From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) Subject: Re: Classic (was CR v. VR) (LONG) Date: 4 AUG 91 16:29:32 Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington In article <1991Aug4.005546.3543@milton.u.washington.edu>, smoliar@hilbert.iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar) writes... >Poetry is nice, but a bit of physiology is more informative. The latest word >seems to be that the mind can neither develop nor function without the body. >Gerald Edelman summarizes some interesting evidence along this front in his >book NEURAL DARWINISM; and in a later book, THE REMEMBERED PRESENT, he >projects the implications of this evidence into questions of consciousness. >Now go back to enjoying your Milton. > >------------------------------------------------------------- > >Stephen W. Smoliar; Institute of Systems Science >National University of Singapore; Heng Mui Keng Terrace >Kent Ridge, SINGAPORE 0511 >smoliar%iss.nus.sg@nuscc.nus.sg {To Stephen S.- The books sound interesting. Are you familiar with AR Luria, who gives good evidence that one does not become fully conscious before becoming literate? Luria was a medical doctor & neuroscientist (perhaps the best yet). His theory was fully grounded in 50 years of work with human beings, much of it spent in the hard laboratory of rehabilitating people having real brain damage. (See, _The Theory of A.R. Luria_ by D. Vocate, for an excellent overview of all his work.) It may be true that mind can not function without body; in my own trivial understanding of the cosmos, I see no value in assuming so. R/ Stephen T.} If this thread becomes lengthy -- I'll move to a philosophy, metaphysics or ethics group for the continuation. I recognize that the social implications of VR technology are a far cry from the implementation side. To the point ... Does dwelling in virtual bodies imply some hazard to one's personal biological body? By implication, Is "mind" dependent on body? Without becoming embroiled in semantics, I'll propose that (a) no hazard need exist and (b) mind seems to transcend body. For all we know as earthly entities, the mind+body issue can not be concluded due to our own limited perceptions. The problem of potential ill effects from spending long periods in virtual space are no doubt being dealt with. Who wants to grow fat, weak and pale from inactivity? More importantly, there are likely virtual constructions (such as building a ship) which will put designers in virtual space for long periods of time. It's important to be able to move around in a virtual construct as normally as possible, without being strictly limited to such natural mimicry. (A ship in dry-dock may be 7 or more stories tall -- with no elevator -- quite rigorous to get around!) So we have a natural balance; the need to move normally to test a design may lead to tread-mill and exercise equipment similar interfaces, and the need to conserve time and energy will require "amplified" or "short-cut" locomotion, (seven-league boots or flying hands). I suspect before long, we may find that one must be quite athletic gymnastically, to work in v-space. That gyroscope looking full body device could give a hint of a full body rig. Exercise is not really a problem. Surviving malfunctioning or mis-designed interfaces may be. On the issues of nutrition, elimination, and access to nature (for good air, sunlight, and normal ranges of motion, tactile and visual): it seems necessary to have v-space interface devices that can be entered and exit- ted readily. Better, would be to have a number of interfaces with varying degrees of access to v-space. For example, I want to be in contact with the internet constantly, so I plan on using micro-cellular telephones, amateur radio, and light-weight glove and display technology -- to create a wearable terminal. Limited v-space access devices could extend from this conception. As I telecommute, I really would prefer walking around a park ... now if I can just figure out a gait [walking] powered generator instead of all those batteries ;-). Maximize alternative access methods. To answer the body-neglect-hazard question, the solutions will make some of us a lot of money. As to mind vs. brain; I'm going to go metaphysical on this one, in two ways; (1st) we don't know what sort of system we're in anyway and (2nd) the clearest manifestation of disembodied mind each of us has is our dealings here on the net. Since this is already too long a posting for most attention spans, suffice it to say that for all we know, our own reality may be something like a cosmic videogame. In this sense, you and I might even now be directed by some soul who guides our actions. Mind may be other than body -- who can say? (One advantage of this is that I can easily assume that all "evil" in our world is part of the game ... just to see how we respond =-) Why assume that I am merely another homo sapiens half way around the world from Singapore? For all any of you know, I may be an angel, demon, or artificial intelligence. It's important to understand that the old assumptions about _mind_ and _body_ are fast becoming obsolete. There's a lot of interest in the new definitions; witness the cyberspace craze. Need I remind you that all those consumers (users), so often held in disdain in this group, represent a lot of support and reward? The virtual- world builder, like any creator, must be someone who can integrate diverse knowledge: Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than rainment? (NT, Matt. 6:25) If you believe in God, then we already live in a virtual-world. Now I'll go back to the classics. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . = Stephen T. = / Resist mind inflation. \ ) A penney ( (b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu) \ for your thoughts! /