Trond ([info]aigantighe) wrote,
@ 2008-04-22 02:05:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:punts

via George,

An amusing take on what entertainment might be like 50 years from now.

How plausible is full sensory experience and interface like this by the date offered in the video (2062)?

Right now, it might look like far future fiction, but I'm fairly sure that's not the case. Enabling technologies necessary for virtual reality of this level either exist already, are in development, or are at least theoretically possible.

The nanomachines necessary seem almost inevitable, particularly as the necessary components for these (antenna, propulsion, power) are in development, with experimental devices either complete or nearing completion. Similarly, the computing power necessary also seems easily achievable.

So, to me, the main remaining obstacle is complexity. That is, while we can create the necessary devices, and produce the necessary content, can we string these all together into the necessary engineered systems? We're pretty awful at this sort of thing when it comes to building large scale software solutions, largely because of the need for rapid change and adaptation. It seems that brain interfaces of this fidelity must adapt quite precisely to the neural topology of the individual, and it would seem that these must vary widely at the level of neurons, meaning that any engineered system interfacing with the brain must be heavily customizable to accomodate this.

This, by the way, is my general concern with some of the technology ideals before us - I trust our ability to invent and create devices, but I don't trust our ability to coordinate them.



(Post a new comment)


[info]ruby_vibrations
2008-04-21 11:11 pm UTC (link)
DUUDE!!! *uncontrollable squee* NOW ALREADY OMGPLZ! fuck man...ill be like 50 by then!!! i don't wanna miss the age of such awesome!! *wibble*

(Reply to this)


[info]drowninghail
2008-04-21 11:22 pm UTC (link)
Yeah I don't think we do/will have enough knowledge of how the brain works to fully adopt all the sensory immersion features shown, even in 2078.

My concern with games that can do all those things is that if the game becomes too good, why would anyone want to live and interact in the real world? At best people will go to work to earn money to play the game more, but then they'll go home to play.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]aigantighe
2008-04-21 11:54 pm UTC (link)
And there rings clear the basis of one of the classic objections to VR - what if some people don't like the real world?

Why do you consider that to be a problem?

Given hybrid VR (so, Augmented reality, augmented virtuality and other flavours of mixed reality), it's reasonably likely that we'll all be living in some flavour of VR most of the time.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]drowninghail
2008-04-22 12:34 am UTC (link)
I consider it a potential problem because it could lead to social disengagement, it could retard our intellectual development and we may stop advancing as a society.

I sincerely doubt it would happen, but just putting it out there.

The argument is not dissimilar to the argument against drugs really. They give the effect of a better-than-life sensation that people prefer over living their real lives.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]aigantighe
2008-04-22 10:22 am UTC (link)
Right. That's the argument I figured you'd forward. I've got problems with a few minor points (I don't think games necessarily lead to social disengagement in a way that's any more problematic than stamp collecting, living in the wilderness, or gardening, nor do I think that's necessarily a follow on from VR and immersiveness,) but I won't bother arguing it, as it's not central or necessary to the rest of your point.

My concern is fairly simple - paternalism. I don't think it's the role of the state, or anyone except perhaps parents, to prevent people from indulging in things that they choose to, with a few narrow exceptions, perhaps, for activities that harmful and costly to others. I'm fine with the state, my friends, or anyone really, from telling me that something's a bad idea, and trying to dissuade me of it it, but they may not coerce me. You might argue that excessive indulgence in an activity _is_ harmful to others, and, in that case, I might agree, but it wouldn't be the activity at fault there so much as the individual not considering their actions.

That said, I don't necessarily think you're advocating that VR technologies are evil by default or that they should be shunned. If I read you correctly, you're just expressing a concern that I agree with; that society needs to be careful of amusing itself to death. It's simply the follow on slippery slope argument that I fear.

One thing I should mention, though - there's already plenty of activities that people would far rather engage in than 'real life'. You and I, I'd wager, would rather role play than work. I'm disagree that virtual reality is any more addictive than real reality, and I don't think the distinction between real and virtual is at all relative to the point of social disengagement. However, I'm not sure that you're actively pushing that perspective - I suspect you're just reacting to the apparent experiential richness of that video..

So, while I agree that social disengagement _is_ a concern, I don't think it's particular to games or VR, but rather to general social processes and behaviours both real and virtual. :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…