Daniel's E-learning and Digital Cultures Blog

Augmented Reality Learning Environments – A posthuman pedagogy

Although philosophical idealists will argue that there is no such thing as a common reality, in everyday practice we have chosen to believe in one. Through our senses and communications, we live in a shared reality that we refer to as the real world, but by degrees, this shared reality is being extended, enhanced and personalised through the use of tools that allow for a richer interpretation of what is considered to be “real”.  Such tools exist in many forms, from cognitive frameworks right through to actual physical devices that extend the senses and create “new forms of human presence, half-real, half-virtual” (Ascott, 2003, quoted in Bayne, 2010).  Perhaps the most conspicuous of these is the growing use of augmented reality as an layer of information on top of the physical world.  “Augmented reality (AR) refers to the addition of a computer-assisted contextual layer of information over the real world, creating a reality that is enhanced or augmented”, (Horizon Report, 2011).  When one first uses augmented reality to view the world, the experience is uncanny in the extreme.  The physical world is suddenly extended to include a rich layer of multimedia that the viewer can interact with to better understand their environment.  High end augmented reality systems can be very complex and may include many subsystems, such as head mounted displays, data gloves or global positioning systems; but for the average consumer (and therefore the average student), something as simple as a smart phone application can achieve a similar result.  An excellent example of such an app is Streetmusuem:Londinium.

Streetmusuem:Londinium is an iPhone app, developed in collaboration between the Museum of London and the History Channel, which recreates portions of London city as it might have appeared during the Ancient Roman era.  Layers of video and text, maps and 3D models of ancient architecture can be viewed on top of the real world.  As the user moves about their environment the scene changes in real-time.  These layers of reality combine within the consciousness mind of the learner. “From two, one—something different, new, and tasty”, (Carpenter, 2009).

“One of the most promising aspects of augmented reality is that it can be used for visual and highly interactive forms of learning, allowing the overlay of data onto the real world as easily as it simulates dynamic processes”, (Horizon Report, 2011).  When a person interacts with these layers of media, they are essentially engaging in a constructivist and exploratory learning session within a new reality.  Because such media layers are fluid and may change based on user input, this new reality is individual and uniquely distinctive both for each learner and for each learning session.  When we connect augmented reality systems with other networks, the potential of new layers of reality grows exponentially, as does our capacity to create new realities for ourselves, or to share them with others.  One might argue that when we augment our reality, we simultaneously augment our own consciousness, and when we share our reality, we likewise  share our conscious state with others. “Just as the brain needs the body to create conscious activity, so the body needs the environment to create conscious activity”, (Pepperell, 2010).

Conclusion

The interface to an augmented reality system is a tool that allows the user to modify their own reality, extending it in directions never before imagined.  Graphical user interfaces allow us to visualise complex data sets but when those data sets correspond directory to our immediate physical environment, we suddenly gain the ability to understand that environment and our place within in it, in profound new ways.  Through the use of symbolic languages and well designed semiotic icons, we allow humanity to communicate without regional linguistic variation, achieving precision of expression and clarity in the transfer of meaning that is simply impossible in the “natural” world.

Augmented Reality Examples

MovableScreen at Allard Pierson Museum in Amsterdam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UODkvUTnAU

Streetmusuem:Londinium.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/innovation/07/29/roman.london.app/index.html

35 Awesome Augmented Reality Examples

http://www.bannerblog.com.au/news/2009/06/35_awesome_augmented_reality_examples.php

References

Bayne, S. (2010).  Academetron, automaton, phantom: uncanny digital pedagogies.

Carpenter, R (2009). Boundary Negotiations: Electronic Environments as Interface.

Pepperell, R. (2009). ‘Art and the fractured unity of consciousness’ in New Realities: Being Syncretic Consciousness Reframed.

The Horizon Report, 2011.  Two to Three Years: Augmented Reality

I’ve spent a fascinating week considering what it means to be posthuman.  This began with my post at the end of last week on the differences between the cyborg and the posthuman (lifestream: 13.11.2011 #1), in which I discuss the notion of a distributed consciousness; and this has since informed some thoughts on the emergence of a global “cognisphere” (lifestream: 20.11.2011 #1).   Jeremy asked in the comments to that post whether language could be considered as a tool, and this question formed the basis for much of my lifestream content this week.  I became very interested in the development of language itself as well as modern day enhancements such as the construction of symbolic languages for specific disciplines (lifestream 15.11.2011 #2, #3 and #4).  It should come as no surprise that language has played a key role in the development of social groups and social organisation but it has also produced profound effects on the mind of the speaker.  With the development of highly accurate symbolic languages, we have introduced the possibility for substantially more reliable transfer of meaning between individuals, as well as deeper understanding of concepts through enhanced reasoning and greater detail of mental constructs.

Such tools certainly give us greater powers and abilities but does that make us more than human, or are humans actually defined by their ability to adapt and improve themselves?  Carol and I have have had an interesting running discussion on Twitter over the course of the week on the subject of human evolution and whether the prefix ‘post’ in posthuman is redundant, given that all life is in a state of constant evolution (lifestream: 17.11.2011 #3) and that humanity has always been defined by its adaptability.  One interesting idea emerging from this discussion has been the notion that the evolutionary process is itself undergoing a change, and whether humanity’s integration with technology might be viewed as a type of natural development (lifestream: 19.11.2011 #1).  Overall its been a very stimulating week; and so now begins the preparation for the posthuman pedagogy task and getting a concrete topic for my essay.  Much to consider, as always.

We’ve seen that it is an over simplification to consider the cyborg as a fantastical techno-creature from our most outlandish fiction.   For me personally the cyborg represents an enhancement to basic human function through the use of some prosthesis.  And while many of today’s medical prosthesis are remarkable in their sophistication, they can rarely be said to improve human performance (one notable exception being the artificial legs of Olympic hopeful Oscar Pistorius)

Instead the contemporary cyborg is usually an attempt at repairing a damaged human, rather than an enhancement.   Fictional cyborgs, and most likely real cyborgs in the very near future, are much more than this.  Such cyborgs are truly more than human and achieve this status with the addition of prosthesis that give them abilities mere organic humans could never manage.  These cyborgs are most definitely posthuman, but posthumans need not be cyborgs.  I’ve argued (Sumamry: Week 8)  that we are all in fact already posthuman, and that we have always been so since the invention of tools and social groups that modified our thought processes enough to make us more than individual entities.  For me, the posthuman is a combination of the organic human and a set of external factors, tools or stimuli which endow us with powers and abilities we could never achieve in isolation.  Certainly there is a closer coupling between the cyborg and its parts, but the posthuman is unbounded and free to match the appropriate tool to the task.

I began week  eight by asking the question, are we already posthuman (lifestream: 07.11.2011, #1)?  In many ways, we depend on tools like a mobile phone as a type of cognitive prosthesis, an extra layer of memory which grants us an increased ability or processing power than our (basic?) organic minds could otherwise achieve.  I revisited Andy Clark and David Chambers fascinating paper The Extended Mind (lifestream: 08.11.2011 #7) in which they argue that external content could be viewed as a modifier to consciousness.  The speed of retrieval for such information is usually offered as a counter argument to the point, however, one could certainly make the claim that if our consciousness is constructed and based on available stimuli, then the tools, connections and web services which we rely on to aid decision making are in fact part of a single suite – we already have a distributed consciousness.  Indeed social constructionists would argue that much of our awareness of reality is defined by our interactions with others; thus making all cognition distributed to some degree.  If this is true, then although digital tools are a new chapter in the story of human development, they continue the same theme and merely allow the same processes to take place at a more efficient and optimized pace.  The caviat here of course is the danger of disconnection from these tools when we have come to rely on them.  If we are unable to act independly, relying too much on external data streams for decision making, then loss of connection will result in a system crash, an unrecoverable input error disrupting our ability to function effectively.  I am reminded of the protagonist character Manfred Macx in Chalres Stross’ spectacular transhumanist series, Accelerando (lifestream: 13.11.2011 #1).  Maxc is reliant almost entirely on a pair of data glasses that feeds him with a continual data stream.  After the loss of the glasses he loses much of his identity and wanders aimlessly trying to find a backup of his data/personality.

Much of the remainder of this week as been spent ploughing though the readings and cyborg concepts.  I’ve added some new feeds to my lifestream and watched it fill out considerably.  The readings this week are challenging and I am still coming to terms with much of the material.  More to come on this in another post.

Although the concept of posthumanism has many interpretations, it is primarily considered as an evolutionary change from the human condition to something similar but enhanced in some way.  Generally this means enhancement through the application of some digital or mechanical prosthesis but it can also refer to genetic manipulation, chemical enhancement and various other methods of improving human performance.  For noted futurist, chemist and computer scientist Joël de Rosnay, it is a far larger concept.  De Rosnay believes that we are evolving as part of a super structure, or macro organism which is composed of humans as a elemental part, but also contains the systems and processes that we create, our infrastructure, economics and social structures.  “The natural and the artificial, art and technology, culture and civilization are now joined together in a coherent whole”, (De Rosnay, 2000.  The Symbiotic Man).  Whilst I concur that we are experiencing a level of planetary connectivity never before witnessed, I am less optimistic for a Utopian outcome.  Rather than coherence, we see an unbalanced and unfair world in which the powerful reap rewards that the weak may only dream of ever attaining.

The structure that De Rosney describes is not controlled but has in fact evolved out of the (sub)systems that we have created.  De Rosney does warn us that such a system requires guidance and boundaries to its growth, but I  find his solutions  to be somewhat aspirational.  Whilst I do not consider myself as a pessimist, I am fearful that such a system can more easily be used to control the population rather than liberate it.

If one thing has become clear in the history of technology it is that humanity strives to better itself.  In this time of instant gratification and power hungry superstates, the limits of the human body can already be extended… and if they can be, we can be sure that they will be.  Indeed the traditional concept of cyborgs can already be seen walking amongst us with all manor of prosthesis, from artificial limbs to implanted RFID chips.  This process has already begun and can only result in a deeper connection between human and machine.

As heavily implanted cyborgs living inside, and as a part of a system like De Rosnays macro organism, humanity risks losing itself and losing its way if we do not see the larger picture.  Through our bodily modifications we are giving up true control for the illusion of power.  Super strength is nothing when the system controls how you use it.  A modified consciousness is a sham when software rules sanction its use or determine what is an acceptable thought.  Such fears may appear as hysterical and overly dramatic but we are already writing the rules that determine how the subsystems of the macro organism will operate.  Unfortunately we are allowing commerce to dictate these rules rather than any legal body.  In the words of Lawrence Lessig, the code is the law.  If we are to become one with technology, we need to make sure that the code controlling our bodies is enlightened in its purpose and open sourced in its implantation.

This week we’ve focused on the theme of digital literacies with a particular emphasis on the visual.  We have each explored some really stimulating ideas through the production of a visual artefact, and it has been interesting to notice how each of us interprets one anothers work differently (lifestream 14.10.2011 #1).  The title of my own artefact, We Are The Web, reflects my belief that while the Internet may be produced by people, in many ways it also is people.  It is live and interactive, and for those of us who live and work within it, it is becoming an extension of ourselves.  We are drawing ever closer into a symbiosis with technology, and while this can offer many conveniences, my fear is that we may be blinded by the benefits while ignoring the potential dangers (lifestream 11.10.2011 #6 – music video).

Siân has commented on my emphasis of “the implant and the prosthesis”, while Grace notes the discomfort shown in some of the images that I’ve selected to be part of the piece.  This was a very deliberate choice that I made when creating the image, because for me, our love affair with technology is something that we have forced upon ourselves.  It is an unnatural coupling and something that requires us to actively modify both ourselves and our behaviour if we are to reap the rewards.

To express such complex ideas visually is particularly challenging, especially when we consider the many influences affecting the way that we interpret images, combined with the fact that images must be seen in context if they are to be understood at all.  In order to better address these issues, I did some surfing and discovered amongst other resources, a brilliant presentation by Doug Belshaw entitled The Essential Elements Of Digital Literacies (lifestream 12.10.2011 #1) as well as some excellent and free online graphics tools (lifestream 12.10.2011 #2).  Visual literacy is without question an essential skill for todays learner, and definitely something that I’ve become more sensitive to during the course of the last week.

This week we’ve been considering the themes of Being Human and Other Worlds (lifestream 04.10.2011 #5).  Being somewhat of a gamer and virtual reality hobbyist, the notion of Other Worlds holds particular interest for me and seems to tie in well with the readings and discussions from last week.  However my ramblings across the web while considering this topic have started to get me thinking about the nature of this reality and how we experience it.  If all of our neural impulses are prompted by nothing more than electrical signals from our nervous system, then we are each of us living inside our own heads.  Each of us is experiencing their own virtual reality and no doubt colouring it with the emotional or experiential baggage that defines us.  When considered thus, we can actually make the astonishing claim that there is no such thing as one absolute definition of reality.  Indeed the very reality that we experience can never be truly shared because the sharing must take place via our nervous systems.  It’s almost analogous to the idea of different game play experiences due to graphics card irregularities or broadband speeds amongst gamers.

Considering all this, and if we really are just brains in meat vats (lifestream 01.10.2011 #1), experiencing the world through our senses (plus the technological prosthesis we attach to them, i.e. networks, monitoring software, information systems, etc), how can we ever hope to share a common culture, digital or otherwise?  How can we be sure that our interpretation of anything is close enough to that which is experienced by another?  How can we be sure that there even are other people?  The unavoidable conclusion is that we cannot.  But to admit to such feels almost like fatalism, and perhaps the only recourse is to swallow the blue pill, and stubbornly carry on creating and sharing in this (hopefully) common culture.

Some videos that have informed this contemplation:

What is real?

There is no spoon.

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.