the future of gaming according to a lame expert is not VR

[EdZ]

Another thing to consider when attaching electrodes against your head:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1346 ... itive-data

With a chilling hint of the not-so-distant future, researchers at the Usenix Security conference have demonstrated a zero-day vulnerability in your brain. Using a commercial off-the-shelf brain-computer interface, the researchers have shown that it’s possible to hack your brain, forcing you to reveal information that you’d rather keep secret.

It seems that the P300 signal from an off-the-shelf Emotiv EEG "toy" can be used to determine if you recognize something. They successfully used it to extract secret PIN numbers from test subjects by showing them images of numbers.

Libertarian types of folks who vigorously defend their privacy may be afraid of devices with electrodes when this news becomes public knowledge.

Now, I am REALLY interested to see what a combination of EEG and GVS could do (using both input and output brain interface devices)...

Here is a link to the conference PDF and video:
https://www.usenix.org/conference/useni ... interfaces

I'm not too worried about someone looking at P300 responses in contrived scenarios. The problem is that the P300 pertains to recognition, so you need to make it obvious to the person what you're looking for a recognition response to in order to actually get a response to measure (i.e. you can't just flash up numbers, you have to, or example, show them a picture of an ATM, prime the idea of 'remember the first digit of your PIN', then start flashing numbers), and doing so means the person you're 'hacking' is aware of what you're trying to guess. It's not particularly subtle.

What's really cool is that we can currently reconstruct visual images from fMRI data, and we can record what people are dreaming about. The techniques currently requires a long training period, but with a sufficient volume of data common patterns could be established to reduce this.

[geekmaster]

That image reconstruction stuff is very interesting, but they have also cracked retinal coding, so there is now a functional prosthetic eye:
http://www.ted.com/talks/sheila_nirenbe ... dness.html

We are not far from being able to read and write images at the optical nerves, similar to scenes in the Dennis Quaid "Innerspace" film.

I have been waiting most of my life for a direct neural interface, and the Rift is just a temporary (poor man's) substitute. I suspect that the "real thing" will be horrifically expensive at any time during my lifetime.

But when they perfect this neural interface stuff, VR will be just like in "The Matrix". Then we will have to decide which side of that interface we wish to consider the REAL "reality".

It looks like they are successfully decoding speech signals in the brain too:
http://www.nature.com/news/voicegrams-t ... rds-1.9945

Voicegrams transform brain activity into words
Computational models decode and reconstruct neural responses to speech.

[greenknight]

(snip snip)
But when they perfect this neural interface stuff, VR will be just like in "The Matrix". Then we will have to decide which side of that interface we wish to consider the REAL "reality". (snip snip)

Oh no, perception is not reality. Even if this is a simulation, that is still not a dilemma.

[Additives]

(snip snip)
But when they perfect this neural interface stuff, VR will be just like in "The Matrix". Then we will have to decide which side of that interface we wish to consider the REAL "reality". (snip snip)

Oh no, perception is not reality. Even if this is a simulation, that is still not a dilemma.

As far as we need be concerned, cognition = reality. Even if this 'reality' is a simulation, our consciousnesses are based in that simulations and thus dependant on them. You can't turn off the universe without turning off your brain . No matter how good VR gets, unless you can download your actual mentality - Cognition, perception, memory and continuity - it will never be another reality to chose from. As greenlight said, even the discovery that we are ourselves part of a simulation doesn't change this. For the bots, the game is real .

[cybereality]

Yes, I have thought about this at length. It doesn't make a difference. Whether this is the "real world" or merely a simulation (or a simulation within a simulation...), it ultimately makes no difference. It doesn't make our own personal experiences any less true. So you just have to live your life and accept that whatever is presented is indeed "real", if only because our mind makes it so.

[2EyeGuy]

(snip snip)
But when they perfect this neural interface stuff, VR will be just like in "The Matrix". Then we will have to decide which side of that interface we wish to consider the REAL "reality". (snip snip)

Oh no, perception is not reality. Even if this is a simulation, that is still not a dilemma.

With the Matrix that is a real issue. And I'd actually consider the Matrix to be the REAL "reality" in many ways. It's where most people live and experience their whole lives and interact with each other in a persistent world. Their social interactions are definitely real, and their experiences are all shared experiences.

[android78]

The only entity that you can be 100% certain exists is your consciousness (well, my consciousness from my perspective). The rest of the world could just be a figment of your imagination... or whatever (real, imaginary, simulated, etc) makes you perceive experiences. I don't think it matters to me where it comes from but it is interesting to learn how it all works so that we can get the most out of it.
If this is all a simulation... lets push it until it breaks!

[Additives]

The only entity that you can be 100% certain exists is your consciousness (well, my consciousness from my perspective). The rest of the world could just be a figment of your imagination... or whatever (real, imaginary, simulated, etc) makes you perceive experiences. I don't think it matters to me where it comes from but it is interesting to learn how it all works so that we can get the most out of it.
If this is all a simulation... lets push it until it breaks!

Huh, I wonder what it looks like when reality has an out of memory error.

[geekmaster]

Huh, I wonder what it looks like when reality has an out of memory error.

You wake up in a maze of twisty little passages, all the same...

[android78]

The only entity that you can be 100% certain exists is your consciousness (well, my consciousness from my perspective). The rest of the world could just be a figment of your imagination... or whatever (real, imaginary, simulated, etc) makes you perceive experiences. I don't think it matters to me where it comes from but it is interesting to learn how it all works so that we can get the most out of it.
If this is all a simulation... lets push it until it breaks!

Huh, I wonder what it looks like when reality has an out of memory error.

Depending on the system recovery, you might not even realize. If it is a simulation, it may not be real time, so an out of memory error could just roll back to the last valid 'state', so that 'future' would just be wiped.
It's possible that the more complex the perceived information, the longer that it takes for the perception to be 'rendered', so the perceived time is actually speeding up and slowing down depending on what is going on, but because your frame of reference is static according to simulation, all is consistent, so you don't notice.
Here's a thought, maybe we can use drugs (legal ones, ) to slow our brains down, so that we can then artificially generate a more realistic experience, but at a slower speed then normal. Similarly to neural implants, this isn't for me, but some may care to investigate or experiment with this.

[Owen]

If our reality is a simulation, any awareness on our part would be a form of data corruption. Without an outside reference we have no way of evaluating the correctness of the simulation. Any inherent limitations would be perceived by us as physical law.

[android78]

If our reality is a simulation, any awareness on our part would be a form of data corruption.

That depends. What is awareness? I believe that the 'awareness' that we feel is just the combination of all the neurons acting in harmony in an attempt to protect and prolong our existence. But I don't believe in God, or a soul as such. So from my belief, the awareness wouldn't be a data corruption, just an entity understanding of it's self in its reference of what is perceives.
I agree in regards to the limitations being perceived as physical law, so long as the behavior is consistent.
What we need to do is to is do an experiment over 20 years or so with an infant in a VR world, and see how well they come to accept the limitations of it, and any bugs in the environment. How would they cope in the real world after growing up in the virtual? Just kidding again, BTW... but interesting to think about.

[Owen]

Awareness of the existence of the simulation.

[android78]

Awareness of the existence of the simulation.

So not self awareness then? Got it.

[Dycus]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2055

[geekmaster]

EDIT: THe URL for the cartoon Dycus embedded above has changed. Here is the new URL:

That image reconstruction stuff is very interesting, but they have also cracked retinal coding, so there is now a functional prosthetic eye:
http://www.ted.com/talks/sheila_nirenbe ... dness.html

We are not far from being able to read and write images at the optical nerves, similar to scenes in the Dennis Quaid "Innerspace" film.

I have been waiting most of my life for a direct neural interface, and the Rift is just a temporary (poor man's) substitute. I suspect that the "real thing" will be horrifically expensive at any time during my lifetime.
...

But progress is being made rapidly. There is some interesting information out there for those brain hackers amongst us who wish to modulate the "Virtual Reality" signals they inject into their heads:

Brain Electrostim Phase Coding:
http://www.frontiersin.org/Neuroscience ... 00051/full

... we proposed an alternative model, which considers phase coding as originating from sensory processing, after which the code is transferred to the cortex where it is decoded and re-encoded before it is further propagated to the associated systems, including the entorhinal cortex (EC) and hippocampus (Nadasdy, 2009). Recent studies reporting AP phase modulation in the prefrontal (Montemurro et al., 2008; Kayser et al., 2009; Siegel et al., 2009), auditory (Kayser et al., 2009), visual (Montemurro et al., 2008), and EC (Hafting et al., 2008) are consistent with this view. Despite the differences in physiological characteristics, cell types, the input–output connectivity and predominant oscillation frequencies across these systems, we argue that the sensory, thalamo-cortical and limbic systems are sharing the common language of phase coding. In this review without the capacity of describing system specific implementations we overview the common mechanism of AP phase coding.
...
Intriguingly, the level of input current in these experiments will not only affect the firing rate but also the phase of APs, as phases advance systematically with increasing depolarization, even after the firing rate has been saturated (Figure 1). Using the phase, neurons are endowed with a broader dynamic range for encoding information than they are with the firing rate. A similar sensory encoding scheme has been proposed and experimentally observed in the salamander retina (Gollisch and Meister, 2008). If neurons encode information using the phase of APs, how will that information be read out?
...
We propose that in all sensory systems, phase encoding and decoding takes place by a four-stage transformation. Stages 3 and 4 are also applicable to cortico-cortical information transfer. We will illustrate the four stages on the mammalian visual system, but the same principles can be generalized to other sensory systems.
...
Above we described a conceptual model for neural encoding, information transmission, and decoding (for numerical simulations, see Nadasdy, 2009). For the sake of simplicity, we proved that information reconstruction from the phase code is nearly perfect within as few as four gamma cycles and 100 neurons, given the isomorphism of the SMO phase gradients at the sensory input and the target area (Nadasdy, 2009).
...
Another remarkable feature of phase coding is that with only a few parameter adjustments we can obtain different solutions to represent space and time.

Now that we are beginning to understand the internal communications protocol of our brain, we will need a gateway to translate between brain protocol and internet protocol. Fun times ahead, that's for sure. Just think of how immersive a game can be when injected directly into your brain.

One problem with games being "too real", is that it would be rude to discover that you are dying outside the game because you did something foolishly risky (believing you were still in the game), expecting that you would get another life if your gambit fails.

We must keep track of which side of the interface contains the "real" reality, because on the non-VR side you only get one life.

[Fredz]

If our reality is a simulation, any awareness on our part would be a form of data corruption. Without an outside reference we have no way of evaluating the correctness of the simulation. Any inherent limitations would be perceived by us as physical law.

Seems it should still be possible to know without an outside reference :

The Measurement That Would Reveal The Universe As A Computer Simulation
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/42 ... imulation/

[geekmaster]

Seems it should still be possible to know without an outside reference :

The Measurement That Would Reveal The Universe As A Computer Simulation
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/42 ... imulation/

Yeah, "robot overlords" indeed.

Or "the omnipotent creator":
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/nov/ar ... video-game

[Owen]

Experiments like that don't really count as evidence either way. We already know that the universe behaves a lot like a computer in many ways, particularly at the quantum level, but we can only guess at what that actually means.

Maybe computer algorithms reflect the fundamental nature of the universe rather than the other way around, everything boils down to mathematics at some point after all.

[greenknight]

Experiments like that don't really count as evidence either way. We already know that the universe behaves a lot like a computer in many ways, particularly at the quantum level, but we can only guess at what that actually means.

Maybe computer algorithms reflect the fundamental nature of the universe rather than the other way around, everything boils down to mathematics at some point after all.

In the article: "One problem is that the computer lattice may be constructed in an entirely different way to the one envisaged by these guys."

In essence, if we don't know what the lattice is like, who knows how many free parameters there could be? It's a guessing game.

[Additives]

Experiments like that don't really count as evidence either way. We already know that the universe behaves a lot like a computer in many ways, particularly at the quantum level, but we can only guess at what that actually means.

Maybe computer algorithms reflect the fundamental nature of the universe rather than the other way around, everything boils down to mathematics at some point after all.

In the article: "One problem is that the computer lattice may be constructed in an entirely different way to the one envisaged by these guys."

In essence, if we don't know what the lattice is like, who knows how many free parameters there could be? It's a guessing game.

Not to mention the parameters of an external universe simulating this one could be as different from our universe as the parameters of Super Mario Galaxy are from ours. Maybe reality is actually 6 Dimensional space and they are just simulating our universe as their equivalent of our pen and paper (2D) physics solutions.

[greenknight]

Somebody raise a pint to metaphysical speculation.

Who on the forum one box's or two box's on newcomb's problem? Also, who on the forum believes in the many world's interpretation of quantum mechanics? Also, screw time. I don't care how many physicists claim its real. Time only appears to exist because of our flawed brains perception of motion.


Yes, some say time would exist without motion, but who really believes this is coherent?

Finally, someone really needs to get back on topic. It's not gonna be me.

[Dom]

Everyone on earth would want to go back in time. Everyone wants a Notion, A Pearl of Notions in their head. Remember when you were little and you had all those notions. The only notion I have is a sense of seeing beauty. Outer space is beauty. Everyone on earth is working for a future of star ships with transporters and to make things easier. Its not all about entertainment unless that's where you get your only notion. 89 or 98 percent of the people on earth are mentally ill untreated. I don't want VR to make me ill. I always say trust your first thought then deduce it by two. Psychology, ooh jimmy be timmebers. Wheres my hideout again.

[greenknight]

Everyone on earth would want to go back in time. Everyone wants a Notion, A Pearl of Notions in their head. Remember when you were little and you had all those notions. The only notion I have is a sense of seeing beauty. Outer space is beauty. Everyone on earth is working for a future of star ships with transporters and to make things easier. Its not all about entertainment unless that's where you get your only notion. 89 or 98 percent of the people on earth are mentally ill untreated. I don't want VR to make me ill. I always say trust your first thought then deduce it by two. Psychology, ooh jimmy be timmebers. Wheres my hideout again.

Splendid rant!

Today, my college professor invited a speaker who believes quantum mechanics is evidence of a universal consciousness. She was very wise, an astute businesswoman, and mother of 3. She went all 'joseph campbell' on me during the q&A session, and drew some pretty pictures offering all of us comfort that when we die, we return to creator as ENERGY.

I never did get to ask her what she meant by energy, though it does remind me of a richard dawkins debate where he is left dumbfounded by an esteemed physicist which claims we don't have a good understanding of energy. Which is true, of course.

And yet...something seems missing. Someone name it for me.

[mahler]

.... offering all of us comfort that when we die, we return to creator as ENERGY.
And yet...something seems missing. Someone name it for me.

As soon as you stop searching and take comfort in truth over curiosity, progress stops.

ps. This is all waaaay off-topic.

[greenknight]

.... offering all of us comfort that when we die, we return to creator as ENERGY.
And yet...something seems missing. Someone name it for me.

As soon as you stop searching and take comfort in truth over curiosity, progress stops.

ps. This is all waaaay off-topic.

It is waaay of topic, but the thread is dead. Pachter is going to be a rich prognisticator for the rest of his life. I am simply happy I am still in my 20's -- gives me a much better chance at seeing the future of technology in 2070.


....


Spot-on response, btw.

[geekmaster]

... Not to mention the parameters of an external universe simulating this one could be as different from our universe as the parameters of Super Mario Galaxy are from ours. Maybe reality is actually 6 Dimensional space and they are just simulating our universe as their equivalent of our pen and paper (2D) physics solutions.

And now, it would seem that we ARE inside a giant computer simulation, according to German scientists:

"German scientists say they've found a way to tell whether or not our universe is a giant computer simulation - and that there's evidence to suggest that it is."
http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences ... physicists

And here is their research paper:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847v2.pdf

[MaterialDefender]

A rather odd and slightly arrogant idea that the universe indeed should work exactly like those human invented simulation grids that are used as models for various natural phenomena. Even multi dimensional string theory and parallel universes (or a chocolate universe built by easter bunnies for that matter) sound more probable to me than that.

[EdZ]

it would seem that we ARE inside a giant computer simulation, according to German scientists

Correction: according to German scientists, if the universe is a specific type of simulation within a specific range of parameters, then it would be possible, with as-yet-unavailable technology, to determine if it is so.
Things that have not happened:

• Finding out that the universe is a simulation
• Building the equipment to test if it is a simulation
• Designing the equipment needed to test if it is a simulation

[MaterialDefender]

That sounds different, but not necessarily better, I would say. Boils more or less down to: if I wasn't blind I could see.

[cybereality]

I could believe we are in a simulation. And I could believe someone, or a group of people, could find evidence that we were in said simulation. However, at that point, our creators (or overseers) would just pause the simulation, rewind time and erase that evidence from existence. Or they could easily find any other way to discredit you or make you disappear. So we will probably never know for sure. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. I think whatever is happening *IS* in fact "real" if only because we make it so.

[PalmerTech]

Maybe they are waiting for us to perfect our own simulation capabilities so that we can see the consequences of letting people live in a perfect virtual world, then reveal themselves to us to explain why we have to make people believe the simulation is real so that mortality keeps their morality in check.

VR cult time, who is with me? Member can cut their eyelashes off so that you can get your eyes closer to the lens for greater FOV.

[Namielus]

PalmerTech, be careful what you wish for.
There are some serious loonies on MTBS hahaha.

[TheLookingGlass]

Maybe they are waiting for us to perfect our own simulation capabilities so that we can see the consequences of letting people live in a perfect virtual world, then reveal themselves to us to explain why we have to make people believe the simulation is real so that mortality keeps their morality in check.

VR cult time, who is with me? Member can cut their eyelashes off so that you can get your eyes closer to the lens for greater FOV.

Haha. Off with our noses and eyelashes!

[Nogard]

Maybe they are waiting for us to perfect our own simulation capabilities so that we can see the consequences of letting people live in a perfect virtual world, then reveal themselves to us to explain why we have to make people believe the simulation is real so that mortality keeps their morality in check.

VR cult time, who is with me? Member can cut their eyelashes off so that you can get your eyes closer to the lens for greater FOV.

Haha. Off with our noses and eyelashes!

Cut off our eyelashes and noses, how pedestrian no no to really appease our simulation overlords we must pump gel into our iris so we can increase our personal FOV!

The next level is to have your inner ear replaced with a pair of galvanic vestibular stimulators.

[android78]

Cut off our eyelashes and noses, how pedestrian no no to really appease our simulation overlords we must pump gel into our iris so we can increase our personal FOV!

The next level is to have your inner ear replaced with a pair of galvanic vestibular stimulators.

I think that, at a minimum, we need to get rid of the lenses in our eyes... maybe just replace them with flat glass. That way it should be much easier to create a HMD without having to worry about where we are focusing our eyes. The problem is that we'd then have to always wear the hmd and attach a camera. On the plus side, you really could have eyes in the back of your head.

[EdZ]

Pah, peasents! Just wire the controller board output directly into your optic nerve!

[Nogard]

Pah, peasents! Just wire the controller board output directly into your optic nerve!

With an arc welder...

[Flassan]

Returning to the original thread I think this guy Pachter is being flippant but unfortunately he probably reflects the views of a lot of gaming professionals. I have certainly been told things like “I don’t see myself sitting in the living room wearing goggles” and “people won’t like looking silly” by game makers. I am convinced VR is the future but it’s worth considering their point of view.
The best description around is that we already have VR but it’s called different things: gaming, visualization etc.
Some kind of surround video is essential to VR and HMDs are currently the most practical option for the home. However, I think any one device by itself probably will end up being a novelty. Most people don’t want VR for it’s own sake but do want what it can deliver. I believe that a number of common-sense rules will emerge surrounding different uses, reflecting the type of virtual activity. For instance wearing an HMD when sitting down may be best for driving and piloting. In such cases high resolution, especially in the centre of view, is desirable so you can judge the apex of bends or spot enemy aircraft. If you are stood up in a game then you should be able to physically stand, walk, turn etc. It’s great to see 20M Kinects sold but how many of those are now collecting dust because they were used in isolation?
I think the two essential criteria for any VR solution is that it delivers a sufficiently different experience and it avoids invidious comparisons with traditional methods. For instance when sitting I found it a relief to remove my Vuzix 1200VR glasses to see the image properly on an HD monitor. The good news is that even these glasses produce pretty good results when you can stand up and ‘walk’ wearing them, so the Rift ought to be a major improvement. It’s important to remember that these devices don’t have to be perfect, but they should deliver something new and be fit for purpose.
I think Pachter was also only thinking of current games like COD etc. and if VR is only aimed at a subset of hard-core gamers he would be right. But VR will appeal to those who are happy to spend much more and wear whatever gear it takes, as happens with sport and exercise, where in the latter case it solves the biggest challenge: boredom. As Neil Stephenson said in Edge, “I knew I was supposed to be getting aerobic exercise, but the minutes went by like hours. So I reasoned that since videogames made the hours go by like minutes, I should combine these two activities”.

[brantlew]

Good points Flassan. I'll add that at least some of the apprehension may be due to the fact that current content is designed for 2D display and control technologies so it's hard for the entrenched to envision how VR can enrich that content. I think when content is designed specifically for immersive VR - instead of just being a ported version of 2D content then more people will understand the potential and accept the equipment that must be worn. Watching a 2D movie in VR is not clearly advantageous over watching that movie traditionally. But filming and watching a full 360, head trackable "movie" would be a totally new experience (and a killer app) that can only be had in VR.