From an article by Anne McIlroy, Globe and Mail:
A neuroscientist working in Britain has found a way to induce an out-of-body experience, a technique that makes people feel as if they are standing behind themselves, watching their own backs.
The researcher touched the volunteer's chest with a plastic rod at the same time as he moved an identical rod toward the two cameras, aiming for chest level as well.
When the researcher swung a hammer to the area just below the video cameras, the volunteers began to sweat, as if the hammer was heading toward their own necks.
“If you can take someone's eyes, and move them to a different part of the room, would they feel as if they had moved to where their eyes are?”
______________________
The art implications of this are interesting.... but my question is, why swing a hammer at someone's (virtual) neck??
3 comments:
This almost makes me sad, b/c it supports the idea that perception is everything, and I'm not totally down with that idea as a totality.
What it also tells me is that in one way, our mind could potentially be downloaded into a virtual world, our bodies supporting experience and reacting elsewhere.
In effect, a virtual event becomes just as real.
So then: a split between mind and body, regardless of their mutual interdependence?
And can we then challenge the limits of this interdependence?
"And can we then challenge the limits of this interdependence?"
There is stilla pretty huge difference between getting hit in the neck with a virtual hammer and a real hammer ;P
I doubt that perception is 'everything'. Clearly, if the participants had really felt the hammer was headed for their actual neck, they would have done far more than just sweat. However much their perception was tricked by the experiment, they must have been very aware at a deep level that it wasn't real - you can't fake a reflexive self-defense mechanism like trying to avoid getting hit, at least not without a great deal of practice.
Post a Comment