Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • My take is that there is no "real" or "virtual". It is a logical fallacy similar to considering "man" and "nature" as different things, when in fact one is a part of a much bigger other. And in terms of what is better - how do we know? Better for whom? When? Is it a matter of consumption or of perception, or both?

      For people who have trouble grasping the idea that there is no difference between "real" and "virtual" except for perception, I always suggest reading about the experiences of people with autism and other disabilities in Second Life, for example this article in Wired. It's pretty illuminating. (there were better pieces about that island, but I can't find them quick enough to link right now)

      Most of us like to live vicariously from time to time through storytelling and pictures of others. I see VR as a technology enabler to boost storytelling and art to new heights. And if someone chooses that technology to [completely] displace RL experiences, then that is a human problem, not a technology problem. Better humans will have better experiences, including via technology.

    • VR? Probably not. But, having 'glasses' overlay a reality of your own choosing upon the 'real' world? Most definitely yes. Check out Magic Leap or Hololens. That is the future. We may have to wait for Apple to come out with their version before the public at large catches on, but I have no doubt that in a decade or so, smartphones will be wholly replaced by AR devices.

      For me, the ultimate depiction of how a world like that can work is presented in Rainbows End by Vernon Vinge. Highly recommended.

    • Yeah I agree man is a part of nature however I don't see it as a good comparison to equate VR to RL or as part of real life in the sense that I meant it. Yes everything you do or feel in VR is real feelings but it's not doing just like listening to a story is not living the story that is being told.