Hayles says in her article that, “the technologies themselves can be – already are – agents of change. This is a double edge of virtual reality’s revolutionary potential: to expose the presuppositions underlying the social formations of late capitalism and to open new fields of play where the dynamics have not yet rigified and new kinds of moves are possible.” I really like the second part of this statement that says that virtual reality opens new fields where new kinds of moves are possible. This really does seem to be the case. With virtual reality, a totally new media, we have a whole new vast area to work with and create new things within.

I found an article at nytimes.com that discusses virtual reality and how it can be used for medical purposes. It is being used as a distraction from pain in painful medical procedures and has proven affective. IN a way, I see this as an implant. It can be ‘implanted’ on a person and perform an act of distraction and a way to minimize pain for patients.

http://query.nytimes.c om/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE2DF1339F937A35754C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

I then found a demonstration on youtube.com about the new Nintendo gaming system Wii and it’s role in the virtual reality world. The video discusses the way people can use virtual reality to really interact with play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyvIlKSA0BA


While I find both of these virtual reality tools helpful/entertaining, I do not seem them as a ‘piece’ of the human body. Hayles discusses in her article how man and machine form one being and work together. I see virtual reality just as another tool we can use to interact with our environment but nothing of a necessity or a total part of us.