Immersion in Cyberspace: Pause for Thoughts
"Sitting almost motionless at a computer, our eyes fixed to a screen, our fingers tapping at a keyboard, can we free our minds from the physical body, reaching across space and time to the minds of others, expanding it outward into a universal human Mind? Or, attached to a mostly dormant body, will our cyberminds wander off into a dangerous territory of unrestrained illusion? Perhaps the many millennia of evolution of the mind-body human have reached a point where we can progress beyond the physiological side of that integrated duality. Or maybe we are slapping Mother Nature in the face. If we try to leap out of those millions of years of evolution, maybe we are leaping right into disaster.
These are complex scientific, philosophical, and religious questions. At the moment, we have no answers. Good solutions usually show themselves as a compromise, a Middle Way. In the future, we won't have to choose between cyberspace and the f2f world. We'll choose between different ways of combining the two. In the meanwhile, if we're going to entertain any hypothetical but enlightening ultimatum, consider this one: If you had to choose between spending the rest of your life only in cyberspace, or in the f2f world, which would you pick?"
So which would you pick? Think carefully before you answer...pros and cons stated.
(The above came from a recommended article in Suler' EBook. Read it here) This article on The Two Paths of Virtual Reality is also a good and easy read).
6 comments:
In many ways, it is not enough to ask whether we would choose between the mind-expanding potential of the cyberverse and the starkly prosaic drudge of the f2f environment. Certainly, at this stage in our evolutionary progress toward becoming pure-thought meme-replicators, we are still heavily reliant on the tried and tested physical interfaces. But is it not fair to say that our human brain is in itself a form of computer and our very human eyes are little more than sophisticated webcams? Indeed, our own psychological make up actively conflicts with our physical exactitude. Our own self-image, good or bad, and the perceptions we have of others, is akin to a highly complex, self-regulating avatar.
These philosophical musings aside, let's address the question at hand. At present, we have a rich, diverse multiverse of electronic experiences available to us. We are able to traverse the full gamut of human experience and often leave behind the complex personas that we have created in our f2f world. This freedom from our corporeal forms can be a dizzyingly powerful experience. And yet, we do not yet have the technology to truly break down the barriers and internalise the true sensuality of human experience. It is only within the confines of our own bodies, and our inherent inability to escape, can we truly face up to our deep-seated desires and experience true emotion. Choosing between the two is a dilemma that probes our deepest core.
Anyway I chose cyberspace for one simple reason - you’ve guessed it Vinnie Trachor (Paul Rogers Avatar).
hmmmmm I smell a rat ... in the form of a misdirected footie and scouse hating Annalisa lover ... imposters are everywhere
I think that was obvious, Happy. Technological expertise to don the mantle of another, you can fairly easily possess; ability to successfully disguise linguistic style / plug personality leakage, is a little more challenging. ;)
"Certainly, at this stage in our evolutionary progress toward becoming pure-thought meme-replicators, we are still heavily reliant on the tried and tested physical interfaces".
IMO, the pivotal proposition in your thesis, Happy (or whoever). :)
(though I'd argue against meme-replication being the necessarily eventual dominant interactional style).
"In the future, we won't have to choose between cyberspace and the f2f world. We'll choose between different ways of combining the two"
More likely. As I've said before, ontongeny of self is likely to replicate technological phylogeny....but to a point. Why? Because we can't (at least as yet!)totally shed our "corporeal forms". We'll still get that physiological / anatomical feedback (kinaesthetic, pain, etc)to ground us to physical reality PLUS, and it's a big 'un, we can't procreate there. :) Furthermore, I would HOPE and think that we wouldn't like the people or society we become or mix with if we existed totally in the physical affordance and consequence-free environs of a virtual metaverse. Refer to Maslow. (Please society, do?)
By the way, Annalisa was the 'histrionic' one. You might want to reconsider you cyber-paramour options.
(Serious point? A substantially impressive argument, expounded beautifully. One of the best responses to a question that I've seen at Bolton in nigh on 20 years. You find your passion and the words find you, 'Happy') ;)
I was using a certain amount of hyperbole when I used the phrase 'pure-thought meme replicators' as a kind of short-hand to express what could be the ultimate reduction of the human psyche. While I don't necessarily believe that this will become the dominant interactional style, it does seem an interesting avenue for exploration when one considers the recent Twitter revolution. Twitter, on the surface, seems like a unnecessarily restrictive form of communication - 140 characters maximum message length, followers, 'followees' etc - but it has rapidly become the preferred form of communication for many. The very idea of distributing these discrete packages of information, then replicating them with high-fidelity (via the 'Retweet') - although with occasional mutation - seems to be the very essence of a Darwinian model for the meme. It is an unexpected development and it makes me cautious when attempting to predict future progress in the ever-changing domain of cyber-interaction.
As a mere psychology student, I only have a base understanding of Maslow's hierachy of needs, but it seems to me that there is an interesting parallel to draw with users of the cyberverse. Traditionally (although the use of the word 'traditionally' with regards to internet technology seems somewhat laughable), web users could be divided into two broad categories. Those users who are towards the top of the pyramid - performers, scientists, academics etc who publicise\share their work - and those towards the bottom - the disenfranchised in our society who use the web to fulfil some of their more fundamental needs. As the cyberspace reaches a more mature level of usage, we see the profile of users change to incorporate all levels of society. Perhaps we need to reach some equilibrium before we can truly postulate on the future of the cyberverse.
It seems to me that the most interesting thing about the cyberverse (or memosphere) is that it continues to develop in ways that defy our intuititive expectations (at least of the lay person!). There is an almost Darwinian sense of 'fittest survivors' with emerging web technologies and only those that are most 'useful' are able to exist long enough to spawn their progeny.
"It seems to me that the most interesting thing about the cyberverse (or memosphere) is that it continues to develop in ways that defy our intuititive expectations (at least of the lay person!). There is an almost Darwinian sense of 'fittest survivors' with emerging web technologies and only those that are most 'useful' are able to exist long enough to spawn their progeny"
Please God that Twitter is consumptive then. You're right. Of ALL possible social net apps I can think of, I view this as the most potentially maladaptive if not toxic, with regards to maintaiing the human desire (and ability) for rich and rewarding communication and healthy 'social curiosity' and group dynamics.
Post a Comment