[1] 3D Interface: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh1m15-2HNo [2] 10/GUI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWz1KbknIZk
[3] Aireal (Disney): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaFBjUJj00M
[4] Aurora (Adaptive Path/Mozilla): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ-zvx1QCcA [5] Atheer Labs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXNOQsO-flc
[6] Botanicus Interacticus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcRSKEIucjk [7] Bumptop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0ODskdEPnQ
[8] Brainloop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwNUpOVZu2E
140 [9] Breyn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HyrcIV-yW0
[10] CIID/Toyota: https://vimeo.com/25547151
[11] Code Bubbles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsPX0nElJ0k [12] Coffee Cup: https://vimeo.com/57437189
[13] Corning (A day made of glass): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk146eGRUtI and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc8lzavmXOk
[14] Corning a day in 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OptqxagZDfM [15] Cyberith Virtualizer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7n5kRRHDpw [16] Displair : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNcTssBV1fI
[17] Globaledit App: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZLmbpdcvZw [18] Google Glasses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1uyQZNg2vE [19] Grape Interface: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMcMiewdoZA [20] Holodesk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHL5tJ9ja_w
[21] Hololens (Microsoft): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_NeDEPKvcA [22] Honda Brain-Machine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-fE9QBy0FI [23] Humantenna: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lRnm2oFGdc
[24] inform: https://vimeo.com/79179138 [25] Interactive Displays (Microsoft research):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGa1Q7NvsI0
[26] Intel Air interface: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggpg26fOU1Q and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSWf9lxDA0M
[27] Iron Man 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB3w5NhCicU [28] Kinect (Microsoft): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzfpXAbQ61U [29] Laevo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAc7sBvViFg see also
http://www.stevenhouben.be/portfolio/laevo/
[30] Leap Motion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d6KuiuteIA see also https://www.leapmotion.com/
[31] Lightguide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNaw9GpuVLQ ShadowGuides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0faNHo5q38s [32] Lumus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2dmE_Ltv3I
[33] Maeve Table Demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1X5ffRrde8 [34] Mag+ (boonier R): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAZCr6canvw [35] Magic Leap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw0-JRa9n94 [36] Matrix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt5z3OEjDzU
[37] Metapro Space Glasses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuMv29nKo2k see also https://www.getameta.com/
[38] Microsoft future vision 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozLaklIFWUI [39] Microsoft future vision: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VuQeR-N8nE [40] Mind Control Machine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL0FzHHrQv8 [41] Minority Report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SFeCgoep1c see also
https://www.ted.com/talks/john_underkoffler_drive_3d_data_with_a_gesture [42] Myo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te1RBQQlHz4 and
https://vimeo.com/99226065
[43] Oculus Rift: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=314KSffGm3I
141 [44] Papertab: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81iiGWdsJgg
[45] Patten, J. – Tactile Interfaces: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WI6ZqCUNk0 [46] Pierce – Final Visual Thesis: https://vimeo.com/28406819
[47] Playstation Move (Sony): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ybHddDMgM [48] Project Glass (Google): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c6W4CCU9M4 [49] Project Soli (Google): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QNiZfSsPc0 [50] Reactable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUlp30uTw6U
[51] Revel (Disney Research): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7DGq8SddEQ [52] Rock & Rails: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buzXWfeYKNI
[53] Samsung: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nKFW-lDNK8 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSn0lnjgFag
[54] Sensing Techniques for Tablet+Styles Interaction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dgHgHQSuuY
[55] Sensor Synesthesia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zuu7ZnyWrJA
[56] Siemens Smart Buildings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUkgYiQD3Yw [57] SixthSense: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq22KBGwMxc
[58] Skinput: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3XPUdW9Ryg [59] SoundWave: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFM59B3tYI4 [60] SpaceTop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQnongiycns [61] Stripes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXVDGc45nho
[62] Thermal touch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2XL0qnu4Z4 [63] Tobii: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvdBhPdhIU
[64] Touché: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4tYpXVTjxA
[65] Transparent Screen Samsung: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwCi-WqMIFA [66] Transparent Display (Microsoft Research):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAWCzUyzpLE [67] UIST – Muscle Computer Interface:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_7BzUED39A
[68] Vermeer (Microsoft research): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW7k-6FUxoo [69] Vuzix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8BfayZFX28
[70] Wii (Nintendo): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qfhikLalek
142
Appendix 1 – Article 1
The Format of Things
Abstract
How are dichotomies possible, and why are they so pervasive and resilient despite many efforts to overcome them?
Well-known philosophical dichotomies such as representation versus reality and subject versus object are still often tacitly accepted across many disciplines as fundamental starting points of inquiry and principal problems to be solved or overcome. Only very few attempt to explicitly overcome these age-old dyads. This article poses the more modest theoretical meta-question of their genesis and provides an answer. If we do not accept dichotomies as fundamental or basic, is there a way to account for their positioning vis-à-vis each other?
The article assumes the position that there are different cognitive modalities available for human problem generation and solving, e.g., linguistic, mathematical, visual, and mechanical modes with strongly differing landscapes of attention. Through an analysis of a particular “format of things” that belongs to a linguistic modality, the argument is made that dichotomies are an effect of the recursive application of said format. The analysis of the format allows us to revise the everyday conception of what a thing is. The article sums up the new idea with the assertion that “things are not what we see but how we see.” The attendant discussion provides an economical explanation of how dichotomies are set up and why they persist. It shows that the requirement for establishing dichotomies is the acceptance of the format that creates the problem. Once the format is instated, any attempt to overcome it inevitably reproduces the dichotomy. The final part of the article is dedicated to opening up a line of theoretical inquiry that is sensitive to other modalities and formats through an application of the analysis on the dichotomy between theory and praxis.
Keywords: Format of Things; Cognitive Modalities; Dichotomies; Theory-Praxis Divide;
Redundancy
143
Introduction
As cognitive scientists we continue to live, it seems, in an impressively stable age of representation. (Wheeler, 2010, p. 320)
There are formidable problems in cognitive sciences that carry on well-known philosophical debates such as representation versus reality and subject versus object. These dichotomies are accepted as fundamental starting points of inquiry and principal problems to be solved or overcome. Only the very brave attempt to tackle them head on. This article asks and provides an answer to the more modest theoretical meta-question: How are these dichotomies possible, and why are they so pervasive and resilient, even in the face of many efforts to overcome them? If we do not accept them simpliciter as fundamental or basic, can we account for their positioning vis-à-vis each other? The article takes the position that there are different cognitive modalities available for human problem generation and solving, e.g., linguistic, mathematical, visual, and mechanical modes with strongly differing landscapes of attention. It argues that dichotomies are effects and expressions of a format particular to linguistic modes of determining phenomena and problems. By focusing on the requirements of the format, it becomes possible to collate otherwise disparate phenomena. The article offers a general answer to the question posed, exemplified with an analysis of the construction of the dichotomy between theory and praxis.
One may object that such monumental debates, let alone the many issues they entail, cannot simply be lumped together. To that end, I strongly emphasize that this article is not engaged in solving problems in any of the debates and does not attempt to conflate one debate into another. The purpose is solely to look for what Edelman (1998) refers to as second-order isomorphisms or similarities among shapes. Representation and reality, subject and object, theory and praxis, and map and territory, etc., all of which are similarly placed pairs in opposition. Drawing cross-disciplinarily from studies of cognition, perception, and practice, there is no claim that the terms on one or the other side, such as the brain, perceptions, maps, or theory, bear more than family resemblances to each other. Their connection lies in the way they are delineated and brought in opposition. There is a claim that the acceptance of a dichotomy as a starting point is consequential, regardless of whether the dichotomy is affirmed or denied.
The task is not simple. The distinctions under scrutiny are naturalized in their use and part of our everyday commonsensical ideas of the order of things. They are burrowed in concepts, such as “theory” and “praxis” or presupposed in words like “description” or concepts like “modelling.” Other less controversial distinctions, such as between “internal”
and “external,” are routinely used interchangeably or as auxiliary terms, thus complicating their relations. Furthermore, every discipline and science has made a methodological effort to seek out and explain the relation between the scientist, the technology in use, and her chosen field, thereby installing such distinctions at the heart of scientific endeavor.
The article is divided into three parts. The first part introduces the theoretical backdrop where the dichotomies are unfolded, including definitions of what is meant by cognitive
144