King’s Corner
It’s not just academic.

Dr. David Howell spoke at the second session of the “Virtual Worlds Symposium” yesterday on “Religions and Virtual Worlds.” Dr. Howell said that after reading Synthetic Worlds by Edward Castronova, he was struck by the similarity he saw between the creation of virtual worlds and the creation of “real-world” religions. (Dr. Howell’s notes will be attached to this post… when I can get them from him…)

A few of the points raised by Dr. Howell for discussion during the session were:

1. Like the “coding authorities” of virtual worlds, the founders of religions (Moses, et al.) claim a special kind of authority for their interpretation of reality. What happens if the “players” of the religious “game” gain more control over this interpretation?

2. “Bots” (artificial life forms) play a large role in many MMORPG’s (massively multi-player online role playing games). Consider that in the “virtual world” game of religion, the gods are bots, that is, they are not human players of the game. They move the game along and mete out rewards and punishments. How does it make you feel to consider the supernatural elements of your religion (or another) as automatons programmed by the founders of the religion?

3. Why should we think that religions are “real” when they are so similar to virtual worlds? The idea of “the sacred” is seductive. Perhaps the followers of religions have been fooled by their “coding authorities” into believing in fantasy worlds, which promise power (in this world or the next) to their followers.

The attendees broke into two groups for discussion. My group noted the aptness of the analogy at least as far as how religious denominations form. The other group discussed the idea of “transcendence” as a way past the view that religions are not “real.”

I sincerely enjoyed Dr. Howell’s presentation, as did the other attendees. It will provide an interesting counterpoint to my talk on April 10, “Spirituality and Virtual Worlds.” Dr. Howell seemed to be suggesting that anyone who follows a religious/spiritual practice is in effect, fooling themselves. My presentation will take a different viewpoint in the hope that further excellent discussion will ensue.

Please come to our next installment of the “Virtual Worlds Symposium” on April 3 when Ed Francisco will start our discussion of “Pedagogical Uses of Virtual Worlds.”

I had to read this story from Eloise Pasteur twice.

You know what a triathlon is, right? An event that involve swimming, cycling, and running a race? Surely, there is not much way to use virtual reality to train in this, is there? Don’t you just have to get out there and do it? (I don’t think I’m violating a trademark.)

You certainly have to get out and do it at some point, but apparently Second Life can help with the training. “Triathlon Comes to SL” gives an indication of how that happens.

The short version: triathletes spend a lot of time training on stationary bikes. Some of them use PCs while they do. Some of them have traditionally gathered numbers of stationary bikes in a big room, such as at a gym, to train together. By using SL, you can combine the latter two, in effect. Think about that and its implications for education.

We held the first session of the “Virtual Worlds Symposium” yesterday. Dr. Charles Cardwell spoke at the beginning of the session, setting the stage for our discussion of “Philosophical Issues Raised by Virtual Worlds.” (You can download a copy of the notes he handed out.)
Dr. Cardwell suggested the following points for our first discussion:

1. Virtual worlds offer an alternate medium for communication. This new medium seemingly comes at the cost of previous forms, most especially face-to-face communication. Is this something that we as a society should embrace?
2. The economic activity of virtual worlds is now in excess of $1bn… and growing rapidly. What will be the economic impact on real world governments in lost tax revenues and what effects could this have on society as a result?
3. Do the roles that people play in virtual worlds “cross the membrane” and affect behavior in the “real” world? If crimes are committed that result in real losses, who has jurisdiction and how can punishment or restitution be compelled?
4. Because of the level of immersion and realism in virtual worlds, “toxic scenarios” are a possibility. People could be lured into a “bad” reality and become addicted to the experience. Terrorist could use virtual worlds to completely immerse themselves in an environment in preparation for an attack on a real world site. Military organizations commonly use virtual reality simulations to train troops. Should we be concerned about the potential negative uses of virtual worlds and if so, what should we do?
5. What can virtual worlds teach us about “real” life and the human condition?

We broke into two groups and had a lively and wide-ranging discussion of the impact of virtual world technology.

If you have an interest in virtual worlds, I encourage you to read “Synthetic Worlds: The Business and Culture of Online Games” by Edward Castronova. There are still a few copies of this book at the PSTCC Bookstore on the Hardin Valley campus. This is the book that sparked the interest that led to the “Virtual Worlds Symposium.”

Please join us for the next session on Tuesday March 27 when Dr. David Howell will start our conversation on “Religions and Virtual Worlds.”

====

[Added by Donn King] The Conversation Café format definitely brought out and clarified the thinking about virtual worlds. One group in particular (the one I was in) had a lot of concerns about whether virtual worlds would worsen problems of disconnect and escapism in our society. Those concerns are well-placed in the sense that we need to be thinking about such things–the questions are more important than coming up with answers. (I will take advantage of being an author in this blog to say that I offered the opinion that virtual worlds are moving us back in the direction of more connectedness on a human level, though it will never be like it was before electronic communication came to us.) Ultimately, I think, we came away with greater understanding of the questions, and once again, that is more valuable (in my opinion) than coming up with the answers.

A group of Pellissippi State faculty plan to explore the implications of virtual worlds by setting up some ideas through presentations and then exploring them with interested participants through the Conversation Café process.

David Brown, assistant professor of Business and Computer Technology, is part of the management team for the Second Life project at PSTCC, and along with Ed Francisco, associate professor of English, organized the Cognitive Science discussion group, cutting edge discussions concerning artificial intelligence and the nature of intelligence, semiotics and related philosophical and technical aspects of AI, neural pathways, and explorations of the nature of self. He is leading the organization of a series of presentations and dialogs now about the impact of the growing phenomenon of virtual reality. (He wants me to tell you that I’m helping with organization as well.)

All sessions will feature a short presentation to set up the dialog, followed by exploration through the Conversation Café format. All sessions are scheduled for 2 p.m. in the Cafeteria Annex.
Tentatively scheduled:

• March 20, presentation by Charles Cardwell: “Philosophical Issues Raised by Virtual Worlds.” (Outcomes reported in this post.)
• March 27, presentation by David Howell: “Religions and Virtual Worlds.”
• April 3, presentation by Ed Francisco: “Pedagogical Uses of Virtual Worlds.”
• April 10, presentation by David Brown: “Spirituality and Virtual Worlds.”

There will also be a followup session in which we bring together students and faculty to talk about how to use our particular Virtual World presence in Second Life.

• April 17, “Second Life and PSTCC.”

Yes, I know you probably read the hard cover edition. If you didn’t see it, though: our local alternative newsweekly covered Second Life this week for the cover story. It’s one thing when a phenomenon like SL makes it into the big nationals; it’s something else when it gets the attention of local publications that focus on current hot topics.

You can read Digital Homesteading online.

I’ve been waiting to say anything here about the developing Voice Chat that Second Life will add soon. A lot of pros and cons are being thrown about. I weighed in about audio in general in SL in a column in the Metaverse Messenger on Jan. 30 (issue available here), but that was before Joe Linden announced the details of what it would be like.

I still have reservations, but different ones. I’m not alone. Akela Talamasca has expressed several concerns, including the loss of anonymity that many SL residents value so highly, as well as something akin to “breaking the fourth wall” in TV. I fear that, rather than making SL more realistic, it will actually highlight the artificiality of virtual reality, lessening rather than heightening the “sense of presence.”

In a followup, Talamasca enumerated problems observed in actual beta testing. Among those that have particular educational concern (quoting from Talamasca):

• In a group of 10 – 12 people, 2 or 3 dominated the conversation just like RL.
• Voice chat effectively kills text chat.

One of SL’s big pluses for education is that it encourages participation in ways neither real life nor text chat/discussion boards do. These two taken together could lead, in effect, to “why should we do SL, then?” The loss of a text chat will also mean the loss of a history (that is, a record) of the conversation, making it impossible to look back and see what was said earlier. This is probably a big factor in why two or three people dominate conversations in audio chat and in real life—those of us who score as strong Introverts in a Myers-Briggs type like to think about what we say before we say it, which means the conversation has moved on by the time we’re ready to say something. That’s not a problem in text chat with a text history. It is in a classroom or an audio chat.

Wagner James Au also raises several other concerns, including effective division of SL because of language (translation tools allow more interaction in text chat), and as a teacher of speech communication, I am concerned that we will once again make snap judgments about people based on how they sound. It has been a real advantage of SL that text chat enabled people to avoid first impressions based on accent, pleasantness of tone, etc.

On the positive side, Talamasca noted, “The spatial effect works well; nearer avatars were louder than those farther away.” Joe Linden’s post indicates the use of stereo will also allow you to have an instantaneous, gut level feel for where the speaker is–not just distance, but right or left, giving a pinpoint sense missing in text chat.

An article in Campus Technology quotes one of the longest-teaching faculty in SL (Terry Beaubois, professor of architecture and director of the College of Arts & Architecture’s Creative Research Lab at Montana State University):

Many of the projects my students and I are working on in Second Life will benefit from voice, as we often work with our hands, designing, building and creating. Voice will enable us to communicate and collaborate freely, and I’m looking forward to exploring its use.

It’s going to happen, no doubt. Like any other technology, it has advantages and disadvantages. We’ll just have to see which weighs more.

I have not heard of this case before, a fact which helps to illustrate why we must keep a watch for abuses of freedom of expression. Josh Wolf is apparently being prosecuted for the crime of committing journalism. It’s hard to believe that a country founded on the ideals of freedom continues to slide inexorably down the chute into totalitarianism, and it’s happening the way you boil a frog, i.e., but degrees so gradual that we don’t notice. I don’t care what his politics are; the fact that he was jailed for so long for this is a travesty.

My realization comes in the wake of a story about France’s attempt to make it illegal for anyone other than a “professional” journalist (which, I suspect, will mean a licensed one, which means the government decides who is a journalist) to video record a violent crime. Obviously, that’s not First Amendment—after all, France isn’t the U.S. It is, nevertheless, chilling to recognize that another supposedly free nation is moving in this direction.

Anyone who is familiar with Second Life at all has heard of Anshe Chung, who has accumulated more the US$1 million in SL assets and is, arguably, the most successful businessperson in SL. The news today is that she (well, her company) has sold a 10 percent stake in the company to a German venture capital company. The significance within the story, as far as I’m concerned, comes from a quote attributed to Chung’s husband and business partner, Guni Greenstein:

“Our business is based more and more on people and talent and less and less on a certain platform.”

The context: Adam Reuters in his article had just noted that Anshe Chung Studios had branched out to other virtual worlds including IMVU, There.com and Entropia.
He’s using “platform” differently than I do—when I think “platform” I think, by way of comparison, of “Internet,” whereas he is thinking of, for instance, “Internet Explorer.” But with that clarification, he is saying essentially what we in the SLPSTCC project have thought all along.

Second Life is the market leader in non-game MUVEs, it seems, the way Netscape was the leader in Web browsers, and because they show signs of having learned from the successes and failures of other companies, there is a good chance Second Life will remain the leader. But it bears repeating: we’re pursuing understanding the educational benefits of MUVEs.