Is the Digital "real"?

Yesterday evening my partner and I attended a discussion group about Sex and Relationships in SL. It was very well attended, and very many extremely divergent views were expressed all across the spectrum. In any case, I've been reflecting on it over the past day, and although the discussion was quite maddening in many respects (not the least of which being the fact that people were talking over each other, making it hard to have a true dialogue), it's allowed me to crystallize my thoughts on this, and to raise the question for others.

As some of you have seen me write in the past, here and perhaps elsewhere as well, I view SL as digital reality and RL as physical reality. That is, these are two aspects of the human experience, each of which is real in its own way, subject to the advantages and limitations that are proper, in each case, to the physical and digital realms, respectively. What I mean by this is that, to me, because each “realm” is real in a sense that is proper to its nature, it is not only possible but quite normative for the main aspects of reality to be present in each realm. This includes, to me, not only creative expression and discourse, but also emotional presence, sexuality, commitments and the like. What I see sometimes from others is a reluctance to accept the digital reality on its own terms, and instead a tendency to judge the “reality” of what takes place in the digital space on the basis of the terms of reality engagement that apply in the physical space *only*. That is to say, unless things are “real” in the sense that they bear the same “indicia” of reality as apply in the physical space, things are ipso facto judged to be less than fully “real”. While this may be a natural enough perspective, given the newness of the digital reality, to me, this is using the wrong set of criteria, which of course naturally leads to the wrong conclusion.

So what say you all? How real is the digital? Is it possible to really love someone exclusively in the digital reality and have this be a real love, or is the reality of love to be judged solely on the basis of criteria that can only reasonably be satisfied in the physical space? I think you already know what I think about this, but I'd be interested to hear the views of others.

84, Charing Cross Road

If the emotions are real then it's real, if the relationship is simply RP then it's not (even if one partner is deceiving it can still be real for the other since they wouldn't be aware and could just be emotionally involved with a fiction that is real as far as they know).

SL is no different in that regard than IM relationships, email relationships, telephone relationships, snail mail correspondence relationships, etc. There's nothing new happening here, it's just a different medium.

(Edited to add that I do agree there's an immense difference between an online relationship and a "real" relationship where there is actual - phsyical - contact, be it a kiss, cuddling or more intimate)

Well if one does get a partner there is definately a huge level of fantasy attached. So I would think you would fall in love even more because of this. I mean it will never replace the face to face introductions. But I have been guilty of virtual romances, and falling in love. But in actuality you are in love with being in love, in my opinion. There is such a one sided aspect to this sort of relationship, that it can never really be a balanced one. it will always lie in the fantasy. I equate it to a long distance relationship. I have had those as well. And phone and mails for about a year. So in love, going so well. But the moment I moved cities it all went to hell and back in about a month. Because there was no place fot the pre-established levels of fantasy involved. We all have as many bad social habits as the next person. We are all guilty of being inadiquate in some respect, this won't translate to the virtual. The virtual is an idealized version of what the relationship can be. You won't get the 'breadcrumbs on the counter' type of closeness that relationships need to work. That being all the little downfalls we all really have, you don't get that from the virtual. You get the best of the person. So if one does meet, you see the whole package, warts and all, lol

would meeting in SL, then meeting in RL and getting married in RL constitute as to how real it is for me?

I see SL pretty much as you do, just a different medium or plane of existence perhaps.

If person A pretends to be someone they are not, and person B thinks that person A is being real... how is that any different than "real life" where people pretend to be something they are not, alll the time.
(diets, plastic surgery, lies, deceit, etc)

For me it is as real as it gets.. When I go into SL, I really go there.. There is no “suspension of disbelief”, for I believe.. I am just there.. At times when I am cuddling with my love, I can smell her hair, feel her skin under my fingertips.. Now before you say I am only imagining all of this.. I wish to say that I am a Software/Systems Engineer in the RL. This is part of a discussion I have had before as well.. At one time in my job I was tasked to study the EM fields associated with a PC. I was quite surprised by what I found.. There where energy fields everywhere.. The keyboard, the mouse, of course the monitor and system.. Now... We really have no idea just how our nervous system interacts with these fields, but in our study the fields in both our bodies and the PC changed as they interacted.. So who really knows just what might be being passed along that great network of energy called the Net.

Just my little metaphysical take on the whole thing.




It is as real as it you want it to be.. We all bring our own world view to this place.. It is different for all of us.. Each one of us views it through the lens of our own experiences. For me it is a reality, no better or worse than the physical one, just different.

Hmm, there is nothing new in SL. Everything the OP talks about has been going on forever even before technology, through paper letters etc.
So of course I agree that it is true in SL as well.

The medium you use is irrelevant, it is the beliefs of the people taking part in it that matters.

Some people take religion very seriously. But I've seen it described as the oldest form of virtual reality!

SL has a reality within itself, like a novel or a TV soap, or even the Simpsons.

I worship primitar

But is primitar real?

Thanks for the responses so far. Quite interesting.

I guess I would distinguish between something like SL, on the one hand, and "purely textual" interaction in that SL, because it presents its own reality in three dimensions, appeals to the aspects of our brain that have evolved to perceive physical reality in three dimensions. So I suppose I would agree that it is similar in some respects to text based interactions that have existed for a long time (especially if one considers the Victorian era letter-based romances), but to me the addition of real time 3d interaction seems quite an augmentation to that text-based interaction, again because of how our brains have evolved to perceive 3d environments as encompassing "reality" (even though this is, at least according to some theoretical physicists, also an illusion).

I've seen him, so to me he is more real than most peoples' gods have proven themselves to be

Oh God, what a beautiful movie! I absolutely adore that one.

I guess SL is as real as we wish it to be, we have the ability to immerse ourselves, but also to hit the red x and make it all disappear at will. For me I guess it has a "presence" all it's own, perhaps a self contained reality even, but I do maintain a seperation that varies in opacity. In the end, for me it is still escapism and entertainment.

It depends.

If the person live the second live as way of fun >> No, is not real, except some principles the people bring in anywhere (I think) like honor and honestity for example.

The question is not whether it is real or digital. It is both. It uses digital images to represent physical things (like an avatar represting a person). The residents are real people, the interactions they have are real. They may use digital representations as an aid to have those interactions, but the interactions are nonetheless real.

The question is how experiences in Second Life affect the individuals who interact there. People have different levels of emotional attachment to their interactions in Second Life. People have different levels of association between the digital representations and their real life, physical equivalents. Some people have a high degree of identification with their avatars as representing themselves, and others do not have such a strong association, seeing their avatar as a completely different entity.

The problems happen when you meet someone with a diffrent level of emotional attachment to Second Life than you, but you assume that the other person has the same level of emotional attachment as you (and/or the other person assumes your emotional attachment to Second Life matches theirs).

Just by being aware and non-judgmental about the fact that other people have different emotional experiences than you when it comes to Second Life, you can avoid some problems. You become able to ask the other person about their feelings, at a point at which it might be relevant, before the difference becomes a problem.

There's no right or wrong answer as to how one should be experiencing Second Life. You're entitled to using in a way that makes you happy. Just be aware that not everyone sees it like you do, so you can seek out those who are compatible with you, and avoid those who are not.

For some it may be the only way of achieving these human needs -- people who are otherwise not mobile etc. For them it is real.

For others it is just a way to get off, a different type of fetish, virtual pornography. For them, the person on the other end is no more human than the PC they also use in their fetish.

Oh but answering that there is no distinction between the digital and the real is pretty much answering the question the way that I would do. I do think that for people who have "lower" degrees of identification with their SL selves, this has at least in part in many cases to do with a perception that the digitally-mediated reality is less "real" to them than the physically-mediated reality.

I also think that the entertainment vs. life distinction, while an interesting discussion in itself, doesn't directly get at whether the digital is "real". In other words, it's quite possible for something to be both real and solely engaged in for entertainment value -- without question, just in the relationship context, many relationships in physical space are also engaged in largely for entertainment reasons (ie, not "serious relationships". So while I think that's an important and interesting distinction about how people *use* SL, it doesn't to me seem to relate directly to the real/unreal perception. I do think that for many people the two are linked in their own minds (i.e., because it is perceived as less than fully "real", it is considered inapppropriate for it to be anything more than entertainment), but this kind of leaves aside all the "real" things in physical reality that are engaged in for entertainment purposes without being perceived as being less than fully real.

Interesting responses, keep them coming!

Huh?

I guess in the end 'reality is in the eye of the beholder'. I'm beginning to think the real purpose of this thread is "should we judge people because they cyber". The answer is no, just don't ask me to join in.

The question of "real" could vary from individual to individual for a myriad of reasons - and have absolutely nothing to do with SL or any other digital experience.

At the minimum, emotional issues will keep people from feeling the "reality" of a situation - everyone, I'm guessing, has at least once in their lives felt a situation to be "unreal" or "dreamlike", even though they were experiencing it directly
(car crashes / accidents / fights / abuse / war / illness / etc. etc)

For many people, that kind of feeling pervades their day to day existence, to a degree. Some, more than others.

Additionally, you're dealing with a few generations of people who's become used to experiencing their world through a picture tube, to a large degree...television, and computers.

Finally, at what level of self-awareness does one truly comprehend someone outside of themselves? And, just how far will / can that extend?

Just because someone can access SL does not mean they have the intelligence to realize that it is a human being on the other end of the avatar, let alone whether THAT person on the other end can feel anything in return.

"I see a girl - I talk with the girl - the girl is entertaining - I realize it's the person that is entertaining - I perceive that this entertaining person is still spending time with me, so perhaps they find me entertaining as well" and so on, and so on - just how far do most people get?
It seems too many can only get:
"I see a girl - I talk with the girl - the girl is entertaining" - end of line, goto 10

So, if "real" is defined as whether we understand, accept, and listen to the people we encounter in SL, whatever their avatar happens to be, then I would say few people treat SL as real.

If, however, you're asking if someone truly believes that Joseph Abel, being a cat (quadruped, thank you very much) in Second Life, actually IS a cat tapping away on a keyboard...well, I think that no one is that immersed.
(sorry for the delay in sending this...I had to go use the litter box, and grab a bit of catnip)

No it wasn't intended to be about cybersex. My interest is in how people perceive what happens in SL (and other virtual worlds for that matter) in terms of what they consider to be "real" -- not limited to the sexual.

Again, it does seem like an attempt to change something that is subject -- "they percieve as real" and refashion it to appear objective, and really only as a means to judge people (why else do it?). The only objective thing that can be measured (and judged) is consequence -- e.g., do people give up RL relationships to pursue SL relationships.

No it's an attempt to understand and discuss different subjective perceptions of what is real and what is not, and why. If something is subjective, it does not follow that discussion of that subjective perception is fruitless.

Once again, and in the interest of a subjective experience, the "reality" of love one feels is going to be based upon, first and foremost, their emotional ability.
Those hurt or repressed enough in the past, will have issues with love with a physical presence, let alone without.
A healthy individual? (if such a thing exists) Now you have to start defining what love is: is it a function of desire for someone's body? Is it the desire to share one's life with that other individual, despite physical aspects? Or, does it lie somewhere in between?

Meh...without some kind of defining statement, this will flounder all over the place.

So, in the highest sense of being subjective, I proclaim my view correct, and plug my ears to anything else.

What is subjectively real to someone is a question pondered by the likes of Descarte, Heidegger etc. Won't get further then them in a forum post. It's like asking, what does everyone think about the color blue?

Perhaps retry the thread with a more directed question, like: would you give up a RL relationship for an SL relationship? Something less vague.

The question isn't refined enough. In order to answer it, the individual should examine their capacity to love, and then, their capacity to express that level of affection through the digital realm as compared to real life. There is no yes or no answer. In recognizing that love is more than an emotional state, each individual loves differently.

A more important question for each individual to ask is *why* they love as they do, and why it does or does not apply to the digital realm in their experience.