LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract in English only.Cheng’s article argues that AI diagnosis and its logic, which are based on Western medical thought and Western philosophy, obstruct the generation of meaning and construction of personhood for both doctors and patients. The article maintains that we should thus engage in introspection on AI in based on other traditions of thought, such as Confucianism. However the article does not provide a deeper interpretation of why Confucianism is particularly helpful in constructing personhood and realizing value in life in the context of medical practice. This article is a response to Cheng’s argument and suggests directions for refinement.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 37 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.
{"title":"儒家如何看待ＡＩ診斷技術的發展和應用","authors":"Shunqing Zhang","doi":"10.24112/ijccpm.171671","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24112/ijccpm.171671","url":null,"abstract":"LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract in English only.Cheng’s article argues that AI diagnosis and its logic, which are based on Western medical thought and Western philosophy, obstruct the generation of meaning and construction of personhood for both doctors and patients. The article maintains that we should thus engage in introspection on AI in based on other traditions of thought, such as Confucianism. However the article does not provide a deeper interpretation of why Confucianism is particularly helpful in constructing personhood and realizing value in life in the context of medical practice. This article is a response to Cheng’s argument and suggests directions for refinement.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 37 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.","PeriodicalId":41284,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Chinese & Comparative Philosophy of Medicine","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41555011","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.人的尊嚴概念是一個包含多重含義的概念。其首要含義是作為一個整體的人類所具有的尊嚴。人類整體的尊嚴的來源是人類物種特有的本質，其道德要求在於維護人類本質並促進其發展。在生命倫理研究中，人的尊嚴概念常被視為同人權、自主相似的概念，甚至被認為可以被人權和自主的概念所替換。通過分析作為一個整體的人類所具有的尊嚴及其道德要求，可以論證，人的尊嚴不等同於人權，其更重要的角色是人權的基礎；人的尊嚴也不等同於自主，尊重人的尊嚴在很多情境下要求我們對自主行為進行限制。面對當代科學技術發展帶來的倫理挑戰，人類整體的尊嚴將在生命倫理研究中發揮更重要的作 用。Human dignity is a concept with multiple dimensions. Its primary dimension should be the dignity of the human species as a whole. The basis of the dignity of the human species rests on certain essential characteristics of the species, and the moral demand of the dignity of the human species is to maintain and promote these characteristics. In bioethical research, human dignity has often been equated with human rights or autonomy. Some people have even suggested that the concept of human dignity can be replaced with the concept of human rights or autonomy. However, the analysis of the dignity of the human species and its moral demand shows that human dignity cannot be equated to human rights or autonomy. Instead, it is the basis for human rights and requires restrictions on autonomous behaviors in certain situations. In the face of the ethical challenges posed by new technologies, the dignity of the human species will play a more crucial role in bioethical research.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 52 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.
LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.人的尊严概念是一个包含多重含义的概念。其首要含义是作为一个整体的人类所具有的尊严。人类整体的尊严的来源是人类物种特有的本质，其道德要求在于维护人类本质并促进其发展。在生命伦理研究中，人的尊严概念常被视为同人权、自主相似的概念，甚至被认为可以被人权和自主的概念所替换。通过分析作为一个整体的人类所具有的尊严及其道德要求，可以论证，人的尊严不等同于人权，其更重要的角色是人权的基础；人的尊严也不等同于自主，尊重人的尊严在很多情境下要求我们对自主行为进行限制。面对当代科学技术发展带来的伦理挑战，人类整体的尊严将在生命伦理研究中发挥更重要的作 用。Human dignity is a concept with multiple dimensions. Its primary dimension should be the dignity of the human species as a whole. The basis of the dignity of the human species rests on certain essential characteristics of the species, and the moral demand of the dignity of the human species is to maintain and promote these characteristics. In bioethical research, human dignity has often been equated with human rights or autonomy. Some people have even suggested that the concept of human dignity can be replaced with the concept of human rights or autonomy. However, the analysis of the dignity of the human species and its moral demand shows that human dignity cannot be equated to human rights or autonomy. Instead, it is the basis for human rights and requires restrictions on autonomous behaviors in certain situations. In the face of the ethical challenges posed by new technologies, the dignity of the human species will play a more crucial role in bioethical research.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 52 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.
{"title":"人類的尊嚴、人權和自主性","authors":"Yaming Li","doi":"10.24112/ijccpm.171667","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24112/ijccpm.171667","url":null,"abstract":"LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.人的尊嚴概念是一個包含多重含義的概念。其首要含義是作為一個整體的人類所具有的尊嚴。人類整體的尊嚴的來源是人類物種特有的本質，其道德要求在於維護人類本質並促進其發展。在生命倫理研究中，人的尊嚴概念常被視為同人權、自主相似的概念，甚至被認為可以被人權和自主的概念所替換。通過分析作為一個整體的人類所具有的尊嚴及其道德要求，可以論證，人的尊嚴不等同於人權，其更重要的角色是人權的基礎；人的尊嚴也不等同於自主，尊重人的尊嚴在很多情境下要求我們對自主行為進行限制。面對當代科學技術發展帶來的倫理挑戰，人類整體的尊嚴將在生命倫理研究中發揮更重要的作 用。Human dignity is a concept with multiple dimensions. Its primary dimension should be the dignity of the human species as a whole. The basis of the dignity of the human species rests on certain essential characteristics of the species, and the moral demand of the dignity of the human species is to maintain and promote these characteristics. In bioethical research, human dignity has often been equated with human rights or autonomy. Some people have even suggested that the concept of human dignity can be replaced with the concept of human rights or autonomy. However, the analysis of the dignity of the human species and its moral demand shows that human dignity cannot be equated to human rights or autonomy. Instead, it is the basis for human rights and requires restrictions on autonomous behaviors in certain situations. In the face of the ethical challenges posed by new technologies, the dignity of the human species will play a more crucial role in bioethical research.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 52 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.","PeriodicalId":41284,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Chinese & Comparative Philosophy of Medicine","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69043859","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract in English only.In the dominant discourse of the "human–machine relationship," people and machines are the subjects, with a mutually shaping influence. However, this framework neglects the crux of the current critical analysis of AI. It reduces the problems with new technology to the relationship between people and machines, ignoring the re-shaping of the relationship between "people and people" in the era of new technology. This simplification may mislead policy and legal regulations for new technologies. Why would a robot killing cause more panic than a murder committed by a human? Why is a robot's misdiagnosis more troubling than a doctor's? Why do patients assume that machines make more accurate diagnoses than doctors? When a medical accident occurs, who is responsible for the mistakes of an intelligent medical system? In the framework of traditional professionalism, the relationship between doctors and patients, whether trusted or not, is based on the premise that doctors have specialized knowledge that patients do not possess. Therefore, the authority of a doctor is the authority of knowledge. In the age of intelligence, do machines provide information or knowledge? Can this strengthen or weaken the authority of doctors? It is likely that in the age of intelligence, the professionalism, authority and trustworthiness of doctors require a new knowledge base. Therefore, the de-skilling of doctors is not an issue of individual doctors, but demands an update of the knowledge of the entire industry. Recognizing this, policy makers must not focus solely on the use of machines, but take a wider perspective, considering how to promote the development of doctors and coordinate the relationship between doctors with different levels of knowledge development. We often ask, "In the era of intelligence, what defines a human?" This philosophical thinking should be directed toward not only the difference between machines and people as individuals, but also how the relationship between human beings, i.e., the social nature of humans, evolves in different technological environments. In short, this commentary stresses that a "good" machine or an "evil" machine—beyond the sci-fi romance of such discourse—reflects the evolution of the relationships between people. In today's smart age, the critical issue is not the relationship between people and machines. It is how people adjust their relationships with other people as machines become necessary tools in life. In the era of intelligence, therefore, our legislation, policy and ethical discussion should resume their focus on evolutionary relationships between people.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 41 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.
{"title":"人工智能批判的話語悖論","authors":"Fen Lin","doi":"10.24112/ijccpm.171683","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24112/ijccpm.171683","url":null,"abstract":"LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract in English only.In the dominant discourse of the \"human–machine relationship,\" people and machines are the subjects, with a mutually shaping influence. However, this framework neglects the crux of the current critical analysis of AI. It reduces the problems with new technology to the relationship between people and machines, ignoring the re-shaping of the relationship between \"people and people\" in the era of new technology. This simplification may mislead policy and legal regulations for new technologies. Why would a robot killing cause more panic than a murder committed by a human? Why is a robot's misdiagnosis more troubling than a doctor's? Why do patients assume that machines make more accurate diagnoses than doctors? When a medical accident occurs, who is responsible for the mistakes of an intelligent medical system? In the framework of traditional professionalism, the relationship between doctors and patients, whether trusted or not, is based on the premise that doctors have specialized knowledge that patients do not possess. Therefore, the authority of a doctor is the authority of knowledge. In the age of intelligence, do machines provide information or knowledge? Can this strengthen or weaken the authority of doctors? It is likely that in the age of intelligence, the professionalism, authority and trustworthiness of doctors require a new knowledge base. Therefore, the de-skilling of doctors is not an issue of individual doctors, but demands an update of the knowledge of the entire industry. Recognizing this, policy makers must not focus solely on the use of machines, but take a wider perspective, considering how to promote the development of doctors and coordinate the relationship between doctors with different levels of knowledge development. We often ask, \"In the era of intelligence, what defines a human?\" This philosophical thinking should be directed toward not only the difference between machines and people as individuals, but also how the relationship between human beings, i.e., the social nature of humans, evolves in different technological environments. In short, this commentary stresses that a \"good\" machine or an \"evil\" machine—beyond the sci-fi romance of such discourse—reflects the evolution of the relationships between people. In today's smart age, the critical issue is not the relationship between people and machines. It is how people adjust their relationships with other people as machines become necessary tools in life. In the era of intelligence, therefore, our legislation, policy and ethical discussion should resume their focus on evolutionary relationships between people.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 41 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.","PeriodicalId":41284,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Chinese & Comparative Philosophy of Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42108466","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.近年來，人工智能（ＡＩ）技術在醫療領域中的應用探索十分活躍，ＡＩ診斷又是其中的關注焦點。它可以使診斷更加高效和準確，從而在整體上改善醫療診斷品質，提高醫療資源的供给效率和公平性。不論從ＡＩ診斷發展的技術邏輯還是西方現代醫學診斷思維來看，從智慧助手發展到ＡＩ醫生都具有一定的合理性與必然性。但這一技術具有其内在局限，即使已經發展到理想狀態，ＡＩ醫生也不能完全取代醫生，它能輔助醫生和患者更充分地發揮各自的能動性，卻有可能傷害醫患互動的關鍵内核：意義生成和人格構建。如何在充分利用ＡＩ診斷醫生的效率的同時避免其有可能帶來的負面影響，人們需要對ＡＩ診斷技術發展的底層邏輯提供足夠有力的理論拮抗，而不是停留在技術所限定好的語境中解決那些具體的問題。本文提出，有必要引入中國傳統醫學的診斷思維和儒家“成人”理論，作為針對西方現代醫學觀念和現代主體性哲學發起反思的重要理論資源，並在此基礎上重新審視技術與人文的關係。Applying AI in medical contexts, especially for diagnosis, has become very popular in recent years. AI has the potential to make diagnosis more efficient and accurate, improving the overall quality of medical diagnosis and making medical provisions fairer and more effective. Combining the logic of AI with that of modern Western medical diagnosis, it is to some extent intuitive to imagine AI physicians. However, even in its ideal form, AI technology has intrinsic limitations that will prevent it from completely replacing physicians. Although AI can help physicians and patients to develop their own agency, it may strike at the core of physician–patient interaction: generating meaning and constructing personhood/subjectivity. How can we make best use of the efficiency of AI diagnosis while avoiding its potential negative influence? There needs to be a powerful theoretical rejoinder to the fundamental logic of AI diagnosis. It is not enough to deal with specific issues within the realm already delimited by AI diagnosis technology. This paper highlights the need to incorporate the way of thinking of traditional Chinese medical diagnosis and the Confucian theory of “the way of becoming a person.” Both are important theoretical resources that can be used to counterbalance the way of thinking of modern Western medicine and modern Western philosophy, which emphasize subjectivity. On this basis, the relationship between technology and the humanities can be re-examined.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 65 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.
LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese；abstract also in English.近年来，人工智能（AI）技术在医疗领域中的应用探索十分活跃，AI诊断又是其中的关注焦点。它可以使诊断更加高效和准确，从而在整体上改善医疗诊断质量，提高医疗资源的供给效率和公平性。不论从AI诊断发展的技术逻辑还是西方现代医学诊断思维来看，从智慧助手发展到AI医生都具有一定的合理性与必然性。但这一技术具有其内在局限，即使已经发展到理想状态，AI医生也不能完全取代医生，它能辅助医生和患者更充分地发挥各自的能动性，却有可能伤害医患互动的关键内核：意义生成和人格构建。如何在充分利用AI诊断医生的效率的同时避免其有可能带来的负面影响，人们需要对AI诊断技术发展的底层逻辑提供足够有力的理论拮抗，而不是停留在技术所限定好的语境中解决那些具体的问题。本文提出，有必要引入中国传统医学的诊断思维和儒家“成人”理论，作为针对西方现代医学观念和现代主体性哲学发起反思的重要理论资源，并在此基础上重新审视技术与人文的关系。Applying AI in medical contexts，especially for diagnosis，has become very popular in recent years.AI has the potential to make diagnosis more efficient and accurate，improving the overall quality of medical diagnosis and making medical provisions fairer and more effective.Combining the logic of AI with that of modern Western medical diagnosis，it is to some extent intuitive to imagine AI physicians.However，even in its ideal form，AI technology has intrinsic limitations that will prevent it from completely replacing physicians.Although AI can help physicians and patients to develop their own agency，it may strike at the core of physician–patient interaction: generating meaning and constructing personhood/subjectivity.How can we make best use of the efficiency of AI diagnosis while avoiding its potential negative influence？There needs to be a powerful theoretical rejoinder to the fundamental logic of AI diagnosis.It is not enough to deal with specific issues within the realm already delimited by AI diagnosis technology.This paper highlights the need to incorporate the way of thinking of traditional Chinese medical diagnosis and the Confucian theory of“the way of becoming a person.”Both are important theoretical resources that can be used to counterbalance the way of thinking of modern Western medicine and modern Western philosophy，which emphasize subjectivity.On this basis，the relationship between technology and the humanities can be re-examined.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 65 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.
{"title":"在ＡＩ醫生和病人之間——人工智能診斷技術的內在邏輯及其對病人主體性建構的影響","authors":"G. Cheng, Xiaoxi Wu","doi":"10.24112/ijccpm.171670","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24112/ijccpm.171670","url":null,"abstract":"LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.近年來，人工智能（ＡＩ）技術在醫療領域中的應用探索十分活躍，ＡＩ診斷又是其中的關注焦點。它可以使診斷更加高效和準確，從而在整體上改善醫療診斷品質，提高醫療資源的供给效率和公平性。不論從ＡＩ診斷發展的技術邏輯還是西方現代醫學診斷思維來看，從智慧助手發展到ＡＩ醫生都具有一定的合理性與必然性。但這一技術具有其内在局限，即使已經發展到理想狀態，ＡＩ醫生也不能完全取代醫生，它能輔助醫生和患者更充分地發揮各自的能動性，卻有可能傷害醫患互動的關鍵内核：意義生成和人格構建。如何在充分利用ＡＩ診斷醫生的效率的同時避免其有可能帶來的負面影響，人們需要對ＡＩ診斷技術發展的底層邏輯提供足夠有力的理論拮抗，而不是停留在技術所限定好的語境中解決那些具體的問題。本文提出，有必要引入中國傳統醫學的診斷思維和儒家“成人”理論，作為針對西方現代醫學觀念和現代主體性哲學發起反思的重要理論資源，並在此基礎上重新審視技術與人文的關係。Applying AI in medical contexts, especially for diagnosis, has become very popular in recent years. AI has the potential to make diagnosis more efficient and accurate, improving the overall quality of medical diagnosis and making medical provisions fairer and more effective. Combining the logic of AI with that of modern Western medical diagnosis, it is to some extent intuitive to imagine AI physicians. However, even in its ideal form, AI technology has intrinsic limitations that will prevent it from completely replacing physicians. Although AI can help physicians and patients to develop their own agency, it may strike at the core of physician–patient interaction: generating meaning and constructing personhood/subjectivity. How can we make best use of the efficiency of AI diagnosis while avoiding its potential negative influence? There needs to be a powerful theoretical rejoinder to the fundamental logic of AI diagnosis. It is not enough to deal with specific issues within the realm already delimited by AI diagnosis technology. This paper highlights the need to incorporate the way of thinking of traditional Chinese medical diagnosis and the Confucian theory of “the way of becoming a person.” Both are important theoretical resources that can be used to counterbalance the way of thinking of modern Western medicine and modern Western philosophy, which emphasize subjectivity. On this basis, the relationship between technology and the humanities can be re-examined.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 65 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.","PeriodicalId":41284,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Chinese & Comparative Philosophy of Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43001135","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract in English only.An irreconcilable conflict between "humanistic rationality" and "technological rationality" is becoming increasingly evident. AI, as the representative of technological rationality today, is suffering from "moral overload." Therefore, who should define the ethical boundaries of AI and who should solve the problem of moral overload have become the most important questions. This paper analyzes an article entitled "The Promise and Perils of AI in Medicine" by Robert Sparrow and Joshua Hatherley, sharing with you some views on AI in the medical field.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 56 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.
{"title":"誰來界定人工智能的“倫理邊界”——“人工智能”的道德超載","authors":"Bojing Lui","doi":"10.24112/ijccpm.171684","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24112/ijccpm.171684","url":null,"abstract":"LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract in English only.An irreconcilable conflict between \"humanistic rationality\" and \"technological rationality\" is becoming increasingly evident. AI, as the representative of technological rationality today, is suffering from \"moral overload.\" Therefore, who should define the ethical boundaries of AI and who should solve the problem of moral overload have become the most important questions. This paper analyzes an article entitled \"The Promise and Perils of AI in Medicine\" by Robert Sparrow and Joshua Hatherley, sharing with you some views on AI in the medical field.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 56 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.","PeriodicalId":41284,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Chinese & Comparative Philosophy of Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48212917","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：