From: edlantz@aol.com (Edlantz)
Subject: Re: PHIL: Reality
Date: 3 May 1996 20:35:32 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)


vanevery@blarg.net (Brandon J. Van Every) writes:

>(snip) ...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. (snip)

Brandon, I don't think that many researchers do believe that "virtual
reality" actually exists with today's technology.  As Dr. Wann notes,

>our understanding of tactile perception is inadequate to achieve
>really comprehensive tactile displays (to substitute for real
>surfaces) and fooling the other somatic senses is not just an
>engineering task.

True VR is a dream, a paradigm, a holy grail.  But it is a direction
in which to strive.  We now are consciously attempting to simulate
physical reality (or create alternate/comprimised realities, which we
can do).  The dream is alive and there is no turning back.  These
systems will only get better, and one day they will be so real that we
just might forget that we are interfacing to a computer.

There is also another factor, that of imagination.  Have you ever
become so engaged in a movie that you cried, or went home feeling
changed?  We voluntarily allow ourselves to "buy into" the film, and
emotionally identify with the characters.  It is not real, but we
voluntarily "suspend disbelief."  This implies that our VR system does
not have to be an exact simulation of physical reality for it to be
believable, depending on how compelling the content is.  That is why I
believe that VR content development is equally as important as VR
hardware development.  At some point, the success of VR will depend
more on its creative use than its ability to simulate reality.

Ed Lantz
edlantz@aol.com