[-empyre-] real vs. unreal

[Tamiko Thiel]

From: Mathias Fuchs <mathias.fuchs at creativegames.org.uk>
 >
 > I would suggest to call something an augmentation of reality only
 > if it is a consciously introduced element of our environment that
 > we believe to be unreal.


Hi Mathias!

Nice to hear from you :-) A few questions for you:

What then are the augments that I create for the Bushwick AR 
Intervention last year, which feature photographs of real people who I 
believe do or did exist?
http://mission-base.com/tamiko/AR/bushwick.html

Or the "Newtown Creek (oil spill)" object, that is derived from a creek 
that I believe really does exist?
http://mission-base.com/tamiko/AR/newtown-creek.html

If I understand your definition correctly, either these are not real or 
I should not call them "augmented reality."

All our AR objects are signs, which may signify things we believe to be 
real and other people believe to be unreal, or vice versa. If I do not 
believe in Jesus and make a virtual object that refers to Jesus this 
would be in your definition AR. If however someone else does believe in 
Jesus and makes a virtual object that refers to Jesus this would NOT be 
AR, in your definition.

By the way, I would define a hologram on a bill as being "real," and 
certainly not something imaginary and made up. Can you explain why you 
say it is unreal? It is not a 3D object in a physical sense of having 
mass and measureable extent, but we perceive it as a ghostly 3D form - 
and this perception of a 3D form where none exists physically is the 
real physical phenomena and nature of a hologram.

Is a painting real but a projection not real? Isn't visual phenomena 
real - and therefore any AR object also real? Are perhaps these not the 
correct terms to be using when talking about AR and VR, even though both 
terms use the word "reality" and therefore bring us into discussions 
about what is real and what is not?

take care, Tamiko