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

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.

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.

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.