I found this article to be...disengaging. It covered an interesting subject but was hard for me to gain interest in, though this might just be the way the article was arranged.
However, the idea of a "hybrid" reality is actually interesting, though seemingly the plot of a science fiction novel. Maybe because we've become so accustomed to interacting with machines, something as complicated as Siri or something as easy as a mechanical chair, this idea is not so novel anymore and the idea of an augmented reality is just...not weird? (for lack of a better term.)
I think my main issue with this article is that it seems...outdated in it's sense of thought. We're used to working with machines and conforming them to our needs and making them work for us. This electronic revolution is not something that we're still waiting on; we've adapted machines to be at our bidding but we're not seeing some crazy virtual reality. Even then, we've adapted to them, too. Our language and our reality has shifted. Our perception and reality has shifted due to mediums like social networks and such.
Which is kind of contradictory, I guess...in that thought, have we adapted machines to us or have we adapted to machines?
1 comment:
I agree that the article is disengaging. I had to read through it a few times and even though it was short I was bored quickly and often confused. I found your closing question very interesting. In my blog post I pondered if, because we have developed these machines, do we have to consider them reality now. You furthered my question, or challenged it, by asking if we did develop these to us or if we were kind of forced to accept these machines and now potentially have to consider them reality. Obviously man invented these machines but did they invent them with the intent to create a new form of reality or was that just an unknown result of the creation?
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.