Wu Jing and Deng Yulong: Foreign Scholars on the Metaverse
The Metaverse is an artificial space functioning in parallel to the real world; it is a networked world of virtual reality supported by technologies such as Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR), and three-dimensional (3D) space.
I. Research on the Core Role of Digital Technology in Constructing Metaverse Scenarios
The construction of Metaverse scenarios relies on a variety of digital technologies; therefore, foreign scholars primarily analyze and understand the Metaverse or virtual worlds by starting with the characteristics and applications of these digital technologies.
John D.N. Dionisio, William G. Burns III, and Richard Gilbert: “3D Virtual Worlds and the Metaverse: Current Status and Future Possibilities” (ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 45, No. 3, 2013).
This article argues that the Metaverse is a computer-generated world, and that the transcendence [1] implied by its prefix "Meta-" differs from metaphysical transcendence. It refers to a fully immersive 3D digital environment or a "shared online space." The generation of 3D virtual worlds (the Metaverse) is realized through four aspects: immersive realism strategies, ubiquitous access and identity authentication, interoperability, and scalability. Immersive realism strategies are designed to satisfy the user's psychological and emotional investment in the Metaverse environment. Ubiquitous access and identity authentication guarantee that a true Metaverse must provide a space for human culture and interaction as permanent as the existing physical world—a space in which individuals do not experience any barriers or inconvenience when transitioning between the real and the virtual. Beyond the ability to seamlessly exchange information between different platforms or systems, interoperability implies the formation of certain consensuses and standards. A true Metaverse will only emerge when corresponding standards allow for the seamless exchange or transfer of information between completely heterogeneous virtual worlds. Given that the physical world possesses a potentially infinite scale across many dimensions, scalability has become the most challenging characteristic of all virtual worlds. Furthermore, non-technical elements, such as political-economic systems and mutual collaboration among participants, are also important conditions affecting the construction of the Metaverse. A true Metaverse depends on large-scale technological breakthroughs and collective effort.
Kim J.L. Nevelsteen: “Virtual World, Defined from A Technological Perspective and Applied to Video Games, Mixed Reality, and the Metaverse” (Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2018).
Starting from concepts such as real time, virtual spatiality, and virtual interaction, this article distinguishes the inherent differences between various construction technologies for virtual worlds. From this, it proposes a detailed definition of the virtual world: "An environment in which multiple agents can interact virtually, acting and reacting to things, phenomena, and the environment in a simulated way; agents can be zero or more people, each represented by an entity called a virtual self/avatar, or multiple software agents; all actions/reactions/interactions must happen in a real-time shared spatio-temporal, non-pausable virtual environment; the environment consists of many data spaces, the collection of which constitutes a shared data space." Using this definition, Nevelsteen analyzes whether the Metaverse is a virtual world, arguing that the Internet itself is composed of multiple spatio-temporal fragments and is closer to a "world within worlds" rather than a virtual world parallel to the real world. The most critical distinction between the Metaverse and the Internet lies in the former's support for real-time characteristics.
Morteza Hemmati: “The Metaverse: An Urban Revolution—Effect of the Metaverse on the Perceptions of Urban Audience” (Tourism of Culture, Vol. 2, No. 7, 2022).
This article takes the emergence of virtual cities supported by 3D spatial technology as an entry point for analyzing the Metaverse’s reconstruction of the world. From a media perspective, the Metaverse can be understood as a tool for presenting the world in a 3D manner. By simulating human senses and subsequently forming virtual bodies, it enables humans to accurately experience virtual space, thereby creating images more "believable" than reality. As urban landscapes are the products of interaction between humans and cities, the way their images are presented is deeply influenced by media tools. The traditional city is a symbolic phenomenon reflecting real-world experience, whereas the emergence of the Metaverse allows humans to obtain virtual world experiences even while physically located within a city, because the virtual world allows users to overcome physical limitations as much as possible. This means that the experience of the virtual world becomes linked with the experience of the real world; an individual's experiences in the virtual world will, in turn, affect the real world. Human perception of urban symbols can be transformed without changing the city's physical form. This is precisely why the Metaverse can be understood as an "urban revolution"—it possesses the immense capability to reshape urban landscapes by acting solely on individual modes of experience and perception without altering the physical form of the city.
Hee-soo Choi and Sang-heon Kim: “A Content Service Deployment Plan for Metaverse Museum Exhibitions: Centering on the Combination of Beacons and HMDs” (International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2017).
This article regards the Metaverse as an important means for innovating existing museum exhibitions. Today, museum exhibition methods have undergone significant changes. New exhibition methods utilize various digital technologies to present content, allowing visitors to better understand the exhibits. However, most of these methods rely on a unidirectional mode of information transmission; there is a lack of interaction between visitors and exhibits, and the strict boundaries between real and virtual spaces make it difficult for museums to become true "experience spaces." However, the application of new technological equipment, such as Head-Mounted Displays (HMDs), provides support for the unification of real and virtual space, thereby creating a space for the integration of virtual reality and augmented reality within the Metaverse. This service is termed the "metaverse exhibition experiential content service." Furthermore, in the virtual world, audiences can weave their own stories and provide diverse experience content, which breaks the traditional mode of content production (single-menu operations or unidirectional content output). The unique analysis and feelings of individuals toward what is visible constitute the unique content within the virtual world.
II. Research on Communication Methods in the Metaverse
Foreign scholars have primarily conducted research on communication methods in the Metaverse at the levels of individuals, enterprises, and communities, discussing the relationship between virtual and real communication as well as the effects of virtual communication on real life.
Sara Pita and Luís Pedro: “Verbal and Non-verbal Communication in Second Life” [2] (in Nelson Zagalo, Leonel Morgado and Ana Boa-Ventura (eds.), Virtual Worlds and Metaverse Platforms: New Communication and Identity Paradigms, Hershey: IGI Global, 2012).
This article discusses verbal and non-verbal communication issues used by players in online virtual games. Verbal communication provides multi-dimensional information regarding participants, time, space, and internal meaning, while non-verbal communication can compensate for the ambiguities of verbal communication, expressing emotions and affects more directly and shaping the player's personal behavior and image. The authors found that although body movements and facial expressions are possible in online virtual games, players prefer to use verbal or textual communication because non-verbal communication is limited by virtual space technology, and virtual avatars cannot display a player's true character. Their research results also show that to identify who they are communicating with, players frequently use voice communication. This also reveals a major dilemma in current virtual world communication: it is necessary to establish more powerful databases of gestures and movements, yet establishing a link between the appearance of a virtual avatar and the behavioral state of the player is fraught with difficulties. Compared to the real world, the absence of non-verbal communication in virtual worlds limits interaction and interpersonal exchange; limited gestures and movements weaken the role of non-verbal communication in emphasizing information content. In the virtual world, even when a leader or moderator is present, players hope to use their avatars to share and communicate on an equal basis, as the non-verbal movements of avatars help emphasize their own points of speech. Online virtual games create a friendly environment where the absence of authority figures and the utilization of open, creative spaces facilitate communication and the expression of opinions among players. Therefore, strengthening communication among multicultural groups and developing non-verbal communication systems are the future directions for the development of the Metaverse.
Katrin Tobies and Bettina Maisch: “The 3D Innovation Sphere: Exploring the Use of Second Life for Innovation Communication” (in Nelson Zagalo, Leonel Morgado and Ana Boa-Ventura (eds.), Virtual Worlds and Metaverse Platforms: New Communication and Identity Paradigms, 2012).
This text emphasizes the important role that communication within virtual worlds plays in daily operations from a corporate perspective. The authors list various activities—such as job fairs, staff meetings, trade shows, online learning, and scientific experimental testing—that can be participated in via avatars. They argue that communication in virtual worlds helps save travel costs and time, is free from the constraints of time and space, and that the anonymous nature of avatars is conducive to obtaining more authentic and effective feedback. Many enterprises have gained popularity and shaped their corporate image by building communication platforms in virtual worlds, thereby achieving broader media influence. Enterprises can realize association and interaction through "innovative communication." Such communication can create a shared social practice, for which online virtual games serve as a successful case study. Communication methods in virtual worlds can replace time-consuming and high-cost methods in the physical world, visually demonstrating the unique uses, efficacy, and significance of new products or services through multi-sensory experiences. Virtual reality can authentically simulate these new products, giving interested customers the opportunity to experience them personally through avatars and engage in direct dialogue with the producing company. Direct communication between customers and companies is more relaxed, timely, economical, and carries less risk. Innovative communication is an essential link in a company's innovation system; its control over time and cost is vital for the firm. Communication among employees, marketing efforts, and public relations can all proceed smoothly in the virtual world. Specifically, employee communication can assist the R&D process, marketing communication helps establish good relationships with customers, partners, and competitors, and public relations communication can foster a favorable social environment for the company.
Gaia Moretti and Eliane Schlemmer, "Virtual Learning Communities of Practice in Metaverse" (in Nelson Zagalo, Leonel Morgado and Ana Boa-Ventura (eds.), Virtual Worlds and Metaverse Platforms: New Communication and Identity Paradigms, 2012) This article argues that digital virtual space has changed the traditional definition and structure of virtual communities. The authors primarily research Virtual Learning Communities (VLC) and Virtual Communities of Practice (VCP). They point out that communication in a VLC involves sharing knowledge, experience, ideas, and information, where community members produce knowledge through collaboration. Communication in a VCP involves members sharing practical experiences and working methods. The authors further define the Virtual Learning Community of Practice (VLCP), wherein the reading, discussion, and reflective interactions among community members transform traditional modes of learning and practice. Consequently, digital virtual environments can establish a "real virtuality." From this perspective, metaverse technology has broad application prospects in the development of communities; that is, everything from the most traditional communities based on physical space to those where all social activities are based on digital virtual space can utilize metaverse technology to achieve multiple interactive actions and communication. Digital space is populated by mutually interactive virtual objects and users; therefore, it can be understood as a relational space. Since physical and digital identities can be blended, individuals can achieve physical presence through their bodies or digital virtual presence through avatars, thereby living in the real world and the virtual world simultaneously. As "digital natives" grow up, the concept that there exists only one space, one community, one world, and one universe will cease to exist.
III. Discussions on the Relationship Between the Virtual World and the Real World Discussions among foreign scholars regarding the relationship between the virtual and real worlds are mainly divided into two camps: one believes the virtual world possesses unique laws, is entirely new, and differs from the physical world of reality; the other believes the virtual and the real are identical, advocating for "augmentationism"—the idea that the virtual world is an extension and supplement of the real world, with no clear boundary between them.
(1) Perspectives advocating the divergence of virtual reality from physical reality Benjamin Gregor Aas, "What’s Real? Presence, Personality and Identity in the Real and Online Virtual World" (in Nelson Zagalo, Leonel Morgado and Ana Boa-Ventura (eds.), Virtual Worlds and Metaverse Platforms: New Communication and Identity Paradigms, 2012) By comparing the presence, personality, identity, and emotions of subjects in the real and virtual worlds, this article argues that essential differences exist between the two. Unlike subjects in the real world, subjects in the virtual world primarily perceive both network and real environments in entirely new ways in response to cognitive demands within the virtual world. The issue of presence is the foundation for discussing virtual worlds: in an environment driven solely by digitalization and data, how does one experience presence within the virtual world? The author notes that existing research focuses on regulating the sense of realism of virtual world existence, but in fact, presence in the real world and the virtual world is vastly different. The construction and operational modes of virtual social interaction and the online world have changed real life, and the characteristics of the virtual world also affect perceptions and behavioral patterns in real life. Of course, due to the existence of regional parallax, the influence of the real world on the virtual world is not as pervasive as the penetration of the virtual world into the real world.
Michael Madary and Thomas K. Metzinger, "Real Virtuality: A Code of Ethical Conduct" (Frontiers in Robotics and AI, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2016) From the perspectives of psychology and philosophy, this article argues that the virtual world will change the structure of real life, bring about brand-new forms of social interaction, and reconstruct the relationship between body and consciousness. The authors believe that the virtual reality created by VR technology is deeply embedded within another layer of virtual reality—human consciousness—which, having evolved over millions of years, is currently being technologically codified into virtual reality. However, the brain has not lost its recognition of the boundaries between reality and the virtual. The process of cognizing the virtual reality of the metaverse is not a mystical process of a self detaching from the physical body to enter an avatar; rather, it is more like the representation of the avatar being embedded into the brain's self-consciousness, forming a new component of self-cognition. This creates a brand-new configuration of human functionality in which the virtual and physical bodies interact. VR technology’s capture of the user's actual body movements creates an illusion of ownership over the virtual body: users treat the avatar as their own body and believe they can control it. In reality, however, the avatar in virtual reality is indirect, and the control over the avatar is also indirect, both of which depend on increasingly commercialized technology. This leads to the detrimental consequence of users increasingly neglecting their physical bodies and environments. Although virtual reality expands non-corporeal social interaction, it also ignores non-technologized human perception and technologically disadvantaged groups, potentially exacerbating people's aversion to the physical environment.
David van der Merwe, "The Metaverse as Virtual Heterotopia" (3rd World Conference on Research in Social Sciences, 2021) By comparing the construction principles of the metaverse with Michel Foucault’s concept of "heterotopia" [3], this article argues that the metaverse is a virtual heterotopia realized in digital space. The author believes that in the metaverse, the value of information exchange is far higher than the value of the various financial and commercial services and transactions realized within it. Such a world, unregulated by specific governments and governed by rules and protocols established by users and owners, is a typical heterotopian construction. The metaverse is a platform built by VR technology; thus, it is not exactly a "placeless place" as Foucault described, but rather "places outside places" and "spaces within spaces." The metaverse realizes the connection between global community sharing and meta-world portals without needing to consider geographical differences or segregation. The transitional function of blockchain technology makes the metaverse of distributed networks a user-centered virtual community owned by users, where a single portal often contains paths to other larger portals. This digital heterotopia achieves an inclusivity impossible in the physical world: seemingly incompatible and unrelated spaces can coexist within a shared space. The author believes that the development of the metaverse will lead humanity into a New Era where real human interaction is often completely replaced by purely digital interaction.
Janet H. Murray, "Virtual/Reality: How to Tell the Difference" (Journal of Visual Culture, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2020) The author argues that VR technology, like other media technologies (such as photography), will not eliminate the boundary between the virtual and real worlds. The author opposes viewing VR technology as magic for creating a perfect illusory world, arguing that VR is an emerging media technology no more deceptive in the experiences it creates than other technologies; like the virtual spaces created by books, films, and games, humans reflect upon themselves within it. The author suggests that what helps humans obtain and maintain a sense of immersion in the virtual world is the perception of the boundary between reality and illusion. In interactive environments, a "bridge" needs to be established to enable humans to cross the boundary between reality and illusion. This bridge has a physical presence in the real world and an avatar presence in the virtual world, and VR technology is bringing humanity into a "human-authored reality." However, current VR technology limits the sense of "attaining reality" (reality acquisition) within the virtual world. As technology develops and creates a trustworthy virtual world, people will be able to immerse themselves in wonderful worlds of the imagination.
(2) Perspectives advocating that virtual reality and physical reality are a unified whole
David J. Chalmers: Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2022). This book argues that virtual reality (VR) is genuine reality, an ontological equivalent to physical reality; it is not "Reality–," but "Reality+." The author provides three reasons for this: first, virtual reality is not a fantasy or a fiction; what happens in virtual worlds actually happens, and the objects in virtual worlds are real objects. Second, life in virtual worlds can, in principle, be as meaningful as life outside of them. Third, the world in which humans live might itself be a virtual world. On this basis, the author demonstrates that virtual and augmented consciousness are genuine consciousness. He contends that there are five criteria for "genuine reality"—existence, causal power, mind-independence, non-illusiveness, and authenticity—and that as long as these five criteria are met, virtual worlds or simulated environments are real. From the perspective of the philosophy of technology, the author interprets the "Cartesian problem" within virtual worlds: How do humans know the reality surrounding them? How can they confirm that their surroundings are not an illusion or a simulated environment? The answer lies in the fact that whether humans are in physical reality or a simulated environment, the core remains the interaction between conscious beings and the external world. Even if this external world is a simulated world, it does not mean it is not a genuine reality. It is a latent reality, distinct from the singular mode of physical reality with which humans are familiar. The development of virtual reality and augmented reality technologies will make virtual worlds appear more like the real world, to the point where virtual and non-virtual worlds become indistinguishable. As the Earth's environment deteriorates, virtual worlds will provide new habitats and new possibilities for humanity. Virtual reality is not an escapist utopia, but a living environment in which humans can reside. Like physical reality, virtual reality possesses a dual nature, having both a beautiful side and an ugly side. People who face various limitations in physical reality—including the disabled and the oppressed—can find entirely new lives in virtual reality. While virtual worlds cannot solve these problems immediately, they provide, at the very least, a possibility.
IV. Research on the Social Impact Generated by the Technical Application of the Metaverse Foreign scholars argue that technology as a tool is not entirely neutral; it determines, to varying degrees, the ways in which the problems of the metaverse are expressed and resolved. This determinism has both positive and negative aspects. Some scholars believe that more attention must be paid to hidden negative impacts.
Ben Egliston and Marcus Carter: "Critical Questions for Facebook’s Virtual Reality: Data, Power and the Metaverse" (Internet Policy Review, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2021). This article proposes that virtual reality represents an emerging class of spatial computing technologies that rely on hardware and software apparatuses to acquire and process data regarding users themselves and their environments. The ownership and use of data rights determine that this data-intensive technological form inevitably contains interest-based biases and the potential for harm through data dissemination. The true vision of virtual reality is to construct and "sell" a vision that can attract both end-users and platform complementors.
Ben Egliston and Marcus Carter: "Oculus Imaginaries: The Promises and Perils of Facebook’s Virtual Reality" (New Media & Society, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2020). This article discusses the possible harms or inequalities that virtual reality technology brings to society: First, the appropriation and use of data by platforms infringe upon and damage user privacy and the right to choice. Virtual reality technology is a data-dependent medium; it must capture and process vast amounts of data regarding the user's body. Furthermore, virtual reality systems can locate users and integrate virtual spaces with physical spaces. This data becomes the basis for platform owners to conduct targeted marketing and advertisement pushes. Second, the application of virtual reality equipment in the workplace and the evaluation of individual job performance through data is highly likely to create injustice for certain groups. Programs collect physiological data—including movements of the head, hands, and eyes—through sensors, thereby establishing quantitative evaluation and management systems. This automated decision-making technical apparatus not only creates "chaos" between human judgment and technological mediation but also causes complex problems related to decision-making inequality. Third, virtual reality sensors exhibit exclusivity in their "perceptual" modes, making it possible for them to have perceptual barriers regarding disabled bodies, such that they cannot effectively recognize their characteristics or movements, leading to misjudgments. The authors argue that people have not yet formed effective prevention and governance mechanisms for the aforementioned issues.
Dawn Owens, Alanah Mitchell, Deepak Khazanchi, and Ilze Zigurs: "An Empirical Investigation of Virtual World Projects and Metaverse Technology Capabilities" (The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, Vol. 42, No. 1, 2011). This article argues that real-time communication in virtual worlds supports immediate feedback, diversified language, and multi-threaded communication; it allows for interaction, movement, and face-to-face dialogue through avatars. Teams can use real-time communication to improve work structures, process information, engage in social interaction, and build team communities. Metaverse interaction technologies will help develop the aforementioned functions; 3D virtual environments help improve communication and collaboration, reducing the threat of team dispersion. Avatars can help team members engage in face-to-face communication and better position their own roles within collaboration and exchange. Furthermore, virtual worlds can reduce cultural differences and make cultures more convergent. Although many team tasks appear on the surface to be unsuitable for virtual worlds, visual plugins and 3D virtual objects can still assist teams. Every technological development in the metaverse signifies new opportunities for team collaboration. The interactions in virtual worlds and the entirely new work environments they create are the true benefits of the metaverse.
Jin Kim: "Algorithmic Intimacy, Prosthetic Memory, and Gamification in Black Mirror" (Journal of Popular Film and Television, Vol. 49, No. 2, 2021). Using the quantitative characteristics of digital technology as a clue, this article reveals that the domination of individuals by digital technology is omnipresent and all-pervasive. The author argues that digital media, and the ideological discourse reflected behind it, exert a social normalization and even a disciplinary effect on the individual. This function of technology is even more evident in virtual reality, and in the world displayed by the television series Black Mirror, it is concentrated in the following three aspects: First is interpersonal relationships in an "algorithm-first" world. In a digital society, algorithms possess "prior" (先行) characteristics—that is, the algorithm always precedes the thoughts and ideas of the user, providing feedback through real-time matching mechanisms to the user, thereby regulating the user's specific behavior. By virtue of their prior nature, algorithms achieve panoptic [4] control over society; they are able to incorporate any divergent behavior of the individual into the overall operational system as a predictable variable. In an algorithm-first society, people are powerless to take any action that changes reality. Second is overloaded digital memory. In a digital society, digital memory—through the authority inherent in its eternal persistence—establishes and reinforces the discourse hegemony of digital technology over the individual, infiltrating every field of individual life. The digital "gaze" is no longer coerced but necessary. This collusion of "digital-power" imposes digital quantitative precision upon the individual, thereby stripping away any possibility of resistance (such as forgetting). Finally, there is the neoliberal subject in a gamified society. In a digital society, the subject caters to neoliberal expectations, striving to present themselves as a subject of "aesthetic labor." The process of presentation is also a process of the gaze, and algorithms reinforce the subject's sense of being gazed upon. Simultaneously, the quantitative evaluation system constantly interpellates [5] the subject, standardizing the subject’s words and deeds, and driving the subject to internalize scoring criteria to complete a self-gaze, providing a guarantee of formal rationality for this gaze. This evaluation system and algorithmic power can be appropriated by power to achieve an all-encompassing gaze and discipline over members of society.
(Authors: Wu Jing, Deng Yulong; Department of Philosophy, Nanjing Normal University) Web Editor: Tongxin Source: Foreign Theoretical Trends (《国外理论动态》), No. 2, 2022