From: mbernat@gel.ulaval.ca (Marc Bernatchez)
Subject: Re: PHIL: Reality
Date: Sat, 04 May 96 16:38:58 GMT
Organization: dep. de Genie electrique


[...]
>If I were to put on my sociocultural anthropology hat, I could
>pontificate at great length about what is real and what is
>constructed.  Instead, I'd like to use this as an opportunity to point
>out why the whole term "Virtual Reality" is so problematic.  It allows
>anyone and everyone to refer to a collection of hardware devices and
>interaction techniques as a metaphor - or scapegoat - for "reality."
>It allows laymen to assume that they know something about the science
>of VR.
>
>It also cuts the other way - it allows VR scientists to assume that
>they know a lot about the nature of "reality" as it is perceived and
>operated on by human beings.  

I feel this has a rather severe attack(not personally but globally as
being a VR scientist more than other things) Brandon. I think it would
be wise to moderate such affirmation. It is true that some people do
VR development without taking care much about the human side of it but
lets not generalize please. I do feel that it's essential to study the
human factors involved in VR before even thinking of doing any kind of
VR developments.

>Often, they know nothing of the sort, or
>at least their work is focused on a microcosm of easily measured
>"reality" such as FOV's and so forth.  I have no problem with people
>measuring FOV's and other user interface effects as a tractable means
>of improving the technology.  That's good work and it needs doing.
>But when VR scientists fool themselves into believing that this
>limited class of phenomena is "reality," they are sadly mistaken.
>They cut themselves off from quite a number of research possibilities
>that the social sciences are generally more adept at.

Okay, this may be true but the problem you don't seems to see, is that
it's not necessary to start philosophizing 5 years before VR scientist
now enough about human based concerns to develop good VR systems. Like
I said, it's essential to study such things BUT we don't have to scan
the whole set of domains (psychology, anthropology, you name it) to
have what it takes to start our engines.

To my view, there is a "cultural chock" taking place in the VR field
as it extends on professions (such as philosophy) that was not present
in the first ages of the VR field. This is not to say it's a bad
thing. Quite the contrary, I feel it's a good thing but I would say
it's time we try, on both sides if I may say so, to take the time to
understand each other's point of view and needs. I sincerely think
that the more technical oriented VR people like me have proven to make
such efforts to go "the other side of the wall" studying human
concerns in VR. Now, I would ask that the people that are more
philosophically oriented take a closer look at our needs in their
philosophy knowledge. I don't know if you see my point here. I mean
that it may not be essential to use all of the philosophy,
anthropology, etc. knowledge to be proficient at doing VR research and
development.

I realize that these last lines may sounds quite severe and irritating
to some of you but I trust you all to take a more practical and
pragmatic approach reading it. It is in no way an attack to anyone in
the related fields. I just want to bring people to think about these
issue that we just can't ignore anymore as professions merge.

In fact, I often like to refer to VR as the field that includes all
the others in that you must be an engineer, a psychologist, a doctor
in medicine and so on to perform well in the VR field. So, I guess
what I'm saying is that, VR is one of the most multi-disciplinar
profession of all. I don't know about you, but I like that very much.

>The term "Virtual Reality" is an unfortunate historical accident.

Oh no Brandon, you haven't said that :-) It's not an unfortunate
historical accident. The problem with this term is that it has been
steaming up so much the people's imagination that the term got
preceded by the people themselves.  So VR is a term that hasn't had
time to settle down enough due to the huge and sudden interest it
suggested. Fortunately, the day will come where "immaginated" and
"reality" in regard to what VR can do are going to join. The day this
appends, everyone will talk about the same VR. There will not be the
"science fiction VR" seen by people not in the field and "the real
thing" that VR scientist are used to. This two level of understanding
what is VR is the key problem these days.

>It
>subsumes everything and defines nothing.  I think the scientists would
>be much better off with a term like "Immersion Hardware."  Then IH
>could be all the rage, it would be easy (easier?) to talk about
>immersion in terms of hardware capabilities, and it would be much more
>difficult for marketers to twist the term to describe everything and
>anything.

Just let me put it this way. It's never a good idea to play the
ostrich in the sand when a problem arise. Let's use the "virtual
reality" term. I encourage you all to use it a lot. BUT, if you do so,
make sure YOU know what you are talking about so that you give a true
view about what it is to people not in the field. If you feel
comfortable using the VR term, you will get the other people to see it
the right way too.

Like I said, it's not a personal attack to you Brandon as well as to
any other persons. It's more like a call to reflection for all of us.

Cheers good VR people

 Marc Bernatchez             |  E-mail: mbernat@gel.ulaval.ca
 C.O.P.L. (local plt-00307)  |============================================    
 Dep. Genie electrique       |  http://www.gel.ulaval.ca/~mbernat
 Universite LAVAL            |  http://www.imaginative.com/VResources
 Quebec, Canada              |============================================
 G1K 7P4                     | Virtual Reality is the future of computers
==========================================================================