Why are only two senses transmittable via technology?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Algr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Technology
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the transmission of human senses through technology, specifically why only sight and sound are effectively transmitted while other senses like touch, taste, and smell remain largely unaddressed. Participants explore the implications of this limitation in various contexts, including storytelling and communication.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that audio and video are well-refined technologies, while others suggest that the transmission of other senses is niche and difficult to conceptualize.
  • It is proposed that sight and sound provide the majority of immediate, conscious information and are easier to transmit compared to other senses.
  • Participants discuss the historical attempts to incorporate smell into media, such as "smell-o-vision" and the use of scratch-and-sniff cards.
  • Some argue that while tactile feedback exists, such as vibrations in game controllers, it is limited and not widely utilized in communication.
  • There is a suggestion that if storytelling through smell or touch were feasible, it would likely be pursued.
  • Concerns are raised about the societal implications of physical touch in communication, with humor interjected regarding legal consequences.
  • Technical discussions arise around the parameters of different senses, with some participants questioning the complexity of reproducing inputs for senses other than sight and sound.
  • Some participants express frustration with modern devices lacking tactile feedback, emphasizing the importance of physical interaction in user experience.
  • There are inquiries about the systematic categorization of smell and its parameters, with links to external resources provided for further exploration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the feasibility and desirability of transmitting senses beyond sight and sound. There is no consensus on the potential for effective transmission of touch, taste, or smell, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications and technical challenges involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in current technology for transmitting non-visual and non-auditory senses, including unresolved questions about the complexity of these senses and their representation in media.

  • #31
Algr said:
Now that is a stretch.
Yes, but not beyond the point of recognition. Audio transcripts are a thing.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #33
It's a stretch because language is not synonymous with sound. It can be vision or even touch. Of course that dovetails back to the original topic. A braille-pin touchscreen is transmitting touch as technology. But it requires a lot of training to use. I wonder if you could make a video game controller where the button could communicate a braille letter indicating what tool that button activates at the moment.


Linguistically, is that last sentence a question or a statement? Should I have ended it with a question mark?
 
  • #34
Algr said:
I wonder if you could make a video game controller where the button could communicate a braille letter indicating what tool that button activates at the moment.


Linguistically, is that last sentence a question or a statement? Should I have ended it with a question mark?
A statement. :wink: You were stating that you wonder something.
No question mark. People get that wrong all the time.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Algr and jbriggs444
  • #35
Smell land taste are pretty invasive senses - they actually require direct chemical interaction.

One can look away from a sight, or turn off a sound - and once gone they're gone. But it's very difficult to turn off a taste or smell once you've started to experience it. It takes time to fade.

You can imagine all sorts of mischief to be had if some complete stranger could put chemicals on your tongue or in your nose - not to mention unsanitary or hazardous.

We're just not ready for that kind of immersion.
 
  • #36
Again, I say Smell-O-Vision.. It's been done.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: robphy
  • #37
Vanadium 50 said:
Again, I say Smell-O-Vision.. It's been done.
It has. And it flopped.

One might re-interpret the OP's question to be: why did it not become popular?
 
  • #38
Algr said:
I wonder if you could make a video game controller where the button could communicate a braille letter indicating what tool that button activates at the moment.
Just what every blind video gamer needs.
 
  • #39
Invent porn VR involving all the senses and you'll make billions.

But in terms of simple messaging, think of the #1 classic message ever, FIRE! Do you need more than one sense to get the idea?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Algr
  • #40
anorlunda said:
Invent porn VR involving all the senses and you'll make billions.
Pretty sure I saw something on a cable show called strange sex about this. Not sure about ALL the senses, but the important ones were covered.
 
  • #41
Vanadium 50 said:
Again, I say Smell-O-Vision..
Why? I mentioned it in the first post. (Though not by name.)

DaveC426913 said:
One might re-interpret the OP's question to be: why did it not become popular?
The mechanism was too complex and took the viewers out of the movie. There would have to be something strapped under your nose like supplemental oxygen.
1660705941544.png

That way you would spray tiny amounts that would not build up in the theater.

Then for touch, you get a massage chair that can pivot like one of those motion sensor rides. The story would be about someone with a giant octopus on their back.