维基百科

草稿:Bodioid Artifact

The "Bodioid artifact" philosophy delves into the technological and philosophical aspects of intelligent wearables, providing valuable insights into this field. Starting from the ‘existence is construction’ viewpoint, “Bodioid artifact” explores the inherent characteristics of mutual construction and shaping between ‘artifacts’ and ‘bodies’, and discusses possible post-human existence landscape.

Introduction 编辑

The concept of 'bodioid' was initially proposed by Professor XuJiang, who leads the Design Engineering and Computation Lab at the College of Design and Innovation of Tongji University.[1]. It is to describe the mutually constructing, constantly approaching, and gradually unifying relationship between the self and the external world. Bodioid constructions offer a new narrative mode centred on the body, in which designers and users meet within the artifacts. Thoughts and memories are formed through shared consciousness and temporal extension generated by the self-constructed narrative, thus reshaping personal moral worlds and connections to the entire social world through phenomenological embodiment. Personal moral worlds and connections to the social world are reconstructed through bodioid. ‘Bodioid artifact’ construction also describes the heterotopy between self and others, reality and virtuality, primacy and creation. Along with the borders of artifacts and the body blending, the living body integrates artifacts into the body schema, jointly understanding and transforming the world, a bodioid mediation that is reflected in the similar-to-self nature of the human(body–technology)–world relationship is formed. Self-identity is created in the new intersubjective conversation. The body authorizes artifacts to become agents of action, replacing humans in establishing connections with the external world. This body lives in a world presented and constructed by bodioid artifacts, also reflected in the similar-to-others nature of the body–(technology–world) relationship.

Theory Resources 编辑

Both object and human existence forms are changing profoundly. We humans exist outside the self, so we have to constantly create, and design our capabilities. Humanity is a species existence, and the self-conscious practice of activity is the fundamental mode of human existence[2]. The outside world emerges and develops in the objectification of the free class essence, which also reveals human existence as the subject. The result is entities whose bodies are no longer innate but are acquired postnatally or constructed externally, and whose artificial objects are no longer external to their forms but embedded in them. Artifacts are and will be freely existing in, influencing, and even reshaping all aspects of our lives, including our perceptions, actions, and decisions. From the sole static state to dynamic stability, as the tool for individual self-expression, artifacts reveal the specific forms of self-reflection and self-discovery, becoming the medium of humans objectifying their needs and wishes.

Technology shapes existence and becomes the core strength of post-human constructing themselves. These artifacts are embedded in the body and facilitate orderly information flow between organic bodily components and inorganic electronic devices. Wearable computing integrates sensing and computing technologies into everyday clothing or wearable portable accessories, functioning as body extensions[3][4]. Brain–computer interfaces connect physiological signals to external devices, revealing the brain’s informational landscape[5]. Various prosthetics such as pacemakers, cochlear implants, and retinal implants can repair or enhance human perception, movement, and cognitive capabilities, thereby restoring and improving self-survival abilities. Cyborgs, representing the organic integration of artificial organs with natural flesh, and electronic software, which have cognitive patterns, link internal and external spaces. This fusion generates expansive prospects that transcend inherent human attributes, bridging between the spiritual and material[6].

Technology generates human’s time and space structure: memories and knowledge extend through a biological medium, making humans become historical existence. The evolution and extension of technology constantly create the essence of humans, which achieves the outside development of the body’s spatial structure. While tool is invented, humans overcome their initial shortcuts and build up a tight connection with the world.  As the perceptual and action mediation, technology, in its mediational position, becomes transparent while highlighting its own power, concealing and revealing simultaneously, which makes human beings and technology the same subject jointly pointing towards the experienced world. Technology is not merely a mediator that helps humans achieve their intentions in the material world, but also a regulator that actively promotes the shaping of reality. Technology both provides the means to and promotes the construction of new purposes.

 
Fig.2 Theory resources of bodioid artifact

Currently, the concept of "wearables" is often centered around technology, based on a logical empiricist stance, defining it as computing, sensing, and interacting devices attached to the surface of the body from an external, third-person perspective, which fails to fully express the coexistence of wearables and humans[7]. Existing between the realm of technology and the body, a "bodioid" relationship gradually emerges, transcending wearables' objective calculation of the body and the world. Human forms and needs are mapped onto the structure and function of artifacts, while the presence of artifacts subtly changes human body composition, behavioral habits, and even social and cultural concepts. The body and artifacts share a natural similarity and mutual construction. We inhabit the world through our bodies, shaping an artificial nature with the body as a scale. Meanwhile, technology becomes an extension of the body, facilitating the connection between people and reality, and co-shaping how people are presented in the world and how the world is manifested to them. The ways in which artifacts are used and experienced are an inseparable part of our existence.

Key Forms 编辑

“Bodioid artifact” construction reveals the constructive role of body–artifact interaction, the starting point being their similarity and the process being the confrontation and fusion of two heterogeneous elements. The living characteristics are reflected or extended into artifacts; therefore, the purposes of design and use point to human intentions and needs. Artifacts magnify or diminish perceptions, invite or inhibit actions, and guide certain moral norms, thereby signifying latent skills or knowledge within the body. These characteristics constitute the essence of human beings. Similar to language, bodioid artifacts are mainly generated through two forms: extension and mirroring. Extension originates from convenience, whereas mirror originates from emulation. Analogy and sympathy are key forms of self-organization for both[8].

Extension 编辑

Extension entails the continuous construction of bodily existence, perceptual experiences, action possibility, and cognitive characteristics through a tool juxtaposed with the body schema, leading to action. Similarly, humans design and use bodioid artifacts based on the extension of their bodies, which includes the bidirectional proximity and suitability of the body and objects at the interface position or functional attributes. Here, convenience extends the body schema at the skill level, while creating more interface forms at the physical level.

  1. Extension is a tangible replacement, compensation, and expansion of the flesh. Body limitations compel humans to seek external tools. The initial intention of the design was to supplement or replace the body’s organs[9]. The body is the most direct object of the bodioid construction, which is an inherent enhancement[10]. For example, organoids[11] and gene editing technology.
  2. Extension creates new content and forms of perceptual experiences. Blind people perceive canes as more than mere objects; they view them as extensions of their visual range and reach of touch[12]. Extension introduces computing systems for target recognition, tracking, and measurement, thus consciously or unconsciously transforming visually impaired subjects’ life perceptual experiences[13]. For example, machine simulation of vision, and Virtual Reality.
  3. Extension creates richer possibilities for action.  The constructive effect of extension on the body changes its patterns, extends its agency, and redefines its peripheral space. We encode the distance of nearby objects through relative manipulation and touch. Technological tools can temporarily modify the spatial representation of actions by modifying the areas that the body can touch, thereby creating new functions and meanings. For example, artificial muscles, prosthetics, robotics, bionics, and micro-nano machines[14].
  4. Extension involves the transformation of cognitive forms. Artificial intelligence application involves humans’ use of machines to help themselves understand and synthesize the characteristics of external objects and abstract features. Some intelligent machines exhibit features such as adaptability, self-learning, self-organization, self-coordination, and self-optimization, allowing them to be embedded into different environments so as to interact naturally with people, contribute to the creation of new life scenarios, and change the way we use and recognize products, among other functions[15].
  5. The fusion of technology and the body creates a transcendent quasi-subject. The world demonstrates the universal convenience of objects, and extensions join bodies and objects to form mediations of subjects’ world experiences. Human subjects inscribe morality onto technological artifacts, which can extend bodily perception and movement abilities, become the text that interprets environmental elements, and turn into the constituent components of the environment[16]. To a certain extent, the integration of body–technology–world experiences is achieved. For example, electronic skin, and electronic tattoos.
  6. Extension facilitates new forms of interaction and conversation between subjects. Intelligent products interconnect with the body through various interfaces and function as organ extensions, forming a cognitive field extending into the environment. This universal convenience shapes new forms and contents of conversation among subjects, with the body as the input and output platform[17]. For example, Google HoloLens2 and other headsets.

Mirroring 编辑

"Mirroring" is a form of "emulation". The body extends itself infinitely into time and space through mirroring, while technical objects imitate the body to construct their own form and core, such that a silent similarity can break distance constraints and facilitate communication between the body and objects. Consequently, a bodioid constructs a body emulation akin to quasi-otherness, serving as an agent of our actions and objects of interaction. Simultaneously, we observe certain characteristics of ourselves through this mutual emulation. This mediation and flexible similarity between the self and others is at the core of mirroring.

  1. The body becomes the source of technology emulation. The essence of technology is nature emulation, beginning with the body’s physiological functions. Technology compensates for instinctual deficiencies and provides more possibilities and openness for humans to adapt to external environments. The body, as the most direct object of technological emulation, becomes the center of association between things, surrounded by similarities. For example, Brain-inspired computing[18].
  2. The body authorizes artefacts, making them agents of activity. Technological regulation shapes our agents in terms of ‘action’ or ‘transformative’ capabilities, making them mirror images of our bodies and redefining our ability to act. In emulating the body, the perceptual and active capabilities of the subject are mapped onto artificial objects. We shift from having polishing tools to being in symbiosis and competition with intelligent machines, and from inter-subjective communication to interaction and dialogue with intelligent agents. Mirroring maps human attributes to artificial objects, and as agents, artifacts shape the forms of our existence in interaction, with the emulation of perception and action being a critical form.
  3. Mirroring depicts objects-to-quasi-otherness transformations and subject-object to intersubjectivity transformations. The essence of Dasein lies in Mitsein[10]. All objective aspects draw their ontological significance and validity from the a priori intersubjectivity of the subject. By emulating others, bodioids create similarity between the perceived object and the self[19], reshaping the experiential pattern of physical entities and forming an interactive embodiment related to the intrinsic intersubjectivity connections. Material or virtual entities become ‘living’ quasi-others, not just external objects with specific functional structures and behaviors. Bodioid artifact experiences are advancing from ‘grasp’ in perception and action to ‘empathy’ in situational interactions. For example, conversational agents[20]
  4. Mirroring reflects others while also constructing the self. Mirroring constitutes a new way of looking, in which subject and object, and self and other merge together through bodily interactions. Everyone sees themselves in others and recognizes others in themselves[21]. In such a bidirectional mirroring, we project ourselves onto it and recognize ourselves within it[22]. Therefore, mirroring is a significant force in the construction of self and others. For example, Virtual Reality.

Bodioid Design 编辑

Design is a concrete form of Bodioid construction. Bodioid Design offers an interpretive perspective on how artifacts merge or project onto the body, and how the body internalizes experiences and knowledge about artifacts. It also reflects on how to shape artifacts to achieve ‘self-practice’ and reshape the common subject. Thus, intermediate and generative technological design thought has emerged as a new force in self-construction and world transformation.

Bodioid design transcends mere delineations of artifact functionality and structure, instead engaging in a profound excavation of the intrinsic interrelations between the body and artifacts, thereby effectuating a reconstitution of their modes of existence. Designers assume the role of textual intermediaries facilitating dialogue and interaction between individuals and artifacts, thereby manifesting the collective intentions of users within design. Simultaneously, this engagement engenders encounters between designers and users within lived environments, fostering a dynamic interplay and fusion among designers, users, artifacts, and contextual usage settings.

The essence of Bodioid design lies in the reshaping of existence and meaning. Examination of technological artifacts necessitates more than the adoption of an analytical, objectivist perspective, which construes them as ready-to-hand, externally existing objects. Phenomenology, with its call to "return to the things themselves," offers novel insights: the existence of things is neither solely grounded in their intrinsic essence nor confined to the objectivity perceived through subjective representation, but rather emerges within the relationality between subject and object, where objects simultaneously possess an intrinsic, "ready-to-hand," mine-ness, and bodioid.  Design, to a certain extent, unveils the similar essence of both humans and artifacts: it is through the act of creating the objective world that humans truly demonstrate their existence as a species existence; it is only through encounters within the lifeworld, entangled with the body, that artifacts truly acquire their enduring significance.

The phenomenological body becomes the scale of creation and the core of design. Bodioid design, through mediating and regulating human perception and action, situates artifacts within body schema, transforming the design subject from artifacts to subjective experiences, and redirecting design objectives from the technological realm to the living world, thereby extending the spatiotemporal dimensions of bodily domains. Bodioid artifacts emerge convergently within the dynamic interaction between body and world, crystallizing multidimensional cohesion in the dimensions of time and space. Temporally, they manifest as a shared experience of bodily time and the temporal extension of external phenomena[23]; spatially, they manifest as the intertwining and superimposition of bodily space and phenomenal space. "Body Computing" thus serves as a representation of this construction.

 
Fig.4 Frame of Bodioid Design

Through extension and mirroring, Bodioid achieves the coupling of bodily intentions and technological intentions. Extension entails the continuous construction of bodily existence, perceptual experiences, action possibility, and cognitive characteristics. Mirroring constructs a body emulation akin to quasi-otherness, serving as an agent of our actions and objects of interaction. Simultaneously, we observe certain characteristics of ourselves through this mutual emulation. The ongoing emergence of technology continuously shapes the human essence, constituting how subjects perceive and reveal the world. Technological intentionality encompasses a dual meaning: on the one hand, it represents the usability assigned to technology at its inception, and on the other hand, it signifies the directional meaning of technology when it is in use. The "scripts" inscribed by design permeate the technological cognition and choices of users in their production and daily life, exerting an actively positive moral shaping effect. Bodioid design establishes a continuous interaction and construction among "self-existence-others," linking bodily intentions with technological intentions, and constructing a series of concentric circles centered around the body, reflecting and competing with each other. The system of objects is interwoven within this framework, embodying the philosophical implications of "The Internet of Bodies" (IoB).

參考資料 编辑

  1. ^ Xu, Jiang; Sun, Gang; Xu, Jingyu; Su, Pujie. Bodioid: philosophical reflections on the hybrid of bodies and artefacts towards post-human. 2024. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2403.02972. 
  2. ^ Marx, Karl. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Social Theory Re-Wired. New York: Routledge. 2023-04-28: 142–147. ISBN 978-1-003-32060-9. 
  3. ^ Weber, Rolf H. Internet of Things – New security and privacy challenges. Computer Law & Security Review. 2010-01, 26 (1). ISSN 0267-3649. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2009.11.008. 
  4. ^ Ates, H. Ceren; Nguyen, Peter Q.; Gonzalez-Macia, Laura; Morales-Narváez, Eden; Güder, Firat; Collins, James J.; Dincer, Can. End-to-end design of wearable sensors. Nature Reviews Materials. 2022-07-22, 7 (11). ISSN 2058-8437. doi:10.1038/s41578-022-00460-x. 
  5. ^ Vidal, J J. Toward Direct Brain-Computer Communication. Annual Review of Biophysics and Bioengineering. 1973-06, 2 (1). ISSN 0084-6589. doi:10.1146/annurev.bb.02.060173.001105. 
  6. ^ Vydas, Saulius. Cyborg: Evolution of the Superman. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. 1965-10-25, 194 (4). ISSN 0098-7484. doi:10.1001/jama.1965.03090170152043. 
  7. ^ Rapp, Amon. Wearable technologies as extensions: a postphenomenological framework and its design implications. Human–Computer Interaction. 2021-07-15, 38 (2). ISSN 0737-0024. doi:10.1080/07370024.2021.1927039. 
  8. ^ Brady, Michelle. <b>Helen O’Grady</b>, <i>Woman’s Relationship with Herself: Gender, Foucault and Therapy (London & New York: Routledge, 2005), ISBN 0415331269</>.. Foucault Studies. 2008-01-01. ISSN 1832-5203. doi:10.22439/fs.v0i5.1425. 
  9. ^ Kapp, Ernst. Elements of a Philosophy of Technology. University of Minnesota Press http://dx.doi.org/10.5749/j.ctv7n0cpf. 2018-11-13. ISBN 978-1-4529-5820-0.  缺少或|title=为空 (帮助)
  10. ^ 10.0 10.1 Bar-Levav, Avriel (编). Maurice Samuels, The Right to Difference: French Universalism and the Jews. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016. 241 pp.. Textual Transmission in Contemporary Jewish Cultures. Oxford University Press. 2020-05-07: 314–316. 
  11. ^ Zhao, Zixuan; Chen, Xinyi; Dowbaj, Anna M.; Sljukic, Aleksandra; Bratlie, Kaitlin; Lin, Luda; Fong, Eliza Li Shan; Balachander, Gowri Manohari; Chen, Zhaowei; Soragni, Alice; Huch, Meritxell. Organoids. Nature Reviews Methods Primers. 2022-12-01, 2 (1). ISSN 2662-8449. PMC 10270325  . PMID 37325195. doi:10.1038/s43586-022-00174-y （英语）. 
  12. ^ Ihde, Don. Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Indiana University Press. 1990. 
  13. ^ Kim, Seongchan; Choi, Yoon Young; Kim, Taewan; Kim, Yong Min; Ho, Dong Hae; Choi, Young Jin; Roe, Dong Gue; Lee, Ju-Hee; Park, Joongpill; Choi, Ji-Woong; Kim, Jeong Won. A biomimetic ocular prosthesis system: emulating autonomic pupil and corneal reflections. Nature Communications. 2022-11-09, 13 (1). ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 9646703  . PMID 36351937. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-34448-6 （英语）. 
  14. ^ Shi, Mayue; Yeatman, Eric M. A comparative review of artificial muscles for microsystem applications. Microsystems & Nanoengineering. 2021-11-23, 7 (1). ISSN 2055-7434. PMC 8611050  . PMID 34858630. doi:10.1038/s41378-021-00323-5 （英语）. 
  15. ^ Mühlhäuser, Max. Smart Products: An Introduction. Communications in Computer and Information Science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. : 158–164. ISBN 978-3-540-85378-7. 
  16. ^ RETRACTION: Book Review: Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Verbeek, P. (2005). What Things Do: Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency, and Design. Trans. R. P. Crease. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2007-09, 32 (5). ISSN 0162-2439. doi:10.1177/0895904805303206. 
  17. ^ Harrison, Chris; Ramamurthy, Shilpa; Hudson, Scott E. On-body interaction. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction (New York, NY, USA: ACM). 2012-02-19. doi:10.1145/2148131.2148148. 
  18. ^ Zhang, Youhui; Qu, Peng; Ji, Yu; Zhang, Weihao; Gao, Guangrong; Wang, Guanrui; Song, Sen; Li, Guoqi; Chen, Wenguang; Zheng, Weimin; Chen, Feng. A system hierarchy for brain-inspired computing. Nature. 2020-10-15, 586 (7829). ISSN 0028-0836. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2782-y （英语）. 
  19. ^ MERLEAU-PONTY’S PHENOMENOLOGY. Routledge Philosophy GuideBook to Merleau-Ponty and Phenomenology of Perception. Routledge. 2010-09-13: 14–45. ISBN 978-0-203-48289-6. 
  20. ^ Van Pinxteren, Michelle M.E.; Pluymaekers, Mark; Lemmink, Jos G.A.M. Human-like communication in conversational agents: a literature review and research agenda. Journal of Service Management. 2020-03-09, 31 (2). ISSN 1757-5818. doi:10.1108/josm-06-2019-0175. 
  21. ^ Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and nothingness: An essay in phenomenological ontology. London: Taylor & Francis. 2022. 
  22. ^ Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism is a Humanism. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2007. 
  23. ^ Bergson, Henri. Creative evolution. London/New York, NY: Routledge. 2022. 

外部連結 编辑

Category:用条目向导创建的草稿

取自“https://zh.100ke.info/w/index.php?title=Draft:Bodioid_Artifact&oldid=82455414”