Ken's Documentation Blog

  

Firstly, our group focused on the idea of transferring human memories and soul to a robotic body through a technological hat. For this transmission to occur, the human must authorize the transferring of data to the robotic body where the human body will cease to respond after full transferring has been completed. The human will then be in the robotic body and exist in that body for the rest of their life. Our group derived this idea from building upon an existing idea that we collaboratively decided upon. When we first discussed the project, we all decided upon the concept of viewing the life cycle of the soul in relation to Newton’s Sleep. After our second meeting, we decided to amend this to a machine that allows our mind to experience activity during sleeping. From this we arrive at our final version of transferring human memories to another body.

The established form of interaction that we ended with was a remote body that could be controlled by oneself, essentially another body. Being able to physically move as a human would, it would simulate the human experience. In relation to the two projects I personally researched, it relates to 24h Sunrise/Sunset in the transmission state where one state follows the next state of interactivity. In 24h Sunrise/Sunset, cameras follow the sun all around the world for sunrise and sunset. Similarly, I took this concept of following the sun and related it to following the soul for the product. By this, I mean that the human memories and human soul continue to exist in another body much like how the camera follows the sunset and sunrise in a different area of earth.

This also relates to the second project in my research phase where the product was the Self-Choreographing Network. The Self-Choreographing Network was a project where material input translated into digital input. When doing so, it allowed the digital form to actively manipulate itself and amend the physical output. I was inspired by this concept of material translating into digital which can also be seen in our artifact idea where the material human body translates into a digital robotic body. The robotic body then becomes the physical form of the human where the human can move to amend the physical output.

We created a hat for transmission of memories and soul as memories are stored in our brain. This was the sole reason for a design as much. We didn’t want to complicate and add a part for the heart to represent the transmission of soul as it would be an unnecessary component. Thus, we assumed that the soul would be transmitted neurotically without needed to connect to the heart.

Having created this concept of transmission of human memories and human soul, successes included that it led to interaction in another body which was the purpose of the body. Failures include the lack of senses when experiencing life in the robotic body. There will be a lack of human experience in the robot body in ways such as but not limited to taste, pain, emotion, and etc. This was not overlooked design on our part. It was more so that we strived to also create a philosophical argument regarding the longing for eternal life, artificial life, and the replicability of humans. This was the main purpose of creating this artifact unrelated to the function of transmission of human memories and human soul.

When we created our product, we wanted to provide a philosophical answer to many topics of modern debate. For one, there was the topic of eternal life or prolonging life. Figures such as Elon Musk have expressed that they have so much that they cannot complete in their lifetime such as reaching mars. Many figures have expressed their desire to live again when there are cures to cancer. These figures then turn to modern day solutions of cryogenics to “stop” time from passing in hopes that cures can be discovered before they “hopefully” awaken in the future. This modern desire isn’t new. The seeking of eternal life was a historical topic that spans cross-culturally throughout the history of man. For example, during the times of Spanish exploration, a main goal was the discovery of the fountain of youth to allow the monarchy to live forever young. Likewise, the critique of this search for immortality is also ancient where the Greeks presented immortality as a burden and punishment through the example of Tartarus.

Aside from the debate of eternal life, this product and performance also aimed to answer the question of artificial life when human life is transferred to the robots to exist as life. Our performance expresses the lack of human experience for artificial life, especially through a robot, to denounce modern inclination of creating life. Artificial life is a modern topic that’s currently being explored by many scientists in the world. When there was transferred life to the robot in our performance, it was in a sense artificial life as the life of the human in the robot body was an artificial experience. There was a lack of life felt which is an argument we make regarding this topic.

For the final topic of replicability of humans, this was again presented as impossible through our performance where the robot could not experience human life. The lack of human senses and emotions depicts the irreplaceability of humans to create this argument. Through the performance as well as our purposeful design, we hope that our product was able to create such thoughts to the audience.

Photos and videos of our progress will be inserted at the end of the blog.

Now, I will critique another group’s artifact. The artifact that I observed and would like to critique is the robot that grows along with the child. The robot was at first a small digital being but it also grows up and protects the user. It provides companionship and interacts in that sense. I felt that this was really relevant to the reading as it was similar to The Lifecycle of Software Products. The similarity lies within the companionship of digital objects. I believe that this artifact meets the criteria as it provides a modern-day example of a product that is practical but also dynamic in nature in that it can grow and develop.

Overall, I think that the artifact is brilliant in the applicability to the universe that the people reside in and it is also brilliant in the fact that it provides a portrayal of modern-day companionship of digital devices. Nowadays, AI companionship is being developed at a high speed where AI is becoming personalized. I think that this artifact could actually be produced in the future and provide such functions. It also illustrates future companionship that might be seen in the future as the world develops where human companionship is lackluster. I think that the performance of the product was extremely successful in portraying this companionship throughout time, however, I think that it might have been better if there was a contrast to human companionship provided in the beginning to show that a benefit of AI companionship is that they do not abandon you like humans as the relationship between human and robot is generally master and servant. The last improvement that I might suggest would be that this product and performance should also introduce the dangers of AI companionship.

This week, we were given the opportunity to use different sensors to gain new understanding of how Arduino code works. Having learned about map () as well as if else functions during the lectures, this recitation offered an opportunity to apply learnt knowledge into action. I decided on using the soil moisture sensor for the recitation as I was interested in using water density to control other components of the circuit, in which I used an LED light as the dependent component.

 

For the circuit, it was quite simple, having connected a sensor to a standard light circuit. Programming the Arduino was slightly more difficult as I had to apply past knowledge and combine it together to create a circuit. I didn’t use map () in the program as I found it unnecessary and the end result was successful without the usage of map().

 

I created the light to create light output when the moisture felt is high where a video will be shown to illustrate how the sensor works. In addition, a circuit diagram will be put down as well.

 

Now, I will refer to the three questions. For question 1, I intended to assemble a circuit where the light’s output could be controlled by the level of moisture experienced. Hence, I used a soil moisture sensor along with the standard light circuit to create this combination. I felt that this was a pragmatic combination which could be applied and used in the real world by gardeners and farmers. Gardeners and farmers could use this to maintain the level of water for plants by not overwatering plants or underwatering them to elevate the efficiency of plant growth as well as maintain conditions for keeping plants alive. This would help yields for farmers and for gardeners, it would help them maximize cultivation.

 

For question 2, I think that code is compared to a recipe or tutorial because steps must be followed precisely for the intended output, and if overlooked, it may cause different results. Such an example can be observed in the if else function of code. When the condition of (if) is fulfilled, it will provide x as the result, but if the (if) condition isn’t, it will provide y as the result. Likewise, if eggs whites aren’t separated from egg yolks when baking a cake, it will cause variation in texture and rise of the cake. If the recipe is followed precisely, it will yield the precise result. Another example is the order of following the recipe and the order of code. Void loop (){} cannot be completed first before Void setup(){} has been processed. Likewise, a cake cannot be baked if the mixed solution hasn’t been produced yet. The last example would be that if variables in the code } or ; are forgotten, it would cause errors in the code where it cannot be processed. Likewise, if sugar is forgotten in a cake, it would produce a strange product without taste. In this sense, code is like a recipe where order and precision matters.

 

For question 3, I believe that computers influence human behavior in three main ways being: psychologically, physically, and mentally. I will start off by explaining their influence on humans physically. Prolonged computer usage has caused humans to shift their posture. Humans nowadays have a physical tendency to have “forward head posture” due to constant usage of computer usage (and digital devices). This shifts the physical behavior of human muscles to shift forward.

 

Next, computers also influence human behavior psychologically. As computers are essentially products that reflect light, it affects the consciousness of our brain where our alertness system can be affected. For example, viewing computers before sleeping causes our brain to become alert, altering the inactive state of a brain at rest to become active. This in effect changes human body behavior in terms of alertness.

 

Lastly, computers also affect human behavior mentally where our dependence on them has shifted our independency to become dependent on the device. When researching, modern human behavior is to seek digital sources to learn. When calculating for math, human instinct has become to use a calculator. It can thus be observed that our instinct, a key factor of human behavior, has thus been altered to be in a dependent state.

 

Coding used:

 
#include <Servo.h>

int sensorPin = A0;
int sensorValue = 0;
int ledPin = 13;

void setup() {
  pinMode(ledPin, OUTPUT);
  Serial.begin(9600);
}
void loop() {
  // read the value from the sensor:
  sensorValue = analogRead(sensorPin);
  if (sensorValue > 400) {
    digitalWrite(ledPin, HIGH);
  } else {
    digitalWrite(ledPin, LOW);
  }
  Serial.print("Moisture = " );
  Serial.println(sensorValue);
  delay(1000);
}

Work Cited:

Zuo, Baozhu. “Grove – Moisture Sensor.” Seeedstudio, wiki.seeedstudio.com/Grove-Moisture_Sensor/.

Having completed the recitation for Arduino Basics, I found that there weren’t many issues with connecting circuits as there were diagrams that could be looked at for reference when connecting components. Hence, in this recitation, all of my circuits went smoothly without any error for any. Three videos will be put in here for each of the circuits. I will also attach a diagram of the last circuit. 

Circuit 1: Fade

Using inputted Arduino coding and forming the circuit, the LED fades. This was fairly simple in connecting as there were only a couple jumper wires used. 

Circuit 2: toneMelody

Using coding again, sound tones are initiated. This was a simple circuit with only a few components. 

Circuit 3: Speed Game

This circuit was more complex in that it had a lot of running components. This created complications if circuits were attached incorrectly, however, due to being more careful and having a diagram to refer to, possibility of error was reduced. 

Here is a diagram of Circuit 3.

Now, I will refer to the 3 questions for the recitations. 

1. Technology used in our daily life is used in many ways with some being interactive while others are not. For example, devices such as our smartphone is used functionally to interact with us based on our input. It can provide us input with new news, become a device to help us interact with others, and etc. Another type of technology that’s less interactive might be the ordering of food on a device. The page has limited possible choices for others and more so is a discrete system. This limits possible interaction between the two subjects. As for the circuit, it isn’t highly interactive as it only fulfills a discrete function and cannot provide input for us to create an output. I define interaction as anything where two subjects can have an effect on each other from inputs that can be independently asserted.
2. 10K resistors are used as they are a high value that change the electric input from high to low which allows for power to not be wasted in high quantities.
3. Having 100,000 LED’s of any color and any brightness, I would personally want to use it to create an installation with sky blue color in a reflective room of mirrors with dim brightness. I like the concept of using lights to create settings that create a certain mood for humans to receive. Of course, if lights can be used to create more rooms, I would want to create different colored rooms to create an experience for viewers much like “TeamLAB” sites.

Having read the 3 fiction stories for Interaction Lab, I’ve brainstormed possible original artifacts that may be useful in the specified universe of the characters. Each of these artifacts are independently thought out based on the story. There has been an attempt to not replicate an idea already existing in the real world.

Newton’s Sleep by Ursula K. Le Guin is a short dystopian story that revolves around a society where reason and science drives the mindset and philosophy of society. The absence of nature and religious thoughts is one key feature in this novel. The main characters are set in a spacial setting called Spes which is very far away from Earth. This setting is stated to have no pollution with a population of intelligent people only. Seemingly a utopia, the society is not far from being described a dystopia as characters are portrayed to lose human sense and perception. Due to this, the story also brings into question the concept of understanding illusion from descriptions of interactivity as well as the question of the capacity of which empathetic knowledge can be applied. From these two conceptual mysteries, my concept of my artifact revolves around a linkage object that allows for individuals to share the same experience in hopes to truly gain empathetic knowledge. This artifact is original in the sense of the purpose, to gain common knowledge, however, it may have existing links to current research on neurotransmission and neuroscience. While it does have these links, no product has been successfully completed hence it is viable according to the prompt. Moreover, in this universe, the protagonist Ike fails to understand the hallucinations of others. A product that could link the illusion experienced would allow for common knowledge to be received in this society. Problems with this product would be the capacity of truly creating the same illusion that is experienced. I believe that independent experience may be hard to be replicated, especially if it revolves around imagery and psychological feeling. Because of this, the authenticity of the experience transferred may be quite a challenge. Furthermore, the existence of this product may also violate our current standard of human privacy in that thoughts, feelings, and etc. may be forcibly transferred to others.

Folding Beijing by Hao Jingfang is a story that discusses Lao Dao’s experience of earning money as a Third Space citizen. The society represented in this experience is very systematic in time that can be actively experienced by others as well as divisions between civilians economically. This universe mainly revolves around the Change which is a pivotal cycle in the life of the civilians. The Change allows for some to experience life while others are closed off from their experience. It includes the shifting of architecture and geographic landscape where there is a transition period between two spaces. In the story, Lao Dao gets stuck between the Change where his foot is locked between two spaces. From this situation, I gained inspiration for my new artifact. Exploding Leg is the concept I came up with where something can be attached to the leg. It will explode, blowing up the lower part of the leg that is stuck before generating itself into a leg for the person to walk with and sealing the wood. While this is a combination of existing products on Earth such as an explosive and a bionic leg, the artifact can be used in this situation as a means of preserving one’s life if they are stuck between two objects. Many people choose to decapitate their limbs in this situation but are left with one limb only. This solution provides an artificial limb formed after the limb is lost. The Exploding Leg will also stop the bleeding from the area of limb that is lost and structure it’s size accordingly to the other leg to maintain the balance. Problems with this artifact would be the destructive nature it holds. It’s sure to cause harm to the human physically and may cause extreme injuries that may threaten life. Moreover, the product will cause a lot of human waste with the limbs being exploded. This may cause hygienic issues for society if human limbs are left to decay. 

The Lifecycle of Software Objects by Ted Chiang is a story that revolves around raising “artificial intelligence” pets from the virtual world and bringing them into the physical world. While the whole story involves a lot of transformation of the digients, I wanted to focus on the situation where Marco and Polo had a fight. I believe that in this instance a product which sounds an alarm when two individuals are within a close proximity can help prevent conflicts from continuously occurring. This product uses the existing concept of an alarm. It may be problematic in the sense that it may cause disruption in public spaces. 

In regards to the three readings, all three texts had to do with the concept of interaction or interactivity. They contrast in the message behind interaction and interactivity, but they all develop a different message behind interactivity/interaction.

Firstly, the first text by Chris Crawford regarding the art of interactive design brings in the concept of what interactivity is where they describe it in terms of a conversation. Something must be able to respond to another thing upon an action of the other thing and vice versa to exhibit interactivity. Interactivity is not a reaction to an action. It is mutual interaction, but if this definition is applied to common day objects, there are levels to interactivity. Low interactivity includes the closing of a refrigerator where the lights go out when the door is closed. This is seen as a failure of interactivity by the author as it is “interaction for a small child, and just as surely not interactive for adults.” (Crawford 6) I personally believe that this message wants to refer to interactivity to be universal for all people rather than a specific group of people. 

Afterwards, the second text discusses interactivity properties of new media, specifically AI. From this text, I learned how the most proper example of modern interactivity would be AI, artificial intelligence, which becomes an accommodation specific to the individual it interacts with. I think that this is a valid point with modern day examples such as Siri or “xiao du （小度, Baidu’s AI）”. This AI becomes a tool used to interact with us according to our needs e.g. maps, nearby food, and etc. Moreover, there are new sources of AI interactivity that have become more advanced for example the chat engine app Replika which is essentially interaction with data that continuously builds. 

Lastly, the last text (Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, then Shut Up and Listen by Tom Igoe) presents the concept of being truly interactive. I personally think that the points regarding human’s incorrect perception of interactive art is true where our focus is more on the “art” aspect of interactive art rather than “interactive”. This essentially means that we focus more on the message of our product rather than the functionality and interaction with humans. This is also a step that must be faced in order to create our product in the future. Our product mustn’t have to be explained. It should be user-friendly and understandable without explanation to truly be interactive with the individual. 

Essentially from these readings, I learned that interactivity should be universal in application, be easy to understand, and also be able to react and contribute actions with the human individual. Any missing standard reduces or even stops the trait of interactivity to be applied to the product/object.

To conclude, I will introduce my definition of interaction which is that there is a reaction to every action where both parties can independently contribute a different input upon the situation. I looked at 24h Sunrise/Sunset by Filip Visnjic which is a work that follows the sun where the link is attached below. I think that the work doesn’t characterize as a interactive work as the cameras are only following the sun. There is no control of the interaction which is also a key component of interaction. 

https://www.creativeapplications.net/arduino-2/24h-sunrise-sunset-the-beauty-of-unsecured-cctv-cameras/

I also looked at another work, Self-Choreographing Network by Filip Visnjic, which is more interactive. It has material components interacting with digital, providing input that is controlled. Both components contribute a different input where the material contributes the active design while the digital contributes active data and calculation of systemic properties. Humans can manipulate the structure which is also a pure form of interaction with the project.

Self-Choreographing Network – Cyber-physical design and interactive bending-active systems

Works Cited

“What Exactly Is Interactivity?” The Art of Interactive Design: a Euphonious and Illuminating Guide to Building Successful Software, by Chris Crawford, No Starch Press, 2003, pp. 1–5.

The process of building circuits was a time of learning new skills revolving around electricity and connections. Touching circuits for the first time, I was confused at how the diagram could translate to the actual circuit and how connections were made between components of the circuit. Through a long process of experimentation as well as guidance from instructors and fellows, I began to understand how the circulation of electricity worked and how each component played a part in the circuit.

I began to understand how the breadboard worked where the numbered rows were connected and different numbers weren’t, how (-) rows implied ground while (+) implied power input. After this understanding was established, the next components would then be understood where the barrel jack was a link from the power source to the bread board; the capacitor stores electricity allowing for the movement of electricity; the jumper cables allow for electricity fluidity between components; the resistor allows for reduced current for the LED light which protects it from overheating; the switch/arcade button can end or start the flowing of electricity to the LED light; the LED emits energy (light); the voltage regulator regulates the voltage; the power supply distributes electricity from the power cord and converts it to 12V which allows for safe circulation of electricity for the components; and the variable resistor can mend the resistivity applied to the LED to control the charge being circulated to the LED which controls the emission of energy (light).

Through this process of learning what each component of the circuit does, I was creating the actual circuits which encountered many issues. Issues from the circuits included a faulty voltage regulator which did not allow for electricity to flow to the next component for Circuit 1. This was resolved by changing the voltage regulator which allowed for the circuit to be successful. When creating Circuit 3, there was misunderstanding of how the variable resistor should be connected in the circuit where I connected a jumper cable at the two ends of the variable resistor. This resulted in a connection between the power source and light but didn’t allow for the variable resistor to control the flow of current. After changing the jumper cable to connect from the center, it allowed for the variable resistor to control the flow of current (dimming).

Below will be photos and videos of successful circuits from Circuit 1 and 2:

As it can be seen, the sound system works where the switch can turn it on and off. 

It can be seen that the light can turn on and off via the switch.

Circuit 3 had key issues with the connections of jumper wires and variable resistor. A video will be attached below to show how incorrect jumper wire connections to the variable resistor didn’t allow the variable resistor to alter the current to the LED light. 

After realizing this error, I amended the placement of the jumper wire which allowed for the variable resistor to alter the current allowing for the dimming and brightening of the LED light. 

Question 1

Interactivity is the interaction between two things or objects that have the capacity to react to the action of the other. The circuits built today have limited interactivity with humans. While the interaction between my finger and the switch allow for the result of sound or light, the interaction is limited to a singular action which cannot be amended unless other components are added e.g. the variable resistor. This, however, still resembles limited interactivity as the interactivity between my hand and the switch is one interaction while my hand and the dial of the variable resistor is another interaction. As the interaction is with different objects, the interactivity with the switch doesn’t change. 

Question 2

Interaction design and physical computing can be used to create interactive art by having humans use computed objects to create works of art. This could be like iq Font by Zack Lieberman where humans drive the car to write letters or it could be like drawn : where art moves after being drawn which creates art that interacts with human movement.