From: cyberoid@u.washington.edu (Bob Jacobson)
Subject: PHIL: The meaning of "virtual worlds" and "virtual reality"
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 04:59:26 GMT
Organization: HIT Lab, Seattle WA.



In article <1992Sep3.150445.5976@unocal.com> stgprao@st.unocal.COM
(Richard Ottolini) writes:

>[Stuff from prior exchange deleted]
>
>The "definition of VR" is a recurring thread in this news group.  I
>agree and have proposed in the past that much of human culture
>concerns constructing artificial realities.  This particular news
>group implicitly assumes the words "computer-assisted" in its
>definition of VR.  Then in defining VR, some people have focused on
>the content of VR while others describe the tools bringing it about.

I protest!  This newsgroup cannot "assume" this, as the newsgroup is
composed of thousands of people, many of whom (probably all of whom)
share different conceptions of "what VR is."

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.  

For *general* use, however, to keep with the flow of meaning ascribed
in common discourse, I would prefer that the term "virtual world" be
applied to denote specifically the relationship between internal
mental constructs and computer-generated representations of these
constructs.  Yes, it's not the whole story, but we need to make
language mean what we want, not the other way around -- and this
narrowing of meaning seems to do that.

On the other hand, I do believe that "virtual reality" is an empty
phrase and personally choose not to use it, because it confuses nearly
everyone who tries to understand its meaning.  Nice conundrum, poor
lexical device.

Comments?

Bob Jacobson