Saying that virtual reality and reality are a dichotomy suggests that there is a clear and sharp distinction that separates reality and virtual reality, that something is either taking place in "reality reality" or in a virtual reality and there is no way that the too can overlap. In actuality, there are things about virtual reality that can also fall under the category of "reality reality" and vice versa. 

For example, say you're in an online virtual world like Second Life where you are represented by an avatar. While you're there, you might meet another avatar and begin a conversation with that person. The interaction you had with that avatar took place in what would be considered a virtual world, but even though it wasn't a face-to-face interaction (or taking place in the "material sphere", as Farman calls it), doesn't mean the reaction was somehow "fake" or fantasized. You are not only embodied by your material self but also by your thoughts and words, and you can most certainly convey those thoughts and words through a virtual reality platform.

In the above example, there is clearly an overlap/grey area where something that took place in a virtual world could also be considered to have taken place in reality. Therefore the opposition of reality and virtual reality is not a strong one. 

As Farman (2012) says, the "real/virtual" are not always in opposition. The main reason why he says this is because what you learn in the "virtual world" can influence what you do in the "real world" and vice versa. In this personal example, I will show you how the "real world" can affect the "virtual world" and then affect the "real world" again. When I was a child, I used to play those car racing arcade games. The only way I knew what the gas, brake, steering wheel, and other drivers were, was by watching my parents drive our own car. I took what I learned in the "real world" and then applied it to the "virtual world." Then after I used what I knew, and still crashed my "virtual" car several times into "virtual" buildings or other "virtual" cars, I learned that I cannot do those same moves when I actually become old enough to drive on the road. In this instance, I took what I learned in the "virtual world" and was able to apply it to the "real world." 

As you can tell by this example, there is no way that both the "real/virtual" worlds can be totally opposite. They will sometimes have influences on the other.

 This was one of my favorite concepts that was discussed in the reading. This topic was something that we extensively discussed in COM 633 with Dr. Buente. The concept of a virtual world is to essentially recreate the real world online, but there are so many differences, along with similarities. Although some can argue they are polar opposites, but I think they are actually similar in many ways. 

I really like Marc's explanation of the two worlds and he gave a great example of it. I like to think of socializing in the two worlds and comparing interactions based on this. When you socialize in the real world, you can touch, talk, make eye contact, etc. But there are different affordances in the virtual world. You can "poke" people on Facebook which yes, it has a similar equivalent in the real world, but not quite the same idea. There are different ways to socialize in both worlds, but there are similarities, such as talking and writing to each other. The real world and the virtual world really compliment each other, even in their differences. I think it's interesting to see that our generation is trying to bring both worlds together, but it seems that with the loss in translation of certain aspects, we have to comprise certain aspects of each world.  

I agree with you all that the real and virtual worlds can bleed into each other and have parallels, making them equally as "real."  To go old school, when I am talking on the phone the conversation is real and my connection to the person on the other end of the line is real, in spite of the fact they are not physically present.  The conversation is as much a part of my reality as the chair that I am sitting in or the tree outside the window.  But I am more aware of the conversation than I am of either of those "real world" objects as I talk.  I like what I have learned of Adriana de Souza e Silva's theory of hybrid space, in which the physical place and virtual intertwine to create a layered reality, rather than the "real" and "virtual" being separated from each other.  I found this concept new and interesting.  It's a helpful way of understanding our increasingly mediated world.

This is totally not my field of expertise and I haven't read the article. But, as far as I see it, the question is what is the actual opposition between "virtual reality" and "real reality". On the first look "virtual" seems to be an adjective to reality. Under this assumption this implies that in "virtual reality" the reality is only virtual, i.e. unreal. However, to me the word "virtual reality" implies that it is reality (and I do not say it is a reality, but there is only one reality). So, there is no opposition in "reality" and "un-reality" between "real reality" and "virtual reality". Still, there is an opposition in "real reality" and "virtual reality": It is between the material and immaterial world.

But, there is also a difference in the realities in "real reality" and "virtual reality". It is socially accepted (in the real world) that you do not have to be yourself in virtual reality, especially in Second Life. You can play any character you like. You are allowed to behave in any way you like, even if you wouldn't in the real world. Now, this would mean that I am not my "true Me" in the virtual world, but I am the "true Me" in the real world. This creates an opposition of the two realities. This should bring up a discussion if my personality in the virtual world is who I truly am on the inside, but it is the personality which I do not want to show and rather suppress in the real world. So, which personality of me would be more real? The one in the virtual reality where I can be who I wanna be? Or the one in the real world where I only show the personality that I want others to see? What is reality? The way I see myself? Or the way others see me? Which personality is real? And is the other personality not real?

in virtual reality the goal of modeling the

action of raising a cup is a convincing {\it appearance}, e.g.,

getting the shadows right. The same action by a real robot, in

contrast, requires building the actual gripping action of the

artificial hand and movement of the artificial arm.

Central concerns are not to break the cup and not to spill the liquid;

a convincing handling of the shadows is left to nature.

Suggested reading : 

Riva, G., Waterworth, J. A., Waterwoth, E. L., & Mantovani, F. (2011). From Intention to Action : The Role of Presence. New Ideas in Psychology, 29, 24-37. doi: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.11.002

When you define reality as the things you can see, hear, touch, and smell (etc.), then reality is basically nothing more then electrical signals interpreted by your brain (Following Morpheus famous Quote from the Matrix, sorry, I had to bring it). This quote heavily relies on the idea, that people are constructivists and that there is no "objective reality" outside. It is all subjective and no one can really know how reality is for another individual. This is the source of the related question if VR is a pleonasm or oxymoron.

This is one central idea behind VR. Exchanging the source of the electrical signals (sensory input that is) to be generated by artificially constructed artifacts (technology, i.e., computers). So this is the first source of the false dichotomy, it does not object the existence of "virtual reality" it more or less objects the existence of an objective reality outside and claims it is all virtual by nature. The second - so to my opinion weaker - interpretation I stumbled across here and there arises from the fact, that this technology has been built in your perceived reality. Hence the tools used are "real" as are its production artifacts.

On top of this, deciding on whether an object should be classified as physical/real or virtual/digital can be quite difficult. Paul Milgram (Milgram and Kishino (1994) and subsequent work) gives an idea of the difficulties, and yet he has not investigated all possible technological artifacts. Those concepts are ill-defined and possibly beyond definition.

Milgram and Kishino (1994) A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays

Virtual Reality can only exist in someones reality, so in that sense they are not separate parts.