On October 14-15 Oxford Martin School hosted a workshop; Cyberselves in Immersive Technologies. The blurb for the workshop reads :
On October 14-15 2015, the Oxford Martin School hosted the ‘Cyberselves in Immersive Technologies’ symposium on virtual reality and telepresence, sponsored by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council. The multi-disciplinary symposium brought together technologists, psychologists, neuroscientists, philosophers and cultural theorists looking at the future societal and ethical impacts of virtual reality and immersive technologies.
After this workshop, Dr. Hannah Maslen, a Research Fellow in Ethics at the University of Oxford, published a post over at Practical Ethics; Virtually reality? The value of virtual activities and remote interaction. This post touches upon the benefits, concerns and drawbacks of virtual reality in Dr Maslen’s opinion and certainly makes for an interesting read.
Dr Maslen seems to have some knowledge of Second Life, she references the virtual world more than once, however she also goes back to the 1970’s to take a look at experiments in comparing virtual reality with the physical world :
In 1974, Robert Nozick used the Experience Machine thought experiment to argue against the view that human wellbeing consists only in pleasurable experiences, no matter how complex or apparently real.
There have long been concerns that virtual reality will take us away from the physical world, that we will be immersed in the machine and that we will become addicted to a reality that isn’t real. However we’re a long way from being anywhere close to that point and in her post Dr Maslen points out that at this moment in time, in terms of virtual reality that is plausible, we know where we are :
The main difference between the Experience Machine on the one hand and plausible virtual reality on the other, is that when we use immersive technologies we know that this is what we are doing.
Dr Maslen also points out how virtual reality experiences are different, depending upon the platform, for example using Second Life to drive around in a vehicle would be a different experience to using a driving simulator to drive a car. The technology, the software, the immersive nature all play a role in providing different experiences.
Dr Maslen points out that interactions in a virtual world are part of our physical world interactions and that we don’t leave all of our interactions between the two worlds in locked drawers :
As a really basic example: if my avatar tells your avatar a funny joke in Second Life, your physical self will laugh, you may be put in a better mood, and you might later repeat it to your partner over dinner.
However where Dr Maslen really makes the point in terms of the physical world being more appetising is in terms of physical intimacy, and we’re not just talking about sex here. This is an area where I simply cannot see virtual reality being able to replicate the experience, a hug, a kiss, feeling someone’s breath upon you, this is not likely to be replicated in virtual reality even as it advances and allows us to see each other’s facial expressions and become more immersive.
A lot of what Dr Maslen writes may well seem obvious to those of us within virtual world circles, we have experience of these interactions, the distance relationships, the separation of the virtual and physical worlds and yet, many people are still very wary of where this is all heading.
If you want to read more about Cyberselves, go here : https://cyberselves.wordpress.com/
I will now embed a youTube video from the event that briefly explains what the event was about.