Authors
- Pluzhnikova Natalya N. PhD (Philosophy), Associate Professor
- Saenko Natalya R. Doctor of Philosophy, Associate Professor
Annotation
The purpose of the article is to analyze the reasons and prepositions for choosing the image of a dog as the basis for an entire direction within the framework of animalistic robotization, namely, the creation of robotic dogs, or cyberdogs. By means of comparative historical analysis, various cultural components underlying such decisions are examined in diachrony, with the emphasis shifted towards the culture of electronic devices, largely funded by the modern
robotization of all spheres of human life. The article consistently analyzes the cultural and historical forms of representation of individual components of the image of a dog in thinking and language, gives psychological features of human perception of this image within the framework of the process of interaction with the dog itself, as well as with its robotic analogue. In conclusion, an attempt is made to go beyond the technical and technological dimension of the problem into the general horizon of problems of the growth of modern culture. The duality of the perception of the image of a dog as a cultural image and a certain technical device has a broad socio-cultural context. The authors come to the conclusion that the paradoxical nature of the image of a dog is connected with the ambivalent nature of modern technology, built on the distinction between image and reality, which is expressed in the fact that modern robotic devices acquire emotional, aesthetic and artistic forms of expression.
How to link insert
Pluzhnikova, N. N. & Saenko, N. R. (2025). CYBERDOGS AND TECHNICAL PARADOXES: BETWEEN IMAGE AND REALITY Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", № 2 (54), 35. https://doi.org/10.24412/2078-9238-2025-254-35-47
References
1.
1. Lorenz, K. (1995). Man finds a friend. Armada. (In Russian).
2.
2. Marek, I. (1988). The dog star Sirius, or Eulogy for a dog. Raduga. (In Russian).
3.
3. Ivushkina, N. V. (2012). Concept of “dog” in English and Russian languages from linguo-culturological viewpoint. Philological Sciences. Questions of Theory and Practi ce, 4, 64–67. (In Russian).
4.
4. Marugina, N. I. (2009). The concept of “dog” as an element of the Russian linguistic picture of the world. Language and Culture, 2, 11–30. (In Russian).
5.
5. Yaksyargin, L. M. (2022). Zooanthropological continuum in the world of culture (PhD dissertation, Nizhny Novgorod State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering. (In Russian). https://viewer.rsl.ru/ru/rsl01003056437?page=1&rotate=0&theme=white
6.
6. Imanbayeva, Zh. M. (2024). The role of technology in the cultural system. MCU Journal of Philosophical Sciences, 1 (49), 90–97. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.25688/2078-9238.2024.49.1.7
7.
7. Nikashin, A. K., & Korchagin, A. S. (2023). Variety of walking robots. Almanac Crimea, 37, 101–105. (In Russian).
8.
8. Khabarov, A. S., Semenov, S. E., Kovalchuk, A. K., & Vereikin, A. A. (2016). Issues of development and research of a four-legged robot dog. Actual problems of modern science, 2 (87), 287–298. (In Russian).
9.
9. Goleman, D. (2021). Emotional intelligence. Why it can matter more than IQ? (11 th ed., revised and expanded). Mann, Ivanov and Ferber. (In Russian).
10.
10. Kuznetsov, A. A. (2022). Research of technical features of social emotions in robotics for socially conscious robots. Vestnik nauki, 3 (12 (57)), 372–375. (In Russian).
11.
11. Schiller, A. V. (2020). Biases and errors in AI’s modeling of emotions. Values and Meanings, 5 (69), 93–107. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24411/2071-6427-2020–10047
12.
12. Kartasheva, A. A. (2020). Approaches to emotion recognition in intelligent systems. Technologos, 2, 15–24. https://doi.org/10.15593/perm.kipf/2020.2.02
13.
13. Bannikov, S. A. (2023). World trends in robotization and prospects for its development in Russia. BENEFICIUM, 2 (47), 6–12. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.34680.BENEFI-CIUM.2023.2(47).6-12