streeter@athena.cs.uga.edu (Tom Streeter) (02/03/91)
In article <15274@milton.u.washington.edu> rick@hanauma.Stanford.EDU (Richard Ottolini) writes: > > >I suggest that the adjectives "virtual" and "artificial" have meanings >saying the result we are trying to produce isn't as good as the >original. I contend a long-term goal of VR is realism--a perceptual >experience indistinguishable from the external world. Therefore the >term "synthetic-reality" may be a more accurate naming of this goal. Do we really want "synthetic-reality"? It seems to me that a large part of the effort in this exercise is to remove from the mediated experience the very factors which make a situation "real." For example, we design a virtual tightrope. It's only indistinguishable from the external world if it kills me when I "fall." It could probably be done, but why would anyone want to? When evaluating a VR application, it could be as important to define what was left out as much as what was put in. I think "virtual" is a good adjective. -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Tom Streeter streeter@athena.cs.uga.edu
maddox@blake.u.washington.edu (Tom Maddox) (02/05/91)
Two things: First, the supposed trademarking of Cyberspace by Autodesk: I don't believe they went through with it. Gibson had his lawyer send them inquiries about it, and the last I heard, the company had decided it wasn't worth the grief they were taking. Does anyone have newer or contrary information? Second, what to call It. I am inclined to agree with Ted Nelson's "virtuality," as it encompasses both the virtual real and the virtual unreal. I am also inclined not to care very much. -- Tom Maddox "I couldn't get past page 10 of Ulysses . . . the book just didn't make sense." "Friendless" Farrell