Spatial prediction, in particular, could be related to hippocampal activity. As it is well known, this part of the brain is responsible for human movement and orientation in space. Neuroscience research shows that the hippocampus seems to predict future spatial situations and events - trajectories in which a person can reach his goal[1]. This can be illustrated by how we navigate and move around the city. It is a person’s ability to design the fastest route from point A to point B or the ability not to get lost in an unfamiliar city. In other words, the hippocampus projects what Simondon calls anticipation, however, in this exposition is spoken particular about spatial anticipation.

The Space Syntax method, the software and its proposed analytical diagrams become relevant here. The Space Syntax algorithm encompasses neuroscience discoveries about hippocampal activity[2]. The analytical diagrams developed by this method allow to study the morphology of architectural spaces, how a person integrates himself/herself into the architectural environment, and predicts the behavior of an individual (movement and visual appropriation). Thus, what is generated by Space Syntax algorithm can be said - to show an anticipatory image of a priori real human experience.

Thus, the case of the architecture of the exhibition “Head with Many Thoughts”, the behavioral pattern provided by Space Syntax is examined (Fig. Algorithmic integration map). This diagram shows which areas of space will be more integrated with respect to all other exhibition spaces (marked in red) and which the least (marked in blue). It can be observed that the algorithm predicts that the works of art of M. Savosalmi and V. Puidokas, V. Gečas, I. Tarajeva should best integrated into the human experience. In other words, this diagram shows the predicted image of human spatial anticipation.

On the other hand, it is important to emphasize that the algorithm only calculates the ocularcentric human experience. Although the vision provides the most information, at the same time this information is misleading because it eliminates all other sensory layers and becomes constant only for the visual prediction of behavior. This diagram assumes that a person’s relationship to physical reality is stable, unchanging. As if predicting that any other experience, visitor focus, or movement is impossible. Otherness here could be linked to the power of the imagination to make the experience creative and diverse. But the diagram shows that the imagination is as if locked up and limited. It appeals to a situation where the architectural space and its mental image are the same image. This shows that this algorithmic anticipation denies the creative power inherent in human perception that Simondon talks about.

Maximum of integration

Minimum of integration