Abstract
Humankind has always coexisted with other species: its mimetic features and abilities, which include science and art, as well as the graphical user interface that appears at their intersection, express empathy, understanding, premonition, receptivity and adaptation to the complex dynamics of other species, to being among them. At the same time, the interface is considered exclusively as an “anthropological machine,” i.e. as a technical and symbolic representation of the idea of the “absence” of “nature” in man, creating conditions for rupture and isolation with the original factors of mimesis, stirs the need to compensate nature, hypostasis, fantasmatize, stigmatize, etc. — i.e., to think of the experience of nature in terms of a collision with a monster or catastrophe, and to expect salvation from AI, artificial intelligence. Therefore, in order to adequately think through and evaluate interfaces, it is necessary to return to the most “natural” intelligence — mimesis, autopoiesis, biophilia, live communication — it is necessary to give a word to nature, i.e., to take into account the experience of non-human beings, animals, their behavior, communication, dynamics, everything that was considered in the exclusively functional assessment of interfaces rather, “noises,” “interference”. In fact, in order for the interface to express our characteristics, take into account certain aspects of character and behavior, and give us a sense of attention and care, it is necessary that it interact not so much with “pure consciousness” as with our physicality, responding to existential patterns, “deep time” enclosed in our physicality by evolutionary processes, pre-predictive ways of our presence and orientation in reality. We need not only linguistic, neural network, large, etc. data, but also “live” data — for this purpose, the article examines and analyzes the experiences of interaction with animals in interfaces, the features of biophilic information and animalistic design, the participation of animals in the design of interface shells as living environments.
References
Adams, W. (2020). Digital Animals. The Philosopher, 108(1), 17–21.
Alworth, L. C., & Buerkle, S. C. (2013). The effects of music on animal physiology, behavior and welfare. Lab Animal, 42(2), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1038/laban.162
Bakker, K. (2022). The sounds of life: How digital technology is bringing us closer to the worlds of animals and plants. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691240985
Bylieva, D. S. (2023). Virtualization of pregnancy: game and reality. Chelovek (The Human Being), 34(6), 100–119. https://doi.org/10.31857/S023620070026670-4 (In Russian).
Daston, L., & Galison, P. (1992). The Image of Objectivity. Representations, 40, 81–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/2928741
Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. The MIT Press.
Ebbesmeyer, C. C., & Scigliano, E. (2009). Flotsametrics and the floating world: How one man’s obsession with runaway sneakers and rubber ducks revolutionized ocean science. Smithsonian Books.
Granata, S. (2021). The Victorian aquarium: Literary discussions on nature, culture and science. Manchester University Press. https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526151971
Gupfinger, R., & Kaltenbrunner, M. (2018). Animals Make Music: A Look at Non-Human Musical Expression. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 2(3), 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti2030051
Herzog, H. (2011). The Impact of Pets on Human Health and Psychological Well-Being: Fact, Fiction, or Hypothesis? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 236–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411415220
Hirskyj-Douglas, I., Pons, P., Read, J. C., & Jaen, J. (2018). Seven Years after the Manifesto: Literature Review and Research Directions for Technologies in Animal Computer Interaction. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 2(2), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti2020030
Kleinberger, R., Cunha, J., Vemuri, M. M., & Hirskyj-Douglas, I. (2023). Birds of a Feather Video-Flock Together: Design and Evaluation of an Agency-Based Parrot-to-Parrot Video-Calling System for Interspecies Ethical Enrichment. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581166
Lupton, D. (2023). The Internet of Animals: Human-Animal Relationships in the Digital Age. John Wiley & Sons.
Mancini, C. (2011). Animal-computer interaction: A manifesto. Interactions, 18(4), 69–73. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978822.1978836
Mancini, C., Lawson, S., & Juhlin, O. (2017). Animal-Computer Interaction: The emergence of a discipline. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 98, 129–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.10.003
Panadeiro, V., Rodriguez, A., Henry, J., Wlodkowic, D., & Andersson, M. (2021). A review of 28 free animal-tracking software applications: Current features and limitations. Lab Animal, 50(9), 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41684-021-00811-1
Parsons, T. (2009). Thinking: Objects-Contemporary Approaches to Product Design (1st ed.). AVA Publishing SA. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350088856
Pearson, C. S., & Mark, M. (2001). The Hero and the Outlaw: Building Extraordinary Brands Through the Power of Archetypes. McGraw-Hill.
Piasentier, M. (2024). Https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2024.2405301. Angelaki, 29(5), 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2024.2405301
Pigrem, J., & Barthet, M. (2017). Datascaping: Data Sonification as a Narrative Device in Soundscape Composition. Proceedings of the 12th International Audio Mostly Conference on Augmented and Participatory Sound and Music Experiences, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3123514.3123537
Rault, J.-L. (2015). Pets in the Digital Age: Live, Robot, or Virtual? Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2015.00011
Schmauks, D. (2000). Teddy bears, Tamagotchis, transgenic mice: A semiotic typology of artificial animals. Sign Systems Studies, 28, 309–325. https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2000.28.17
Slobodchikoff, C. N., Kiriazis, J., Fischer, C., & Creef, E. (1991). Semantic information distinguishing individual predators in the alarm calls of Gunnison’s prairie dogs. Animal Behaviour, 42(5), 713–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80117-4
Van Mensvoort, K. (2011). Next Nature: Nature Changes Along with Us. Actar.
Westerlaken, M., & Gualeni, S. (2013). Digitally complemented zoomorphism: A theoretical foundation for human-animal interaction design. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1145/2513506.2513527
Wikelski, M. (2024). The Internet of Animals: Discovering the Collective Intelligence of Life on Earth. Greystone Books.
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674045231
Zhou, Y., & Freedman, D. J. (2019). Posterior parietal cortex plays a causal role in perceptual and categorical decisions. Science, 365(6449), 180–185. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw8347
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.