Listen, think and speak.
Input, interpret, output.
A cyclic process.
The definition of interactivity by Chris Crawford.
Reading Chris Crawford's The Art of Interactive Design and Bret Victor's A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design was an enlightening experience, almost philosophical. I suppose, if interaction is a conversation, then one of the determinations of this process is how two actors can communicate. In this sense, the language of communication, the tools for communication will change, evolve, iterate. So will the communication, hence the interaction change itself. My understanding (which could be completely nonsensical and nonlogical) of the "refrigeration game" is that the interaction is valid, yet the "think" process is so simple and unicellular that it seems it is almost pre-historical to the present. Imagining two cave man that started communicating with one single sound "ahhwo", present humans might not consider that as an legit conversation. Nor do we feel it is absolutely legit to say the refrigerator game is an example of interactivity.
Now we have more advance tools and language to communicate with things, we also can communicate with more things, therefore, the interaction evolves and advances as a result. Which leads to what Victor was saying - be inspired by untapped potential of human capabilities. That is the new language we should try to communicate with, instead of just the tip of fingers, our other body parts, our multiple senses, our cognitive mind, our magnetic fields and brain waves, will these become the next tools we use to interact? Apple did include the not-so-great, but still a baby-step-towards-the-future 3D touch to the iPhone. Samsung does have eye tracking technology on their phones. It is positive, one day, interaction will be from soul to soul, no matter if the other soul is an artificial alien we created or a real extraterrestrial. Or interactions with our own selves or other humans across a time field that is infinite wide and long.