From: Old Baldie Subject: Re: Virtuality as a system of actions Date: 23 Sep 91 18:01:02 BST Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster In article <1991Sep23.023616.4287@milton.u.washington.edu>, smoliar@iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar) writes: > > > Pete Brooks decided to take issue with Gary Van Den Heuvel on the issue of > signing apes. I hope it didn't look as though I was taking issue in the confrontational sense (bloody difficult trying to convey facial expressions and tones of voice in text - which underlines my later point about the sensory nature of VR), and I do realise and accept that my points were peripheral; my feeling is generally that letting by things which, though peripheral, are felt to be sufficiently important to deserve comment, is not a good strategy. If Gary feels that I took issue, then my apologies - I was raising points which I considered fairly important, whether peripheral or not. > ... This was sort of peripheral to the primary argument; but I > would like to pursue it long enough to raise a minor methodological issue. > Pete's response was to summon forth the usual round of anecdotes which have > been interpreted as evidence that apes can at least appreciate, if not command, > not only the signs but also some of the abstract concepts behind those signs. > What is often overlooked is that all these anecdotes come from the scientists > working with the apes who, because of their intimate attachment to the > subjects, tend to be the poorest possible observers for what are basically > subjective judgments. The 'anecdotes' are, as far as I am presently aware, also the basis for conclusions drawn by individuals who are presumably not slow-witted and who might resent the slight on their professionalism. I'm also not sure about the lack of objectivity implied here: since scientific papers (as well as books and articles in popular science journals) are the outcome of such research, surely the criticism of the peer group is sufficient to hold down any tendency to anthropomorphise ? Especially since it is a well-recognised tendency and is therefore watched for ? I'm not currently a researcher in the medical field (was a lab research technician for 17 years) but even at my level, the emphasis during all training on the frailties of the human interpreter and the need to beware of subjectivity, was very strong indeed. Try talking to a blood group serologist about the interpretation of cross-matches! :-) > ... As far as I am concerned, the last word (for now) on > this issue has been best expressed by Stephen Jay Gould in "The Quack > Detector," the last article in his collection AN URCHIN IN THE STORM. > Here is the relevant paragraph from Gould's article: > > Since we scientists are forever demanding deference to our > professional skills, we could at least respect other equally > exacting crafts, and not look down upon them because they > thrive on the stage, but not in the academy. If every > parapsychologist followed the simple rule of always including > a professional magician in any test of people claiming > extrasensory powers, millions of dollars, thousands of > hours, and hundreds of reputations would be saved. Similarly, > if the psychologists who tried to teach sign language to > chimpanzees had bothered to consult the real professionals > in this area--the great animal trainers of our major > circuses--they might have avoided some spectacular (and > now spectacularly embarrassing) claims for conceptualization > and consciousness that now seem to arise from unconscious > human cueing and simple coincidence. > Although I understand the point you're making (and accept it), the difference between the subjects under study by a parapsychologist and those under study by the animal communications researchers is that the former have a strong tendency to be charlatans and confidence tricksters, while one would assume (carefully) that a signing ape is not likely to pretend to have understood abstract concepts unless he/she already has a detailed understanding of the abstract concept of deception... I'm well aware of the ease with which certain situations and events can be mis-interpreted (there are countless examples in all walks of life; have a glance through sci.skeptic/alt.paranormal and any book on, say, UFOs or the Bermuda Triangle, or watch Uri Geller on any TV show where he's supposedly participating in a 'scientific trial'... Incidentally, the use of a professional conjuror recently in the assessment of claims made by a certain European researcher turned what should have been a simple task into a circus. If you would like the references (Nature), I will be happy to post them. The conjuror is someone for whom I have a great deal of respect, not least because they have spoken out against one of the foremost quacks of our time (see sci.skeptic), but the methods he advocated brought the whole process into (scientific) disrepute since he was applying techniques more appropriate for the investigation of those with a criminal bent rather than for those who had exercised bad scientific judgement. > Why did I raise this digression on methodological grounds? My reason is that I > sometimes worry that the technicians of virtual worlds, so to speak, share this > same arrogance of self-importance which Gould associates with the scientific > academy. As one who believes that "reality" is the product of individual > construction, I cannot help but be suspicious of those who would claim they > can build one for me, let alone one which I can share with others. > Nevertheless, I can go into a theater and become part of a shared > reality merely by virtue of a few "tricks of the trade" of set design. > I am not claiming that close study of these "technicians of entertainment" > would eliminate a need for some of the sophisticated hardware of virtual > reality; but getting to know those "tricks of the trade" may ultimately > constitute as much of a saving of effort of us as it would for those > psychologists Gould has taken to task. One of the points I raised in my rambling was that a key factor in the creation of an individual's VR environment (such as the viewpoint they might like to have, for example that of a worm) is the provision of tools for modification of the environment and of the projection of the individual within that environment. I'm assuming (a lot) that any decent VR technician will not be designing worlds per se (although default worlds might be an obvious choice), but will be designing tools for the VR participant - if you like, the VR participant is given a blank canvas and the tools necessary to create a world for themselves (such as pens, pencils, paintbrushes, ink, paint, erasers, turpentine, set squares, rulers, curve templates, compasses, etc., etc.). It's also interesting that you mention the theatrical metaphor, since in the multi-media field (which could be regarded as a subset of VR ?) at least one product - Macromind Director - uses that for its animation and also its authoring package (Director Interactive); the screen is a stage, the objects active upon it are cast members, and so on, and the last (MM) company I worked for was heavily biassed towards television production methods, skills, and standards - visual impact was king (or queen, since the director was a woman), and many tricks of the trade were used (especially in graphics, where depth and texture cueing were vital in the presentation of credible (albeit stylised) images (chromosomes, and DNA synthesis, in case you wondered), and human psychology played a large part in the design of even the simplest text feedback (such as statements of approval or correction). If you'd like to pursue this peripheral thread independent of sci.virtual- worlds (the moderator may feel this is not pertinent) I am happy to engage in discussion until the (virtual) cows come home... > Stephen W. Smoliar; Institute of Systems Science > National University of Singapore; Heng Mui Keng Terrace > Kent Ridge, SINGAPORE 0511 > Internet: smoliar@iss.nus.sg (USE THIS ADDRESS; SOURCE LINE MAY BE WRONG!) HSR4@OXFORD.VAX.AC.UK (Alias Ol' Baldie, alias Pete Brooks, alias the man who can't quite talk the hind legs off an Arcturan Megadonkey but it always seems like he's trying to...).