I am glad that you do not assign the Synthesizer role to one’s biological “RL” self.

Usually us flesh-bags get the flack for being the puppetmasters (or puppetmistresses) of our own destiny…sigh!

A: The Daleks, Cylons or HAL 9000. Obviously.

In all seriousness, the participants do [or should]. In this versionalised state there’s no grand virtual auteur/entity pulling the validity strings. It’s an aggregational attempt at discipline formation.

Any Augmentologist would naturally aspire to be a (s)he

Nino, I apologize for the gender bending.

Heheheheh “Up Synth Creek”…I will have to remember that one.

So if we are “Synths” who becomes the “synth module” or the ultimate “synthesizer”?

Welcome to this site, Ash.

Oh and Nino is a guy [though they may not be concerned re: biological labelling, you never know;)]

Ash: Brilliant comment! [All: Meet Ashendar, an Officer in my World of Warcraft Guild _Affinity_. Ash is a great guy and an accomplished Synth. Without Ash's amazing tanking ability our guild would be up Synth Creek without a paddle;)].

I should clarify here. I do not mean to say that the study of Augmentology is “superficial” – far from it…it is a necessary discipline in the 21st century.

What I was referring to was with regards to Nino’s comment “I’m not sure I see the use of having a term that encompasses both the real person and their virtual projections.” Maybe I mis-read what she said but terms in themselves have limited uses when reduced to simply that, terminology so maybe that was why Nino did not see the use in having such a term. Was Nino referring to some other term or word?

The overall work and what you are doing here is nowhere near superficial but the search for a useful term – in the light of such a transformative experience – ultimately is…well, in my opinion anyway.

Nino: the next Augmentology entry [_Reality Mixing + the Geospecificity Complex_] discusses issues that you may find provocative and/or relevant, so I might hold off on commenting on your point until I post that tomorrow?

Jer: I don’t in the least consider the description/assessment of synthetic environments as superficial. Augmentology is an attempt to formulate emergent principles/theories/structures that adequately reflect the experiential nature [and validity] of such states. I see it as of similar importance to the formation of any major discipline, including many other “-ologies” [including Psychology and Sociology]. It surprises me that you consider an attempt to do as “ultimately superficial”.

And a purdy logo does help:)

As for terms, they are just that… “terms”.

Augmentology is catchy though. I like the way this word “packages” this whole project.

Any terms used to describe the holistic experience of virtual worlds and their properties is ultimately superficial but sometimes it is fun to spin off a bunch of kewl sounding words…It also helps to have a really nice logo

Since automobiles and cheap-oil addiction have been a recurring theme on this page, another analogy come to mind:

Race-car drivers and their cars.

Nobody seems to confuse the driver for the car.

Why the need in this context?

If you follow the news for a period of time you are bound to come along articles claiming that society or a large demographic group is “addicted to debt”, “addicted to food”, “addicted to oil”, “addicted to technology”, “addicted to the pokies”, “addicted to smut”, and even polar bear Knut is “addicted to fame”. Unfortunately such sweeping generalisations obscure the real issues such of those minorities that suffer addiction and require help, and the complex interactions and factors that give rise to such addictions. For instance, are we really “addicted to oil”, or is it that demand has simply risen strongly with millions of people being lifted out of poverty in China and India (a good thing), and/or is it that oil is simply the cheapest form of energy at present, and we will simply shift to more expensive forms of transportation and energy (e.g. electric cars, nuclear, green energy) as oil prices rise?

In respect of new media such as persistent online worlds and other digital entertainment, I feel that “addicted” is often used as a fallback criticism given a fear of new things and/or change. After all, in a defence of video games the Economist noted that rock and roll was initially described as “an evil influence on the youth of our country”, while “novels were once considered too low-brow for university literature courses”, and “waltz music and dancing were condemned in the 19th century; all that twirling was thought to be “intoxicating” and “depraved”.” Such general criticisms reflect generational divides which ultimately fade as the older generation passes on. It seems that some addictions (e.g. music, religion) are just more socially acceptable than others.

That is not to say that there are people who have a genuine addiction to online worlds that may lead to harm to themselves (including, possibly, death, and family and friends. However, as the original post notes, there is research that suggests that inherent physical factors may explain propensity towards addiction, with addiction even possibly having genetic origins, meaning that the problem lies with the person rather than the technology or object. Having said that, it would be interesting to know if there are any possible physical links between elements of online worlds (i.e. visuals, sounds, rewards, social interaction) and addiction. For instance, there is some research that suggests that new forms of technology may be addictive, while the technological features of electronic gaming machines may contribute to gambling addiction, at least in some people.