From: thumpy@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Richard Parr)
Subject: Re: TECH: Are sensory inputs a help or hinderance
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 11:57:11 GMT
Message-ID: <1993Feb23.115711.18328@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London


In <1mat6hINNinf@shelley.u.washington.edu> jnh@huron.eel.ufl.edu (Jordan Hazen) writes:


>In article <1m673eINNbpe@shelley.u.washington.edu>, COS.MARSHALL@GLASGOW-POLY.AC
>.UK writes:
>|>[discussion of neural vs sensory input deleted] 

>I can think of a lot of advantages to using a direct neural interface
>rather than a system of physical and sensory hook-ups, once we get the
>requisite technology base developed.  For one thing, it might
>eventually be possible to intercept and block undesired motor outputs
>and (physical) sensory inputs during the course of the VR session.  I
>see the most potential in the redirection of attempted muscular
>movement-- this should not only eliminate clumsy data gloves and body
>suits, but also keep the user's apparent freedom of movement from
>being restricted by the constraints of the physical environment s/he


This bit strikes me a potentially a bit dangerous.  I agree that
direct neural interface seems to cut out a large amount of messing
about with electronic and mechanical devices, and cutting off
motor output would certainly reduce the risk of physical intrusion
of the "real" world (eg when you walk into a wall).  What bothers me is
just how you might be expected to "unplug" yourself when you are, in
effect, paralysed.  Inclusion of a software switch operated from within
the virtual world could, of course, release your muscles to get on with
the task of removing your sub-mini jack or whatever, but I can't quite
bring myself to believe that such machines would never go wrong.  Just
where would you be if your reality engine breaks down?

Richard Parr (thumpy@dcs.qmw.ac.uk)
Dept of Computer Science, QMW, Univeristy of London.

A

-- 
Richard Parr (thumpy@dcs.qmw.ac.uk)
Department of Computer Science, QMW, University of London