Live data from Hacker News

David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

lithub.com

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly it annoys me that someone would throw out a specific number like that for something they have literally no possible basis for.

Without knowing where this number came from, I could imagine that his reasoning is that there's 4 main theories that are well-reasoned and he estimates they are all as equally likely.

That’s not how probability works

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#32
post #16
post #3

Oh, another philosopher discovers VR. I asked the people who moderate r/metaverse to create a tag, "MYFIRSTMETAVERSEARTICLE", for this sort of thing, and they did. I've read about a hundred such articles in the last three months. They're rather similar. For a view from the other direction, "How to be a God", by Battle. This is a game dev who became an academic and spent too much time thinking about philosophy. If you…

> Games, like most forms of entertainment, must be interesting One of the challenges VR has at the moment is that games are a bit of a dead end. There are some specific exceptions, but the key is that by and large, VR is more limiting as an environment for gameplay not less constrained as people naively assume. So if you are trying to make some interesting and challenging game play mechanisms, you have all the challe…

I’m going to disagree about VR being “more limiting than pancake games”. Even formerly mundane things such as hitting or shooting an opponent become eye opening because the player is now actually performing those actions as opposed to directing an avatar to do the same with buttons and a joystick. Immersion is just much better. Also VR players still have access to joysticks and buttons, so you’re not limited to what VR players can do physically.

As for low res screens, looking at tech history it’s only a matter of time before it gets “faster, better, and cheaper”.

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#33
post #2

A little off the deep end when he gets to the philosophical part (which I understand is what the bulk of the book it is excerpted from is focused on). It's quite weird at the moment how we have a mix of people with completely discordant views about VR: still lots of people viewing it as a failed experiment from 10 years ago, written it off as having no interest and no future ("I have a VR headset; I got bored with it…

One important thing to understand is the "metaverse" these companies are trying to build for is both VR and AR. Not solely VR.

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really have an Index? The reason I ask is because I highly disagree with your statement about games being “largely stationary with little rotation at all”. It’s the exact opposite, which is why having a wire is so annoying. VR is a huge paradigm shift. It’s just still in its infancy. Similar to the internet in the mid 1990s.

Like what games?

Virtually every first person VR game that isn't a driving or flying sim needs turning or it kills immersion:

- Alyx

- Boneworks

- Blades & Sorcery / GORN

- Skyrim / Fallout 4 VR

- Onward, Zero Caliber, Population One, Contractors

- Racket NX

- Minecraft

- Lone Echo

- holopoint

There's really too many games to name, and I can name more. A huge pain point for me prior to getting the Quest 2 was tangled wires from too much turning.

The only games where there's no turning involved are fitness apps like Fit XR and ping pong. Even Beatsaber and SuperNatural have 360 degree levels. Your comment makes me wonder if you've ever used your Index, or if you even own a VR headset because it sounds bizarre.

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#35
> I hold that virtual reality is genuine reality.

Ok, but one cannot do science in virtual reality. Is that not a necessity of "genuine" reality?

(Certainly some science can be done entirely in a virtual world, but I would say definitionally not all of science.)

It's clear that what he seems to be saying is "there is no reason VR won't be an acceptable place to live". Which is fair enough, but that seems like a much weaker claim than that VR could be on par with "genuine reality" as a blanket statement.

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment(s) really nails my reservations about VR with my Oculus. After the Wow! factor of a sense immersion, you're in kind of a dead zone trying to think of something interesting to do just like in real life. You went from your real living room to your virtual living room. Big deal. You could play a game in either, but the screen is going to be much better back in your real living room. You don't want to watch…

The Quest 2 largely eliminated the screen door effect. I think what you’re seeing in Netflix is that the stream is only 480P because Netflix refuses to update their app. The big issue is that VR is meant to be social. I find multiplayer VR a lot more enjoyable than single player VR or multiplayer on other video game platforms.

I'll give multiplayer VR a try. Maybe virtually doing fun activities with others is the secret sauce.

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Quest 2 largely eliminated the screen door effect. I think what you’re seeing in Netflix is that the stream is only 480P because Netflix refuses to update their app. The big issue is that VR is meant to be social. I find multiplayer VR a lot more enjoyable than single player VR or multiplayer on other video game platforms.

I'll give multiplayer VR a try. Maybe virtually doing fun activities with others is the secret sauce.

It’s surreal being able to virtually play ping pong or racket ball with a friend or family member who you’re limited to seeing either due to distance or lifestyle ie new parents. Board games are nice too.

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Quest 2 largely eliminated the screen door effect. I think what you’re seeing in Netflix is that the stream is only 480P because Netflix refuses to update their app. The big issue is that VR is meant to be social. I find multiplayer VR a lot more enjoyable than single player VR or multiplayer on other video game platforms.

I'll give multiplayer VR a try. Maybe virtually doing fun activities with others is the secret sauce.

Some of the most fun games are silly and not too sophisticated, like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpSwwKK_Nvc

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#39
post #3

Oh, another philosopher discovers VR. I asked the people who moderate r/metaverse to create a tag, "MYFIRSTMETAVERSEARTICLE", for this sort of thing, and they did. I've read about a hundred such articles in the last three months. They're rather similar. For a view from the other direction, "How to be a God", by Battle. This is a game dev who became an academic and spent too much time thinking about philosophy. If you…

Link for Richard A Bartle's “How to Be a God”: https://mud.co.uk/richard/How%20to%20Be%20a%20God.pdf

Oh, nice, there's a free version. I bought the 2" thick paperback.

Re: David Chalmers considers the possibilities of VR

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll give multiplayer VR a try. Maybe virtually doing fun activities with others is the secret sauce.

It’s surreal being able to virtually play ping pong or racket ball with a friend or family member who you’re limited to seeing either due to distance or lifestyle ie new parents. Board games are nice too.

That sounds good. I'm charging the batteries of the Oculus and will turn it on tomorrow for the first time in about a year.
Post reply on HN