Augmented Perceptions

Certain aspects of augmented reality got me thinking back to the idea of medias role in our perception of the world in a big way, of course. The nature of augmented reality is, fundamentally, to alter, or heighten, our perception of the physical world. Augmented reality breaks down the idea of media having a defined sender, message and receiver relationship. Augmented reality devices place the user within a self contained network of sender, message and receiver. They become all three as they interact from themselves, with the world around them, through their device.

A particular device which made me think about this relationship was one I found while researching augmented reality devices. Investorspot.com lists the top ten augmented reality devices, one of which being a contact lens called, A Twinkle in the Eye. The concept is only in development stages, however, the idea is quite captivating. A contact lens is fitted with a small LED screen, radio chip and antenna and is powered wirelessly. 

This is truly a reality altering, perception changing form of augmented reality. But is this a good thing? As John Havens discusses, augmented reality could have its downfalls in terms of traditional human interaction. Havens states, 'Now consider this physical supply chain of seeing one anthers well-being, needs or talents displayed via visualisations, viewable through lenses outfitted with AR (augmented reality) How will we perceive each other in the near future, beyond our physical appearances? How will our positive and negative traits combine to form a visualisation that instantly defines who we are?' (Havens 2013). The way we make decisions on whether or onto to engage with others could one day be left up to our AR devices. Human interaction could be broken down to a simple, mathematical algorithm which determines what is best for the user, or, simply, what is most efficient. 

Imagine a reality that is dictated to you. Your relationships, interactions, day-to-day decision making all controlled by you AR device. Its not to say this technology is not something to be marvelled at, however, I feel, it is something to be cautious of. It seems the nature of the relationship between mankind and technology is one of utter dependance. It is completely immersive and relentless. Once we move to radical new areas like AR it seems our fate could be sealed with our utter dependance on a technological reality. 

Havens, J 2013, The Impending Social Consequences of Augmented Reality, Mashable, accessed 11th April 2013 <http://mashable.com/2013/02/08/augmented-reality-future/>

InvestorSpot 2013, Top Ten Augmented Reality Devices, accessed 11th April 2013, <http://inventorspot.com/articles/top_ten_augmented_reality_devices_32462>

Memory and New Interaction

When thinking about memory, media time and perception I found myself thinking about these elements in relation to meta-communication and the extended mind thesis. Wikipedia states, 'The EMT (extended mind thesis) that some objects in the external environment are utilised by the mind in such a way that objects can be seen as extensions of the mind itself' (The Extended Mind 2013). When thinking about this in relation to my iPhone I found an interplay with meta-communications as new forms of social interactions and communication are formed thorough the electronic interface in regards to time and interaction. I also found that the idea of living within the 'past-future' was greatly heightened by these interactions and further destroyed the notion of ever being able to consciously live within the present. 

Lets look at this through the iPhone and, furthermore, through its Facebook application. One user uploads a status or, for more direct purposes, posts a comment on my wall. Where does the 'present' for that interaction exist? Does it exist within the first users mind when they generated the original thought? does exist the moment he clicks 'send', or, does it exist in its completion, when I receive it and process it? Personally, I believe this new form of interaction, this electronic landscape, completely obliterates any form of present. It does not exist. The sender of the post lives within both past and future, having created an interaction of both time frames. Just as the receiver also lives in both. The simple fact of a millisecond delay between the time it takes to bounce off a satellite and be received on my device is enough to assure that such interactions cannot ever have a present. This also means that there, fundamentally, could be no real interaction as no direct contact ever takes place, unless, however, we think about the iPhone or Facebook application in terms of EMT. Being that my iPhone is an extension of my mind, it contains all my memories and interactions. Through this electronic landscape, my iPhone is as much myself as I am, in fact, possibly more so. 

I hope I have formulated some logical thought process in this blog post and not confused an already somewhat abstract idea even further.  

Media Ecologies as Meta-Communication

The whole idea of media ecologies or information ecologies gives way to the idea of met-communication within an electronic media context. The notion of the 'global village' where people interact, directly and instantly, through electronic networks creates a new form of communication. Although, when looking at these new forma of human interaction and communication I found a point Neil Postman made to be very interesting. He states, 'The word ecology implies the study of environments: their structure, content, and impact on people' (N Postman, Media Ecology 2013). It is the impact on people that I find to be most interesting. What do these media ecologies do to the fundamental values of human interaction? What will these shifts mean for the future of human interaction or social normalities? These are questions I'd like to set out to possibly answer in my research project, for now, however, I'd like talk briefly about the structure and content side of the study of media ecologies or environments. 

Being immersed in these environments, as are most of the population, it can be, at times, hard to step back and see the bigger picture. For me, this relates to the structure of media ecologies. They are geared as an integral part of human life, a necessity in daily routine. Checking and maintaing Facebook, procrastinating on Youtube or following your favourite celebrity on Twitter have become new ways of communicating yourself to the world through non verbal interaction. It is the structure of meta-communication, a new way of expression which one must be apart of or be left behind. Suddenly, you are a signal identity across a range of online, electronic, communities, which, in essence, would form your own personalised environment or community. To me, at times, it seems that the 'prescribed' content of these ecologies becomes largely irrelevant. We are the content. Through the structuring of these communities we dictate the flow of information on ideologies that form. This can be seen in the ever changing and diversifying world of Meme's. 

What these new societies mean for human interaction is, at the moment, beyond me, though it something I am very interested in exploring. 

Media Ecology, wiki article, 26 March 2013, accessed 7th April 2013 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_ecology>