Within this article, Krueger drives home that the future of technology rests in responsive environments. He distinguishes the art of interactivity versus art that happens to be interactive (382). Initially he begins to describe the technology that he has created in the early 70s titled GLOWFLOW, METAPLAY, and PSYCHIC SPACE, all dedicated to integrating humans into a responsive environment. His concept drawings are difficult to decipher, however it is interesting to see how advanced his concepts were for his time. Krueger's language when referring to his projects conveys genuine care, "the computer acts much as an orchestra conductor controlling the broad relationships while the artist provdes the score to which both the performer and conductor are bound (387). Cohesion between the machine and the user is needed to successfully integrate new technology. Using technology is not simply for the purpose of completing tasks; it is an art form.
Krueger later advocates how responsive environments can be applied to education, psychology, and psychotherapy. He states, "the next generation of technology will speak to us, understand us, and percieve our behavior" (388). The behaviors of human test subjects could be better observed in a mechanical environment. This would be relevant to a psychotherapist as they will be able to use the environment to evoke and expand behavior. Within education, these technologies can provide students with conceptual experience they may not receive through traditional teaching. This could revolutionize what we teach as well as how we teach. As he outlines the benefits of technological development, he declares "our culture cannot continue if a large portion of our population is hostile to the tools that define it" (389). Krueger argues that responsive environments will be a new realm of human experience, and that society should embrace it with welcome arms.
Inquiry:
I really enjoyed reading the colorful metaphors and descriptions Krueger used when explaining the importance of responsive environments. The prose he uses is very poetic, though it is garnished among the confusing language of various programmed data processors and obscure figure drawings. Initially I began to look up the definitions of these acronyms, but eventually I just glazed over the parts of the reading that were too technical for my knowledge. Regarding telecommunication, Krueger predicts "At a time when the cost is increasing and fiber optics promise to reduce the cost of communication, it seems appropriate to research the act of communication in an intuitive sense as well as in the strictly scientific and problem-solving approaches that prevail today" (388). As this article was written in the 1970s, the author would be comforted to know that technology is frequently used in the forms of webcam and video conferences. I believe Krueger effectively drew the audience to become more accepting of the reality of interactive technology. I had a great experience today at the Virtual Reality Lab. When exploring the varying dimensions of space, especially within the protein molecule, I began to think about the infinite amount of places responsive technology could take us. The head-tracking technology was really impressive and it raised a lot of questions regarding how it could be implemented into military defense, biomedical technology, etc. Marvin hypothesized that soon homes will be able to implement 3D-capable Blu-Ray machines and TVs. Video game experiences could stray from the desktop to a 10' X 10' 6-dimensional virtual world. When I saw the Avatar movie last Winter, I was really immersed into the vivid colors and cool animation. Movies can definitely evoke real emotions, however I am always aware of the distinction between my life and a simulated picture. However, according to a CNN article, some fans of the movie expressed feelings of depression, "disgust with the human race and disengagement with reality" and "the world seemed gray". As technology is improving and becoming more accessible to the public, I fear that people will become even more detached from actual reality. If one simply walks outside on campus, goes hiking, or drives with the windows down, they will be able to see, taste, and feel more than virtual reality would ever be able to simulate; because it's physically tangible and real.
Link to CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html
Questions:
1. Why would one argue against the capabilities of interactive, modern technology?
2. When evaluating the socioeconomic development of nations, can technology be synonymous with progress?
3. What are some ways the Virtual Reality Lab could augment academics at UA as a responsive environment?
I think people argue against the capabilities of interactive, modern technology because they are either unfamiliar with it or scared of it. For example, my mom does not understand a lot of technology so she just does not bother with it. It is hard to use something more complex than what was used before. As new generations become more technologically advanced, I believe the amount of people arguing against interactive technology will diminish because the understanding of it will sky rocket. As for being scared, I think people overreact to what technology could do for us. Some people get stuck in the fantasy land that the media creates, such as the movie Wall-E where we are catered to by technology and everyone becomes fat and lazy. Those who are scared think technology will take over our lives, but I think humans like our lives too much to let it go. It's hard to see things with your eyes closed, but some refuse to open them.
ReplyDeleteThe Virtual Reality Lab would be a great tool to assist the School of Medicine as a responsive environment. Students could participate in a sort of virtual surgery and the “patient” could respond to the different actions made by the surgeon. Medicine students could also explore organs of the body as we did the heart, and get a better, more personal, picture of organs. Criminal Justice students could also benefit from a responsive environment in the Virtual Lab. Students could immerse themselves in hostile environments and respond to threats such as gun shots, take action, and see how the program responds. They could learn quick reactions, possible results of their actions, and learn to be observant and prepared for many possibilities. A responsive environment would be a great way to compliment any form of education for kinesthetic learners. They would have the opportunity to learn in an interactive environment that would complement their learning style.
ReplyDeleteAlong with Britney's ideas that the Virtual Reality Lab could assist the School of Medicine and Criminal Justice, Architecture students could also benefit. The architecture student in my group was very excited knowing that she could build something on SketchUp and then see it come to life. When I was little I wanted to be and architect and would build crazy things out of Legos wishing it could be a real building. Well with the Virtual Reality Lab, that is completely possible. Students can design a building and then walk through it, finding their mistakes or creating new ideas. Problems in a building would be caught before the actual construction begins, saving time and money. New, innovative structures could be virtually erected to see if they would actually work in reality. If more students in any field of study knew about the Virtual Reality Lab and its capabilities, they would use this resource.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Tori was right in one reason people argue against interactive technology; however, I think there are more reasons than just ignorance or fear. I think that you could argue that interactive technology is a poor substitute for real experiences. While it may be able to enhance learning, it will never be the same as reality, no matter how transparent or realistic it gets with advancing technology. Like Ellen mentioned in accordance with the CNN article on Avatar, some people have difficulty separating reality from technology-produced environments. Feeling that you've “experienced” gunshots, or surgeries, or explorations of the human heart after going through a virtual reality experience would be foolish. I think that interactive technology can be very beneficial, as long as it's kept as a supplement to hands-on experiences and not a substitute for them.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of socioeconomic status, technology will always be synonymous with progress. New and advanced technologies allow corporations and governments to increase the efficiency of production, various functions, etc. as well as drive down costs. Technology allows economies to grow exponentially, as well as defines culture and how society operates and views itself. Though there will forever be critics of the latest technology and how it will corrupt those who use it, very little of societies morals and standards have truly been reduced by technology. The quality/comfort of our daily lives has everything to do with the technology that surrounds us.
ReplyDeleteAs far as arguments against interactive technology fare, the legitimate point that must be discussed is the distinction between reality and simulation (Baudrillard, anyone?). As our simulations get more and more real, there is the danger of falling out of touch with what we define as reality, which can be a dangerous thing for the mind. However, just as with improved technology, the possible benefits far outweigh the risks. As demonstrated in the Virtual Reality Lab, the possible implications for interactive technology are virtually endless(no pun intended) and society stands to benefit greatly from such technology.
I agree with Tory about the fact that a lot of people are simply afraid of technology, which is why they hesitate to embrace it, but I don’t believe we necessarily have the ability to maintain an accurate perception of what is real and what is simulated. There are documented cases of teens playing World of Warcraft to the point of their body shutting down or even their death. This is occurring without even a responsive environment aiding their loss of reality. I feel as virtual environments become increasingly responsive the number of cases where people are so submerged they are no longer even aware of their physical health to a detrimental point, will grow at an exponential rate as well. If we have access to an environment that allows us to dissociate ourselves from a reality we are unhappy with it seems most people will choose the pleasing environment, something demonstrated by the amount of people in our society that cannot function in a social setting outside the virtual world.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Krueger’s ideas for the psycho-therapeutic uses of responsive environments. The advantages of being able to constantly manipulate patients surroundings based on their reaction seems like an invaluable tool to any therapist. A therapist could recreate traumatic events in a virtual world and coach a patient through it as a form of post traumatic stress therapy much more extreme than anything today’s technology allows for. I wouldn’t be surprised if a university developed a series of basic programs to run through a responsive environment used on individuals based on the type of trauma they had experienced. The technology would have so many practical uses for therapy I’m sure once the technology is advanced enough many psychology programs around the country will have a virtual reality lab similar to the one we visited devoted solely to psychological studies.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to John’s comment, there is indeed a danger of dissociation from the real world. It is a well known fact that video games can stunt the social capabilities and skills of those who play them obsessively. I am fully willing to admit that I find it harder to connect with people I am not familiar with and be social with them because of the fact that video games are so prevalent in my life. There have been countless times when I have found myself in an awkward social situation that I loathe, and find myself wishing heartily that I could escape to my video games. That being said, however, I believe that on the whole, society has the ability to keep itself grounded in the real world. While there have been numerous fiction pieces written on the subject of a society ruled by machines, most of those fears have been shown to be groundless. It is 2010: the computer reigns, and yet we are not controlled by our machines, not nearly to the extent that writers such as Ray Bradbury(Fahrenheit 451) would have us believe. There have been cases of individuals literally playing video games to death, however these are extremely rare instances that should not deter our culture from accepting video games as a legitimate medium of entertainment, with some limited artistic value.
ReplyDelete