From: ZIERT@beloit.edu
Subject: PHIL: The meaning of "virtual worlds" and "virtual reality"
Originator: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:26:00 GMT



Re: Re: PHIL: The meaning of "virtual worlds" and "virtual reality"
Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:29:02 GMT  Rick Zobel

>In article <1992Sep4.050438.14034@u.washington.edu>
>cyberoid@u.washington.edu (Bob Jacobson) writes:

><...Stuff deleted...>
>>
>>The newsgroup was located in the sci. hierarchy, rather than in the
>>comp. hierarchy, precisely to dispel any notion that a virtual world
>>*must* be computer-generated.  Having noted that, I do wonder
>>whether the claim that almost any human artifactual creation is a
>>"virtual world."  If it is, then virtual world is a distinction that
>>makes no difference and hence may be a useless definition.
>>
>>I think otherwise.  For me, a virtual world is a specific construct
>>within the mind of a human being which represents the external
>>world, and which can be manifested through the use of various
>>technologies including computers.
>
>It is curious to me, coming from an architecture/design background,
>that under one definition (a combination of the preceding two
>paragraphs) could be placed the mind's eye inspirations
>of space, the sketches, renderings, models, animations,
>computer generated immersive models to be viewed in
>a HMD, and any other method of representation of the
>original mind's eye visualization, AS WELL as the final
>"real world" construction... To take this to the logical
>end, architects, artists and designers have been
>involved in the inspiration, creation, visualization and
>realization of virtual worlds for the past 20,000 years!
>No small wonder I've had so much trouble convincing my
>thesis committee to allow me to do my final project
>looking at the utility of immersive environments for
>architectural design. We have been doing it all along... :)

Yes, we have been doing this same type of representational work for
quite a long time in science and art. And we tend to use modern
visualization tools in the same way, essentially, as we have used
other representational tools for 2,500 years in the many scientific
fields or literary disciplines which descriptively specify 'the
world'.

I understand very well the urge expressed above to be scientific, to
be "certified" by our peers in the computer sciences and other areas;
but the issue of categories as discussed above takes on a definitive
rather than a descriptive character. We may be better served in the
long term to transform the definitions of science to include our
activities rather than restrict our activities so that they meet
some-one elses expectations.

Lets' give up the aspiration to be scientif 'ic' for a moment and look
at some interesting possibilities that are often obscured by our
admittedly abstract tendencies (exemplified by the inclusion of
'desktops' or 'keyboards' within virtual worlds).

For instance; if we were doing work in molecular biology.  We could
stand in a room with representations of two different organic
compounds we would like to engineer a bond between. We should be able
to shape their structures by grabbing the vertices of polygons and
pulling, or stretching, or squeezing on the 'objects' until they fit;
after which the computer could download what it thought had happened
to the shapes, AND give us a list of techniques that may be able to
accomplish such transformations. Even, someday, offer a list of
possible intermediary structures which would simplify the process.

Rather than specifying what was to happen 'a priori' as we presently
do through a virtual keyboard, or powerglove, or mouse, we could
describe what had apparently happened in the virtual world. A sort of
backward looking prediction, or a conflated Janus character.

Would we loose our scientific status as a result of employing such
techniques? Perhaps, but is that what we should value?

This is not to say that I would object to VW's status within the
science hierarchy, indeed, I wouldnt'. We should simply pull, and
stretch, and squeeze on the definition of science until it suits our
needs. Lets' look at what happened to that definition later.

*******************************************
T. Zier                                               ZIERT@BELOIT.EDU
*******************************************
NO FANCY FOOTER

------- End of Forwarded Message