The future of Second Life?

Posted on by Inara Pey

At times it is easy to forget that, warts-and-all, Second Life is potentially the prototype environment of future systems that might aid us in so many ways.

The following is a video produced by Bruce Branit that appears to have been wonderfully inspired by Second Life and is both moving and points to a possible future use of immersive technologies that doubtless strikes a cord with any of us who can still glimpse the wonder that lies beyond the computer screen each time we go in-world.

My thanks to SuzanneC Baskerville for bringing this video to my attention.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Inara Pey

Eclectic virtual world blogger with a focus on Second Life, VR, virtual environments and technology.

4 thoughts on “The future of Second Life?”

  1. I like this video and still do. But there are creepy elements to it.

    She is just stuck in a box of program that depicts a “world” that doesn’t extend past a street. And that world isn’t even created by her. She can only see, if indeed she is really seeing anything, what her svengali-like husband shows to her. The woman is portrayed as some sleeping beauty who needs to be awoken, so even in the 21st century and beyond all we women can aspire to be is muses and passive love objects.

    Like

    1. Hmm… I’m not sure I subscribe entirely to this view.

      Coma patients today are sometimes treated by having a loved one sit and talk / read to them or by being exposed to music, etc., that holds a strong emotional resonance for them; the theory being that they may experience those same responses while comatose – and may actually recover consciousness as a result.

      So, rather than him being a Svengali, directing what she can see and interact with – I see him simply as a husband, given (perhaps limited) time with which to create a visual framework that has a strong emotional context for her, and thus might connect with her on a deeper level. Hence the opening scenes with him sifting through photographs – seeking the right emotional context to reach her.

      And hence the flower: a focal point within the wider framework that has meaning to them both. The street exists to draw her attention to it, a single blossom in the entire street. He’s perhaps created a moment in time of special significance to them both in the hope that it will reach her, even “bring her out” of it.

      I also don’t see any subtext that proclaims women in the 21st century are passive love objects. We all simply seem to respond on a more emotional level with a woman in distress – and thus, making her the victim is a device to more readily trigger our emotional response to the video.

      Like

  2. He doesn’t appear to her or interact with her. Which isn’t the same as relatives speaking to loved ones who are afflicted with coma.

    Why couldn’t the “world” be something she interacts with, or a problem that must be solved in order to challenge her mind/memory etc?

    She is passive and inert so that we can project that cheap victim framework on her.

    Like

    1. He doesn’t….perhaps that’s a limitation of the technology – if you notice, when the environment goes “live” and the sky, etc., appears – he becomes translucent, possibly intimating he’s separated from the environment now.

      Nevertheless he gives her a visual equivalent of his “voice”, so to speak – a visualisation of something that is (going from the photos at the start) an evocative shared memory.

      And – why shouldn’t the world involve interaction? Interaction is emotional stimulus & potentially increased brain activity; it is connecting with regions of the brain outside of sleep / rest. It generates the potential beyond an inert coma.

      The same to with problem-solving: this again stimulates and engages brain functions.

      I agree that, given the brevity of the film she is something of a blank slate – as is he – onto which we can project our own thoughts, reactions, prejudices, constraints, etc., – and in that regard, I guess we’ll have to agree to differ in the level of subtext the film contains. 🙂

      Like

Comments are closed.