> One problem with your suggested VR: Right now, when your brain sends out a nerve impulse, at activates the muscles. You are suggesting using that same impulse to power a motion in a VR world. The problem is that you would either have to disconnect the nerves so that the brain would not power the body (leaving you paralyzed in real life) or else simply accept the fact that making motions in the VR would make commensurrate motions in your real body. I suppose this could be achieved through an isolation tank or something, but it would still be a bit of an obstacle, I would think.
>
> A second (and possibly more significant) problem: The nervous interactions required involve two directions: signals sent out from the brain to make the body do things, and signals sent from the body to the brain to convey sensory input. All the examples of prosthetics are of the first type, with one exception: The prosthetic eye is a sensory input. Unfortunately, I do not think the technology is there right now to duplicate every other form of sensory input. We may have figured out how to tap into the signals coming out of the brain, but for sensory input, the eyes would be relatively easy (if I remember my high school biology) because the input nerve from an eye is one big optic nerve--easy to identify and tap into. Now try to identify and tap into all the other nerves for the sense of touch all over the body (more important than you might think for things like motion), the nerves for balance in the semi-circular canals in the ear, the nerves for taste, for scent... I think the problem becomes prohibitive there.
>
> I suspect that these two problems are big stumbling blocks in the development of a truly immersive VR.
>
> Don Monkey

Actually, I forgot to address those problems here, but I wrote this hastily because it was about time to go to bed. I wrote a better one which I am about to upload to my website. When I do, it'll be at this address. BTW: it also addresses a couple opinions of mine.