Rudy Rucker has an interesting post about his new novel Postsingular and its disparagement of virtual reality. I think some of Rucker's arguments miss a point, but I also think there's a strong core argument.
I was interested to come upon his thoughts, since I've been wanting to write about Second Life, virtual reality, and realism for the past week, particularly as I've delved deeper into playing with Second Life as an educational space.
I've mentioned before, on the oldest incarnation of this blog, that I'm disappointed with the technology we have today (and not just in a "Where's my flying car?" type way). What I'm disappointed in is the lack of imagination and innovation and the consuming of technology by consumerism.
Case in point: So, I'm in Second Life. What can I do? Buy stuff. Build stuff. Pay someone to build stuff. Fly. Watch a video I could've watched on my monitor (in better resolution). I can look different than I do in real reality. I can defy the laws of physics. Great.
As always, the hope (a loaded word right now) for a technology exceeds its application.
Back to Rucker, who argues that we shouldn't attempt to replace nature with virtual reality (simply creating a simulation of real reality). And I agree. That's one of my problems with Second Life. I don't want to go to a place with endless possibilities and see blades of grass, bookstores modeled on Victorian mansions, and Frank Lloyd Wright houses. As Rucker points out, Second Life, like Las Vegas and Disney World, are poor imitations, reductionist virtual realities.
Rucker argues, though, that we shouldn't bother since we can't compete with the complexity and beauty of real reality. For me, this misses the point. Being a good student of Timothy Leary's thoughts on cyberspace (and that might be my first mistake), I view virtual reality as about being so much more than just a recreational of real reality. As I've said, I want something different than real reality: a place to experience things that I can't experience anywhere else, things like past events, literary spaces, and, yes, flying.
I was interested to come upon his thoughts, since I've been wanting to write about Second Life, virtual reality, and realism for the past week, particularly as I've delved deeper into playing with Second Life as an educational space.
I've mentioned before, on the oldest incarnation of this blog, that I'm disappointed with the technology we have today (and not just in a "Where's my flying car?" type way). What I'm disappointed in is the lack of imagination and innovation and the consuming of technology by consumerism.
Case in point: So, I'm in Second Life. What can I do? Buy stuff. Build stuff. Pay someone to build stuff. Fly. Watch a video I could've watched on my monitor (in better resolution). I can look different than I do in real reality. I can defy the laws of physics. Great.
As always, the hope (a loaded word right now) for a technology exceeds its application.
Back to Rucker, who argues that we shouldn't attempt to replace nature with virtual reality (simply creating a simulation of real reality). And I agree. That's one of my problems with Second Life. I don't want to go to a place with endless possibilities and see blades of grass, bookstores modeled on Victorian mansions, and Frank Lloyd Wright houses. As Rucker points out, Second Life, like Las Vegas and Disney World, are poor imitations, reductionist virtual realities.
Rucker argues, though, that we shouldn't bother since we can't compete with the complexity and beauty of real reality. For me, this misses the point. Being a good student of Timothy Leary's thoughts on cyberspace (and that might be my first mistake), I view virtual reality as about being so much more than just a recreational of real reality. As I've said, I want something different than real reality: a place to experience things that I can't experience anywhere else, things like past events, literary spaces, and, yes, flying.
Leave a comment