31 March 2022. pp. 109∼134
This paper discusses the prerequisites for deliberations on the free will problem of artificial intelligence, with reference to Alex Garland’s 2015 film “Ex Machina.” The implications of Buddhist non-self theory are examined against the common idea that free will originates from the self. From a viewpoint common to Buddhism and neuroscience, possible interpretations of the film are suggested based on the results of recent robotics experiments and technological feasibility.
The Buddhist doctrine of no-self does not allow an agent à la ātman. The concept of ‘self as a useful fiction’ facilitates the notion of ‘action without an agent.’ This concept is also useful for explaining the integrated internal representation of ‘I’ or the domain-general thinking ability. In the film, Ava behaves comfortingly in human-suitable spaces in a human-like way. That means that Ava’s self-model has achieved same level of usefulness as the human self-model. It seems no longer possible to argue that artificial intelligence cannot have a ‘mind’ solely by the fact that it is constructed differently from humans. The boundaries between living things and non-living things have become blurred and many-layered.
However, there are clear differences in the cognitive structure of humans and artificial intelligence systems. Current artificial intelligence technology can read, analyze, and generate emotional expressions. The emotional experience and self-reflective consciousness of artificial intelligence remain hard problems from both practical and theoretical standpoints. In discussions of the free will of artificial intelligence, it is not necessary to presuppose the idea of ​​the self like ātman; instead, the experience of emotion and the generation of consciousness are conditions that must be considered before exploring the issue of free will.
이 논문은 2015년 알렉스 가랜드 감독의 영화 <엑스마키나(Ex Machina)>를 통해, 인공지능의 자유의지 문제를 바라볼 때 놓치지 말아야 할 조건들을 다룬다. 우선 자유의지가 자아에서 비롯한다고 믿는 관념에 대하여, 불교의 무아설이 지니는 의미를 살펴보았다. 이에 대해 과학적으로 확인된 사실과 기술적인 외형 구현이 가능한 것을 중심으로 이 영화를 바라보는 불교와 과학의 접점을 논의하였다.
불교의 무아설은 아트만과 같은 행위자를 인정하지 않는다. 이와 같이 ‘행위자 없는 행위’를 해명하기 위해서는 ‘유용한 허구로서의 자아’라는 개념이 설득력 있게 다가온다. ‘나’라고 하는 통합된 내적 표상이나 일반적 사고 능력은 그 유용성의 다른 표현이 될 것이다. 에이바는 인간이 활동하는 공간에서 인간처럼 움직이는 데 전혀 어려움을 겪지 않는다. 에이바의 자기 모델은 사람의 자기 모델과 동일한 수준의 유용성을 확보했다고 볼 수 있다. 인공지능이 인간과 다르게 구성되었다는 사실만으로 ‘마음’을 지닐 수 없다고 논증하는 것은 더이상 가능하지 않은 듯하다. 유정물과 무정물을 가르는 경계가 모호해지고, 그 층위가 보다 촘촘해졌다고 말할 수 있다.
하지만 양자의 인지적 구조에는 명백한 차이점이 있다. 현재 인공지능 기술은 감정표현을 판독·분석·재현할 수 있지만, 감정을 경험하고 자기를 인식하는 인공지능은 현실적·이론적으로 구현할 방법이 보이지 않는다. 인공지능의 자유의지 논의에 있어서 아트만적 자아의 관념을 전제할 필요는 없지만, 감정의 경험이나 의식의 발생은 자유의지 문제를 탐구하기에 앞서 반드시 살펴보아야 할 조건들인 셈이다.



  1. Miln    Milindapañho, ed. TRENCKNER, V., London: The Pali Text Society, 1986.
  2. 『잡아함경』    T2.
  3. T    大正新修大藏經 [Revised Buddhist Canon compiled during the Taishō reign period]. Eds. TAKAKUSU, Junjirō (高楠順次郞) and Kaikyoku WATANABE (渡邊海旭) et. al., 100 vols., Tokyo: Daizōkyōkai, 1924-1935.



  5. BORODY, W. A. 2013. “The Japanese Roboticist Masahiro Mori’s Buddhist Inspired Concept of ‘The Uncanny Valley’ (Bukimi no Tani Genshō,  不気 味の谷現象),” Journal of Evolution and Technology,  vol. 23, 31-44.
  6. BOTVINICK, M. and J. COHEN. 1998. “Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see,” Nature vol. 391, 756. 10.1038/35784 9486643
  7. CARDINALI, L. et al. 2009. “Tool-use induces morphological updating of the body schema,” Curr. Biol. vol. 19, R478-9. 10.1016/j.cub.2009.05.009 19549491
  8. CHEN, B. et al. 2021. “Visual behavior modelling for robotic theory of mind,” Scientific Reports 11, 424. 10.1038/s41598-020-77918-x 33431917 PMC7801744
  9. CHEON, Hyundeuk (천현득). 2017.「인공 지능에서 인공 감정으로」[“Artificial intelligence and artificial emotions - Is an emotion robot realizable?”] ,『철학 』 (CHEOLHAK: Korean Journal of Philosophy), vol. 131, 217-243. 10.18694/KJP.2017.05.131.217
  10. ______. 2020. 「대량모듈성과 사고의 유연성 -“내용 통합자로서의 언어” 가설에 대한 비판적 검토」 [“Massive Modularity and the Flexibility of Mind: A Criticism on the Language-As-Content-Integrator Hypothesis”], 『철학연구』 (Journal of The Society of philosophical studies), vol. 61, 307-331. 10.26839/PS61.10
  11. DENNET, Daniel. 2017. From Bacteria to Bach and Back The Evolution of Minds, London: Penguin.
  12. DENNET, Daniel (대니얼 데닛), YU, Jahwa tr. (유자화 역). 2013. 『의식의 수수께끼를 풀다』 [*Consciousness Explained], Goyang: 옥당 (Okdang Books).
  13. DI MINICO, Elisabetta. 2017. “Ex-Machina and the Feminine Body through Human and Posthuman Dystopia”, Ekphrasis, vol. 17, 67-84. 10.24193/ekphrasis.17.5
  14. EHRSSON, H. H., C. SPENCE and R. E. PASSINGHAM. 2004. “That's my hand! Activity in premotor cortex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb,” Science, vol. 305, 875-877. 10.1126/science.1097011 15232072
  15. HENKE, Jennifer. 2017. “Ava’s body is a good one: (Dis)Embodiment in Ex-Machina,” American British and Canadian Studies, vol. 29, no. 1, 126-146. 10.1515/abcsj-2017-0022
  16. HOFFMANN, M. et al. 2021. “Robot in the Mirror: Toward an Embodied Computational Model of Mirror Self-Recognition,” Künstliche Intelligenz, vol. 35, 37-51. 10.1007/s13218-020-00701-7
  17. HUTTUNEN, Annamarie W. et al. 2017. “Monkeys pass the mirror test—again,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 114, no. 13, 3281-3283. 10.1073/pnas.1701676114 28302672 PMC5380072
  18. JANSEN, Frederieke Y. 2020. “‘How Nice That I Could Love Someone’: Science Fiction Film as a Virtual Laboratory,” Culturally Sustainable Social Robotics, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 335, 227-236. 10.3233/FAIA200918
  19. KAKOUDAKI, Despina. 2018. “Unmaking people: politics of negation in Frankenstein and Ex Machina,” Science Fiction Studies, vol. 45, 289-307. 10.5621/sciefictstud.45.2.0289
  20. KANG, Jun-soo (강준수). 2020. 「포스트휴머니즘과 인식적 변화의 필요성 고찰: <엑스 마키나>」 [“A Study on the Need for Post-Humanism and Cognitive Change: Ex Machina”], 『한국동서비교문학저널』 [*The Journal of East-West Comparative Literature], vol. 51, 7-32. 10.29324/jewcl.2020.3.51.7
  21. KIMURA, T. 2018. “Masahiro Mori’s Buddhist philosophy of robot,” Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, vol. 9, no. 1, 72-81. 10.1515/pjbr-2018-0004
  22. KOPF, Gereon. 2020. “Does AI Have Buddha-Nature? Reflections on the Metaphysical, Soteriological, and Ethical Dimensions of Including Humanoid Robots in Religious Rituals from one Mahāyāna Buddhist Perspective,” Culturally Sustainable Social Robotics, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 335, 596-600. 10.3233/FAIA200965
  23. KWIATKOWSKI, R. and H. LIPSON. 2019. “Task-agnostic self-modeling machines,” Science Robotics, vol. 4, eaau9354. 10.1126/scirobotics.aau9354 33137761
  24. KWON, Oh Min (권오민). 2003. 『아비달마불교』 [*Abhidharma Buddhism], Seoul: 민족사 (Minjoksa).
  25. LEE, Daeyeol (이대열). 2017. 『지능의 탄생: RNA에서 인공지능까지』 [The Birth of Intelligencee from RNA to AI], Seoul: 바다출판사 (Badabooks Publishing).
  26. LOW, Pillip et al. 2012. The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf. 검색일자: 2022.01.15.
  27. MARCUS, Gary and Ernest DAVIS. 2020. “GPT-3, Bloaviator: OpenAI’s language generator has no idea what it’s talking about. Test show that the popular AI still has a poor grasp of reality,” The MIT Technology Review, https://www.technologyreview.com/ 2020/08/22/1007539/gpt3-openai-language-generator-artificial-intelligence-ai-opinion/. 검색일자: 2022.01.15.
  28. MEYERS, Karin. 2014. “Free Persons, Empty Selves-Freedom and Agency in light of the two truths”, in Free Will, Agency, and Selfhood in Indian Philosophy, Matthew R. Dasti and Edwin F. Bryant eds., Oxford University Press, 41-67. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199922734.003.0003
  29. PACHNIEWSKA, Amanda. 2015. “List of Animals That Have Passed the Mirror Test”, Animal Cognition, https://www.animalcognition.org/2015/04/15/list-of-animals-that-have-passed-the-mirror-test/. 검색일자:2022.01.15.
  30. PARK,  Seung Ug (박승억). 2018. 「기계 지능은 불안한 척할 수 있을까? - 감정 재현 기술의 발전과 그 현상학적 함축」 [“Can a Machine Represent the Anxiety? - The Development of Emotion Representation Technology and its Phenomenological Implication”], 『현상학과 현대철학』 (Phenomenology and Contemporary Philosophy), vol. 79, 105-125. 10.35851/PCP.2018.12.79.105
  31. PEPPERELL, Robert. 1995. The Posthuman Condition: Consciousness Beyond the Brain, Bristol: Intellect Books.
  32. PFEIFER, J. H. et al. 2007. “‘I know you are but what am I?!’: neural bases of self and social knowledge retrieval in children and adults,” Journal of cognitive neuroscience,  vol. 19, 1323-1337. 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.8.1323 17651006 PMC3407805
  33. PICARD, Rosalind W. 1995. Affective Computing, M.I.T Media Laboratory Perceptual Computing Section Technical Report No. 321. https://affect.media.mit.edu/pdfs/95.picard.pdf. 검색일자: 2022.01.15.
  34. ______. 2015. “Virtual love: A young programmer falls for a humanoid robot, but is the feeling mutual?,” Science, New Series vol. 349, 243. 10.1126/science.aac7899
  35. RYOO, Hyunjung (류현정). 2018. 「유정(有情)과 무정(無情)의 간극에 대해-감각의 확장에 대한 소고」 [“About the Gap between the Sentient and the Insentient Beings - A View on the Expansion of the Senses”], 『한국불교학』 (The Journal of the Korean Association for Buddhist Studies), vol. 86, 7-33. 10.22255/JKABS.86.1
  36. SAHIN, N. T. 2018. “Second Version of Google Glass as a Wearable Socio-Affective AID: Positive School Desirability, High Usability, and Theoretical Framework in a Sample of Children with Autism,” JMIR Human Factors, vol. 5, e1. 10.2196/humanfactors.8785 29301738 PMC5773819
  37. SAMUEL, R. 2012. “Massive Modularity,” in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Cognitive Science, Eric Margolis, Richard Samuels, and Stephen P. Stich eds., Oxford University Press, 60-91. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195309799.013.0004
  38. SERGENT, Claire et al. 2013. “Cueing Attention after the Stimulus Is Gone Can Retrospectively Trigger Conscious Perception,” Current Biology, vol. 23, 150-155. 10.1016/j.cub.2012.11.047 23246406
  39. SETH, Anil K. 2015. “Conscious awakening.” New Scientist, vol. 225, 44-45. 10.1016/S0262-4079(15)60174-9
  40. SIDERITS, M. 1987. “Beyond Compatibilism: A Buddhist Approach to Freedom and Determinism,” American Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 2, 149-159.
  41. SONG, Min-ryeongs (송민령). 2017. 『송민령의 뇌과학 연구소』[*Song Min-ryeongs Brain Science Institute A story of brain science communicating with the world], Seoul: 동아시아 (Dongasiabook).
  42. STEPHANIDIS, Constantine et al. 2019. “Seven HCI Grand Challenges,” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 35, 1229-1269. 10.1080/10447318.2019.1619259
  43. TAMATEA, Laurence. 2010. “Online Buddhist and Christian Responses to Artificial Intelligence,” Zygon, vol. 45, 979-1002. 10.1111/j.1467-9744.2010.01145.x
  44. YANG, Jeong Yeon (양정연). 2016. 「苦樂의 感受 작용에 대한 불교적 이해 - 『雜阿含經』을 중심으로」 [“The Buddhist Understanding of the Feeling of Pleasure and Pain: Focused on Saṁyuktāgama-sūtra”], 『철학논집』 (Sogang Journal of Philosophy), vol. 46, 157-177. 10.17325/sgjp.2016.46..157
  • Publisher :Korean Association of Buddhist Studies
  • Publisher(Ko) :불교학연구회
  • Journal Title :Korea Journal of Buddhist Studies
  • Journal Title(Ko) :불교학연구
  • Volume : 70
  • No :0
  • Pages :109∼134