What do we mean by virtual reality?

Although people seem to cling to one basic conception of what "virtual
reality" will be in the future, it seems to me that there are basically
three models of how the technology will proceed. One model, the one with
which most people are familiar, is sensory-immersive. But two other models
of VR loom on the horizon - the non-immersive, and the neural-direct.

The immersive variety of VR is the one in which an individual dons goggles
and perhaps other devices for sensory feedback (maybe even a whole body
suit, providing even tactile response.) The key to this type is that the
individual is cut off from 'ordinary' reality and its sensory cues... all
of his normal sensory 'input' is being replaced by something else. This is
essentially a private experience, although it obviously can be connected to
the experiences of others through a centrally controlled 'virtual space' in
which the person's virtual 'form' can be perceived by others... the person
need not look anything like his/her own body within this space; indeed they
need not look like a person at all.

The non-immersive variety, which Myron W. Krueger calls 'artificial
reality,' requires no personal hardware. Rather, the person enters an
environment - a room, a simulator, etc. - where normal sensory cues are not
cut off, but are supplemented by additional sounds, images, or other
sensations. Presumably, with the advent of holographic technology, such an
environment might be like the 'Holodeck' on Star Trek. The advantage of
this type of VR is that it can be a communal experience, with many people
participating at once. In a sophisticated enough environment, it might be
difficult to determine who the "real" participants are. In this
environment, they remain themselves, participating in their own quite real
body, although obviously costuming and masquerade may be part of the
experience.

And then, for the Gibson fanatics, there is the neural-direct model of VR.
In the present, it remains vapourware. But as a model it appears to be
inspiring many VR enthusiasts who want to go beyond the
immersive/non-immersive dichotomy. The neural-direct model would mean that
all types of sensory input (which could include olfactory, gustatory, or
other perceptory cues difficult to create through a bodysuit or simulator)
are 'jacked' into the proper areas of the brain. They would, of course, be
completely indistinguishable from normal sensory input. The neural-direct
model would be like the 'cyberspace' of Gibson: where the person's
consciousness is entirely transferred into virtual reality. It would no
longer be a question of simulation or computer-generated artifice:
sensations exactly identical to "real" ones could be created...

Interestingly, some people operating in the neural-direct paradigm are
searching for ways to implant memories of experiences as if they were
'real,' a la Total Recall. If the memories are indistinguishable from other
memories, then they are as 'real' as any other experience... at least as
far as the person is concerned. But unless the other people in the person's
experiences receive the same 'memory implants,' they will have no
validation for them... and there is always the question of how to suppress
the person's 'true' memories from that time period, and whether those
memories might resurface and challenge the implanted ones.

Well, all three of these models are not where we are today. Today, we
mostly have crude forms of the immersive variety (flight simulators, where
the person climbs into a 'virtual' cockpit, etc.) and, of course, things
like MOOs and MUDs, which can be considered text-based virtual realities.
MOOs are fun, but of course, we don't perceive the world textually, so they
are short of what most people would want from VR. However, like the
immersive variety, they offer the person the ability to be someone other
than themselves. Like a radio program, MOOs leave most of the
world-visioning to the imagination of the user.

Most of the work going on right now is in developing the technology for
immersive VR. There are vast technical problems to be overcome. Coming up
with 3D convincing computer-generated models of objects, whose perspective
and form changes as fast as the person turns their head, requires
incredible amounts of processor power. Modulating sound through headphones
so that it appears to come from different points in space is also
processor-intensive. And then there's the hurdle of tactile feedback. A VR
glove might be able to give the person the sensation of lifting or holding
an object. But designing a VR suit that will keep someone from falling on
their butt when they try and sit on a virtual chair - there's the rub. It
won't be easy, to say the least.

But people's initial reactions to immersive VR have been generally
favorable. It's hardly "more real than real" yet. Virtual items still look
more like clusters of polygons than anything else. Most VR simulations are
done Walt Disney-style: the person is 'guided' through the experience from
beginning to end, with perhaps a few limited choices along the way. More
complex simulations still leave the person within a 'bounded' virtual world
- either in terms of space or in terms of the number of virtual objects and
experiences present in that world or the 'rules' governing possible
interactions... but it won't be 'virtual reality' until it contains the
unexpected and the spontaneous, like real life. Perhaps some input from
chaos theory could assist in this process, by coming up with 'virtual
worlds' where the new and unexpected is constantly being introduced.

The advantage of immersive VR is that new vistas of possibilities are
opened up. Other people can represent themselves to those they encounter in
any way they choose - as a table or lamp, for example. The 'virtual world'
can operate under different laws of physics than our own. Using a
gyroscope, as in the movie Lawnmower Man, would allow people to move
through 'cyberspace' in any of the 3 dimensions, rather than being limited
by gravity to walking. Perhaps many of the entities we encounter in VRspace
might be AIs - indeed, part of the challenge might be distinguishing them
from other people - a true Turing Test. Communication between people in
immersive VRspace might be through abstract symbols - floating bits -
instead of speech...

Not surprisingly, some of the first people to see the possibilities in VR
have been the pornographers. They have rapidly jumped on the
'teledildonics'/'cybersex' bandwagon. Penthouse magazine has been one of
the first to try and colonize this new terrain, with their 'interactive'
porno CD-ROMs. In the vision of the 'teledildonicists,' all types of
virtual stimuli will be simulable, including the tactile and gustatory (for
example), so 'cybersex' with a 'virtual' or 'telepresent' partner will be
the ultimate form of "safe sex" and perhaps the logical "evolution" from
phone sex... indeed, some have openly wondered whether people might not
prefer the simulation to the real thing, although skeptics simply call this
just another form of high-tech masturbation.

The main disadvantage of immersive VR is that it is solipsistic and
private. You may be sharing experiences with others, but that is merely
because a central processor is matching your "outputs" to their "inputs."
Since most developers are working toward personally interactive VR, where
the person shapes their 'virtual space' as they go along, inevitably the
trend will be back toward solipsism. If you encounter someone painful or
bothersome in VRspace, you simply 'move' toward a 'virtual space' where
they no longer exist. Most people will probably prefer to interact with VR
companions of their own creation, exhibiting personalities and features
that they choose.

Krueger's non-immersive 'artificial reality' provides a different approach.
It is also interactive, but the 'reality' is simultaneously responding to
the actions of a group of people, ranging from two to maybe hundreds...
when you step into one of his STORYSPACEs, you know that outcomes will be
shaped by more than just your personal choices... they will be shaped by
the choices of the entire group. This is surely more 'real' than immersive
VR. The advantages of non-immersive VR are obvious. The room can contain
all kinds of quite physical objects, which are tangible, but whose
appearance is constantly being altered as the setting changes. The person
is having an artificial experience, but they are still having it in their
quite real physical body, with other real physical individuals.
Non-immersive VR can combine quite 'real' objects - trees, whatever - with
'unreal' ones, such as animatronic figures (like Disney), holograms,
disguised objects, optical illusions, etc...

Surprisingly, fewer people are working on non-immersive VR. It's obviously
less portable. And it may not satisfy people's demands for 'artificial
realities' which are wholly unlike the 'real' one, where their identities,
perceptions, etc. are completely different. Further, it's likely to be a
much more 'guided' experience than immersive, interactive VR, although the
designer can also find ways to implant remarkable degrees of flexibility or
randomness into the experience. Certainly, in non-immersive VR, things that
are very rapid-motion and contact-heavy (like 'virtual sports') might be
much easier to simulate and do. Artists have generally shown more interest
in non-immersive VR, since it seems to be a way of exhibiting art which
involves the audience to the nth degree - the ultimate form of performance
art.

Anyway, in either immersive or non-immersive VR, some things will be
impossible to eliminate. The person will always feel the weight of their
own body and have the prioperception of having two limbs, even if they
appear in VR as having eight. They will not forget that they just entered a
VR chamber or donned VR goggles, therefore, however convincing the
experience, they will still know a priori that it is not reality. Thus it
will not even be as convincing as a dream (which stops being convincing
when the person wakes up, of course.) These types of VR cannot eliminate
sensations of pain, hunger, thirst, fatigue, or any other physical
pre-existing feelings. Most people will know how 'virtual' the worlds they
are in by the fact that they cannot be injured or die - even if the
'pixels' of their 'body' are scattered to the four winds, their
consciousness is not changing.

For these reasons, immersive or non-immersive VR are not likely to be more
convincingly 'real' than a hallucinogenic episode created by a psychoactive
drug, whatever people like Leary might have to say about the matter. During
an LSD trip, people see their hand melting, and they accept it as a matter
of fact, without questioning it. In VR, you will watch your hand 'derez'
and disappear, and find it "cool", but you will know that your (physical)
hand is still there. However, neural-direct VR experiences have this
possibility - of complete suspension of disbelief on the part of the
percipient - and therein lies both their danger and their promise.
Neural-direct VR might truly be "more real than real," and thus be the
ultimate example of what Baudrillard calls hyperreality. People might
prefer the simulation to the real thing.

In Gibson's VR, your consciousness is actually translated into the
"Matrix." Thus, it is possible for you to be "flatlined" and die within the
virtual realm. With neural-direct VR, we may discover some disturbing
things. It may be possible, as in the movie Brainstorm, to "record"
experience of other people, and play them back for others. The ultimate
vicarious experience. What happens, then, when we "record" somebody else's
death, and all the things that happened in their brain during death happen
in ours? Will we die also? All kinds of interesting metaphysical questions
are raised by neural-direct VR. Will neural-direct VR mean new
personalities can be implanted, as well as experiences or perceptions?
Thus, in your virtual reality, you not only have the experiences of a
superhero, but feel like one also? Could you be made to think you are
someone else, as in the movie Total Recall?

The possibilities here are horrific. An extremely advanced form of
neural-direct VR might be totally indistinguishable from 'real' reality. If
it was introduced into a person's brain in some undetectable way, they
might not know anything has happened, and not even know they're now in a
'virtual world.' Thus, the possibilities for control are immense. It would
be the ultimate form of 'false consciousness.' The State could move from
ideological control to total perceptual control. Dissidents could be
neutralized by simply introducing their perceptions into false realities
where their demands have already been met. Bentham's Panopticon might
finally meet its 'virtual' realization...

But, at the same time, optimists see great promise in the technology. They
suspect that, as humans experiment with the creating of 'virtual realities'
in cyberspace, they will start to think more closely and critically about
the processes used to elaborate and construct the 'consensus realities' of
'realspace.' VR advocates think that it will enable human beings to reach
new plateaus of creativity, since inventions and works of art can be
visualized and studied 'immersively' before being introduced to the "real
world." Some think that it is part of the ongoing transitional phase of
humanity - that as we learn more and more about our mind/brain and our
processes of reality-creation, we will make a "quantum leap" in our
consciousness toward our destiny as co-reality-creators...

The telephone, radio, and television all had their early utopians and
doomsayers. Each was predicted to either elevate or level civilization. In
many cases, these technologies disappointed both the pessimists, since they
were not as bad as they thought, and the optimists, since they never lived
up to all their promises. There were arguments (as there are over VR) over
their future cost, availability, accessibility, interconnection, and
control, and many of the predictions were based on models of superseded
technologies, such as the telegraph. In large part, this was because how
these technologies were used and articulated was determined by a particular
social and cultural environment. It is likely to be the same way with
virtual reality.

Steve Mizrach, aka Seeker1