[-empyre-] real vs. unreal

[Rodney Berry]

It's worth weighing in here with the reminder that AR is basically a display
technology that got named 'augmented reality' probably just to distinguish
itself from 'virtual reality' that was itself arbitrarily (and somewhat
arrogantly) coined by Jaron Lanier (I think?), perhaps to allude to
providing a controllable technological alternative to psychedelic drug
experiences.

so really it can be whatever we want and lots of people will use it to push
their own particular barrow along.

calling it 'spatially registered video superimposition' or such-like would
not be very sexy in a menu of attractive buttons vying for our click. nor
does it speak to our experience of our reality with or without the
particular system we are using.

there may or may not be a better term for it but we are prbably stuck with
this one for the present. The question of rea or not-real is really
dependent on the context. I mean your bank balance is just a number right?
but if it's reset to zero, that's going to have some real consequences in
your life.

Rod. :)

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Will Pappenheimer <willpap at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20110429/b29e990f/attachment.html>