Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!ogicse!milton!hlab
From: deadman@garnet.berkeley.edu (Ben Haller)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: New sensory modalities which probably will not appear.
Message-ID: <1991May4.175032.17605@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 4 May 91 17:50:32 GMT
References: <1991May1.014938.15819@milton.u.washington.edu>
Sender: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu (Human Int. Technology Lab)
Organization: Stick Software
Lines: 59
Approved: cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu



In article <1991May1.014938.15819@milton.u.washington.edu> kilian@poplar.cray.co
m (Alan Kilian) writes:

>>Imagine a eyephone/camera/computer which can (somehow) identify hidden
>>weapons (like an experienced police officer) by suspicious bulges in
>>clothing.  A rookie could use this visual cue to learn what to look
>>for.  With experience the rookie could see what s/he could not see
>>before, but would learn faster with the cueing.
>
>True. THe human eye can see bumps in clothing and can therefore be trained
>to recognize these bumps more quickly.
>
>>How about a similar system for engineers, with input from stress
>>sensors (inside bridges, buildings, or machines)?  The VR cues
>>presented in conjunction with the engineer's own senses may allow
>>him/her to learn what to look for.  The engineer may begin to be able
>>to see the stressed areas without any input from internal sensors.
>
>No, The human eye cannot detect the stress in structural members of bridges.
>And cannot be trained to recognize these stresses.
>
>>I expect those wouldn't be the strangest changes in perception.
>
>Oh? I think that beginning to see stress or magnetic fields would be
>sort of a MAJOR change in perception.

  I don't know if this is what the original poster meant, but: certainly,
the human eye cannot directly observe stresses in structural members of
bridges.  But it seems quite plausible that the human *mind* could learn to
"see" those stresses, in some sense, after being trained by a VR system.  I
know that, as a computer programmer, I can now "see" logic and structure
when looking at a program, whereas a person who doesn't know how to program
would see only meaningless words and letters arranged in hierarchical
patterns.  My ability to "see" those things came from programming for a
long time, until my mind became so accustomed to programming that the
interpretation of a program became a somewhat unconscious process,
performed automatically by my brain whenever I see code.
  It's similar to when I first learned to read.  At first, of course, it
was a struggle, but eventually I crossed a line and it became almost like
"living" the book.  I remember many times when I would forget that I was
reading, and not even be conscious of seeing words in front of me: my brain
had become good enough at reading that the words were automatically
transformed into a visual and auditory experience before my conscious mind
even realised that they were there.  Unfortunately, nowadays my critical
faculties have become so developed (overdeveloped?) that it takes a
*really* good book to do this to me; but that's another story.
  Given this sort of thing, is it really completely implausible that
engineers could "see" structural flaws, stresses, etc?  I don't know, maybe
the better ones already do!  It wouldn't really surprise me at all.
  Magnetic fields seems a bit more out-to-lunch, since they're not as easy
to guess from straight sensory data of other kinds, but perhaps, in some
contexts, it would be possible.
  I think that this kind of thing is really quite interesting, and doesn't
deserve to be jumped on so aggressively by the previous poster.

-Ben Haller (deadman@garnet.berkley.edu)
"See me...feel me...touch me..." - The Who