Tomir Jędrejek, who is a PhD student in philosophy at the University of Maria Curie-Sklodowska (UMCS) in Lublin, with which we have a long-lasting collaboration, is working on Virtual Reality and applying ideas from cognitive semiotics, as reflected in the abstract below. Unfortunately, he will not make it to Lund in the flesh this time, but present online from Lublin - but still quite really rather than "virtually". NOTE: For health reasons the seminar will only be on zoom! Welcome to the link from 15:00, for "warm up" and introductions.

The talk addresses the semiotic status of objects experienced in virtual reality (VR), which increasingly goes beyond mere entertainment into fields like medicine, psychotherapy, sports and education. From a technological perspective, VR objects are computer-generated images that can be regarded as representations, similar to photographs and film. However, their practical usefulness relies on the fact that users treat them as objects of manipulation, comparable to physical ones. This leads to the question if VR objects should be interpreted as representations, or do they constitute a distinct class of semiotic objects?

My argument has three steps. First, I describe VR as a specific type of experience which emerges from the interaction between the user and virtual environments (Grabarczyk & Pokropski 2016) with the components: immersion, interactivity and telepresence. Second, I argue that during deep immersion, VR objects lose their representational status and are experienced as actionable elements embedded in goal-directed activity (Trybulec 2017; Trybulec & Iłowiecka-Tańska 2024). Third, I analyse this phenomenon using a cognitive semiotic framework, which formulates necessary conditions under which an object function as a representation/sign (Sonesson 2007, 2012, Zlatev 2009). Also, I will provide a distinction between first-person and third-person perspective of VR objects description. Drawing on Lev Manovich’s (2001) notion of the image-instrument, I suggest that VR objects can be understood as semiotic tools for action. This approach enables a systematic account how VR objects oscillate between representational and functional roles, contributing to the broader debate on artifacts and the nature of mediated experience. 

Grabarczyk P., Pokropski M. (2016). Perception of Affordances and Experience of Presence in Virtual Reality, Avant, nr 7(2), DOI 10.26913/70202016.0112.0002

Manovich L. (2001), Language of New Media, The MIT Press.

Sonesson G. (2007). The extensions of man revisited: From primary to tertiary embodiment, in: Embodiment in Cognition and Culture, eds. Krois J. M., Rosengren M., Steidele A. and Westerkamp D., John Benjamins, pp. 27-53. DOI:10.1075/aicr.71.05son

Sonesson G. (2012). The Foundation of Cognitive Semiotics in the Phenomenology of Signs and Meanings, Intellectica, vol. 58, no 2. DOI:10.3406/intel.2012.1105

Trybulec M., Iłowiecka-Tańska I. (2024). Are Interactive Exhibits at a Science Center Cognitive Artifacts?, Foundations of Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-024-09959-8

Trybulec M. (2017). The dual nature of picture perception. Paleolithic pictures beyond constructivist and ecological accounts, in: Philosophy of Perception and Observation. Proceedings of the 40th International Wittgenstein Symposium, vol. XXV, eds. Ch. Limbeck-Lilienau, F. Stadler, Kirchberg am Wechsel,  pp. 256-259.

Zlatev J., (2009). The Semiotic Hierarchy: Life, consciousness, signs and language, Cognitive Semiotics, no. 4,169-200. DOI:10.3726/81608_169