Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?.

      Virtual Reality allows possibilities that seem endless, but the cost of programming and technology limits its ability. With virtual reality technology social and cognitive experiments can be done in a controlled environment without compromising the facade of a natural setting. A new world can be created and engaged with by a variety of individuals through quick-access cognitive pathways: vision. In the section read this week, examples of practical and experimental uses for virtual reality were listed with interesting results. However, learning about ToM and other immersion techniques has made me question the comparability of virtual reality to literature. It would seem to me that both have pros and cons to cognition. While virtual reality handles all visual attributes it lacks in the complexity of real-world scenarios that only the imagination could achieve, but then again, literature requires much attention in order to be fully immersed. It would be most interesting to be able to do a side by side comparison between the effects of both on the mind and individuals actions.
          Of course, certain individuals may not be able to participate well in one or the other. If, for example, Christopher were given the choice of the two he would of course choose virtual reality because of his strong affinity for the computer and dislike of surreal fiction. Others such as Dyslexics would also prefer the virtual world to its plain text counterpart because of their inability to immerse fully due to their disability. However, what about simulating one of these individuals as a "normal" being. Which would be a more convincing or enlightening experience. Do you think reading The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time would trump the virtual experience? Is it the fact that you are allowed to be witness to the mind of the character or rather to be placed in the environment of them. If it is the latter, then virtual reality would be a better immersion device, but i would think that not everyone would act in a similar way unless of course pressured by a group or some outside restriction. Only witnessing the mind of one individual takes away from the experience necessary to fully understand the mind's development and how certain choices are made.
         Lets take this further, could we use either of these two processes or a combination of the two in order to influence cognition for an artificial brain. This is assuming the fact that we can teach other humans. However, if we could influence the ideas of human cognition using these two means then it could be plausible to teach patterns to an artificial intelligence in order to learn how to think or develop human-like thought.