[This piece is reposted from 4/9/22, updated in the context of the Israel/Hamas and Ukraine/Russia wars, with reference to recent Islamic State (IS) attacks]
The phrase "virtual reality" takes a twisty path from its Latin roots.
Of course, by the time children are in middle school they know what
virtual reality is, but ask them to define it. Then ask yourself.
A good dictionary (in this case Merriam-Webster) covers the basics: "Virtual" is related to the
noun, "virtue," which we know to mean, "a morally good
quality," like integrity or honesty, from Latin virtus,
"merit," "perfection," from vir, "man."
The transition from vir to the rest is an
etymological puzzle (while you're at it, consider "woman of
virtue"), but my focus here is the
equally mystifying modern usage of "virtual."
Back to the dictionary- there are three broad definitions of
"virtual":
1: Modern common use: "Almost or nearly as described, but not completely or according
to strict definition : the troops stopped at the virtual border." Virtual borders are not official borders on a map, but de
facto borders, determined by use.
Note: Only definition #1 clearly references the historic usage of virtue,
retained in our word "virtuous," meaning "exhibiting virtues." In the example
above, virtual borders have the "virtue" of being observed by
practice, though not the virtue of being indicated on maps.
2: In Computing: "Not physically existing as such but
made by software to appear to exist, e.g., a virtual doorway;" In
other words, imaginary.
3: Physics: "Denoting particles or interactions with extremely
short lifespans and indefinitely great energies, postulated as intermediates in
some processes." That is, particles, or things,
that exist for such a brief period of time that their reality as things is
questionable.
One might think that virtual reality derives from definition #3,
since it is the most puzzling. Does the length of time that
something exists have bearing on the reality of its existence? In galactic time, humans do not exist very long. Does that mean ours is a lesser existence? That subject will have to wait for another
essay, however, since virtual reality derives from #2, which means, as noted, imaginary.
[Note: I'm going to leave the definition of "reality" as "things that are real," a cop-out perhaps because Merriam-Webster informs us that "reality" derives from the Sanskrit for "property," something to do with "wealth and goods" being real things- a philosophical question for another essay.]
Under virtual
reality we get: "The computer-generated simulation of a
three-dimensional image or environment that can be interacted with in a
seemingly real or physical way by a person using special electronic equipment,
such as a helmet with a screen inside or gloves fitted with sensors."
The question I ask at this point is, why do we need to conceive of computer-generated
simulation as a type of
reality? We never had that need with novels, plays or movies. Those
are not types of realities. They are imaginary.
In modern, media based culture, we seem to have concluded that reality is manufactured by us. We get support for this notion from TV news. If the news show we watch shares our bias, our brain allows the television to hook-up with its perceptual apparatus, as a sort of adjunct brain, at least mine does. When I watch a TV news report from a war front on a station matching my bias, my mind gravitates towards belief. If I watch a story on a station that does not match my bias, I am skeptical. In a twist on "confirmation bias," my brain is requiring that its perception of reality be moderated by outer mechanisms that match its bias, in other words that reality be manufactured.
In addition to the news, we have "reality shows." These are shows in which people behave in stage-managed ways that are realistic only in the sense that they are real behaviors on the show.
One could defend this new definition of reality as manufactured by pointing out that unlike past ages when, for
example, young men recruited for the Crusades were told that various events
were happening in the Holy Land that required invasion, those events
were held to be real, not virtually real. So our culture, by holding that an event can be credited that is only virtually real though not necessarily really real, admits a
pervasive doubt into our discourse, and doubt is a virtue.
But the extended context is not so hopeful- it suggests that we
don't require actual reality from our media, that it is enough to produce
simulated, virtual reality, as video games do.
It is in this context that I consider IS (or ISIS), which in 2014, with its professionally
produced, ready for prime time video of a Jordanian pilot burning to death in a cage, realized the
predictions of numerous science fiction novels, from the media-mediated wars of
George Orwell's 1984 to the blurred lines between war and mass
entertainment in Suzanne Collins' Hunger Games. On the day
the IS video was released, ABC national news anchor David Muir described its "high
production values," adding that, "No
Hollywood studio could have done better," as if he were delivering a
movie review. In a sense he was.
[Update, 3/23/24: Available sources suggest that IS is funded from continually shifting politics, which helps explain its unclear meaning. The obscurity deepened after the horrific attack of 3/22/24 on concert-going civilians in Russia, for which a putative IS took credit. Russia says the attack was directed by Ukraine, with no reference to IS. Hamas says that Israel and the CIA directed the attack through IS. The U.S. says that IS is an independent terrorist group that committed the attack independently, as indicated by its claiming to have done so. The "facts" on all sides are as antithetical to each other as the "facts" on either side of Israel vs Hamas/Hezbollah, or Ukraine vs. Russia. This is purposeful. We are not supposed to understand what's going on with these potential triggers of World War III, but it's clear what's going on: Current civilization is under threat of being dismantled by violent covert and overt forces. I don't recommend total pessimism, but to avoid it we need a politically influential group that describes and discusses things as they are, to save us from intellectual suffocation and keep hope alive.]
The other day a friend showed me a video from a source on the Internet that purported to be a recording of the transmission from a
U.S. drone that was conducting an attack on IS ground troops in Syria who were attacking
the Peshmerga (Kurdish enemies of IS, thus our allies). It was a
nighttime attack, the ground troops glowing white through infrared lenses. The chatter from drone control, which was hundreds or thousands of miles
from the scene, was dispassionate but engaged, technical, referencing
targets and coordinates, ordering rocket and 30mm fire that resulted moments
later in white flashes where running forms had been. It looked exactly
like a video game. I could have been pounding my thumbs blasting aliens or
Kazakhs (a favorite game foe for a while). Orson Scott Card's Ender's
Game comes to mind, in which hot-shot 9th grade gamers are told by the
military that they are trying out a new training video, while they are in fact
fighting real aliens (Spoiler alert: Book III reveals that the "invading" aliens were on a peaceful mission).
What do these musings have to do with the real IS? I should add that my
point is not that IS is not real. It's hard to see how its actions could be faked. A man really was burned; people were really beheaded; many European and American cities are really being terrorized. I'm talking about the sober thinking behind IS,
specifically their marketing department, and they clearly have one. The
War of IS is packaged for young men the way a video game would be packaged. Consider how you'll be watching a TV show that young people also watch,
and suddenly there's a commercial for a video game showing CGI heroes blasting a
variety of monsters, with titles like End of Doom Part III! Now
it's Return of ISIS- The Reckoning!
Commentators have wondered where IS comes from and what it wants. It is not a country, or associated with one. It has no past as an established enemy. But its genesis in no secret. IS formed in reaction to persecutions of Iraqi Sunnis by U.S. imposed Shia leaders, after the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq that toppled Sunni leader Saddam Hussein. IS was in effect born of U.S. policy, continuing the pattern of post-World War II conflicts in which we indulge our need to fight enemies by creating them- as we do with video games.
In other words, IS is not entirely real. Virtually, though, it's
real enough. It certainly has no problem with ratings, though IS is at heart a transitory organization, dependent on outside support.
On its own it does not have the staying power of a profitable video game.
The best outcome would be to win this war quickly, as well as virtually
and really. 
