This is a serious issue and I am not sure on an answer either. I agree with your diagnostic and your nostalgic trip illustrates this rather well. It appears as though the philosophy of mind is "coming of age", with current thinkers being much more in tune with holistic but scientifically respectable approaches. I also recommend Alva Noe's "Action in Perception" who also argues strongly for perception being linked to sensorimotor abilities - e.g. "perception is not a process in the brain, but a kind of skilful activity of the body as a whole. We enact our perceptual experience".

Consideration of Noe's and Rockwell's ideas indicates that we cannot divorce mind from the physical world around us, although to go as far as promoting old-fashioned full human interaction (if Noe's and Rockwell's thesis is correct, then it must also apply to those typing on their keyboards inside their bedrooms with their virtual world contained in the software and communication networks) one would need deeper arguments.

But maybe we would do better by framing the dilemma slightly differently, especially as it seems as though virtual worlds are here to stay (in increasingly developed forms).

I don't think that the components of our dilemma (between social computing and real world interaction) are on an equal footing. I don't think we have two equally equal thesis/antithesis for a synthesis along Hegelian lines. I would like to think that the virtual world is completely parasitic on the physical. We need to be committed to forcibly defending human interaction as the key thesis and see how virtual worlds are merely supportive, but without discounting the possibility that virtual worlds are capable of taking the key thesis role if people allow them to. A solution to the dilemma has to do a lot of work!

Supportive roles for virtual worlds are easy to find (as illustrated in a lot of KM books). For example, virtual communication can enhance our interaction with diversity because it enables us to be in touch with groups of people we would otherwise have no access to (many people don't live like you did in Wales and I did in NZ where we had extreme diversity at our back doorstep - for example, if you live in one of those professional class housing estates (suburbs) I've seen in the USA and I'm sure exists all over the UK too).

I also want to be spared the thought of living 9 hour days in virtual worlds of Skype and virtual reality machines (I've been in one and they aren't a substitute for the real thing) but at least blogs have given a way to enhance communication, but as always, it is dependent on a willingness to not only participate, but be open to dialogue and receive criticism.

I wonder if Robert Scoble has considered this in his "Naked Conversations", if anyone has read it?

Excellent posting Peter - lets hope some other people chime in and thanks for remind me that I need to get hold of Noe's book

A great trackback from David referencing an old article in which the last couple of paragraphs use humour to devastating effect! I reproduce them below but recommend the full article

We could recognise the dangers and temper the computerisation of school with 'human studies' lessons.

These could cover basic things like 'meeting people', 'making friends', 'how to disagree without coming to blows', 'how to have a party'... the list is endless. The kids could be dragged away from their computer screens two or three times a week to get a taste of what life without computers might be like. Practical classes could be the highlight of an otherwise sterile week.

Do I exaggerate? I really don't know. Let's just say I'm worried by the way things are going. Like most things taken in moderation, computers can be good for you, but taken to excess they could easily ruin a life. I wonder how long it will be before an irate adult decides to sue a computer company for a lost childhood and an inability to function as a normal human being?

Interesting topic indeed. A few loosely connected ideas (not something completely different):
- when I had to decide about the words that should appear on the screen of a computer program which I designed, a wrote this page: "Brainextension - Counterpart(ner)", at http://www.christianhauck.net/html/12900.html , and I'm more undecided than ever since; is there a clear boundary of the "self", is it a slippery slope?
- Is the computer another way - a physical/electrical prosthetic device - to reach out to others - and I start to feel "otherness" when I can't control things anymore directly all by myself? Even in the physical world, human beings don't merge - there is at least two layers of skin in between. So why then would "virtual reality" be so different?
- Yes, the "artificial" world takes away primary experiences. I don't have to kill an animal by myself if I want to eat meat. It's been a while that I looked at the milky way, in a clear sky, without city (or other) light preventing me from seeing the faintest stars. I don't live in an isolated small village, forced to learn how to adapt to the microculture by necessity and lack of alternatives. But: "virtuality" allows new experiences, and ways of social interaction, which have not existed before.
- I don't think that interaction via computers is only symbolic, strings of bits or ASCII-code, "A means B". It's also like another aspect of environment that people are immersed in. And they need to make sense of it. The meaning is not in the message, it's made up by the recipient / observer.
- Using computers might be a way to an area of even more abundance (of what? good question). And then, selection, focusing, "sense-making", would be human-specific.

I am going to provide another ramble of ideas, so I am sorry if any of these aren't entirely coherent.

Interesting points Christian, I agree with your basic points (as I understand them) especially the point that social interaction between people using a virtual meeting place mediated by PCs, networks and software is certainly more than symbols, bits/bytes/ASCII etc. (I expect in the same way that verbal conversation between two people located in the same room is more than air pressure waves or the Fourier series representations of those waves)

However, I think there is something fundamental that maybe captured by Heidegger’s existential "Being-in-the-world" where things are ready-to-hand and not merely present-at-hand. As an existential, the person at the other end of a virtual conversation is also not merely a thing present, but a fellow human being one is engaged with. Likewise the computer isn't merely a thing, it is an instrument in this case for the use of communication and engagement in the way you suggest (allows new experiences, and ways of social interaction, which have not existed before). But note here – the computer/networks etc. are tools made by human beings for human beings.
However, I don't think the issue is one of merging identities - the fact that I am factual and have skin and a physical boundary is an important part of the point. When I am in the same room as someone else I can see, touch and smell that other person. My engagement is much stronger than possible in a virtual world.

Dave, in his previous post, provides a great illustration about focus. To me, the issue isn't whether one can provide authentic dialogue with someone via a computer network, it’s about priority, perspective and degree. If one is recommending that we can teach children about engaging in a real world by taking them away from their computer screens in order to "teach" them how to interact with other people (like "today children, your lesson is going to be talking to people using your voice - you know, that part of your body we were teaching you about yesterday) then that is quite a scary option for perspectives on life.

This idea goes back to some other points raised by Dave’s previous blogs. Firstly, if we are not predominantly symbolic processing machines and if we have other important dimensions to our lives (mind, perception) than symbols and symbolic processing, then we have a huge part of our being to be developed outside virtual worlds. While computers can simulate pattern matching, if current theories of mind and perception take them to be total body experiences, then computers performing pattern matching (as opposed to information processing) will still be far short of the real thing. And this relates to another of Dave’s points because computing will always be simulation and one of the key points in the CognitiveEdge perspective is not to confuse simulation with reality.

Now one area that illustrates the differences is a comparison of the subject of mathematical logic and computing theory with that of physics, chemistry and biology. While I love theoretical computer science and mathematical logic, these are the languages of the virtual world but we will find it almost impossible to understand mechanics and physics, chemistry and so on if we are brought up totally immersed in a virtual world.

My sister has an interesting illustration of some of the things that can go wrong when children spend all their time in such a virtual world (PC games and chat rooms). As a nurse in NZ she has had to deal with situations such as children who cannot pick something up with their right hand, and pass that object to someone on their left without having to pass the object from their right hand to their left hand. She has many other examples of clinical problems that have been diagnosed as resulting from children not engaging in physical activities that provide a full bodily balance. Games such as hotch scotch and other children’s games that we played as kids like hand clapping movements between two children, skipping and so on.

To sum up - the danger as I see it is that we could take the virtual world as the real world and then instigate little packages to remind people that they are in a real world, which may generate negative consequences in terms of our overall ability to understand the real world we live in and ourselves. Its not that virtual worlds are bad in themselves (because as Christian has pointed out, there are real people at the end of conversations) the problem is taking the wrong perspective; putting the priority to the wrong "world". Finally, if we can go far enough, why not have simulated "real" people, communities and cultures at the other end of our conversations in virtual space so that we don't have to worry about real people at the other end at all - and if the simulations are good enough, and we can't tell the difference, then why should it matter? But then why would we need any real people to engage with virtual people if we can have virtual people converse with virtual people and we could do away with real people altogether and save wars, pollution, hunger and all the other problems that real people create.

http://joitskehulsebosch.blogspot.com/2006/09/technology-loosing-skills-through.html
has a useful development of the theme

As a person who grew up in the 70's - 80's in a US suburb -- I would like to confirm Peter's remark above :) Our school had very little diversity. One of the biggest (and in many environments only) religious difference that existed among families was whether they were Catholic or Protestant Christian. It was a white bread world that I grew up in. There were a (very) few kids of other races/nationalities/religon.

I think when contemplating the "virtual" and where it fits within the "real" world one needs to realize that a balance is needed. The net can be a social two way sword in that it can connect and isolate. I was a chronically ill child and wish dearly that I'd had something like the Net in those days. Because I was out of school too much and away from other kids, I fell behind socially. Personal growth (maturity) is also influenced by our interactions with others. If your only interaction is with a very few other (often also sick) children and mostly adults you get problems! Social interaction can and does take place virutually. However, that same child does need to learn to cope with the unaccepting "real" world. I have 'met' others with my (very) rare medical disorder and was able to share support and ideas. People who are different in rural areas can connect with others. These are ways we can (and do) use the net to *connect* rather than isolate.

Most people will always tend to gravitate toward others 'like them'. It is more comfortable, easier and some do not see the benefit of venturing into other spaces. I have lived for a number of years not far from Washington DC (very diverse, urban). There are left and right leaning and non english newspapers and groups. I think the fact that we can see other groups and see their conversations 1. raises them on our radar and 2. provides an *opportunity* to understand others with less risk than one would have in person.

I can lurk on a message board/chat room and watch interactions of people very different than myself. I would not be so confortable and would probably call attention to myself if I were in a similar situation in a "real world" place. It is up to individuals if they want to experience and understand other perceptions.

I always find it interesting to encounter people who *do* seem to have trouble connecting with others via the Net. These are the ones who will say "it's just pixels on a screen. They aren't *real*. They could be lying." Yet, in my experience I've met and communicated with people who became friends over the years. I've developed a better connection and understanding of some of them than I could have in one of my previous neighborhoods.

A big change that my folks have noticed is in neighbor relationships. In many cases neighbors are not as close and don't interact socially as much as in the 50's and 60's. However, I think that what has changed is the factors that influence where we live. At one time people gravitated and lived near one another. Those of us that went on to study and travel I think have sought our location based upon our career choices -- more than the people who live there. I can connect with people socially elsewhere and don't have to rely upon my neighbors.

(apologies for the long post)