>>"I would bet that this sort of VR technology will be one of
>>the 50-years-from-now technologies for a very long time yet
>>to come."

>-- why? We've already got proof-of-concept examples of
>artificial sensory inputs;

The AI folks had all sorts of semi-impresive proofs of concept, too. The first time you see a chess playing machine, much less something like SHRDLU, it's easy to be astonished. The devil, as always, is in the details.

>the synthetic retinas, for
>example. And there's a very strong incentive to develop
>this stuff; it'll be unbelievably profitable, for starters.

So would genuine AI, a cure for cancer, anti-gravity, and an immortality serum. I won't deny that profit is a damned fine incentive. I am skeptical that it will be feasible to clear all the necessary technical hurdles before we get to the point of deeply immersive VR.

I could be wrong, of course. Hell, I hope that I am. I don't know how old you are, so I'm not sure if you expect to be around in 2050, but I'd be happy to stake $50 on the outcome. Even if I lose, I wouldn't feel bad. :-)