital technologies subjectively adjusts his/her sensors and thinking techniques to them, building his/her uniqueness from the materials of serial production of mass culture" (p. 18). An individual constructs one's own image by looking at popular bloggers and current trends (the most expressive, mass, but very fleeting trends in fashion, behavior, etc.). "Being trendy" is the new slogan of a modern person, whose image is shaped by social networks.

"Being trendy" also means being like everyone else. As Lesia Mykulanynets (2019) successfully points out, characterizing a postmodern person: ".the individual is afraid of being himself, seeking certain images and roles that would make him relevant and understandable to others, the same lonely and unknowable" (pp. 43-44). A person literally dissolves in the virtual world, which sees only an object in it.

The formation of a person's thinking is also influenced by technologies that adjust their user behavior and way of thinking to their needs. For example, a user who creates content for Twitter should concisely formulate his thoughts, sticking to 280 symbols, and a TikTok user should provide information in one and a half minutes. Accordingly, users of these social networks, who are only consumers, are used to receiving information only in this form. This is what Peter Sloterdijk calls anthropotechnics - a type of social practice that reconstructs human nature. In this way, virtuality affects both the person's individuality and the formulation of his/her thoughts and perception of information.

Under the influence of virtuality, the moral image of a person also changes. Given the fact that modern man is at the intermediate 4.5 stage of moral development, which is already in danger of rejecting old morality and retreating to selfish positions, - the influence of the virtual world with its strategic rationality on him/her only exacerbates the possible consequences of exiting this crisis. A person becomes more narcissistic, that is, more focused on oneself. On the one hand, s/he themselves is a kind of "collage subject" -- made up of many other images and models of behavior inspired by mass culture. According to Mykulanynets (2019): "This collage subject independently chooses the era in which he lives, professed values, his image. Moreover, in certain situations of life, depending on the particular conditions, the doctrine of his own "Self¹ can be transformed" (p. 50). And on the other hand, a person considers himself/herself a unique individual who rejects outdated norms and values. However, her/his existence is a "false existence" - a desire to pretend her/his life is better than it is in reality. What's more: virtuality thus begins to press and influence real life. For example, numerous research by psychologists on how Instagram affects the selfesteem of teenagers, who are complex due to the ideals of beauty imposed by this network.

We should also mention the problem of "fragmentary consciousness", noted by J. Habermas in the second half of the 20th century. To this, it is worth adding that now a person lives as if in two realities, which often may not correspond to each other, because, as already mentioned, in virtual reality it is possible to "false existence".

In the virtual world, fashion appears not only for the external attributes of the image but also for morality. It is important from time to time to show your positive attitude to current topics and express your position on environmental issues, gender issues or feminism, etc. Many people really support these ideas, but the masses just thoughtlessly pick up and develop them to be "like everyone else", to be "on trend", to show their progressive views and big companies use them to earn social points.

For example, in 2014, American activists launched the Ice Bucket Challenge. According to its terms, each participant had to pour ice water from a bucket and pass this baton to the next three participants. In addition, each participant who accepted the rules of participation had to pay $10 to the fund for the study of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and in case of refusal to participate, the person had to pay already $100. In Ukraine, the overall goal of this campaign was changed and each participant had to contribute to volunteers collecting funds for the army. However, having reached a large scale, the challenge began to lose its purpose, and social network users therefore, forgetting about the true meaning of this campaign, simply repeated the proposed actions just because everyone else was doing it.

Some challenges and flash mobs can be used with a hidden purpose. Since they are great for sharing among social media users and are able to unite them with a common idea (fighting dis- ease/environmental problems, etc.), they can be used for advertising purposes. For example, in the 2019 election campaign, one of the candidates actively introduced various challenges to activate his electorate. For example, the Call Me Ukrainian challenge, the essence of which is to tell foreigners about Ukraine and outstanding Ukrainians. However, the vast majority of videos filmed within its framework were in Ukrainian. That is, the stated goal of spreading knowledge about Ukraine among a foreign audience was not achieved, because most people joined the challenge usually in order to demonstrate their knowledge, as well as to express support for the idea proposed by the candidate. Therefore, the real goal of this campaign is not to spread knowledge about Ukraine but to advertise and agitate.

Another example: in July 2022, the #sitlikeagirl flash mob, launched in support of O. Zelen- ska, began to spread among female users. The first lady appeared on the cover of Vogue magazine. The pose in which she was depicted in the photo seemed to some users of social networks outrageous and not suitable for a woman. This caused a quick reaction from activists fighting for women's rights, who launched this flash mob, the essence of which is to take a similar photo in the same pose and post it on their social networks with the appropriate hashtag. The aim of this campaign is to declare that no one has the right to judge a modern woman and criticize her appearance. The flash mob was picked up by the majority of female users, and all social networks were flooded with their photos (which, in turn, created a flow of "garbage information"). However, it is difficult to understand how sincere these actions were. The flash mob became very popular, and therefore every girl who wants to stay "in trend" had to repeat it.

It is necessary to emphasize one more important point. The incident with the photo coincided with the terrorist act in the village of Olenivka, which resulted in the death and injury of Ukrainian prisoners of war. It was reported by all mass media and public activists, but exactly the #sitlikeagirl flash mob that gained more popularity among ordinary users. Of course, this contributed to the creation of informational noise in social networks - after all, scrolling through the general message feed, for example, on the Facebook network, official news competed with a large number of photos and reports that yet another famous person supported this flash mob. But at the same time, it is logical to think about whether this is a sign of a new kind of empathy? As the Ukrainian researcher T. Liutyi (2020) writes: ".. .to take a selfie means to be involved in something. All this supposedly legitimizes existence" (p. 236). On the one hand, by taking a photo, a person tries to show her/his involvement in these events, to inscribe herself/himself into this story; and on the other hand, to show that s/he, along with others, is also experiencing these events here and now. This is especially noticeable now, when many people, getting to places where fighting or rocket attacks took place, necessarily take a "selfie" against the background of broken enemy equipment or a destroyed building. The same can be said about participation in flash mobs and challenges. Homo digitalis is able to empathize first when s/he can express empathy in the virtual world. To repeat the right photo, to perform the right action, and to write the right text - that's what can really interest them. Therefore, those events that make it possible for him/her to participate seem to be more priority. Empathy if we understand it as ”.. the ability to mirror an emotional state upon detecting evidence of that emotional state in others" (Schulz, 2017, p. 71) homo digitalis is virtual.

Consequently, virtuality also becomes the focus of a person's moral life. Everything important must exist first of all on the Internet. Any information and knowledge have to be out there to be considered valid and to be shared more widely. Homo digitalis is constructed by the flow of information - and only what is contained in this flow can be perceived by the individual.

Originality

References

digital technologies human morality

Habermas, J. (1991). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (C. Lenhardt & S. Weber Nicholsen, Trans.).

Cambridge: The MIT Press. (in English)

Kiros, H. (2022, September 20). Hated that video? YouTube's algorithm might push you another just like it. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved from https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/09/20/1059709/youtube- algorithm-recommendations/ (in English)

Kobelieva, D. L., & Nikolaienko, N. M. (2021). From Information Search to the Loss of Personality: The Phenomenon of Dataism. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, (20), 100-112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i20.249591 (in English)

Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral Development and Behavior: Theory, Research and Social Issues (pp. 31-53). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. (in English)

Kremen, V. H., & Ilin, V. V. (2021). Transformation of the Human Image in the Paradigm of Knowledge Evolution. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, (19), 5-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15802/ ampr.v0i19.235953 (in English)

Kultaieva, M. (2020). Homo Digitalis, Digital culture and Digital Education: Explorations of Philosophical Anthropology and of Philosophy of Education. Filosofiya Osvity. Philosophy of Education, 26(1), 8-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31874/2309-1606-2020-26-1-1 (in Ukrainian)

Liutyi, T. (2020). Kultura prynad i sprotyvu. Kyiv: Tempora. (in Ukrainian)

Mykulanynets, L. M. (2019). Image of Human in the Postmodern Epoch. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, (16), 43-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i16.141904 (in English)

Schulz, A. W. (2017). The evolution of empathy. In H. Maibom (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Empathy (pp. 64-73). London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315282015-7 (in English)

Shapoval, V. M., & Tolstov, I. V. (2021). Quo Vadis: Anthropological Dimension of the Modern Civilization Crisis.

Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, (19), 23-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15802/ ampr.v0i19.235937 (in English)

Turiel, E. (1974). Conflict and Transition in Adolescent Moral Development. Child Development, 45(1), 14-29.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1127745 (in Enslish)

Yermolenko, A. M. (1999). Komunikatyvna praktychna filosofiia. Kyiv: Libra. (in Ukrainian)

Yermolenko, A. M. (2020). Human condition in a globalized society of risks as a social and ethical problem.

Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, (17), 110-118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15802/ ampr.v0i17.206724 (in English)

LIST OF REFERENCE LINKS

Habermas J. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action / trans. by C. Lenhardt, S. Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge : The MIT Press, 1991. 225 p.

Kiros H. Hated that video? YouTube's algorithm might push you another just like it. MIT Technology Review. 2022. September 20. URL: https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/09/20/1059709/youtube-algorithm- recommendations/

Kobelieva D. L., Nikolaienko N. M. From Information Search to the Loss of Personality: The Phenomenon of Dataism. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research. 2021. No. 20. P. 100-112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i20.249591

Kohlberg L. Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. Moral Development and Behavior: Theory, Research and Social Issues / ed. by T. Lickona. New York : Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976. P. 31-53.

Kremen V. H., Ilin V. V. Transformation of the Human Image in the Paradigm of Knowledge Evolution. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research. 2021. No. 19. P. 5-14. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.15802/ampr.v0i19.235953

Култаєва М. Homo digitalis, дигітальна культура і дигітальна освіта: філософсько-антропологічні і філософсько-освітні розвідки. Філософія освіти. Philosophy of Education. 2020. Т. 26, № 1. С. 8-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31874/2309-1606-2020-26-1-1

Лютий Т. Культура принад і спротиву. Київ : Темпора, 2020. 576 с.

Mykulanynets L. M. Image of Human in the Postmodern Epoch. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research. 2019. No. 16. P. 43-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i16.141904

Schulz A. W. The evolution of empathy. The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Empathy / ed. by H. Maibom.

London : Routledge, 2017. P. 64-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315282015-7

Shapoval V. M., Tolstov I. V. Quo Vadis: Anthropological Dimension of the Modern Civilization Crisis. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research. 2021. No. 19. P. 23-31. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.15802/ampr.v0i19.235937

Turiel E. Conflict and Transition in Adolescent Moral Development. Child Development. 1974. Vol. 45, No. 1.

P. 14-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1127745

Ермоленко А. М. Комунікативна практична філософія. Київ : Лібра, 1999. 488 с.

Yermolenko A. M. Human condition in a globalized society of risks as a social and ethical problem. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research. 2020. No. 17. P. 110-118. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.15802/ampr.v0i17.206724

Размещено на Allbest.ru