From: jeff@is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Jeff McAffer)
Subject: Re: PHIL: Dreams and VR
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 07:20:51 GMT
Organization: University of Tokyo / Object Technology International


In article <1lutk0INN303@shelley.u.washington.edu> marsh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk writes:

 >> The point is that if the "reality" is SUPPLIED DIRECTLY TO THE BRAIN,
 >> rather than having to worm its way past our sense organs then it will
 >> seem much more "real", maybe to the point of being indistinguishable
 >> from "real reality" (see recent thread on fooling users etc.).
 >
 >Sorry Chris, but I simply don't agree. 
 >
 >Which other way do we experience reality than through our senses?
 >'Real reality' we perceive through our eyes, our ears, through touch,
 >taste and smell. 

A fairly large portion of the population I know (including myself),
feels that we simply get input from our senses and thus we,
internally, determine reality.  Looking at it this way, all the
extended brain (because the backend of some sensors do processing)
needs is input.  We internally build our perceptions of what those
inputs represent in "reality".  Therefore, "reality" is entirely and
exclusively personal.

I disagree with both of the posters above as I get the feeling from
their comments that they feel reality is outside of themselves;
supplied to them.  I am curious to know how they resolve the
differences then between my view and thier view of a particular scene,
sound, ...  Consider that our two perceptions are conflicting.  Which
is real?  mine?  yours?  none?  both?  How do we tell? (We could make
a game show, "The reality is right" hosted by Bob Barker.  The prizes
would be extremely Cool!)

 >Why should we by-pass such amazingly accute senses that
 >have developed over thousands of years? 

How is this a "by-pass" any more than slapping on an HMD?  Unless we
get perfect visual representation out of our HMDs (may be possible but
then consider all the other senses), whatever our eyes (senses) see in
them (the output devices) will be just a part of the sense's
capabilities.  Therefore, the HMD is "by-passing" (not using) part of
the eye's capability.  What I am looking for in direct brain
stimulation is new and different sensory perceptions.  Mix and match,
merge, filter, correlate...

I must say here that I think that all of this is possible entirely
without electro-mechanical devices.  I see no reason we cannot train
our brains to do things differently.  It may be really hard but I
believe it to be theoretically possible.  (then again, I'm no
p*ologist) Do machines just make this easier?  Machines would be cool
for adding to or extending our sensors.  For example, microwave eyes
for watching satellite broadcasts directly by looking at the
satellite!

{ Obligatory entirely speculative statements follow }

It seems that there is this common external thing called smell.
Wouldn't it be cool to hook up/map your smell sensor inputs (nose...)
to your optical input processing brain parts?  Wow!  See with your
nose!  What would the smell of sugar look like?

I'm not really sure about this idea.  What would happen?  Why is the
image processing area (visual cortex?) the image processing area?  Is
it convenience?  Some special structure of the brain cells?  Is it
different from the smell part?  How?  One possibility is that the
visual cortex would start to become like the olifactory area
(cortex?).  Would sights start smelling?  All sorts of wierd things
could happen.

{ ok ok, I'll keep that stuff for my essays }

Anyway, the point here is that the senses we think we have and their
apparent independence may just be something forced on us by
convention/training/need.  If I put some sugar on my finger,
persumably some melts/dissolves and causes some sensory input.  We
seem to filter that out and not recognize it as sugar.  Can we train
our brains to sense the feel of sugar?  Can we process the input to
get these effects?
--
ato de, |m        -- You look hard     - K. T.