NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/sci/virtual/2992

Text File | 1992-09-07 | 3.4 KB | 71 lines

Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!milton.u.washington.edu!hlab
From: [e-mail] (Jim W "GrimJim" Lai)
Subject: Re: PHIL: The meaning of "virtual worlds" and "virtual reality"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 07:57:01 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 57



In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Bob Jacobson) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>(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.