Subject: Re: IFETS-DISCUSS Digest - 2 May 2000 to 3 May 2000
From: Leslie Henrickson (lhenrick@ucla.edu)
Date: Tue 09 May 2000 - 08:05:12 MEST
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 23:05:12 -0700 From: Leslie Henrickson <lhenrick@ucla.edu> Subject: Re: IFETS-DISCUSS Digest - 2 May 2000 to 3 May 2000
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muhammad Betz wrote:
<<
I have also seen many similar instances in=
my work with the Council for Exceptional Children where assistive techno=
logy is a means for allowing disadvantaged people regain some of their lo=
st capabilities.
technology cannot supersede human capability
<<
Maybe not supersede human capability but sensory substitution scientists
create devices that alter a person's ability to sense the world. You
mention that disadvantaged people "regain some of their lost capabilities."
The operative word is "some" because the manner in which these devices
impact, interact with and affect the disadvantaged person is not the same
as the original sense, i.e. fully functioning eye, ear. For example,
there are two ways in which sensory scientists approach their work, through
sensory substitution or through remapping. In sensory substitution the
ability of one sense is used to substitute for another. The classic
example is braille touch to read for the visual sight to read. These two
senses do not operate the same way, cannot convey the same sensibility.
There are two fallouts from this type of research: one, the senses are
malleable, one can be adapted to fill in for another; two, the malleability
is not confined to disadvantaged persons only. This research can occur
because this is an inherent property of our bodies'
constitution. Certainly, we all hope and wish that it won't be us, but the
malleable capabilities of our senses is there even in our normal state. As
our technologies become more sophisticated, more multiply-sensed and
programmed to impact/interact with us do we think that virtual reality
researchers are going to make a one-to-one sense substitution? That is,
they provide auditory sound only for affects of hearing, visual cues only
for affects of vision? No, there will be sensory substitution that affects
our inner sense ratio in ways we haven't experienced before. What effect
will that have on our sense of who we are and how we interact with the world?
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Wed 10 May 2000 - 00:22:30 MEST