I should probably start off by pointing anyone reading this to my earlier post (reLink) defining “kirkyan”, since the term will be meaningless otherwise. Of course, even after people read that, they’ll probably still think the term is meaningless; what I’m describing – or attempting to describe – is probably not an easy concept for most people to grasp. But once someone has a good example, with words and pictures (I’m big on pictures), I don’t doubt it will probably be much easier for everyone to grok.

Anyways, earlier I sent an email off to WorldChanging’s Jamais Cascio where I used that term and described the concept. I did so by using an example of a product idea I have; the same one I mentioned in an earlier comment. I don’t know if that triggered his latest post over on WC, but he’s definitely talking the same multi-reality language. So, if any of this sounds remotely intriguing, be sure to stop by and read “The Open Future: Living in Multiple Worlds” (Link).

Interesting item regarding phone services inside virtual spaces. From the entry on MPOGD posted by Paul Philleo (Link):

To make the case for what Vivox is capable of, Sharma logged into a test area in Second Life on his laptop to demonstrate an audio technology demo. The environment was a bustling restaurant, where the wireless broadband connection was not ideal. That said, I donned a pair of headphones and listed as Sharma’s character walked to an in-game phone booth and punched the digits to his own cell phone, which then promptly rang. Using VoIP calling like other Internet telephony services such as Vonage, Sharma blurred the line between in-game and real-world communications. After that, the avatar was walked into a nearby room, where another Vivox developer was lounging on a couch as a character. Using the laptop microphone, Sharma and I were able to carry on a conversation with him at roughly the quality of a land line phone.

Be sure to read the whole entry to get some additional details; I’m just focusing on one slice of it. The “voice font” stuff will probably calm the fears of plenty, gender-bending alts.

via Clickable Culture

This will probably go nowhere, but I figure I’ll join in on the neologistic bandwagon and create a term for something I can’t otherwise define since neither spime nor blogject work: “kirkyan”. For background, you might want to start on the comments section of the SL Future Salon website (Link). That’s where I first blurted out the basic, unfinished idea which started forming back in December during an SL Future Salon meeting with Phillip Torrone from Make (I had suggested they code an artificial intelligence in Second Life and download it to the robotic mice the people at Make were building).

I’ve also very recently mentioned this concept in a post (reLink), and figured I should wrap it up and ship it. Good thing actually since I hit on something I’d not considered and wound up expanding on it and rethinking a few things; the changes will be obvious.

So, this is the concept:

A kirkyan is similar to a spime or blogject, but different in that a kirkyan is actually a Thing comprised of a combination of reality instances. One instance exists in our physical world (kirkyan P) and one or more “sibling” instances exist in their respective, independent virtual worlds (kirkyan V1′, V2′, V3′, aso). They are independent yet part of a whole.

Unlike the singular physical instantiation, the virtual instantiation(s) can itself/themselves replicate identically and sub-evolve independently (e.g. V2’1, V2’2, V2’3, aso). The virtual space kirkyan subset(s) then contribute to the evolution of the primary kirkyan instantiation; in this example, V2′ – the original virtual instantiation of this kirkyan for independent virtual space #2.

Each instantiation carries the “DNA” with which to create the other(s). Each carries the history and learnings of the other(s), so that when one expires, an evolved version can replace it; created from the data stored in the transreality sibling(s).

A kirkyan can be a blogject, with the physical instantiation involved in the physical world as an interactive component of a network that includes the virtual instance(s). Additionally, each instantiation of a kirkyan independently has most of the qualities of a spime:

I’d also add that each instantiation maintains a definition database, a record of its own “DNA”, and each maintains a database of the other(s) to facilitate their evolution/replication. It might not seem that a matching database is necessary for kirkyan V’s; however, even a virtual 3D object can have components that are independently unique beyond simple shape-defining data.

For example, a virtual hammer might have Cartesian data defining its shape, but the handle could be tagged with a specific material (e.g. polymer; unique from the steel head) and thus have “solid” physical properties assigned to it (material density, thermal conductivity, elasticity, aso). In a physics-enabled virtual world simulation, this component data becomes integral to its existence in that virtual space. Because it {potentially} represents kirkyan P in this way, a physically representational “impact” in that virtual world which “damages” kirkyan V’ (or one of its replicated versions) might be used to evolve the physical instantiation.

This would, of course, depend on the relationship between that particular virtual space and the physical space. However, if the relationship is determined to be relevant (e.g. the physics are similar), the discovery of a vulnerability through such a virtual event could trigger kirkyan P to self-destruct in order that it can be immediately recycled and refabricated into a more robust object. This sacrificial quality allows defective products to repair/evolve themselves, if possible; or at the very least alert creators to a defect.

The kirkyan is essentially an evolutionary, redundant system; not so much an AI as a relatively simple comparison algorithm (after all, a hammer – real or virtual – is pretty unintelligent).

So this all taken together allows, among other things, for the physical object (kirkyan P) to be recycled into a system that can then access data from the virtual object(s) (kirkyan V’) to replicate an evolved physical instantiation (kirkyan P+) … which then can cycle a feedback loop to the virtual object(s) (kirkyan V’+) so that it/they can then “regenerate” (to use a Pro/ENGINEER CAD term) to ensure any deviation in the final fabricated physical version is documented. The same would be true in the event a computer virus attacked and destroyed one, more or all of the kirkyan virtual instantiations. The physical manifestation – having a non-writable recovery system and the ability to isolate itself from the network – can subsequently evolve its code to make it immune to the virus; at which point it can create new, virtual siblings.

Kirkyans are not “virtual objects first and actual objects second” in the literal sense. It is not necessarily a product of CAD/CAM. A kirkyan might start as a sculpted ceramic piece with embedded firmware and then be three-dimensionally scanned, with all data representing the physical instantiation, kirkyan P, then used to create the transreality sibling(s). A physical replacement would, however, be replicated through a network-controlled process; most likely additive. Consequently, kirkyans do not necessarily begin as data (unless of course we decide to get all metaphysical or Creationist here).

A kirkyan can only be a non-living object. A plant or animal could be implanted with firmware and dimensionally scanned, but in such a case, the “ghost in the shell” always comes initially from the physical instance. That predetermination is in conflict with the concept of dual-direction, transreality multiplicity.

…

Okay, that was fun. Glad it’s out of my system.

For anyone who manages to remotely understand what I’m trying to communicate, rip it up. It’s as much a ramble as anything.

{Update: Someone created a short-lived Wikipedia entry for this concept. It wasn’t accurate, so I rewrote it with what might be for most people an easy-to-understand example. The Wikipedia entry was voted off the site but I saved that entry: Kirkyan. I should also mention that the “buoy” to which I’m referring is a controllable, self-propelled node within a string of booms. I don’t know that the oil industry has anything of this sort, and, consequently, don’t know what something like it might be called.}

I need to read that report I mentioned earlier (reLink) to see if someone has already discussed the concept I raised on the SL Future Salon site. Basically, the idea is that one “object” (real or virtual) can spawn an object in the “other world”. If it’s virtual, then it’s easy enough to fabricate since that’s what we mostly already do when we manufacture stuff. If it’s real, that’s not difficult either, since we can reverse engineer it using a 3D x-ray or laser scanner and pop it into the virtual domain (it doesn’t need to be represented in 3D, but the data needs to be there since that’s part of the real object’s definition). Obviously code itself is easily moved between the two.

The objects remain in communication throughout their lifespan. When one object “dies” its information is carried forward by the other (a physical object can wear out; a virtual object’s code could require an update – think of all the things that break in Second Life when the client gets updated). That information can then be used to create an upgraded replacement by using the original data and adding anything that was learned by either object since inception. In a way, it’s very much like DNA, only in this specific way, you get the widest kind of diversity possible – with only two objects – to ensure mutual survival.

I’m not sure what this would be called. This isn’t a blogject. I don’t think this is a spime anymore. Symbiotic spimes? Heck, for all I know this has been discussed and already given a name by Sterling. To be honest, I’ve not really paid that much attention (I should read his book I guess; and there are at least two talks of his online to which I could listen). Anyone know?

{Update: Okay. I’m listening to Sterling’s SXSW talk now. I recall most of that list of 6 things that define a “spime”. And the part where he says spimes are “virtual objects first and actual objects second” reminds me why his idea didn’t really resonate with me: I already know that … because it’s what I do for a living. I design products, generate 3D CAD for them, and (sometimes) they’re fabricated in factories. For me their existence is sometimes only virtual, since I can design and CAD something and never see an actual physical object (my last design is like that).

The only part that was of interest to me when I first heard it (iirc) was his idea regarding the integrated electronics; the ability to tag an object with an RFID and have it as part of a larger system – mostly as a means to develop a “cradle-to-grave” system. But that didn’t do anything I’d not previously considered. The RadTag project already clued me into that sort of concept (my thanks to Regina Bobroske, a marketing friend, because it was while sending her an email explaining an earlier, non-networked version of the RadTag concept that I suddenly realized how it could be part of a bigger, socially-networked system). So that idea wasn’t new to me either.

So much for that. Now, if you’d like to read about some cool, related ideas from other designers, then take a look through some of the entries in the Design Slam Competition (Link) I set up over on the Core77 forum. Some related ideas also bubbled up independently among those folks. I wish I could point out which entries, but it’s been too long.

That said, I don’t think the “spime” idea extends to what I’m thinking now. However, I’ll have to next read that blogject report.}

Very cool development out of the Lone Star state where University of Texas at Dallas researchers have made an announcement. From the U.T. Dallas press release (Link):

University of Texas at Dallas (UTD) nanotechnologists have made alcohol- and hydrogen-powered artificial muscles that are 100 times stronger than natural muscles, able to do 100 times greater work per cycle and produce, at reduced strengths, larger contractions than natural muscles. Among other possibilities, these muscles could enable fuel-powered artificial limbs, “smart skins” and morphing structures for air and marine vehicles, autonomous robots having very long mission capabilities and smart sensors that detect and self-actuate to change the environment.
…
The new muscles simultaneously function as fuel cells and muscles, according to Baughman, corresponding author of the Science article.
…
Application opportunities, Baughman said, are diverse, and range from robots and morphing air vehicles to dynamic Braille displays and muscles powered by the fuel/air mixture delivered to an engine that are able to regulate this mixture.

The morphability of this material raises some very interesting possibilities.

Remember that virtual sensory idea I’d been bouncing around the inside of my skull and to which I alluded earlier (reLink)? This is exactly the kind of technology I kept dreaming about but was always having to work around. This stuff could pave the way to sensory suits (“SenSuits”) – body suits that are worn like a wetsuit and which transmit “touch” sensory data to the wearer’s skin via a morphable interior lining. This would create a significantly more immersive telepresence experience.

There is just not enough…

Major kudos to the people involved in this breakthrough. Amazing work. I wish society treated them the way it does movie stars and athletes.

via Robot Cafe

{Image source: U.T. Dallas}