The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
An article about what we were discussing a couple of weeks ago with Baudrillard "Simulation and Simulacra" and the notions of reality and alternate realities:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3135247.stm
A bloke making a living selling items for a non-existent, online world.
Does this count as an "alternate reality"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3135247.stm
A bloke making a living selling items for a non-existent, online world.
Does this count as an "alternate reality"
Page:
monkey_man wrote:
> For this argument there are two different types of reality. One that
> is virtual, can be changed whenever we feel like it, and it doesn't
> affect the real world unless something physical happens for a
> specific reason. The other is the physical reality whereby you can
> make actual changes and they stick. Nothing mystical or
> phantasmagorical about it. If you want to get into the virtual side
> of things in relation to computer memory, then that is only real in a
> virtual sense and can't affect the real world unless the
> "Real" world has a hand in it. It's just there.
But it is real though. It takes up physical space, it uses up electricity, it requires real hardware to run on etc.
> For this argument there are two different types of reality. One that
> is virtual, can be changed whenever we feel like it, and it doesn't
> affect the real world unless something physical happens for a
> specific reason. The other is the physical reality whereby you can
> make actual changes and they stick. Nothing mystical or
> phantasmagorical about it. If you want to get into the virtual side
> of things in relation to computer memory, then that is only real in a
> virtual sense and can't affect the real world unless the
> "Real" world has a hand in it. It's just there.
But it is real though. It takes up physical space, it uses up electricity, it requires real hardware to run on etc.
Blank wrote:
> But do those things really exist when they can't be observed? If the
> words go off the screen, they don't exist anymore. If you can't
> access the data on the server, does it still exist?
By the same token, if I burn a piece of paper, does it still exist? Only as ash. The same as the data that is overwritten lives on as whatever has overwritten it.
> But do those things really exist when they can't be observed? If the
> words go off the screen, they don't exist anymore. If you can't
> access the data on the server, does it still exist?
By the same token, if I burn a piece of paper, does it still exist? Only as ash. The same as the data that is overwritten lives on as whatever has overwritten it.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Words on a screen, memories in your head, data on a server... etc
> etc.
But do those things really exist when they can't be observed? If the words go off the screen, they don't exist anymore. If you can't access the data on the server, does it still exist?
> Words on a screen, memories in your head, data on a server... etc
> etc.
But do those things really exist when they can't be observed? If the words go off the screen, they don't exist anymore. If you can't access the data on the server, does it still exist?
For this argument there are two different types of reality. One that is virtual, can be changed whenever we feel like it, and it doesn't affect the real world unless something physical happens for a specific reason. The other is the physical reality whereby you can make actual changes and they stick. Nothing mystical or phantasmagorical about it. If you want to get into the virtual side of things in relation to computer memory, then that is only real in a virtual sense and can't affect the real world unless the "Real" world has a hand in it. It's just there.
Blank wrote:
> The items exist, but only as words on a screen. Then again, the words
> can be changed at any moment, so they would not exist.
Words on a screen, memories in your head, data on a server... etc etc.
> The items exist, but only as words on a screen. Then again, the words
> can be changed at any moment, so they would not exist.
Words on a screen, memories in your head, data on a server... etc etc.
Light wrote:
> But how is what is real defined?
Do you think reality is something defined by humanity? What is real isn;t for humans to choose.
> But how is what is real defined?
Do you think reality is something defined by humanity? What is real isn;t for humans to choose.
I didn't say nobody can believe any different. By all means, believe something else, but your belief, based on whatever experience you have and whatever facts you may have gathered, does not necessarily represent the truth, which cannot be changed by putting a "slant" on something, or by believing it differently.
The truth is the truth. The past cannot be changed, only how we choose to see it. But choosing to see it differently does not change what happened, it might change our understanding of it, but it won't change it.
So while you can sit there until you're blue in the face caling me presumptuous or whatever else you can think of, until someone can show me a way to alter the past, reality is fixed, while our "perceptions of reality" will always differ from person to person.
The truth is the truth. The past cannot be changed, only how we choose to see it. But choosing to see it differently does not change what happened, it might change our understanding of it, but it won't change it.
So while you can sit there until you're blue in the face caling me presumptuous or whatever else you can think of, until someone can show me a way to alter the past, reality is fixed, while our "perceptions of reality" will always differ from person to person.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> What has philosophy got to do with that statement? We're not living in
> some cross-wired multiverse here.
>
> If something happens, it happens. People may or may not witness it.
> People may or may not ever hear of it. If people want to put some
> post-event slant on what happened and why afterwards, fine. But it
> doesn't change the fact that it happened.
But how is what is real defined? You're defining it by the fact that it happens. How do we know it happens? Because we observe it. Ask 100 different people who witnessed a particular event, you will get 100 different versions of what happened. You may say "But it happened, regardless of whether someone saw it". The question would be "How the hell do you know?". You may say "Well, the Tunguska Event in Siberia happened, though no-one was around to see it", yet once again our knowledge is entirely reliant on stats that work within a framework created by people or observations directly from people. Facts are by no means immutable. Or at least, that is my opinion about facts and I've not yet seen anything that challenges that.
Man...this reads like you're trying to narrow down the scope of the argument for no real reason than you don't think the beliefs of anyone else ought to matter. Which is a shame because, when all is said and done I think I prefer your slant on the whole VR thing to that of Goaty and Bell.
> What has philosophy got to do with that statement? We're not living in
> some cross-wired multiverse here.
>
> If something happens, it happens. People may or may not witness it.
> People may or may not ever hear of it. If people want to put some
> post-event slant on what happened and why afterwards, fine. But it
> doesn't change the fact that it happened.
But how is what is real defined? You're defining it by the fact that it happens. How do we know it happens? Because we observe it. Ask 100 different people who witnessed a particular event, you will get 100 different versions of what happened. You may say "But it happened, regardless of whether someone saw it". The question would be "How the hell do you know?". You may say "Well, the Tunguska Event in Siberia happened, though no-one was around to see it", yet once again our knowledge is entirely reliant on stats that work within a framework created by people or observations directly from people. Facts are by no means immutable. Or at least, that is my opinion about facts and I've not yet seen anything that challenges that.
Man...this reads like you're trying to narrow down the scope of the argument for no real reason than you don't think the beliefs of anyone else ought to matter. Which is a shame because, when all is said and done I think I prefer your slant on the whole VR thing to that of Goaty and Bell.
The items exist, but only as words on a screen. Then again, the words can be changed at any moment, so they would not exist.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> There is only one actuality. It's the same for everyone. If something
> exists, it exists to everyone, regardless of whether or not people
> know about it, or choose to believe it.
Dude, can't you see that what you're giving there is an opinion? It goes absolutely no way to addressing the opinions of Goat and Bell (which, by the way, is a cracking name for a double act but I digress), it just restates your own belief. And then you go on to say "and no-one can possibly believe any different", when that is clearly not the case.
I'm finding it really difficult to follow this particular argument because although you've offered convincing reasons for your belief, so have Goaty and Bell. As we're talking about a concept that is metaphysical rather than tangible (for example, the recent war), don't you think that it's a little presumptuous to say that your belief has to be right because you believe it?
> There is only one actuality. It's the same for everyone. If something
> exists, it exists to everyone, regardless of whether or not people
> know about it, or choose to believe it.
Dude, can't you see that what you're giving there is an opinion? It goes absolutely no way to addressing the opinions of Goat and Bell (which, by the way, is a cracking name for a double act but I digress), it just restates your own belief. And then you go on to say "and no-one can possibly believe any different", when that is clearly not the case.
I'm finding it really difficult to follow this particular argument because although you've offered convincing reasons for your belief, so have Goaty and Bell. As we're talking about a concept that is metaphysical rather than tangible (for example, the recent war), don't you think that it's a little presumptuous to say that your belief has to be right because you believe it?
Page: