92.03.13
========


From: Peter Fraterdeus <pfraterdeus@igc.org>
Subject: Re: SOC: Social Implications of VR
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 20:01:37 PST


                                                                    7:17 PM
                                                                    3/13/92
                    SOC: Social Implications of VR

Hello, Margaret--

You wrote:

>Topic 96   SOC: Social Implications of Virtual
>melliott   sci.virtual-worlds   6:02 pm  Mar  4, 1992
>(at ics.uci.edu)   (From News system)

>I am a graduate student in the computer science Ph.D. 
>program at the 
>University of California at Irvine.  I am currently enrolled 
>in Dr. Rob Kling's graduate seminar on Computerization in 
>Society.  As part of the course requirements, I am 
>completing a term paper on the ``Social Implications of 
>Virtual Reality''.  I am focusing my paper on the potential 
>societal impact of VR systems, and on the dangers 
>associated with the ``hype'' surrounding false promotions
 >of VR's technological capabilities.

>I am interested in responses to the following questions:

>1) How do you characterize VR?

As Timothy Leary pointed out, we enter a shared virtual reality every time we
use a telephone. The use of technology to share experience is a natural result
of our development of the means and our socialization as symbolic thinking
creatures. I believe that VR is not all that different in scope than the
wide-screen movie was in its day. If we willingly suspend our disbelief, any
relatively coherent stimulus can overwhelm the boundary between "inner" or
private, and "outer" or public experience.  Putting on eyephones is no more or
less threatening than reading a really well written novel, at least as far as
the potential to distort one's reality.

>2) Do you think it has positive applications for the future?

Of course. The telepresence (both macro and micro) applications are already
becoming apparent. Creative efforts, both interactive and experiential are of
immediate interest (Psyche-telepresence?). The well-known prototyping and
ergonomic design applications. I am particularly interested in the creative and
expressive uses, and tele-community potential.

>3) What deleterious effects might false expectations have on VR's development
in society?  

The military already sees plenty of deleterious uses, but not from false
expectations! However, if we can keep them in the VR instead of bombing real
people, I guess that's a good start to a more peaceful world through VR!

What false expectations have arisen? That VR is like walking around in a
SuperVision 70mm film? Well, isn't it just a matter of time? Some supercomputer
experts are predicting the power of 100 Crays in a processor of pure crystal 1
cm cube by the end of the decade!

>4) Do we have a social responsibility as scientists/ engineers to accurately
portray VR's potential to the general public?

Again, of course! But don't downplay the importance of the imagination in
developing new uses that the "responsibile scientists/engineers" would never
think of precisely because they're "responsible"! An "accurate portrayal" today
could discourage someone from imagining the possibilities for tomorrow.

ALL the above, is of course, IMHO  8^)

Peter Fraterdeus
Alphabets, Inc. 
CIS : 73306,2703
ALink: ALPHABETS
pfraterdeus@igc.org

"Imagination is more important than knowledge!" -- AlbertEinstein




From: wjbaird@descartes.waterloo.edu (Warren Baird)
Subject: APPS: VR applications in Computational Fluid Dynamics
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 20:46:15 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo



I'm planning on writing a report on the application of VR to
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) as a part of the Cooperative
Education program that I am taking part in.

I've looked through the FAQ information, so I know a little bit about
the work being done at NASA-Ames, but I'd be interested in finding out
if anyone else is using VR for CFD, or hearing about any new
developments at NASA-Ames (The FAQ article was more than a year old).

I would also be very interested in references to articles or books that
deal with this subject.  I've looked through the VW bibliography on
milton, and it doesn't seem to have references to anything related
to CFD.  I did have two references to articles on the Virtual
Wind Tunnel project at NASA-Ames, but I lost them when I changed
accounts a while back, so if anyone out there could send them to me,
I'd be very grateful (I can't see them in the bibliography).

Thanks!

Warren




From: evenson@hitl.washington.edu (Mark Evenson)
Subject: Re: SCI: Measuring Telepresence!
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 07:47:46 GMT
Organization: R+D Hipsters @ virtual HITLab, Ithaca



In article <1992Mar6.194819.1826@u.washington.edu> mgreen@cs.toronto.edu
(Marc Green) writes (quoting my previous posting):
        
   >Any thoughts about replacing a search for ``presence'' with one of
   >``complexity''?

   This last statement demonstrates the biggest mistake that engineers
   and computer scientists make when they try to deal with empirical
   testing. "Telepresence" is a psychological variable. It does not exist
   in the "real world" but is manufactured in someone's head. Complexity
   is is physical measurement. The two may be related but are definately
   not the same thing. Moreover, the mapping between the two is probably
   complex. 

Hmmm.  I don't think I was even arguing for a ``mapping''--just that if
a researcher were searching for a ``metric'', she would be better off
looking at something like complexity rather than presence in her pursuits.

Your language is odd here: you speak of pyschological ``variables'', and of
``manufacturing'' within someone's head.  I was trying to back off from
this kind of lanugage entirely in relation to the category of presence.  I
would venture that it is not a proper concept even for pyschological
inquiry in the usage it has within the VR field.  [It could be turned into
such an inquiry:  see my next block of comments].

But if one could articulate enough of a theory of presence, and wanna
experiment with it, it certainly would ``exist in the real world''.
Perhaps, I'm not being charitable to your notion of ``real'', but if you're
taking a positivist/Skinner view of pyschology here, we have a deep
philosophy of science disagreement here (and no, I'm not a constructivist,
just a realist).

   To take a more obvious example, light does not have color - it has
   wavelength. Color is is psychological and is manufactured in the
   viewer's head. Wavelength is a variable from the physical domain.
   There is a rough relationship between the two, but they are most
   definately not the same variable. Physicists, engineers and computer
   scientists are forever confusing the formalism used to describe a
   phenomenon with the phenomenon itself.

Hmmm (again).  You are right, with the example of color.  But again, this
would be one component with a ``matrix'' of components for a notion of
presence.  This does not logically entail that there *isn't* an
epistemological entity that shares enough cluster properties with a notion
of presence, and could be further narrowed down with enough consideration
of its background theories.  But it raises the spectre of Bauldrillard's
``desert of the real'': in a virtual reality what is the difference between
the ``description of phenomona'' and ``phenomena'' itself?  Your example
derives its legitimacy from the physics and psychology of a world that
operates with the unique category ``natural''.  Do the physics and
pyschology of virtual reality have the same clear-cut transference?

This last paragraph may seem to be a reversal, as I offer a way in which
presence *could* be measured or articulated by experiment (this using a
realist epistemology).  I do not necessarily think such a category does not
exist, only that I am at a loss to begin the necesary theoretical
articulation.  So, I make exlicit my implicit request for those VR'ers out
there with actual ideas on ``how to measure presence in a virtual world''.

   As for measuring telepresence, you don't need a definition. To perform
   scaling experiments, it is only necessary that the subjects form their
   own idea and use it in a consistent manner. I know the guy who
   "designed" Ragu zesty Italian spaghetti sauce. He use scaling studies
   in which consumers were asked to rate the "Italianess" of different
   recipes. He never actually told them what Italianess was, but it
   worked all the same. 

Not exactly needing a definition of presence, but we need provisional
theories, observations, etc. to start an investigation?  How are we to
choose experimental appartus, method, critique without a notion of what
we're looking for?  This cannot be justified by the ``science occurs in a
vacuum'' line of argument.  How likely is it that someone's gonna construct
an experiment to measure Italianess, and find they've netted a notion of
presence?  Maybe.  It's possible, but I wouldn't feel comfortable doing my
reasearch that way. . .




