:: Boundary erosion ::

I recently wrote a theory paper for my Digital Games indie course that examined the concept of "the virtual" and of "virtual reality". I proposed ditching the term, accepting that everything is real if someone perceives it so. However, given that we are still in the early days of the transition from an industrial age to a technocized age (thanks to my pal Kelly for the terms), I accept that, for now, we still need a term to differentiate the different realms in which we exist and experience life. Thus, I propose the use of the "digital realm" versus the "concrete realm".

One of my central arguments in that paper is that people need to get over the idea that the digital realm isn't real. One of the arguments I've heard used by detractors of the reality of the digital is the concept that the interface or tools used to interact in the digital realm are too artificial and not bio-body centric enough.

However, thanks to a colleague, I read this article about the new PS2 game, "Lifeline" that is completely controlled by voice. You speak commands, ask questions, etc. and the game responds. Unlike in other games, this isn't a gimmick that is added to spice up what would otherwise be a joystick/gamepad mediated experience. For this game, your voice is the controller.

Are the boundaries finally starting to erode in a way obvious enough for others to begin to grasp? Will the supposedly more "natural" mediation and control of this type within digital space make it easier for traditional or conservative individuals to accept the reality of the digital?