The name of the blog is ‘The Virtual and the Actual’ and posts are, broadly speaking, about ‘All things on Virtual Reality’. To make sense of that choice, to call it just that, it is important to understand what I mean by virtual and actual. This post focuses on these two terms.
There are many definitions for these two terms and the concepts that they pertain to. I will cover the definitions that are, in part, responsible for my interest virtual reality.
I am not entirely sure how I ended up finding the definition of virtual that is included in the second volume of ‘Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology’ edited by James Mark Baldwin, but what matters that I did. I then learned that it is attributable to Charles Sanders Peirce (best known as the father of pragmatism and the father of semiotics). He
(763) offers a very concise dictionary definition of virtual:
“A virtual X (where X is a common noun) is something, not an X, which has the efficiency (virtus) of an X.”
Moreover, he (763) is adamant that this is how virtual should be understood.
“This is the proper meaning of the word[.]”
He (763) insist on this definition, noting that it should not be confused, nor conflated with other similar terms:
“[T]he potential X is of the nature of X, but is without actual efficiency.”
Simply put, when you indicate that something, an X, has this or that potential, it is to be understood in reference to itself, to that X, whereas virtual is something, an X, that is to be understood in reference to something else, not an X, but as if it were that X. This is why he (763) adds that something virtual is a displacement and equivalent to something actual.
This is as simple as it gets when it comes to defining the two terms. Peirce achieves this in just a couple of sentences. In summary:
- virtual = not an X, but the efficiency of an X, as if were an X
- actual = an X
- potential = an X, but without its actual efficiency
This is not to say that these terms cannot be used in other ways. Others define these terms in other ways and, in fact, often use virtual and potential interchangeably.
It is worth clarifying here that Peirce uses the word efficiency in a specific way that is dated and rarely used. It is not used by him to talk about a ratio, like how efficiently something works. Instead, it is used by him to mean (OED, s.v. “efficiency”, n.) :
“Fitness or power to accomplish, or success in accomplishing, the purpose intended; adequate power, effectiveness, efficacy.”
It is therefore used by him in the manner that he (763) also refers to it in reference to Latin virtus and therefore how, in a dated sense, virtue can be understood (OED, s.v. “virtue”, n.):
“The power, benefit, or worth of a thing; the element or factor which makes something powerful or effective”
If you confuse efficiency with how the word is used these days, it is only likely that you will miss the point. It should be understood in these other senses, as having to do with a certain capacity to act or, more broadly speaking, to function and to accomplish something.
I find Peirce’s definition of virtual to be particularly useful, because it allows us to think in terms of efficiency, how something can function in a certain way, as if were something else, but without actually being that something else, and without even having to name what it is. Note how this is not the case with potential, because it is always tied to that something itself, something actual is already known.
This is also how the word virtual can be used in everyday speech. When we say that something is impossible, we mean that it is actually impossible. It simply cannot be done. When we say something is virtually impossible, it is not actually impossible, but it is as if it were impossible. It can be done, but it is so difficult it makes no difference that it can be done.
Similarly, when we say that something is the same, we mean that it is actually the same. It is the one and the same thing. When we say that something is virtually the same, we mean that it is not actually the same, but it is as if were the same. Whatever we are referring to appears to us as indistinct from something else, but we know it is not they are not actually one and the same thing. For example, if someone replaces something mass produced and we are unaware of it, we may never notice that it was ever replaced. They are not the same, but they might as well be, because for all intents and purposes, they are.
To connect this to the title and the subtitle of this blog, I am interested in the virtual reality, not because it is actual actual reality, but because it can function as it were actual reality, but without ever actually being it. What fascinates me about virtual reality is that it can afford people virtual experiences that function as if they were actual experiences, but without ever being actual experiences.
It is also crucial to understand that no matter how you put it, virtual reality is not actual reality and virtual experiences are not actual experiences. The only thing that matters is that they function that way, as if they were actual reality and actual experiences. If they were actual reality and actual experiences, they would likely come with many actual consequences.
For example, one drive a car or pilot a plane in virtual reality, giving one the virtual experience of driving a car or piloting a plane, without actually having to drive a car or to pilot a plane. A virtual car or a virtual plane does require a computer, a virtual reality headset and controllers, but they do not require an actual car, a road or a race track, or an actual plane, an airfield or an airport. Driving a car and piloting a plane virtually is not only cost effective, but also much safer than actually driving a car or piloting a plane, which is exactly why virtual reality technology has been used to train drivers and pilots.
One might argue that virtual realities and virtual experiences are no match to actual reality and actual experiences, but this amounts to missing the point. The ingenuity of anything virtual is that it is functionally equivalent to something actual, without being that something actual. It is not a replacement, but rather a displacement, as noted by Peirce (763).
It is also important to realize that these two terms, virtual and actual, can be used rather flexibly, in all kinds of contexts. It works with anything, even with everyday items. The idea is simply that one thing, whatever that virtual thing may be, functions in a certain way, as if were another thing, whatever that actual may be, without us ever having to explain what that virtual thing is, for the simple reason that it does not matter what it is, inasmuch as it functions equivalent to some actual thing.
When someone mentions virtual reality, it is typically understood as the specific technology that involves wearing a head-mounted display (HMD), also known as a headset, and paired with some hand held controllers or other peripherals, such as a driving wheel, pedals and a gear stick that are used in driving and racing, or a joystick, a yoke, a throttle, and pedals that are used in piloting. It can, however, also be understood more broadly, as explained by Peirce. In fact, many driving, racing and flight simulators do not require virtual reality technology. Instead, they rely on many of the same controllers, but they utilize flat screen technology instead of HMDs. They can still be classified as virtual driving, racing or piloting, because they offer virtual experiences of driving, racing and piloting, as if one were driving, racing or piloting, without actually driving, racing or piloting.
To broaden the terms even further, books can offer people virtual realities and virtual experiences, just as dreams can offer people virtual realities and virtual experiences. Moreover, books and dreams do not simply offer people inferior virtual realities and virtual experiences simply because they are either cheap or free. It is rather that they offer different kinds of virtual realities and different kinds of virtual experiences than computers, virtual reality headsets and the various controllers.
The ingenuity of these terms is that they are media neutral. Any kind of media, a book, a film, a play, an episode of a TV-show, a video game can all offer people virtual realities and virtual experiences, one way or another, and none of them are inherently better or worse than another.
I am fascinated by video games and particularly virtual reality video games and this is what the blog is about. However, I am also well aware of other media can offer virtual realities and virtual experiences to people, just as dreams can.
References
- Oxford English Dictionary Online (n. d.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
- Peirce, C. S. (1902). Virtual. In J. M. Baldwin (Ed.), Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, Vol. II (pp. 763–764). New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.