From: MARKUS BRAKHAN <71201.1016@compuserve.com>
Subject: MTV ---> Virtual Reality: more commentary
Reply-To: 71201.1016@compuserve.com
Organization: The Internet
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:43:13 GMT

The following is a edited version of an article which appears in the
Nov/Dec issue of the Utne Reader entitled "How Real is Virtual
Reality" by Jeremiah Creedon.
 Mr. Creedon compares two books as professing different views of the
potential of Virtual Reality technology: an idealistic view of VR as
means to new forms of experience and a pragmatic vision of using VR as
tool for closer examination of existing reality. The former view is
expressed by Howard Rheingold in his book _Virtual Reality_ 
(Touchstone, 1992), and the latter is the position of Benjamin Woolley
in _Virtual Worlds: A Journey in Hype and Hyperspace_ (Blackwell, 
1992). I have not read either, but I trust the integrity of the Utne
Reader to present well-reasoned and skeptical views of current
literature. 
*******************************************************************
If you've heard of "virtual reality" but still don't know about the
tech-heads are talking about, relax. They may not know either. Virtual
reality - hooking up with computers to the five senses to create an
infinity of otherworldly experiences - remains pretty much unreal. 
There's some fascinating research under way, but claims that the the
virtual univerese is practically here seem to be at least 10 years
ahaed of the technology.
. . . 
From the start, virtual reality has been a blend of science, science
fiction, and the never-ending American search for a good high. The
current public fascination owes much to the allure of computer gizmos
and catchy terms like "telepresence," "cyberspace," and "reality
engines." Factor in a thumb's up from Timothy Leary [watch for a post
of this article soon, Ed.] and the "you-are-there" accounts fom many a
jornalist, all penned with the accuacy of a carnival barker. No wonder
it seems the most skeptical question to be heard is whether any seats
would be available in coach.

 Virtual reality found its way into popular culture. . .after NASA
developed a new system for interacting with their computers. . ."NASA, 
appropriztely, was the institution that launched te first real public
exploration of cyberspace," notes Howard Rheingold in his book _Virtual
Reality_ (Touchstone, 1992). . .The military had been quietly
researching its own vesion of VR for years while designing new
simulztors for jet pilots. But unlike NASA, the military had to account
or what it spent, which led researchers to throw open the doors of the
VR lab in Mountain View, CA for a bit of free publicity.
. . .
Journalists and viseo-game makers soon had the public anticipating
"teledildonics" (sex over the modem), "electronic LSD" and other wild
forays into what soon became known as cyberspace.
 Science-fiction writer William Gibson created the concept of
cyberspace int he early '80s. In bleak but compellng novels beginning
with Neuromancer in 1984. . .cyberspace became a cultural metaphor, 
broadened to include everything from computer networks to fax lines, 
[and] the pessimistic social satire of Gibson's work got overlooked.
. . .
 The fact is that crating even a moment of VR takes a vast amount of
computer power. Building a so-called reality engine big enough to store
and relay all the data necessary to reproduce the "real" world in all
its sensory complexity remains a technical hurdle. The goal is to spin
out an incredibly complex synthesized reality at speeds ever nearer to
"real time."
. . .
 Meanwhile, the actual leader in VR research appears to be the U.S. 
military. It could be argued that VR technology had its debut in the
Gulf War, where computer guided cruise missiles streaked over the
desert like so mnay cybernetic sharks, preprogrammed to "recognize" 
their targets. Awesome, yes, and even thrilling for some, but not
exactly the peaceable tool for individual illumination that many say VR
is on the road to becoming.
 Rhengold, a VR proponent, is aware of suchironies but doesn't get
dwell on them. Despite the push to commercialize VR and press it into
military service, he's upbeat about its spiritual potential. He
portrays VR research as the work of "iconoclast dreamers," a long line
of maverick "visionaries and wizards". . .indiiduals who embodythe
american yearning for transcendence, and the peculiar, perhaps dubious
faith that machines will provide it. . .
 British writer Benjamin Woolley takes a cooler iew in _Virtual
Worlds: A Journey into Hype and Hyperreality_ (Blackwell, 1992). For
Woolley, the idea that "the computer is a reality machine without
limit, capable of creating any world we desire to live in" is naive and
skirts "some unanswered questions about the nature of fiction and the
nature of simulatiion." Woolley, one of the few pewople looking
critically at VR and its philosophical implications, recalls, "When I
first donned a virtual reality rig, the last thing I though of was
reality. It was uncomfortable and the images I saw before my eyees made
little sense. Nevertheless, I found it exciting - not intuitively, but
intellectually.
 For Woolley, the true value of VR will be its ability to reveal the
"hidden patterns" and "deep structures" of reality, a "formal, abstract
domain revealed by mathematics and computation." . . .
 In other words, virtual reality at it s best will be a way to see our
own reality ever more acutely, not a fantasy cooked up by programmers
raised on Nintendo and _Lord of the Rings_. Whcih doesn't mean that
programmers aren't going to take a crack at defining VR their way, as
Woolley knows. "Because the formidable might of of commerce and in
particular the computer industry have been deployed in defining
reality," he writes, "we need to look at what they mean to do with it."
**********************************************************************
 I remain undecided about the value of VR, but I remain skeptical due
to my bias that the creative impulse is corrupted by the forces of the
mass market and uncontrollably loses its honesty and perspective. It
could be way cool if done well, but I just shudder at the thought of
walking through a virtual Disneyland. And can there ever be a
substitute for the unpredictability of nature? Would a rainbow be the
same if we knew we could see one every day if we wanted? Would a wave
that surfed the same way every time really be fun? Would you really
want Wasatch snow on every virtual ski run? Ever had a sexual partner
who always wanted to do it the same way? I'd get bored if I could wire
it after a few times; I may be nuts, but I need some chaos. If VR is
MTV mach-10, wouldn't the associated problems also be mach-10? Fodder
for thought.


Newsgroups: rec.music.phish