Constraint, Intelligence, and Control Hierarchy in Virtual Environments

This paper seeks to deal directly with the question of what makes virtual actors and objects that are experienced in virtual environments seem real. (The term virtual reality, while more common in public usage, is an oxymoron; therefore virtual environment is the preferred term in this paper). Reality is difficult topic, treated for centuries in those sub-fields of philosophy called ontology- "of or relating to being or existence" and epistemology- "the study of the method and grounds of knowledge, especially with reference to its limits and validity" (both from Webster s, 1965). Advances in recent decades in the technologies of computers, sensors and graphics software have permitted human users to feel present or experience immersion in computer-generated virtual environments. This has motivated a keen interest in probing this phenomenon of presence and immersion not only philosophically but also psychologically and physiologically in terms of the parameters of the senses and sensory stimulation that correlate with the experience (Ellis, 1991). The pages of the journal Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments have seen much discussion of what makes virtual environments seem real (see, e.g., Slater, 1999; Slater et al. 1994; Sheridan, 1992, 2000). Stephen Ellis, when organizing the meeting that motivated this paper, suggested to invited authors that "We may adopt as an organizing principle for the meeting that the genesis of apparently intelligent interaction arises from an upwelling of constraints determined by a hierarchy of lower levels of behavioral interaction. "My first reaction was "huh?" and my second was "yeah, that seems to make sense." Accordingly the paper seeks to explain from the author s viewpoint, why Ellis s hypothesis makes sense. What is the connection of "presence" or "immersion" of an observer in a virtual environment, to "constraints" and what types of constraints. What of "intelligent interaction," and is it the intelligence of the observer or the intelligence of the environment (whatever the latter may mean) that is salient? And finally, what might be relevant about "upwelling" of constraints as determined by a hierarchy of levels of interaction