[-empyre-] real vs. unreal

[Will Pappenheimer]

My approach-  added to Tamiko's, would be 2 fold:

Generally-  since reality is pretty hard to define in the first place, and always subject to our tampering with it, arguments separating it out or contrasting it to something else are going to fall apart at some point.

Specifically- since net objects and net communications increasingly are incorporated into our entire experience, they are becoming part of the arena that we can call "real". Example, "Oh so you have a business, but do you have a website?"

So creating net objects or net constructions that appear as "augmented reality", that have location coordinates, are "real" just like adding anything to the physical environment is real. It's not just something depicting something else. It's definitely not imaginary! Nor am I sure that the linguistical sign analysis works so well in this case.

I think we are in need of a new definition of existence, one that includes the digital or networked object.

Will Pappenheimer
698 Hart St
Brooklyn  NY 11221
Cell: 347-526-5302
Email: willpap at gmail.com
www.willpap-projects.com







On Apr 28, 2011, at 5:46 AM, Tamiko Thiel wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre