[Special Feature: Science, Technology, and Social Issues] Tatsuhiko Yamamoto: The Intersection of Science, Technology, and Humanities in Universities — Background of the Establishment of the X Dignity Center

2024/08/05

In June of this year, the "X Dignity Center," a cross-disciplinary research hub centered on the humanities, was established within the Keio University Global Research Institute (KGRI). As I believe it may serve as a reference for considering the ideal form of humanities-science integration and cross-disciplinary research in universities based on current science and technology, I would like to introduce the motivations and background leading to the establishment of this center as one of its co-directors.

The primary objective of this center is to fundamentally explore what a "human being" is and should be, and how their "dignity" should be defined and protected, amidst the accelerated development of science and technology including AI, where various boundaries—such as AI (machine) and human, virtual and reality, domestic and international, humanities and sciences—are melting and all things are intersecting (X). Of course, while the center places these humanities and social science concerns at its core, it is ultimately one of the cross-disciplinary research hubs. It intends to actively collaborate with the sciences—though the dichotomy of humanities/sciences itself may be a subject of criticism—to vigorously absorb the latest and accurate research results of science and technology, and to make substantial contributions to its ideal development and social implementation. Furthermore, the "X" in the center's name implies the intersection (cross) of University = Industry = Civil Society, and sets the creation of an "academic chain" throughout society through academic principles as an important goal.

The background behind the perceived need for such a center was a simple question: is science and technology truly being implemented in a way that emphasizes human dignity? For example, it is said that the current information space is dominated by a business model called the "attention economy," where individual attention and time are traded as exchangeable goods. There, AI is used to predict (profile) user attributes and cognitive tendencies from massive amounts of personal data and recommend information and content that can stimulate the user most strongly, in order to take as much attention from us as possible. It has been pointed out (T. Wu) that through the use of such AI and algorithms, we are constantly rushed within an animal-experiment-like advertising space consisting of "stimulus (recommendation) = reflex (click)," and even time spent with friends and family, which was once non-commercial time, is being taken by commercial actors. Research results (K. McSpadden) show that with the spread and development of smartphones, the average human attention span has dropped from 12 seconds to 8 seconds since 2000, falling below that of a goldfish (9 seconds), which is known for its lack of focus. Can such cognitive-manipulative technologies (technological uses that neuroscientifically specifically stimulate parts called the "reptilian brain," such as the brainstem and the pons near the spinal cord) truly be said to be considerate of human dignity?

Of course, science and technology itself is neutral and not evil. However, particularly in Japan, in the context of its implementation, the improvement of productivity for the entire organization—that is, "global optimization"—is often spoken of as an absolute rule, and there seems to be a lack of fundamental discussion regarding the meaning of what values should be protected even at the cost of productivity, economic rationality, or efficiency. What this brings about is an opportunistic implementation of science and technology, which may result in an inhuman global optimization society where both dignity and democracy are neglected. The current information space—where slander and misinformation fly daily—has turned into a "field of stimulus competition" regarding how much human cognitive systems can be stimulated and how much attention and disposable time can be taken through AI profiling and recommender systems; this can be seen as an ominous precursor.

In recent years, progress in neuroscience has been remarkable, and the development of BMI (Brain Machine Interface), which directly connects the brain and machines, is also advancing. Naturally, this is also an ambivalent technology, always accompanied by the risk of thoughts being hacked from the outside. In the face of such accelerating science and technology, what is now required of universities once again is a cross-disciplinary discussion regarding meaning and values: re-examining what human "dignity" is and how to concretize this in society. This is what this center wishes to promote. I mentioned "once again" above because modern (so-called Humboldtian) universities originally started from the idea that they must discuss the nature of human existence and society freely and fundamentally without being completely swept away by national or social utility—paradoxically, that is where the social utility of the university lies. The philosopher Kant, who laid the foundation for the modern view of the university, believed it was essential for theology, law, and medical sciences, which aim for utility, and philosophy, which aims to engage in the pursuit of truth independently of utility, to constantly engage in dialogue and collaboration—albeit with a sense of tension.

The background for saying "once again" also includes the fact that Keio University itself was an academy founded by Yukichi Fukuzawa, who placed physics as the "basis of all learning" and the "learning of learning," while emphasizing the human subjective "spirit" toward it. Fukuzawa criticized abstract natural theories like Confucianism and placed particular emphasis on objective natural science, but the essence of this lay in what kind of ethics and spirit to establish based on natural scientific knowledge; Fukuzawa's interest remained in "human ethics and social relations" (Masao Maruyama). Seen this way, it seems that Keio University originally had a culture or tradition of cross-disciplinarily examining the social meaning and value of science and technology to lead the "spirit of civilization."

I believe that during a paradigm shift where the social order is fundamentally changing, the intersection and dialogue of fields become more necessary. Perhaps (though there may be objections), the most recent paradigm shift was the transition from a God-centered "Order of God" to a human-centered "Order of Man" that began during the Renaissance. The current social system called "modernity," or the "Order of Man," was formed in stages through the Renaissance, the Reformation, religious wars, and civil revolutions, but the active exchange of academic knowledge was indispensable for this. In the 13th century, the theologian Thomas Aquinas had already attempted a synthesis of theology and Aristotelian philosophy, preparing the foundation for modernization, but further intersection of academic knowledge was required for its establishment. For example, the 17th-century philosopher Spinoza boldly read the Bible from the perspective of natural science, denied its truth (according to Spinoza, many miracles in the Bible were merely natural phenomena or due to the prophets' erroneous knowledge), thoroughly relativized the "Order of God," and preached the necessity of establishing a state through human contract. Hobbes, who had a decisive influence on modernization, was a political philosopher who mastered social contract theory, but at the same time, he was a natural scientist well-versed in Euclidean geometry and optics, and interacted with Galileo and others through the Mersenne Circle. It is no exaggeration to say that such intellectual intersections nurtured his eminently realistic view of humanity and led to the peerless "Leviathan." Kant, who developed modern Enlightenment, was also a natural scientist influenced by Newtonian mechanics, as can be seen from his debut work "Thoughts on the True Estimation of Living Forces." For a paradigm shift, collaboration between natural scientists (Galileo and Newton) who expose the unscientific nature of the old order (the Order of God) and humanities and social scientists (Hobbes and Kant) who provide a new "narrative" for it was indispensable (as will be mentioned later, their collaboration will certainly be necessary to break through the current situation where the unscientific nature of the modern Enlightenment view of "man" is being exposed).

Furthermore, the formation of the spirit or culture toward modernization was greatly influenced by "academies," private intellectual hobbyist groups that became active from the Renaissance to the early 17th century. There, merchants who had gained education through the development of printing technology and scholars enjoyed intellectual and free conversation, and sometimes even dinner parties with music were prepared. In academies where "mathematics, music, and poetry coexisted," the distinction between humanities and sciences was naturally not strongly conscious (Sayaka Oki). It goes without saying that such non-institutional and cross-disciplinary "academic chains" fostered the civic culture toward modernization and led to civil revolutions (these private academies were later institutionalized by royal power under the patronage of powerful monarchs and aristocrats, leading to specialization).

If cross-disciplinary dialogue regarding value and meaning is indispensable during the founding period of a new order in this way, is that not exactly the kind of dialogue required of universities now? Science and technology such as AI and neuroscience are scientifically undermining the major premise of the modern system—the "Order of Man"—that humans are (at least partially) rational, special beings capable of autonomous choices. Some liken the current development of science and technology driven by AI to the Industrial Revolution of the mid-18th century, but that is likely a mistake. The Industrial Revolution, which greatly changed human external "behavior," was certainly revolutionary, but it did not directly intervene in the human "spirit (freedom)," and in that sense, it did not fundamentally shake the "Order of Man." On the other hand, current science and technology (including genetic engineering) doubts the very existence of the free spirit that grounded human privilege and centrality, making it something that can be artificially manipulated. The fictionality of free will has been pointed out for a long time, but the current situation is that it is finally becoming impossible to maintain even as a fiction due to the findings of natural science.

This is closer to the 16th-century situation where self-evident things like the "Order of God" or religious authority were doubted and a paradigm shift began in earnest, rather than the mid-18th century. This is because we are now being directly questioned about the authority of the "Order of Man" or human reason and free will (and the systems of state, law, democracy, etc., based on them) which have been taken for granted until now. As Fukuzawa emphasized, if we do not fundamentally examine what "man" is and what "dignity" is and conduct discussions regarding the values and meanings of society without running away from the "inconvenient truths" exposed by natural science, the melting of boundaries will proceed without principle, and a chaos without order will arrive. This center is also backed by such an urgent feeling that true cross-disciplinary research is needed now.

I just said "true." This is because many so-called cross-disciplinary research projects have existed in Japan until now. As a researcher who has focused on the right to privacy and personal data protection within constitutional law, I have often been invited to cross-disciplinary research by science researchers, but the role required of me as a humanities (law) scholar there was "compliance support," such as checking if their research violated the Personal Information Protection Act; dialogue regarding the value or meaning of the research was almost never requested. About 20 years ago when I was a graduate student, law was sometimes shunned as an antagonist that regulates science and technology research, so the current situation where I am included even for compliance support feels like a different era. However, in many Japanese cross-disciplinary research projects, I think the humanities still often end up as "followers" of science research. Behind this may still lie the classical antagonistic scheme (Sayaka Oki) of the humanities seeing humans as the source of value and the sciences seeing humans as the source of bias, but in the midst of the current paradigm shift, this is no time to cling to such schemes. Natural science, which is progressing in the "quantification" of the universe and humans through the evolution of AI and stepping into the realm of God, cannot help but be conscious of the value and meaning of its research and implementation, and the humanities and social sciences cannot help but be conscious of the overwhelming achievements of natural science. Even if a subjective critical spirit toward "nature" is the essence of the humanities and social sciences, humanities and social sciences that ignore human natural existence are nothing but empty theories, just as Hobbes's social contract theory was based on the actual form of humans. While claiming cross-disciplinarity is advantageous for obtaining research funding and so-called cross-disciplinary research is expected to continue to prevail, this center aims to realize "true" cross-disciplinarity and break through the chaos brought about by the collapse of self-evidence through the collaboration of wisdom and virtue.

To achieve this, it is not enough to simply yearn for the so-called Humboldtian university and nostalgically assert the importance of philosophy and humanities education. This center will adopt a dynamic and rhythmic network structure that is not excessively institutionalized, referring to former private academies, salons, and the "Bologna Process" which emphasizes inter-city networks of universities. As a research network, we plan to collaborate with, for example, the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology (OIST), which is strong in neuroscience, and overseas research institutions with similar concerns as this center.

We are also considering the establishment of an Engagement Office where researchers and civil society actively interact and contribute to each other, and a Bridging Office (hereinafter "BO") to bridge humanities and social science research, which has latent cross-disciplinarity, with industry. Currently, AI ethics principles centered on the "human-centric principle" are being established worldwide (the human-centric principle is also advocated in the "AI Business Operator Guidelines" in Japan), but to understand the meaning of "human-centric" at a deep level and apply it to AI development and business, it will be necessary to learn the humanities knowledge since the Renaissance that countered the "God-centered" order. Kant might scold me, but humanities and social science research is also useful for AI business. The BO aims to provide awareness of utility by having "bridge persons," mainly students, "translate" humanities and social science research—which tends to be inward-looking—and actively disseminate it to society, while creating an "academic chain" throughout society including industry through salon-style communication (even if a dinner party is impossible).

An advisory board consisting of business executives and others will be established at this center. The first-term members will include Mr. Toshikazu Yamaguchi, Representative Director and President of The Yomiuri Shimbun Holdings, who is well-versed in philosophy such as Kant, and Mr. Jun Sawada, Chairman of the Board of NTT, who is also well-versed in philosophy and founded the Kyoto Institute of Philosophy to explore new ideological foundations for a digital society. We hope that both individuals, who understand the importance of considering science and technology from the perspective of value and meaning and are also familiar with the ways of industry, will assist in building a dynamic network of knowledge through advice to the BO and other means.

Finally, I would like to briefly introduce the research structure of this center. The research undertaken by the center consists of five units in total: (1) the "Concepts and History" unit, which comprehensively studies the concepts of "human" and "dignity" from the perspectives of literature, art history, cultural history, intellectual history, and the history of emotions, as well as philosophy and ethics; (2) the "Democracy and Human Dignity" unit, which examines the state of the nation and collective decision-making in the AI era; (3) the "Brain Mechanisms and Dignity" unit, which questions the meaning of "dignity" in collaboration with natural sciences (psychology, neuroscience, etc.) that explore the mechanisms of the brain; (4) the "Norms and Institutions" unit, which examines the design of a healthy information space and legal systems to overcome the challenges of the attention economy; and (5) an independent unit that responds to joint research from companies. This center is co-directed by four people: Professor Junichi Ushiba of the Faculty of Science and Technology (neuroscience), Professor Takeharu Okubo of the Faculty of Law (History of Oriental Political Thought), Professor Satoko Tokunaga of the Faculty of Letters (Medieval English Literature), and myself (Professor of the Law School). Unit (1) is led by Ms. Tokunaga, (2) by Mr. Okubo, (3) by Mr. Ushiba, and (4) by myself. Multiple subunits will be placed in each unit, and we plan to have many researchers from various fields participate. What is important is that each unit and subunit does not become closed off but rather interlinks and grows organically, leading to outcomes (implementation of knowledge) such as joint proposals and technological development (based on value and meaning). New units and subunits may be born during the research process. As mentioned earlier, what this center aims to build is a dynamic and rhythmic network structure that is not excessively institutionalized, but for its realization, we have great expectations for the skills of each member of the steering committee, who are top runners in their respective academic fields and have a deep understanding of other fields (Professor Keigo Komamura of the Faculty of Law [Constitutional Law; Steering Committee Chair], Professor Junko Kitanaka of the Faculty of Letters [Medical Anthropology], Professor Kenji Tanaka of the School of Medicine [Neuroscience], and Professor Takahiro Hoshino of the Faculty of Economics [Behavioral Economics, etc.]).

In the face of the overwhelming power of science and technology that undermines the premises of the modern system, how will we conceive of human dignity and open up an ideal civilization—the next paradigm? This is a challenge that should be addressed precisely at the university of Fukuzawa, who sought to cultivate the "spirit" of civilization by subjectively facing the "nature" that natural science proves, while emphasizing natural science as the "learning of learning."