Abstract
The authors analyze the terminological problems of describing the engineering-psychological aspects of virtual reality technologies. They show that the definitions of virtual reality used by the technological mainstream are neither adequate to the nature of virtual realities, nor to the essence of technologies promoted as “only” virtual. They point out the inconsistency of the official myth of time, authorship and the reason of the "invention" of virtual reality. They underpin the applicability of the definition of virtual reality proposed by N.A. Nosov, a founder of Russian virtualistics, as a basic one and taking into account the “natural virtuality of a human” without which the so-called virtual reality technologies would simply not work. The authors state to the virtuality of the nature of any image, including cinematic. The virtual (augmented, substitute) reality technologies relate to the technologies of “consciousness editing”; but the involvement of the audience is not a harmless entertainment! These technologies, knowingly deceiving, should be placed under the public, ethical and legal control of society. Comprehensive interdisciplinary studies of their safety, their bioethical and humanitarian expertise require an establishment of terminological order in this area of business and scientific circulation.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
