From: jwtlai@jeeves.uwaterloo.ca (Jim W "GrimJim" Lai) Subject: Re: PHIL: The meaning of "virtual worlds" and "virtual reality" Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 07:57:01 GMT Message-ID: Organization: University of Waterloo In article <1992Sep4.050438.14034@u.washington.edu> cyberoid@u.washington.edu (Bob Jacobson) writes: >In article <1992Sep3.150445.5976@unocal.com> stgprao@st.unocal.COM >(Richard Ottolini) writes: > >>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. > >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. Perhaps tangentially, I am reminded of a few words that Lois McMaster Bujond (an author for those not aware of her work) on the richness of literary worlds. I don't remember them verbatim, of course, She said that one thing that had been ignored was the richness of such a world when details are created by the readers of the work. In other words, it relied on the reader (user) to fill in the gaps. I suppose one distinguishing feature of the approach to virtual worlds here is that we are trying to reduce the task of adding detail/richness from the viewer (with the aid of technology?). Of course computers are not required for this (being but a class of technologies). Is there a term which adequately makes this distinction succinctly? >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. Agreed. In fact, if one distrusts one's senses, one can never truly experience the non-virtual reality anyway.