I’ve come to realize that when I talk about our lab’s research, I’m generally trying to convey two concepts. One of them is very easy, but the other is a little tricky to get across.
The easy concept is that in the future we will all have those cyber-contact lenses, and will share physical reality just as we do now, except with enhanced senses — essentially the scenario Vernor Vinge describes in Rainbows End. Everybody gets this idea, perhaps because it is a straightforward extension of the cyber-enhanced physical existence we have today.
But the second concept is sometimes met with confusion: The concept that language and conversation itself will consequently evolve. For example, when I demonstrate ideas about how language might evolve to contain a more visual vocabulary, I will sometimes draw a stick figure of a bird. The bird I’ve drawn will then come to life, start to walk around and react to its environment.
People will then sometimes ask: “But isn’t that fake? You created something beforehand, and you are just making it appear as though you drew it now.” I think the confusion comes from the relationship between different parts of language.
When we talk with each other through verbal speech, we rely on most words to already exist. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to hold a conversation. The bird is essentially a word in a different sort of language.
When I draw it, I’m not claiming to invent a new word on the spot, but rather to show how, in the future, we might converse with each other in a visually enhanced world after such a visually shareable language has had time to develop.
It’s a crucial concept, but alas one that is easy to misinterpret. I still haven’t figured out the best way to get this concept across in a clear and unambiguous way.
But I’m working on it.
I thought the words analogy here worked well—it’s a good counterpoint if you give the Purple Crayon intro 🙂 Might also mention emojis to bridge the visual-verbal gap a little…