![]() Internet 2.0 represents the gateway of the cyber-anthropology, the challenge to make new forms of learning and communication. This accelerated digital metabolism creates a scenario of “dense” information, passing from older linear systems (like the books for example) to newer reticular systems, like VR or the cyberspace of the virtual communities. In the last ten years the diffusion of Internet and the use of personal computers have radically changed the communication systems of post-modern societies. In the paper we will discuss about virtual reality environments and Multiuser Domain for data sharing and interpretation in the field of virtual heritage. This theoretical discussion will be applied to a presentation of an important case study: the “Virtual Museum of the Ancient Via Flaminia” in Rome, a MUD space where diverse users can interact in the same cyberspace. Archaeological communication ought to be understood as a process of validation of the entire cognitive process of understanding and not as a simple addendum to research, or as a dispensable compendium of data. If we peremptorily separate knowledge and communication, we risk losing information along the way, reducing the relationships that are constructed between acquisition/input and transmission/output. From this derives the need to interconnect the top‐down processes with the bottom‐up in accordance with a reciprocal systemic interaction, for example in a virtual space where both sequences can coexist. Thus, the questions which we pose in a phase of bottom‐up knowledge (for example, in an archaeological excavation) will influence the top‐down phases of interpretation, or the mental patterns (for example, a comparative analysis and reconstruction of models). ![]() Indeed, our ability to transmit culture depends on a model which combines on the same axis processes of understanding and communication. In the light of these considerations, what is the relationship between information and representation? How much information does a digital model contain? What sorts of and how many ontologies ought to be chosen to permit an acceptable transmittability? These and many other questions on related topics take on certain urgency because they relate directly to the loss of information from understanding, learning, and the transmittability of culture. Thus, from the first phases of data acquisition in the field, the technical methodologies and technologies that we use, influence in a decisive way all the subsequent phases of interpretation and communication. ![]() In these terms, the past is generated and coded by “a simulation process”. It is argued that Virtual Reality (both offline and online) represents a possible ecosystem, which is able to host top‐down and bottom‐up processes of knowledge and communication. 3D information is regarded as the core of the knowledge process, because it creates feedback, then cybernetic difference, among the interactor, the scientist and the ecosystem. It follows that the process of knowledge and communication have to be unified and represented by a single vector. Because it depends on interrelationships, by its very nature information cannot be neutral with respect to how it is processed and perceived. In particular the ontology of archaeological information, or the cybernetics of archaeology, refers to all the interconnective relationships which the datum produces, the code of transmission, and its transmittability. This paper aims at introducing and discussing an epistemological model of cyber archaeology in relation to the need to investigate what happens in a immersive environment of virtual archaeology where every user is “embodied” in the cyber space. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |