BERLIN STUDIES IN KNOWLEDGE RESEARCH José María Ariso (Ed.) AUGMENTED REALITY Augmented Reality Berlin Studies in Knowledge Research Edited by Günter Abel and James Conant Volume 11 Augmented Reality Reflections on Its Contribution to Knowledge Formation Edited by José María Ariso ISBN 978-3-11-021808-4 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-021809-1 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-021806-2 ISSN 0179-0986 e-ISSN 0179-3256 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License, as of February 23, 2017. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/. An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libra- ries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative designed to make high quality books Open Access. More information about the initiative can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org Series Editors Prof. Dr. Günter Abel Technische Universität Berlin Institut für Philosophie Straße des 17. Juni 135 10623 Berlin Germany e-mail: abel@tu-berlin.de Prof. Dr. James Conant The University of Chicago Dept. of Philosophy 1115 E. 58th Street Chicago IL 60637 USA e-mail: jconant@uchicago.edu ISBN 978-3-11-049700-7 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-049765-6 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-049583-6 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printing on acid free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com. Table of Contents Introduction José María Ariso Is Critical Thinking Particularly Necessary when Using Augmented Reality in Knowledge Society? An Introductory Paradox 3 Part 1: Augmented Reality and Historical Issues Klaus Mainzer From Augmented Reality to the Internet of Things: Paradigm Shifts in Digital Innovation Dynamics 25 Javier Vilanova Extended Reality and Abstract Objects: A pragmalinguistic approach 41 Stefan Weinzierl and Steffen Lepa On the Epistemic Potential of Virtual Realities for the Historical Sciences. A Methodological Framework 61 Part 2: Ontological Problems in Augmented Reality Pirmin Stekeler-Weithofer Scientific Truth as Augmented Reality: On the Contrast between ‘ Wirklichkeit ’ and ‘ Actuality ’ 83 Thomas Gil Existence and Ontological Commitments 101 Juan Antonio Valor What Actually is Augmented Reality 111 Part 3: The Epistemology of Augmented Reality Spyridon Orestis Palermos Augmented Skepticism: The Epistemological Design of Augmented Reality 133 Boles ł aw Czarnecki and Tadeusz Czarnecki Is Augmented Reality a Source of New Types of Knowledge? 151 Karsten Schoellner Augmented Reality and Augmented Perception 171 Part 4: Negative Knowledge Through Augmented Reality Jaana Parviainen “ Imagine Never Not Knowing ” : An Epistemological Framework for Understanding Negative Knowledge in Augmented Reality 195 Martin Gartmeier, Charlotte Jonasson and Maria Solomou Negative Knowledge in Virtual and Game-Based Environments 217 José María Ariso How to Increase Negative Self-Knowledge by Using Cognitive Restructuring Through Augmented Reality: A Proposal and Analysis 235 Part 5: Educational Applications and Implications of Augmented Reality Juan Luis Fuentes Augmented Reality and Pedagogical Anthropology: Reflections from the Philosophy of Education 255 Almudena Castellanos and Carlota Pérez New Challenge in Education: Enhancing Student ’ s Knowledge through Augmented Reality 273 VI Table of Contents María Elena Alva, Teobaldo Hernán Sagastegui, Vicente García, Jordán Pascual and Rubén González Teaching Augmented Reality 295 Notes on Contributors 309 Author index 315 Subject index 321 Table of Contents VII Introduction José María Ariso Is Critical Thinking Particularly Necessary when Using Augmented Reality in Knowledge Society? An Introductory Paradox The growth of Information and Communication Technology has delivered such a vast amount of information that the term ‘ information society ’ was created to refer to a society characterized, above all, by the global and massive scale in which raw data are created and disseminated. But the mere fact of receiving information must not be confused with knowledge creation. As David and Foray (2002) pointed out, information ‘ takes the shape of structured and formatted data-sets that remain passive and inert until used by those with the knowledge needed to interpret and process them ’ (p. 12). Indeed, the term ‘ knowledge soci- ety ’ represents progress in relation to ‘ information society ’ just because informa- tion becomes valuable inasmuch as it is processed and transformed into knowl- edge. In other words, information is valuable for a knowledge society if and only if people are able to convert it into resources to improve the human condition. According to UNESCO (2005), in knowledge societies everyone must be able ‘ to develop cognitive and critical thinking skills to distinguish between “ useful ” and “ useless ” information ’ (p. 19). Yet even though distinguishing whether a piece of information is useful or useless constitutes a critical initial step for knowledge creation, such distinction is not sufficient to generate it: to this end, it is necessary to take a further step and find meaning as well as develop understanding. Only in this way will information be transformed into knowledge which can be applied in diverse contexts for improving our quality of life. Bearing this in mind, Augmented Reality can be regarded as a technological resource that may contribute to facilitate the transition from information society to knowledge society. Let us see why. To begin with, Augmented Reality consists in ‘ overlaying virtual imagery onto a physical world scene ’ (Li/Been-Lirn 2013, p. 109). Hence, ‘ Augmented Reality allows the user to see the real world, with virtual objects superimposed upon or composited with the real world. Therefore, AR [Augmented Reality] supplements reality, rather than completely replacing it ’ (Kipper/Rampolla 2013). As shown by the large number of new Augmented Re- ality applications which emerge daily in fields as diverse as robotics, engineer- ing, education, entertainment, manufacturing, medicine, archeology, tourism, the military or urban modeling, among others, this technological resource allows DOI 10.1515/9783110497656-001 © 2017 José María Ariso, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License. users to transmit a great deal of information, but at the same time it usually shows to a great extent how such information can be applied in diverse circum- stances. Augmented Reality thus involves a qualitative change in information handling and knowledge formation. It is true that, during the last years, there were major technological developments of a quantitative nature, like growing mobile connectivity and higher bandwidths. But Augmented Reality entails a revolution in the presentation of information. Virtual Reality technologies had al- ready generated a substantial progress in this regard by completely immersing the user inside a synthetic environment, so that he ‘ cannot see the real world around him ’ (Kipper/Rampolla 2013). However, the information provided by Aug- mented Reality – and often also the very application of such information – is added to our perception of the real world. Of course, basic formation is needed to interpret some pieces of information and transform them into knowledge. For instance, the information provided in Augmented Reality guided neurosurgery through image projection techniques, whose clinical feasibility and reliability has been proved in a clinical setting (Be- sharati/Mahvash 2015, Meola et al . 2016), will be absolutely useless for the lay- man, while it will enable surgeons to know tumor status, basic effects that their operation is having, and steps to be taken. Therefore, the fact that virtual image- ry is superimposed upon world scenes should not lead to think that the mere presentation of information involves knowledge formation, but there are cases in which this may happen in a greater or lesser degree. To shed more light on this point, I would like to draw attention to the two poles of a continuum. In the first pole, information is presented verbally, with the unique particularity that it appears associated spatially and temporally to the object to which it re- fers. This may happen, for instance, when a smartphone is focused on a building and an Augmented Reality application adds two pieces of information to the view of the edifice: let us suppose that, on the one hand, it can be read that the building is a museum which offers an exhibition of Gustav Klimt ’ s main paintings, while, on the other hand, there is a sophisticated explanation − either textually or via audio – of Klimt ’ s symbolism. If such information could be trans- formed by a user into knowledge, he should be able to do a number of things with what he has learned, such as clearly expressing it in his own words or ap- plying it in a variety of contexts − for example, by comparing how Klimt and other painters used specific symbols. Since it is verbal information of consider- able complexity, Augmented Reality technology can obviously not ensure that any user will be prepared to understand it. This case strongly resembles the use of traditional tourist guides published in paper form, yet the next two exam- ples show how AR technology may contribute to facilitate the transition from information society to knowledge society. Firstly, in the middle part of the con- 4 José María Ariso tinuum we can find many instances of school eLearning which consist in super- imposing images and words through markers upon physical world scenes. By way of example, teachers may illustrate on a real arm not only the names and appearance of the muscles and bones involved in the arm contraction move- ment, but also how these elements interact to generate the mentioned movement while the real arm is being contracted (LearnAR 2010). Secondly, at the opposite pole there is not information to be processed, but information – usually in the form of images – which in a sense has already been applied. Thus, when some- one turns on a tablet or a smartphone at home to buy a suit through an Augment- ed Reality application, he can watch not only diverse suits, but also how they suit him over his own image. In this way, information is not restricted to the mere visualization of a suit and its features, as it also allows users to know whether a specific suit fits them well. Hence, it can be stated that this informa- tion has been applied or presented in such a perfectly understandable way for the user that he will know how each suit looks on him, so that he will be able to do things like deciding whether he will buy one suit or another. As can be seen, Augmented Reality technology creates possibilities that until recently still sounded like the stuff of science-fiction: a clear example of this is the possibility of checking out comfortably at home the fit of a suit which may be stored in a shopping centre from another continent. The extraordinary possibil- ities offered by Augmented Reality may even lead some people to ascribe to this technology the Midas touch, according to which it will figuratively convert into gold anything it touches. After all, one of the major attractions of Augmented Re- ality is that it often seems to show clearly and directly how to apply some pieces of information without requiring the slightest effort from the user, that is, with- out any need for critical thinking. It is important to keep in mind that, when this technology is used for gaming, critical thinking often turns out to be a nuisance because the game ’ s appeal lies just in letting oneself go without resisting immer- sion in it. Admittedly, it might be objected that critical thinking is an essential element of gaming in new technologies like Augmented Reality, as a good dose of ingenuity is often required to overcome specific challenges and, thus, get to the next level. There is a major aspect, however, that we should not forget. The reflection demanded by this kind of games can be and often is expressed through a more or less random process of trial and error, as such games are de- signed to be played at a high – and sometimes frenetic – pace, so that the play- er ’ s tension and interest do not diminish. That is why the limited reflection car- ried out during the game turns out to be exciting and is bound to the challenge faced at that very moment, without considering aspects which are external to the game, e. g. those related to the technology used. It is therefore expected that the player unhesitatingly welcomes all the conditioning factors of the game, whatev- Is Critical Thinking Particularly Necessary when Using Augmented Reality 5 er these may be, as not for nothing are games designed so that the player sub- merges into action without being distracted by thinking. This lack of critical at- titude may persist in contexts other than gaming, as Augmented Reality technol- ogy presents a certain playful character: we only need to notice the immediacy with which our perception of reality may be supplemented with multiple virtual objects that can be manipulated at will in very different ways. This playful nature is characteristic of the majority of new technologies, whose design is intended above all to enable us to carry out the most varied activities easily and pleasant- ly, which for most people – and thus also for designers − entails avoiding critical thinking as much as possible. Nevertheless, the playful character inherent in the use of Augmented Reality hides a paradox, as critical thinking is particularly necessary in order to avoid blind reliance on the information provided by this technology. Indeed, the fact that Augmented Reality technology presents infor- mation attractively overlaid onto physical world scenes – and that such informa- tion may include contents as basic and indisputable as the day ’ s date or the names of the surrounding streets, among many others − may lead some people to accept without any reservation other contents as well as most of their appli- cations. As I will thereupon show, there are at the very least three reasons as to why it is particularly necessary to implement critical thinking when using Augmented Reality. First of all, Augmented Reality may condition knowledge formation to a great extent by prioritizing a specific way of using or projecting information at the expense of other or others. Augmented Reality technology enables users to monitor the results of choosing different alternatives, but it can also be employed to hide one or several options in order to favor specific interests which perhaps do not coincide with those of the user. In this regard, the Augmented Reality user may think that the right choice – even in cases where there are no correct alter- natives but simply different ones – is the first one offered by the application; moreover, he may also take for granted that the only possible options are those shown in the application, which is not necessarily the case. Secondly, it is important to note that, even though the information provided by Augmented Reality is often really useful, it may occasionally be offered in the wrong place and/or at the wrong time. Furthermore, such information might be unwanted, unnecessary, or could even consist in mere creations elaborated without a par- ticular purpose or with an expired one. In fact, it is also possible that the Aug- mented Reality user is monitored or manipulated when using this technology. To return to previous examples, when a user looks for information on a building through Augmented Reality, he should consider the extent to which he is reading reliable information or mere propaganda. Regarding the user who tries on a suit through an Augmented Reality application, he would do well to reflect upon the 6 José María Ariso extent to which such suit seems to look as wonderful as the seller would wish to make him believe. Thirdly, it may in certain cases be very difficult to distinguish fact from fiction, for, as already pointed out, in Augmented Reality virtual image- ry is added to our perception of the real world. Most uses for this technology in- tend virtual objects to stand out so clearly that they can be distinguished without any doubt from the world scene; but there may be people interested in mislead- ing us by creating virtual objects which are disguised in the world scene as if they were real objects. Of course, there are many valuable uses of Augmented Reality, making it a clear example of Positive Technology inasmuch as it contributes to raise the quality of life by increasing emotional, psychological and social well-being (Riva et al . 2012, Argenton et al . 2014). But as we have just seen, it is also pos- sible to make a perverse use of this technology, from which it follows a number of important ethical questions in relation to issues such as lack of privacy (Schmalstieg et al . 2002). Furthermore, Augmented Reality technology can be used for aesthetic purposes, as experienced in the exhibitions displayed in 2010 at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, and in 2011 at the Venice and Istanbul Biennials (Thiel 2014). This reference to ethical and aesthetical is- sues constitutes a first approach to the philosophical field and its relation to Augmented Reality. Nevertheless, this volume does not deal with ethical or aes- thetical issues, but with other philosophical ones, related, on the one hand, to diverse possibilities, consequences and applications of Augmented Reality, and on the other, to the way in which this technology serves as a touchstone for tackling philosophical problems of key importance and with a long tradition. In order to provide a more detailed approach, I have divided the volume into five parts. The first one addresses three questions that are characterized, in different ways, by their historical relevance: specifically, this first part tackles issues as diverse as paradigm shifts regarding digital innovation dynamics, the epistemic potential of virtual realities for the historical sciences, and the description of grammatical clarifications which consider Augmented Reality as the crowning of a long process of increasing epistemic and existential access to reality. The va- riety of these issues reveals that it was not my intention to place the authors into a strait jacket by asking them to address a very specific issue. Instead, the aim was that authors should feel free to choose a philosophical topic related to Aug- mented Reality, because the volume would thus allow a glimpse of a greater va- riety of very interesting and innovative issues and approaches, with the added incentive that today we can still tackle those questions from the perspective of an epoch in which Augmented Reality technologies are in full development stage, so that their use is not yet so widespread and frequent as it is expected to be before long. Is Critical Thinking Particularly Necessary when Using Augmented Reality 7 There is no doubt that the very expression ‘ Augmented Reality ’ already in- cludes ontological enigmas of great interest, as it represents a significant chal- lenge to clarify in which sense reality is augmented, or which notion of reality is entailed here. That is why the second part of the volume is dedicated to ana- lyzing ontological problems related to Augmented Reality. Specifically, this part will address issues as basic as the alleged existence of virtual objects and the notion of ‘ reality ’ implicit in Augmented Reality, but also others as original as Hegel ’ s identification of real reality with reason by taking it as conceptually Aug- mented Reality. The third part focuses on epistemic issues, as not for nothing does the subtitle of the volume indicate that it deals above all with knowledge formation. Hence, this part tackles such problems as the epistemic salience of roles played by Augmented Reality applications across the dimensions of Aug- mented Reality content and interaction, the alleged informational augmentation of perception provided by Augmented Reality technologies, and the challenge that some instances of Augmented Reality can generate to extended knowledge and even to our very knowledge of the external world. The fourth part also delves into epistemic concerns, as it concentrates on negative knowledge and its links with Augmented Reality. The three chapters of this part outline the potential of Augmented Reality to promote ignorance in urban settings, the way negative knowledge and the learning processes through which it is developed are affected in virtual environments, and a proposal to apply cognitive restructuring through Augmented Reality glasses in order to foster a patient ’ s negative self-knowledge. This chapter is clearly interdisciplinary, as it shows how Augmented Reality tech- nologies could be applied in psychopathology while presenting a new philo- sophical concept. Yet, as has been shown, this is by no means the only interdis- ciplinary chapter. Furthermore, the fifth and last part of the volume looks at the educational applications and implications of Augmented Reality. This part focus- es on the use of Augmented Reality in the different educational stages as well as its advantages and disadvantages, the consequences of Augmented Reality on pedagogical anthropology, and the way in which the planning of the subject ‘ Augmented Reality and Accessibility ’ has evolved at a Spanish university in ac- cordance with the technology ’ s evolution and the needs of users of Augmented Reality applications. Having said this, I will now explain each chapter in greater detail. The first part, which tackles issues characterized by their historical significance, begins with the chapter “ From Augmented Reality to the Internet of Things: Paradigm Shifts in Digital Innovation Dynamics ” , in which Klaus Mainzer notes that Virtu- al Reality, Augmented Reality and the Internet of Things constitute three differ- ent paradigms which followed one another. While VR consisted in replacing the real world with a computationally simulated one, AR supplemented our real- 8 José María Ariso world environment with digital instruments which are equipped with sensor in- terfaces. Yet the new paradigm is the “ Internet of Things ” , in which billions of objects are intercommunicated through sensors: a clear example of this can be found in mobility networks, where cars are communicated with one another and their technical infrastructure regardless of human drivers. Mainzer focuses on the paradigm shift between Augmented Reality and the Internet of Things and remarks that Augmented Reality applications revolve around the embodied mind; however, the Internet of Things-world is developing together with large- scale infrastructures of society. These infrastructures are cyberphysical systems which obtain information from their physical environment through sensors, process it, and influence their environment. Thus, cyberphysical systems use some Augmented Reality technologies, but they overcome mere Augmented Re- ality applications by creating new integrative platforms with increasing levels of self-organization. According to Mainzer, this means that Internet of Things tech- nology does not merely “ augment ” reality, but transforms it into a new kind of self-organizing superorganism characterized by the swarm intelligence derived from the technical co-evolution of mankind with technical infrastructures. In the chapter “ Abstract Entities and Augmented Reality: A Pragma-Lin- guistic Approach ” , Javier Vilanova carries out a clarification of the main con- cepts and expressions related to Augmented Reality. Specifically, Vilanova starts from a pragmalinguistic conception of language and grammar bearing in mind, above all, the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Austin. Thus, Vilanova de- scribes a number of examples of uses of the expressions in diverse situations by comparing not only the different examples themselves, but also examples of the use of other expressions looking for similarities, analogies and differences. In this way, he tries to offer a synoptic view that can be of great help to become conscious of the features of the phenomena and, by extension, to reach a deeper and better understanding of puzzling uses of the expressions. In this way, Vila- nova aims to shed light on ontological puzzles regarding the nature of entities generated by new technologies. After analyzing the terms ‘ virtual ’ , ‘ reality ’ , ‘ ex- tension ’ and ‘ augmentation ’ from a grammatical point of view, Vilanova com- pares Augmented Reality with four kinds of arguably abstract entities (univer- sals, fiction, mathematics and social phenomena) by recalling what everyday language and common sense can tell us about them and discerning whether and how that can be applied to cases of Augmented Reality. This series of com- parisons leads him to three conclusions. First, Augmented Reality is constructed through linguistic procedures. Second, entities produced by the technological devices involved in Augmented Reality must be considered as abstract entities: in other words, Augmented Reality augments reality because it produces new en- tities that allow the properties of pre-existing entities and situations to unfold. Is Critical Thinking Particularly Necessary when Using Augmented Reality 9 And last but not least, Vilanova begins by stating that Augmented Reality consti- tutes the clearest example of abstraction, but then he realizes that Augmented Reality should be regarded as the main model for our notion of abstraction. For Vilanova contemplates Augmented Reality as the culmination of a process which began when language was created, and was further developed through some instruments like science that allowed us both to augment reality with new types of objects and situations, so that our epistemic and existential access to reality was also extended. The third chapter has been written by Stefan Weinzierl and Steffen Lepa, and is entitled “ On the Epistemic Potential of Virtual Realities for the Historical Sciences. A Methodological Framework ” . Although immersive media environ- ments like virtual or augmented audio-visual ones have often been used to pro- vide historical knowledge, few attempts have been made to generate new knowl- edge through the virtual reconstruction of historical scenarios. Regarding this kind of practice, however, the scientific community has reservations that are due, above all, to the extent to which virtual environments can be considered as a form of scientific evidence, the way in which such environments − which are necessarily based on historical evidence that is already known − may pro- vide new knowledge, and the role that could be played by virtual or augmented realities within an epistemological concept of historical research. To answer these questions, Weinzierl and Lepa offer a methodological framework which is illustrated by dealing with three questions related to the Forum Romanum, i. e. which was the maximum audience size reached by a speaker on this Forum, how the size of this audience varied because of the modifications and relocations of the Rostra, and whether these changes were made to improve the acoustics, or rather due to political and symbolic reasons. After combining ideas and procedures from virtual reality research, media psychology, communi- cation science and ethnology in order to develop their methodological frame- work, Weinzierl and Lepa highlight three possibilities for new knowledge to arise from virtual or augmented historical environments. First of all, they point out that new information can be extracted from the historical evidence by bring- ing into relation specific bits of information which had not been previously com- bined. Second, virtual or augmented environments are able to transform numer- ical models of historical circumstances into sensory signals. Hence, they provide information regarding the perceptual impression of historical environments, which are in turn easier to understand for non-experts. In this way, virtual his- torical environments are very useful for exploring the actual perceptual meaning of coefficients obtained from mere numerical simulations. Last but not least, vir- tual historic environments might become a further example of interdisciplinary 10 José María Ariso cooperation which shows how new knowledge can arise from cooperation be- tween disciplines far apart from each other. The second part is dedicated to ontological problems related to Augmented Reality. To begin with, in the chapter “ Scientific Truth as Augmented Reality. On the Contrast Between ‘ Wirklichkeit ’ and Actuality ” Pirmin Stekeler-Weithofer draws attention to the augmentation of reality that takes place in virtual reality by adding possibilities. To shed light on this idea, he brings up Hegel ’ s modal notion of reality ( ‘ Wirklichkeit ’ ) – or ‘ real reality ’ , according to Stekeler ’ s contex- tual translation − as a kind of possibility and its difference with actuality ( ‘ em- pirische Realität ’ ). Since appearances constitute only a sign for those real objects that produce them, that is, since an underlying reality must be inferred from the appearances in the mode of abduction, objective statements about real reality are necessarily fallible. This indicates in which sense real reality should be consid- ered in itself as Augmented Reality. Stekeler analyzes some features of the ‘ aug- mentation ’ of actuality by reason that turns actuality into ‘ real reality ’ . As only humans have access to – non-present – possibilities due to their faculty of think- ing, Hegel ’ s formula “ reality is a possibility ” invites us to distinguish between what is actually perceived by someone and what can count as objectively real ( “ wirklich ” ). Yet what is real cannot be perceived without modal or conceptual mediation, so that we cannot access objective reality by mere sense-perception. Indeed, reality claims are rarely immediate, for what we count as real is usually dependent from propositions with trans-personal inferential impact and truth conditions that go beyond the realm in which truth can be evaluated by mere perception. That is why non-tautological empirical truths are fallible. Hence, we must always judge whether a given possibility-judgment should be regarded as telling us what really exists. Bearing this in mind, Hegel ’ s insight is far from being a bizarre theory about real reality which we can access – as it corresponds to mere possibilities − through thinking and not by perception, for we perceive actual appearances instead of their real or objective causes. In short, Stekeler presents Hegel ’ s identification of real reality with reason by taking it as concep- tually Augmented Reality, applied to empirical experience. According to Thomas Gil, technological development has not sufficed to re- ject traditional philosophical responses to the ontological question of what there is, as the main component elements of reality are still individual things, quali- ties, classes and facts. In fact, Gil offers a brief review of the history of philoso- phy in the chapter “ Existence and Ontological Commitments ” to remind us of some of the main answers to the question of what reality is made of. Thus, he takes into account Plato ’ s theory of abstract Forms, Aristotle ’ s rejection of this theory and further consideration of substantial beings, Ockham ’ s reduction of Aristotle ’ s categories from ten to two by admitting only substance and quality, Is Critical Thinking Particularly Necessary when Using Augmented Reality 11