Bugger! Forgot a title!

http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/accessories/b9de/
Look past the pretty cool accessory and consider where this is leading, and you'll think the same thing I did at first: Virtual Reality can't be far away!

Then I had a reality check.

Let's consider a few basic logistical problems with Virtual Reality.

1. Sensation. VR needs to not only fool sight and sound, or other important sensations like touch and smell. Granted basic VR equipment as presented in movies might work for some (usually a visor that covers the ears), but the presence of external stimuli intruding upon the experience would lend it an awkward status that would destroy suspension of disbelief.

How would they block out outside sensation while allowing more direct examples of sensations like touch and smell? Simple, they'd have to shut off one's interpretation of the outside world and replace it with a new one. This would be INCREDIBLY invasive, has the potential for mismanagement, and leaves open the possibility of unexpected side effects and damage.


2. Collateral issues. You're put in a small 12 foot by 12 foot room and given the latest in VR equipment, touch synthesising fabric, sight, sound and smell generator mask, all that sort of thing. You go into the VR experience, see yourself in an elegant ball room and walk forward... only to smack your face against the wall you can no longer see.

VR needs to not only fool sensation, but fool experience. If you can move your arm through where a fake wall should be, you will see your arm pass through it, but if the fake wall doesn't exist there in real life, then nothing will be stopping you from doing so. So any sort of VR system that they make needs to be able to avoid interaction with the real world that ruins the mystique. Basically it NEEDS to use a Matrix-like system of completely nulling sensation of the outside world.

However, as much as I'd love to try out VR, I couldn't trust anything plugging into my central nervous system, shutting down my conscious interaction with my body and feeding me false sensations. How could I trust whatever private company does it? And even if they are trustworthy (which is likely, to be honest, no company REALLY wants to screw it's customers over. Bad for business) then there's always the risk of the technology having unforseen side effects.


3. Controlled reaction. Related to sensation, but somewhat different. Sensation represents feeling something when, by all rights, it doesn't exist. The sting of a slap, relaxation of a warm bath, or (ahem) other methods virtual reality might be put towards.

Controlled reaction refers to more extreme sensations. How would the body react when told it had been shot? Obviously these sensations would need to be toned down, otherwise it could have an incredibly detrimental effect, as well as potential psychological side effects of disjointed reactions to things that haven't happened. E.G. Feeling the sting of a broken nose well after one has left the VR experience.

This is just one of the other things that means VR NEEDS to be done Matrix style. E.G. You're in the VR, in the experience an A.I. creature punches you. You won't respond physically to the impact, other then possibly being fooled into thinking you've got a bruise. In a Matrix style thing, your in-experience avatar is affected, fooling you into thinking YOU'VE been affected.

Of course, as touched on above, a Matrix-style VR simulation just raises ethical and medical concerns.


Have I thought too much about this? Hell yes. But then again, that's probably what the blog should be named. "I have thought too much about this."

Next post I may talk about Augmented Reality. Fascinating stuff, that.

Edit: Bugger! Forgot a title!