From: edlantz@aol.com (Edlantz)
Subject: Re: TECH: VR with alternative physics/perception
Date: 1 May 1996 18:11:06 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)


Dr John P. Wann  <john1@ed.ac.uk> writes:

>I think the bottom line on perception is: If *you* don't get it it in
>the real world, you won't suddenly pick it up in VR.

This seems like a good rule of thumb, but, to quote yourself, "this
kind of comment is rather dangerous and liable to fuel myths about
what is neurally plausible."  As you say, real-world
spatial-motor-cognitive modes which are neurally implausible will
likely be neurally implausible in VR as well (if not more so).  BUT -
there are perhaps many spatial-motor-cognitive modes possible in VR
which are impossible to recreate physically.  Therefore, the converse
of your statement is not true (as some myth makers may infer) i.e. -
the only perceptual modes which will work in VR are those which work
in the real world.

Early VE's radically violated how we function in the real world (no
gravity, passing through walls, etc.).  As VE's employ more physics,
they do indeed better match our existing perceptual/motor modes and
are easier to use.  But let's say we link the angle of my little
finger to the amount of gravity (admittedly an absurd example).  We
now have an alternative VE which no person in physical reality has
ever or could ever experience (well, maybe with a jet pack).  Could a
person adapt to this?  Probably.  It has enough physics to exploit our
existing cognitive skills but with an added twist.

How much of a twist can a person adapt to?  Seems like fertile ground
for research.  Driving a car would be quite an adaptation for a cave
man.  Less so for a horse & buggy driver.  VR will allow us to explore
our "neural-plasticity" in ways not previously possible.  Perhaps over
many years, creative VR/computer interfaces will drive us to evolve
entirely new cognitive skills.

Ed Lantz
edlantz@aol.com