neuralvr

[neuralvr]

Mansour’s Year; The Divide Between the Mortal and Immortal

 Do you ever wonder, “Was I born to late?” or “Is death really in my future?”. These are questions asked by everyone at some point in their lives. Immortality is a goal that humans have pondered since were given the ablity to ponder. The ancient Greeks believed the food of the gods, ambrosia, would grant who ever consumed it vigor and immortality. It’s a godly quality, but many people believe it’s coming soon. And by soon, I mean within your lifetime.

There are countless articles explaining how humanity will achieve immortality in the next century in a myriad of ways. Some with nanotechnology to reverse aging, others by replacing body parts as they wear out. The one thing that is required to undergo all of these treatments, however, is to be alive when they are developed. So, an interesting question can be posed: What is the year the separates the mortals who pass away before immortality is attained, and the immortals who are alive long enough to receive it?

This mythical year, the year where those born before it are unlikely to live long enough to achieve mortality, while those born after are more likely to, has been dubbed as Mansour’s Year. It’s just a name I have given this concept. Perhaps someone else has already given it a name, but for now I’ll go with this.

So, what year is Mansour’s Year, you may be wondering? Well, until immortality is actually attained, it’s something that is impossible to truly define. We can however, make a few assumptions and approximations to try to find a few possible years. First off, we need a mathematical formula to calculate Mansour’s Year. In my preliminary crafting of this model, I have used the following factors:

b : The base year. Usually this is the current year.

r  : The life expectancy rate of change per year. This can be a little tricky to define, but using the following data of life expectancy of the world, I found it to be anywhere from 0.2 to 0.4 year increase for every year. In other words, for every year that passes, on average people live an extra 0.4 years longer than the previous year.

c : This is the year the ‘cure’ for immortality is found and readily available for the general public, regardless of the method of immortality used.

e : The base life expectancy. This usually is the current life expectancy. However, it should be noted that if you used the world life expectancy rate for r, you should use the world life expectancy here. Similarly, if you want to examine a specific country like the U.S., use their respective values. While the 2016 life expectancy for the U.S. was found to be 78.6 years by the CDC, the WHO found the world life expectancy to be 72 in the same year.

Using these variables, we should be able to find M, otherwise known as Mansour’s Year. a formula to calculate this value has been derived to be:

Now that we can approximate when Mansour’s Year is by plugging in values. Of course, this formula is very far from being accurate. The numbers you can plug in are all estimations, guesses, and approximations, so take the Mansour’s Year you find with a grain of salt. Still, it’s fun to come up with some answers, so lets try.

Now, most of the sources I have listed below give the year that the immortality will be found to be between 2030 and 2050, so lets just say that 2040 is a safe bet. Using the current data for life expectancy, and the life expectancy rate for this year, I calculate that Mansour’s Year is around the year 1959! That may seem way too early, but remember that the world population life expectancy is growing constantly, so those born in 1959 are likely to live well into their 80s and 90s. Now, the first cures of immortality will most certainly be way too expensive for the general population. It would likely take 10 or more years for it to be affordable enough to be available to most people. So taking that into account, Mansour’s Year rises to around 1965, which seems much more possible.

Lastly, I want to share a modified form of the Mansour’s Year equation. If you want to know when the solution to immortality must be found so that those born a certain year (like perhaps the year you were born) will still be around to receive the cure, we can find that by simply rearranging the formula to:

Let’s do an example using this formula. Let’s say a person was born in 1995 and they wanted to know when a cure must be made in order for them to likely be around to receive it. Plugging in the values, I get my answer; the cure must be made by the year 2099. This is great, as someone born in 1995 has plenty of time to wait for a cure. If a cure wasn’t available by the far off year of 2099, then this person would not have a good chance of becoming immortal.

This about wraps up my analysis and dissection of Mansour’s Year. I hope to further refine and experiment with this concept, and I hope you take the time to play around with the formula yourself. Try giving a negative life expectancy rate, or see if your friends and family may still be around when immortality inevitable becomes commonplace. Lastly, I know that this post and my last one haven’t been specifically about FDVR. This is because I can’t shake an idea in my head until I write about it. I am considering either expanding the scope of this blog or creating a second blog for non - FDVR topics. Thank you for understanding.

Until next time,

Caliburn

Sources:

 https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/781136/IMMORTALITY-google-ray-kurzweil-live-forever

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/5587710/how-to-live-forever/

https://www.livescience.com/6967-hang-25-year-wait-immortality.html

http://www.thatsreallypossible.com/immortality/

https://www.greekmythology.com/Myths/Elements/Ambrosia/ambrosia.html

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db293.pdf

http://www.who.int/gho/mortality_burden_disease/life_tables/situation_trends/en/

[neuralvr]

Just a Thought: Could FDVR be the reason for the lack of extraterrestrial contact? - Answer to the Fermi Paradox

This is quite a different topic than the the one I usually post about, but I needed some way to stop this from bouncing around my head. The question is: Could FDVR be the explanation for why we haven’t come in contact with some highly technologically advanced alien race?

Now, any aliens that would be able to contact us physically would have to come from millions and millions of miles away. After all, the nearest star from our solar system, Alpha Centaur is 4.24 light years away, and the closest galaxy, Andromeda, is 2.5 million light years from us. These are distances that we can barely fathom, much less travel across with what we have now. But for aliens that are millions of years ahead of us with their science and technology, traveling that distance would be a trivial effort. Remember that a century ago, leaving our planet and landing on the moon would of sounded like an impossibility. At the rate that we have been scientifically progressing as a species, it’s not a stretch to say that within a few centuries we may be able to travel far outside our solar system. Fast forward a million years or two, which in the relativistic time of our universes existence, is next to nothing, and it’s likely that any race, including us, would develop the technology to travel vast distances very quickly.

So, given the incredibly vast size of the universe, the billions of galaxies that hold billions of stars and planets, and and the billions of years the planets with suitable conditions were around to hold life, it would seem that intelligent life capable of zipping around the universe would be an almost 100% guarantee. So where are they? This is commonly known as the Fermi Paradox, and it’s an intriguing topic that I highly recommend you look into if you are interested.

What does the Fermi Paradox have to do with FDVR? Well, in any race, be it human or alien, it’s highly likely that the technology to create FDVR would be created before the ability to travel any distance farther than a light year. One piece of evidence for this is, well, us. Right now, we already have some BCI, or Brain Computer Interface technology. While it’s not yet perfected, we can read, interpret, and send brain waves to computers for processing. In only a few decades, that technology could progress to where simulations can be uploaded to a brain and signals can be interpreted with incredible speed and accuracy, otherwise known as FDVR. Meanwhile, we are still centuries away from being able to leave our home star cluster in a short amount of time, such as one human life. Leaving our galaxy would take many more centuries to achieve. Judging by these two technologies, it’s clear that we will have FDVR before ever being able to travel very far distances in space. 

Because of the different levels of apparent complexities that FDVR and robust space travel have, could we assume that all extraterrestrials developed FDVR first? If that is the case, it may just explain the Fermi Paradox. See, once you have perfect FDVR, what is the point of exploring the real universe when you can explore a virtual one? Why attempt to advance real world technology when everything you can ever dream of can be constructed instantly inside your head? Why ever leave your home planet? Why even try to contact other races?

This is the heart of my little thought experiment. Because an alien race would develop FDVR technology before the space technology needed to reach us, they would have no reason to attempt such a costly and time consuming task. Again, why would an alien race progress technology when every single fantasy one could have could be fulfilled instantly and continuously. Maybe every single alien race has voluntarily gone into a comatose, sealed underground in their home planet, all connected to an FDVR system to live the rest of eternity within their minds. Maybe they have uploaded their consciousness to live forever in a computer, never caring what is in the real universe they choose to ignore.

It may be a little depressing, but if this is truly the case, then humans are next in line to join the billions of “sleeping races” spread across the universe. Perhaps its the fate of all intelligent life, to be so absorbed within their own mind that they shut themselves off from the outside world entirely.

This, of course, is just one hypothesis to answer to Fermi Paradox. What do you think?

Until next time,

Caliburn

Sources:

https://www.universetoday.com/15403/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/universe/key_places/andromeda_galaxy

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/01/elon-musk-neurotechnology-human-enhancement-brain-computer-interfaces

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150809-how-fast-could-humans-travel-safely-through-space

[neuralvr]

FDVR Design Philosophy - The Three Principles of FDVR - The IONI Method

When designing anything, it’s crucially important to understand what your goals are. Goals give you direction, they give you a sense of what is necessary to the experience you are building, and what needs to be left out. This is why I have developed a philosophy that contains the three essential components to make an FDVR experience fun, useful, and intuitive. Three principles to make those crucial goals that more accessible.

The IONI method is:

                                       Input, Output, Natural Interaction

Simply put, it is three areas of importance, aspects of FDVR software that must be focused on in order to produce the best and most holistic experience possible. Let’s examine each part now.

Input: By input, I am referring to entering data into the brain from an outside source; most likely a computer. The information would include all types: visual, sound, taste, smell, feeling, and more. Essentially, any type of information that our bodies relay to our brain, a perfect FDVR device would need to also input those types of data directly to the users nervous system. The more information the better, as immersion in the virtual world requires a substantial amount of data.

Output: As you might expect, output refers to sending the neural messages from our brain into a computer for processing. This is paramount for allowing the user to move their virtual bodies, interact with the environment, and fully belong to the world. Without proper output of user information, immersion is impossible.

Natural Interaction: When the user interacts, the world around them must act in a consistent manner. If that is achieved, then the user can get immersed on a much deeper level. And the world doesn’t even have to be realistic when compared to our world, it just needs to make sense logically, and our brain will adapt to that new world. Also, the functions in the game must be intuitive, feel natural, and mesh well with the world. For example, navigating through a menu to select a spell to cast isn’t nearly as natural an interaction when compared to performing a specific action to cast it. The less proof that the virtual world is in fact virtual, and the more it feels natural to exist in the world, the better the FDVR experience will be.

These components of the IONI method are three cornerstones of FDVR, and required to fully realize the technology. This method is a work in progress, of course, and it’s very likely I will further develop the philosophy to make it more encompassing. Thank you for reading!

Until next time

Caliburn

[neuralvr]

The Limits of Immersion

One summer morning you find yourself walking along the street. It’s as normal a day as it gets, until you hear the faint rumblings of a motor. You turn around just in time to see a car hurdling towards you at top speed, and your mind instantly enters ‘survival’ mode. It doesn’t last long, though, as within a split second the car collides with your body and your vision goes black. “You have died, reloading last save...” it displayed in the center of your vision. You realized that you put on your FDVR device earlier that day, and at the same time your brain begins to slowly calm down. However, you still feel the adrenaline shaking your arms, your skin hot and flushed, and your breathing erratic.

What I just described above is an example of an FDVR simulation. You didn’t actually get crushed, only your virtual body. Yet you still feel a pain in your side where you were ‘hit’ and a throbbing in your head. In reality, you were afflicted with Transitional Immersion Syndrome, or TIS. Your brain was so deceived by the virtual world that it created pain where it believed it would be. The world doesn’t have to be photo-realistic, either. Your brain is surprisingly easy to trick. The virtual world can be made a simple shapes, bright and cartoony, but to be immersive, it must be consistent and believable. Once that is accomplished, that virtual world may well be a new planet, a second Earth, a new land that can molded and shaped only by confined by the limits of ones imagination. 

Speaking of limits, today I wanted to discuss the limits of immersion in FDVR. There is a point where adding more features and functions only hurts the experience of living in a virtual world. Lets discuss a few of these features now.

Pain

This is a topic that I explored in an earlier article, so I’ll try to be brief. Is it likely that pain would be added to the FDVR experience? Most certainly not, and for two reasons. For one, as you’ve seen in the example above, our brain can create its own pain that is very real. The pain that is produced by our nervous system is already enough to give a sense of realism to any simulation. The second reason is simply that people don’t want their devices that hurt them. It’s uncomfortable, and possibly dangerous if the device malfunctions. I bet it wouldn’t feel great if a glitch caused a little bump in the virtual world to feel like an anvil fell on your head in real life.

Nightmares Made Real

I believe that FDVR simulations should stay away from forcing the user to undergo their greatest fears. Things such as drowning, falling great heights, even being placed in a room full of spiders. Not only is this an incredibly wicked thing to do to someone, it’s essentially torture. Of course, a skilled developer can use these situations to create fun and interesting experiences. A room full of spiders isn’t so bad if you a flamethrower, for instance. The most important thing is that people aren’t being subjected to horrifying ordeals for the sole purpose of scarring them for life, not to mention possibly giving them heart attacks.

Weight

My last topic has to do with simulated weight. In the VR that we have today, every object has the same weight; that being the weight of the controllers. This lessens the overall consistency of the virtual world, which therefore lessens the immersive factor of the world. To solve this problem, FDVR developer have a range of options. They could just try to emulate what an object’s weight would be in real life, and then try to use that to effect how the user interacts with it. Another option is to only allow a user to carry something once they reach a certain point. Either way, a few questions arise. How does one simulate the effect of weight on a user? Can a user get tired from carrying virtual weight? Because you aren’t using your muscles, just your brain, how can we make two things have different weight? These are questions that can only be solved with testing and experimentation.

So what is limit of Immersion? Where is that mythical line that we should draw? I think we can begin defining the limit by asking the question: What do you not like to experience in real life? Because if FDVR has any power, it’s that it can take an experience and multiply its effect tenfold. So if there’s something that bothers you a little bit in everyday life, carefully decide if it’s worth adding into your next FDVR simulation. Thank you for reading!

Until next time,

Caliburn

[neuralvr]

Time, Reality, and FDVR

The concept of time is viewed differently by everyone and everything. Most people see time in seconds, with each second defined using a specific cesium isotope. A plant cell sees time as cycles of mitosis, only concerned about performing each stage in succession. And still, people can experience the flow of time differently at certain moments, such as during a near-death experience, or a boring Sunday afternoon. How we perceived time is handled by our brains, so the obvious question arises; what if we could alter how our brain experiences the supposedly unchangeable flow of time?

Because there is little research done on this topic, we’ll have to rely on speculation, but it couldn’t hurt to consider the question. Before I begin, let’s set the stage. Let’s imagine we had FDVR with a basic simulation of a classroom. A clock sits on the wall, and you are handed a math test. Meanwhile, someone outside of FDVR slowly increases the simulation speed. It could be 1% every hour, until the simulation is running at 300% speed relative to real life. You are not allowed to leave FDVR during the experiment. Now, we must consider a few questions. Would you acclimate to the faster rate of time, and would it feel normal to you? Could you solve the math problems at the same speed? Would your brain simply work 3 times as fast as normal, and eventually without any adverse effects? Now imagine we suddenly booted you out of FDVR. Would reality be moving 3 times as slow to you? Could you now solve math problems in real life 3 times as fast as you could before? Would your reaction time be superhuman? And how long would this effect last? These are the questions that could have very interesting and exciting answers.

It reminds me of the experiment where people wore glasses that turned their vision upside down. At first they could hardly move without stumbling, but within a week of wearing them they were able to completely adapt, and do everything they could prior. If our Occiptial lobe could adapt to such radical changes, what about other parts of our brain?

Assuming that our little experiment proved successful, what applications could time manipulation have? Well, you know those people who wished there were more hours in the day? This would create those extra hours to complete work or relax. Soldiers could use it to train their reaction times, as can competitive gamers. Being able to think quicker and more critically can help everyone in every profession. Students can learn more, faster.

I want to end off with just a list of questions that are raised from the idea of time manipulation within FDVR:

 In our experiment, what if we continued raising the speed of the simulation? Would our brain continually adapt? Or is there a limit to how fast our brains can receive and interpret information? What would happen to a brain that couldn’t keep up? Would it be dangerous to ‘run’ the brain at that speed?

What if we went the opposite way, and decreased the speed of the simulation? Would we perceive real life as moving very fast? What applications could this have?

FDVR is interesting because we can manipulate phenomenon and forces that are beyond our reach in this world. Things like time, gravity, physical laws, and our innate capabilities. By being able to change this natural constants, we uncover questions and scenarios that can both excite and terrify us. Discussing these ideas is necessary in the effort to understand our own universe. 

Until next time,

Caliburn

Article about upside-down glasses: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/nov/12/improbable-research-seeing-upside-down

[neuralvr]

FDVR Issues, Vol 2: Feeling/Senses

Heya,

Welcome back to another volume of FDVR Issues. Today, we will be looking at simulating feeling, exploring its problems and interesting consequences. We’ll also take a look at how our senses could be read from and to.

Lets kick things off by investigating how sensation could be implemented. Because FDVR technology would almost certainty require some level of cranial implant, different areas of the brain must be linked to the implant in order to send and receive information. (non-invasive methods such as EEG do not receive brain signals perfectly, and they cannot send signals to the brain, which is required for FDVR). Unfortunately, the locations where our senses and movement is received and processed is spread out across the brain, meaning it would be more challenging to capture the sensory data from the brain than if it was all neatly set in one lobe. We can see this in this diagram of the human brain.

As you can see, movement is handled in the Frontal lobe, the ability to feel is found in the Parietal lobe, vision in the Occipital lobe at the back, and hearing in the Temporal lobe at the sides. Those are the most important senses for FDVR, but if we wanted full sensory control, we’d also have to access the Gustatory and Olfactory cortex's for taste and smell. It’s will be challenging to simultaneously access all these areas of the brain, while also not requiring exorbitantly expensive surgeries and equipment. An interesting solution to this issue is employing nanobots that harmlessly reside in the brain until the user wishes to enter FDVR. When that occurs, the bots to move into position all across the brain and transmit information to and from neurons. While this sounds like total science fiction (which right now it is), it is a viable solution, at least compared to other invasive methods.

Moving on, lets consider the sensation of feeling. More specifically, the feeling of pain. Pain is handled by many different parts of your brain, which makes sense as it’s a vital part of ensuring your survival. If we wanted to give the user pain in FDVR, one method could be to stimulate the thalamus, which acts like a relay center for pain. However, a much more important question is, do we want to simulate pain? Is it worth allowing pain in FDVR in order to move closer towards total immersion? Would you want to feel the pain of getting stabbed, or set on fire, or gasping for air underneath a vast ocean if it meant that your immersion was increased? I don’t know about you, but I don’t think so. For me, this raises the question of the limits of immersion, which I may get into at a later date. But moving back on subject, perhaps we don’t want to feel extreme or even moderate pain, but only slight pain to alert you to problems (like pain was designed to do). Another solution could be to just simulate pressure instead of pain, and let the brain do the rest. After all, the brain is often it’s own worst enemy. Being in situations in a simulation like getting stabbed or set on fire would probably cause your brain to experience pain of its own creation. Seeing a knife in your chest without feeling it would definitely freak out your brain.

Capturing the sensation and motor functions of the brain is the central goal of FDVR, and doing so will require an ingenious idea and a lot of testing. What ever solution is devised to create FDVR would have to go through a rigorous approval process to be cleared for public use. Technology that interacts with your brain this way has many ways it could go wrong, so safety is going to be the highest point of contention. You wouldn’t want anyone stuck in FDVR, right? That concludes Volume 2. Thank you for reading.

Until next time,

Caliburn

Sources and Extra Reading:

https://www.futuretimeline.net/21stcentury/2039.htm#full_immersion_virtual_reality

Image: https://www.quora.com/What-part-of-the-brain-is-in-charge-of-muscle-coordination

[neuralvr]

FDVR Issues, Vol 1: User Input

Heya,

Welcome to a series where I will be examining various issues surrounding FDVR at multiple angles; from game design, legal problems, and other challenges. For today’s volume, we will be looking at the issue of game input, or more simply, how we interact with the software.

Before we begin, lets look how games today handle user input. For the majority of games, we use a controller. We press a button, moving our finger a small amount, and the character on screen can perform supernatural movements and abilities. There is an obvious disconnect, between what we do in real life and what occurs on screen. But games don’t feel disconnected, you can move your character pretty much exactly as you want to, at least usually. People can be drawn into games, feeling as if they are there, without so much as tapping a few buttons. This ability for games to give you that feeling  is one of the reasons they are so addicting.

Now, lets take a look at a game in FDVR. lets imagine a simple game, where you play as a spellsword who has both a sword and an open hand with which to cast magic. In a controller-based game (I’ll be calling these games CBG from here on out), when you want to swing your sword, you press a certain button, and when you want to throw a fireball, you press another button. But in a FDVR game, you may be able to swing your sword fine, but what if you wanted to throw a fireball? Do you program the game to unleash one once the user extends their arm? Okay, but that would most definitely result in annoying misfires every time the user does basic functions. Also, what if you have multiple spells, you can’t have all of them tied to the same action. What about using a voice command? That would be better, but it may get tiring to constantly be yelling “FIRE” as if you were James Rolfe playing Top Gun with the LaserScope. Plus, what if you say it differently, or can’t speak at that moment? The best option may be mentally thinking of a key word to activate the spell, but it still may be tiring or awkward to perform. Imagine if playing a CBG, but every time you wanted to cast a spell, you had to lift a 20 pound dumbbell. It would get annoying, be a painful experience, and most importantly, it wouldn’t be intuitive. The key word here is intuitive, just like a CBG is intuitive, whatever method that is used in FDVR must be as intuitive as possible.

While we can imagine FDVR games to somehow allow us to perform superhuman feats and have superhuman strength, we must realize that it has to be performed by a normal human. This is why something I have been calling the “Proxy” must be used. Essentially, the Proxy is the link between the user’s abilities and the software. Proxy’s, at least in this definition, have been used since the dawn of video games. Handheld controllers, DDR arrow pads, gun toys like the NES Zapper, VR headsets and tracking controllers. These were all steps, each one reducing the disconnection between the user and game. Eventually, we reach the asymptote, the point where the user and game are one and the same; FDVR. A rough visualization of this idea is this:

 So, you may be wondering, if the disconnection through the use of Proxy has been reduced to nothing in FDVR, why do I still call for the use of one? That is because we as humans, can’t do supernatural things naturally, hence the ‘super’ part of that word. Even if given the option, we can’t cast magic, have lightning fast reactions, and have perfect agility. It’s just not intuitive (there’s that word again, I told you it’s important). Therefore, we need a Proxy to bridge the gap to those supernatural abilities. For a clearer picture, I will list off a few examples of Proxy’s that could work in FDVR:

1) A magical staff from which you can select spells from and fire them off.

2) A mech that you can control with human movements that would result in it performing supernatural feats.

3) A Yu-gi-oh like card game where you move and place cards specific ways to tell your monster to attack in that specific way.

4) Basically any RTS game, issuing commands from a screen.

In all these examples, any human can perform the necessary action, but they result in effects that are much more impressive than what any of us can do. A Proxy allows the user to interact with their game in interesting and various ways.

Do I believe Proxies will always be needed? No. First off, many game genre’s don’t need them. Genres like pure adventure, RTS (which inherently needs a Proxy), and many simulation games. Secondly, as game design for FDVR is experimented with and perfected, I’m confident that eventually the disconnect between user and game would truly be 0. What would that look like? Well, it would be so there is not a single hint that the world you are in is a simulated one. Everything is ‘in world’, no menus, no reminders that you are just a passenger in the experience of the world; you would feel like you were meant to be part of the world. 

Thank you for reading FDVR Issues: Vol 1. I apologize about the length, I don’t think my next ones will be as long. I always find that imagining the problems FDVR would face is a lot of stimulating and interesting that just wildly speculating “what if” scenarios.

Until next time,

Caliburn

[neuralvr]

Genres that (probably) work great in FDVR

While it’s easy to imagine the possibilities of FDVR, there are genres/types of entertainment that simply aren’t optimized for this type of technology. Today, I’m going to discuss several types of entertainment content that fit FDVR naturally. 

Human Simulators - What do I mean by this? Well, simply put, I believe FDVR games about simulating human experiences will be the most popular genre of FDVR entertainment. And that is for the simple reason that you, and everyone else is also a human (hopefully). See, a FDVR game where you play as a bird will be difficult, because you obviously don’t know how to play it. Either the game will be so automated in gameplay it’ll be boring, or so free that it’s impossible to understand and play. But when the game is about playing as a soldier, you know that what you’re expected to do is achievable innately. That is, every soldier has been human, so it’s at least possible to understand and accomplish whatever you have to do. This is why simulator-style games will likely be the most popular game type.

Travel/History Experiences - While this is sort of a subset of Human Simulators, I feel that this deserves more discussion. Imagine being able to be in any place on Earth, at any point in time, with the press of a button. With FDVR, it’s no problem to design virtual worlds that look, sound, smell, taste, and feel like a real location. Why spend thousands on vacations when you can be there in a heartbeat? Of course, the tourism industry will take a hit from this, but there will be a large part of the public who fervently believe it’s not the same, to be somewhere in a virtual world and in real life. What they can’t argue with, however, is the ability to live in and experience any time in history. One can be  standing along Jefferson signing the Declaration of Independence,  enjoying aristocratic life of the Roman Empire, and watch the great pyramid’s being built. besides the amazing experience, it could also be the greatest teaching tool in history. Why do a Powerpoint on the French Revolution when you can bring your class right up to the guillotine (watch the blood!).

Ah, looks like we’re out of time space for now. Next time, i’ll be going into genres that would have a lot of trouble working with FDVR. And maybe i’ll expand this post with more genres.

Caliburn

[neuralvr]

Definition of FDVR

It’s necessary for me to explain what I am referring to when I talk about FDVR. In short, think The Matrix (1999). A technology that allows your brain to receive sensory information (that is, vision, hearing, feeling, smell, taste, among other senses) that was not generated from the millions of receptor cells across our body, but rather from a computer. This can be done is variety of ways, from nano-machines that reside in our brain and activate when the user wishes to enter a virtual world, a helmet type device, or perhaps the aforementioned “Matrix” style of giant-hole-in-the-head that is designed to plug into a computer.

Whatever the method, the effect is the same; virtual worlds that are completely created by the computer. And when that is the case, when we control the means that a world is created, infinite possibilities begin to emerge.

It should be noted that this technology is not just speculation right now. Companies like Elon Musk’s Nerualink, which are working in the field of BCI (Brain Computer Interface) are linking man with machine in surprising new ways. I believe that within the next 10-15 years, as the brain is better understood, and BCI becomes more advanced, we will begin to see the early wisps of FDVR, and from then on we wouldn’t have to wait long to experience the technology for ourselves.

This blog will be working under the assumption that FDVR can/will exist, and will be going into the numerous issues, effects, and possibilities that come with this technology. Be it social, physical, or legal repercussions, I will be discussing all of these topics and more.

Caliburn

49975-35982-25987-41979-43978 25987-49975-23988-13993-21989-9995-15992