Virtual Spaces

Virtual Spaces "Even as one can travel inside one's models inside one's head, so can one travel outside or be the outside of one's model of the universe, still inside one's head." - John Lilly, Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer. Virtual space can be initially categorized as either an internal construct of the human mind, or the visualization or mapping within the mind of an external non-existent location. In either case, the mind is operative in the creation of this space. No literal, measurable location which can be occupied by a physical entity exists which corresponds to either cyberspace or astral space, yet both are frequently described and imagined to be "places". The human mind, which has evolved to be an incredibly effective engine for spatial pattern recognition has also come to rely on its own metaphors. By manipulating representative avatars within these spaces, a human being can project their will into them. Without a virtual point of presence in these places, no interaction with them can occur. Just as in a boardgame, in which a token is used to represent the player, this virtual avatar is only the projection of a subset of the full self. Only those aspects of the self which are pertinent to the time and place of interaction need to be present. The greater the degree of complexity of the virtual space, and the actions of the avatar which is operating within it will in turn dictate the level of complexity of the personal avatar, and thus the degree to which the self must construct and maintain this alter ego. In his book Cyberia, Douglas Rushkoff addresses the equivalence of virtual spaces: "Cyberia is the place a businessman goes to when involved in a phone conversation, the place a Shamanic Warrior goes to when traveling out of the body, the place an 'acid house' dancer goes to when experiencing the bliss of techno-acid trance." An understanding of this principle leads to the question of where exactly within the hierarchy of reality that is implied by the relationship between self and avatar does the self actually reside? Is the subjective "I" which is the entry point into the apparently objective reality that is experienced each day actually at the top of this model? Or is it possible for example that the "me" that is writing these words is also in turn merely an avatar of a "higher", more complex self? Borrowing on the infinite regression model discussed by Douglas Hofstedter in his book Gödel, Escher, Bach, and on speculative thought problems proposed by cosmologists, is it even ever possible to know for certain that there is an ultimate level of existence which can said to be the "true" reality? I do not believe that there is. At any proposed level of complexity, there is always the possibility that objective reality is merely an n-1 dimensional cross-section of n-dimensional existence. Vargr 12/27/05 www.spikevision.org

"Even as one can travel inside one's models inside one's head, so can one travel outside or be the outside of one's model of the universe, still inside one's head." - John Lilly, Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer.

Virtual space can be initially categorized as either an internal construct of the human mind, or the visualization or mapping within the mind of an external non-existent location. In either case, the mind is operative in the creation of this space. No literal, measurable location which can be occupied by a physical entity exists which corresponds to either cyberspace or astral space, yet both are frequently described and imagined to be "places". The human mind, which has evolved to be an incredibly effective engine for spatial pattern recognition has also come to rely on its own metaphors.

By manipulating representative avatars within these spaces, a human being can project their will into them. Without a virtual point of presence in these places, no interaction with them can occur. Just as in a boardgame, in which a token is used to represent the player, this virtual avatar is only the projection of a subset of the full self. Only those aspects of the self which are pertinent to the time and place of interaction need to be present. The greater the degree of complexity of the virtual space, and the actions of the avatar which is operating within it will in turn dictate the level of complexity of the personal avatar, and thus the degree to which the self must construct and maintain this alter ego.

In his book Cyberia, Douglas Rushkoff addresses the equivalence of virtual spaces:

"Cyberia is the place a businessman goes to when involved in a phone conversation, the place a Shamanic Warrior goes to when traveling out of the body, the place an 'acid house' dancer goes to when experiencing the bliss of techno-acid trance."

An understanding of this principle leads to the question of where exactly within the hierarchy of reality that is implied by the relationship between self and avatar does the self actually reside? Is the subjective "I" which is the entry point into the apparently objective reality that is experienced each day actually at the top of this model? Or is it possible for example that the "me" that is writing these words is also in turn merely an avatar of a "higher", more complex self? Borrowing on the infinite regression model discussed by Douglas Hofstedter in his book Gödel, Escher, Bach, and on speculative thought problems proposed by cosmologists, is it even ever possible to know for certain that there is an ultimate level of existence which can said to be the "true" reality? I do not believe that there is. At any proposed level of complexity, there is always the possibility that objective reality is merely an n-1 dimensional cross-section of n-dimensional existence.

Vargr
12/27/05
www.spikevision.org