Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ogicse!milton!streeter@athena.cs.uga.edu
From: streeter@athena.cs.uga.edu (Tom Streeter)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: synthetic reality
Message-ID: <15678@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 2 Feb 91 20:47:55 GMT
References: <15274@milton.u.washington.edu>
Sender: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 26
Approved: cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu



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