The mysterious 'RL'.

My father said an interesting thing to me the other day.

"Why do you call Extropia a person? She is not real, she is just patterns on a screen".

And this got me thinking about subjective, as opposed to objective, reality. Most people, I think, put far more emphasis on objective realities, believing subjective reality to be what we 'think' is real, not what 'is' real.

This is a mistake. Subjective reality is the only reality that we will ever experience. The reason is simple. Our brains are totally cut off from the real world and thus can never experience it directly. Rather, we receive information via our senses, and that information is then filtered through whatever cultural mindset that we have self-evolved. A devout Christian may look at a sunrise and see the work of God. An astronomer, looking at the same sunrise sees sublime celestial mechanics. Although these viewpoints may not be compatible, I argue that each is equally real for the individual. Reality is the interpretation of information by the brain and if I side with one view and not the other, that would be because my own mind has evolved to accept some information as the 'truth' and not others.

I might think I am being objective, but I'm not.

So to get back to the residents of SL. Are they real people, or are they merely patterns on a computer screen?

Well, now that we know we must disregard objective reality (since our minds are cut off from it) we have to look at it from a subjective point of view. To my father, one of my friends (I won't mention her name, but if you know anything about her you will know who it is very shortly) is another pattern on the screen. To me, she is the creator of some of the best nightclubs in Sl. She's the person whose husband-to-be met her in Sl and flew halfway across the states to be with her. To me she is a PERSON and a friend, not just a pixal on a computer monitor.

Interestingly, I am sure she would disagree with that statement. The person I am talking about is not 'real'. The 'real' her lives somewhere out in 'RL' and this image is merely a digital projection. She is a pattern on a screen, onto which a remote consciousness imprints its hopes, fears and desires. And, by the same reckoning, Extropia DaSilva, must be regarded in the same light.

You often here people talking about RL in Second Life, which leads me to believe that most people regard Sl as less 'real' than their everyday lives. I sympathise with this view, because whenever I am 'in' SL I see the real world in the periphery of my vision. You can never escape it completely.

However, if we ignore what goes on outside our field of focus and concentrate purely on the screen, how 'real' is Sl? Well, you might say none of it is 'real'. It is just information interpreted by a computer. But then, we have established that RL is information interpreted by the mind and so we cannot assert that mere information processing is a substitute for reality.

A further objection might be to say that a person never vanishes from RL. My grandmother, for example. I cannot sense her right now but I know she exists. On the other hand, when a person logs out of SL that person does not exist in SL. So, it's reality is rather less solid.

But the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics forces us to adopt a different view. From this perspective of reality, all particles like electrons and quarks (which is what all reality is comprised of) do not 'exist' in the sense that we understand when a measurement is not being conducted on them. Rather, they are in a superposition of states. So, from this perspective, the question of whether a tree falling with nothing to hear it can be answered thus: It does make a sound. And it also does not. And it's also burned to a stump. And its also shedding its leaves.....In fact, it is in a multiplicity of states simultaneously. None are real. All that is real is the wave function that will collapse into reality only when a conscious measurement is conducted.

So where does that leave my dear grandmother? Well I have to admit that the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is but one way of looking at the world at a fundemental level. But this means we simply cannot say what reality is beyond our own minds. Again, we come back to information processing. I'm thinking of my nan right now, I have an image in my mind of what she is doing. But I have no objective proof that she exists in the real world. She might be dead. And when my father said, 'Extropia is not real like your nan is real. Because right now she does not exist but your Nan does', he BELIEVED he was being objective but in fact it was a subjective reality that he was referring to.

Still, I cannot deny that Extropia DaSilva does not exist when I am logged put of SL. And yet......and yet she DOES exist in the way that truly matters. My nana exists only in the collective conscience of the people who have met her. Beyond the mind she is merely information waiting to be processed. And, surely, logged on or not, Extropia DaSilva still exists in the minds of her friends?

One last thing. I believe there are two kinds of virtual reality. One is the science fiction kind where lonely people log into a computer-driven illusion. The other is a form of communication. The telephone, for example, is a form of auditry virtual reality. You might think you are talking to your friend on the phone, but in reality all you hear is an artificial voice that repeats what your friend said. This method of being with someone who is physically miles apart is a virtual reality. However, you would recieve short shrift if you did not live up to your word with the exscue 'Oh but that was what i said on the phone, which is not 'real'. And I think most people would agree that telephone conversations are a continuation of, not an escape from, reality.

In much the same sense, surely Sl is a continuation of, rather than a substitute for, reality? But this ignores the fact that in Sl a person appear as they want to be, rather than as they are. As the old saying goes, in VR, nobody needs to know you're really a dog. But, again, we are back to information processing. To me reality is a fluid process, by which I mean information is constantly updating my cognitive flow. For me, the Twin Towers were a shining example of engineering skill on September 11...until I turned on the TV and realised that they were, in fact, a twisted ruin. That's one example of evolving reality, and in fact my whole life has been a constant revisal of what is real and what is imagined.

But, once more, since the only reality I am aware of is the one created by my mind, based on the information it receives via the five senses, in what sense does the pliable world of SL, pure information interpreted via the screen and further interpreted via the senses/brain, deserve less recognition as part of the information flow that goes to create my reality?

Well, it is simply not as affective at creating an illusion of reality as the mind is. Yet. And this is another story, but in the future the virtual world will leak into the real world and the real world will intermingle with virtual worlds until it makes no sense to distinguish one from the other. But that's all right, because in the end all is information.

It's what you do with it that counts

Happy first post, Extropia and rather thought-provoking.

Ont the subjective/objective note: I have had this debate with many of my friends in the past - and have found that most of them live on the polar opposites of the argument.

I firmly believe in grey-areas and middle zones. True, all my descisions and actions are based on my subjective reality, but that reality is derived from the objective reality.

And here's the thing: objective reality has a nasty way of stepping in and changing subjective reality at the most inopportune times. The previously-unseen brick hurtling down above me is an objective reality that is going to intrude on my perceptions in an exteme, without-prejudice kinda way.

Reality (either one ) is highly analogue, and as such, any world view coloured black or white (or even blue or red ) is probably wrong IMHO. I don't think we can really understand the world without giving both subject and object equal consideration.

I 'exist' in pixel form even offline, because people can see 'me' in my creations, be it items in my store, the lightshow in the nightclub, or the pond outside. It's got "my touch" which, although perhaps nothing special compared to many of the more skilled creaters in game is my own.

Take my stereo, for example (well, actually, pay L$75 but you know what I mean). I have sold a few of those, and even when I'm offline other people may be getting enjoyment from them. Visitors to Coco's next door will see my place and might hop over the fence to see what I sell, or curious as to what a 70's nightclub looks like inside.

So although none of SL is 'real', it all is in some way or another to whoever happens to pass by something that one of us has made.

My real life personality, character, whatever, shows through my avatar. My looks are somewhat different - but so what? That's just an extension of 'me'.

The whole 'real v game' is a discussion that has been had many times and, I'm sure, will be had many more.

Lewis

The problem with "is not real" is that you could be the star of "Truman Show" where everybody else is an actor. People watching you would know that what you think is reallity is in fact fake, but to you is that a big deal? (as long as you don't get to know the truth).
And the TV watchers in Truman Show might themselve be staring in one.

In the end does it matters that you are not in the "real reality" ? Imagine that someone would brainwash you and put cyber glasses on your eyes so that you only get to see a virtual reality (let's say SL) ; you wouldn't suffer from it, since you'd know of nothing else. The only problem would be in someone IRL looking at you and feeling compasion for your "unfortunate" and unwanted fate : only getting to see a virtual world.

With SL it's a willing choice to start the game and (hopefuly) have fun with pixel peoples, so that removes "unwanted" ; as for "unfortunate", I have fun so I think it's moot. 'Sure beats TV, or dinning with your mother in law.

You mean like the media?
Making us think we are in one world when in fact it is another.

well this one has to say that was a most interesting read, extropia...thank you sincerely for keeping it where the I, for one, could still understand it. I do not know much about Quantum Mechanics...but can tell you one thing...all friendships made in SL for the last two years have been very real to me and these people do exist in my mind after i log...or when they have logged. (I have met several of the humans at the keyboard as well, so they now have a reality quite objective, but the subjective to me is just as real.) Many times I have sat and laughed my a** off at some of the antics of others on SL, awestruck by the talent in world...cried because my feelings were hurt, missed those that leave SL for whatever reason and feel joy when they return. Those are REAL feelings. SL has also been a great tool for discovery as well, about myself and the *different strokes for different folks* diadem. Tolerance and kindness, experienced and practiced for the good of us all.

I still marvel at the variety and diversity of humans...SL is a great melting pot for a global community...i feel it is preparing us for the inevitable. While there are still those that never leave thier hometowns thier whole life...that is not so common as it used to be. A lot of us travel and outside our own countries too. I find the cultural differences often reveal to most of us that the common belief *Well thats the way it is supposed to be! is not as real as we once believed!

Being that this is the holiday season *in most places* I wish to applaud the residents of SL for thier most precious gift of all....thier time! Three cheers for Second Lifers!!!!

For most people second life IS real life. I'm surprised we haven't heard about second life related deaths yet, as opposed to WOW, where people would play for a week non-stop without food or sleep and just pass out and croak.

This is surprising... considering the addictive nature of SL.

I think a lot of the problem has to do with the fact we can't transfer emotions as easily as we can convey words, but it would ideally be a lot more uniform. Words are a very jiggly thing. Take the word "dog", for example, shout that to a room full of people and each and every person will have a different mental image of a dog. Some may think collies, others will go for pitbulls, some who have pet dogs will think of those, and others still may think of a hot dog (as in the food item).

It gets further complicated when different cultures with different languages may not have direct equivalents for some of the sentiments expressed here. When I made techno music, I enjoyed hearing opinions from those with no technical knowhow of synthesizers. I once played turntable scratching for my Mom, and she exclaimed, "That sounds like dogs barking!" That got me on a thoughtline of, well, why don't I sample real dogs and scratch those up? There is just so much to learn, even from those who are naive but have insights that wouldn't be arrived at otherwise, intuitively or not.

I find the limitations of words frustrating yet liberating at the same time, so I'm mindful to explain that when I use certain terms, I am explaining them from my own experiential perspective, something that I wish I didn't have to preface so often, but it quickly becomes a necessity because of the variety of opinions out here. There's beauty in that variety, tho.

There are things which are "real" to some and not to others, but the effects are very much felt whether you believe or not. For example, Santa Claus, Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Pokemon. Pikachu may not do anything for a grown man, but he buys the games and merchandise because his kid loves them.

We'll need new words, but those too, like "cyberspace", will have their day and then we'll move on.

It has always sort of bugged me to hear people say things in SL arent real. They are very real, just on another plane.

"Why would you spend real money on virtual land?" I use my virtual land nearly everyday. It is just a matter of how you percieve things. I could ask, "Why would you spend money on vacation land?" The vacation land is located in a specific place, you cant bring it to you and use it when you want to, you have to physically go to it to use it. My virtual land is on a server in California, this is true, but I can visit it in a very real sense every single day.

My virtual clothes do me no good when I go to the store in RL, but they serve me well in SL. Same with all my possessions in SL. What good is scuba equipment in the mountains? Different tools for different activities.

Everything about SL is real.

^ I'd like to add that what Loki said reminds me, I usually stay away from saying "Real Life" because it doesn't work for me, and I can't really relate to it.

I refer to a "Second Life" (or "Online Life" and an "Offline Life".

I too get pretty annoyed when people say that Sl is not real, since IMHO it is purely a quirk of evolution that we percieve the 'real world' rather than SL. Well, I'm not 100 percent sure if this would work, but I believe the Internet is now broadcast on wireless in some areas. If you are in that area and you have the right equipment, you could pluck the Net (and, hence, SL) out of the ether.

Now, that is precisely the way that we tune into 'reality'. Our eyes are instruments that tune in on a particular wavelength of electromagnetic radiation- that of visible light. This information is then decoded by our brains and we see the world. But there is more to it than that, since it turns out a lot of detail is actually filled in by the brain. Although we have the illusion of receiving high-resolution images from our eyes, what the optic nerve actually sends to the brain is just outlines and clues about points of interests in our visual field. We then essentially hallucinate the world from cortical memories that interpret a series of extremely low resolution movies that arrive in parallel channels. The optic nerve carries ten to twelve output channels, each of which carries only minimal information about a given scene. So, for instance, one group called the ganglion cells sends information only about edges, while another group detects only large areas of uniform colour. We think we see the world fully, but all we really receive is just hints, edges in space and time.

And, to me, that is precisely what SL is like. Hints and shadows with the detail filled in by my imagination.

So visual reality is information carried on the visible light spectrum of electromagnetism, with extra 'depth' added in by the brain in post-production. It is my belief that, if our eyes were instruments designed to tune into that part of the wavelength that carries the wireless Internet, we could wake up each morning and see SL. We can even entertain ourselves with thoughts that it is now our computers that are tuned in to visible light, and we stare into this other world of sunsets and New York City and debate their objective reality.

But, really, they are both just different frequencies of electromagnetism, so saying one is more/less real is like saying much the same thing for radio broadcasts on different wavelengths

As to the idea that objective reality encroaches onto your subjectivity, an idea illustrated by the image of a brick falling onto your head (ouch!) I am fondly remembered of Dr Johnson who, upon hearing of Bishop Berkely's conjecture that reality was an illusion, cried "I refute it thus!" and stubbed his toe on a rock.

However, I can imagine a future in which we are intimately connected to nano-scale devices that sit near every neuron and nerve ending in our body and brain. These devices are able to stop a neuron or a nerve from firing, or they can cause it to fire. So, in this scenario, you log into SL and the signals coming from the real world are interrupted and replaced with the signals you would receive were you really standing in Ice Dragon. I expect that when this is achieved, people will think twice about lifting up a brick in SL and dropping it on their heads. Either that, or make damn sure the reality is not turned up to 11 before taking a visit to Jessie

sl is part of reality, rather than a seperate reality. and by definition your avatar in sl is also part of reality, just like your mortal shell .

Very interesting thread. I'll have to reread it and re-watch Serial Experiments Lain before I can even attempt to respond in an appropriate manor.

Plato's Cave.

Version 1.8.

Wallspace for your shadow, on sale now!

you can say that again, Your Green and Redness. I'm busy with my first re-read of Snowcrash since starting in SL, and only now do I truly understand this passage (please don't sue me Neal but I gotta spread your gospel)

Welcome to the Matrix...

Now leaving the Matrix, please come again!

As I've often said, SL interactions are precisely as real as interactions elsewhere. If someone speaks to you over the phone, do you laugh it off because they "aren't really there"?

To be sure, we have pseudonymity and all that other stuff the Internet at large offers... but that doesn't change the ultimate initiators of the process - which is to say - human beings.

Three factors put RL ahead of SL:

Pervasiveness
SL exists within RL, not apart from it. RL exists without SL, but not vice versa. When you exit SL, you are always dumped back into RL; in fact you never really leave RL. In RL, you are required to procure shelter, nutrition, a relatively modern computer, and a broadband connection before you can engage in SL. RL is more pervasive than SL, and is a pre-requisite for it.

Scarcity
As the resources (land, objects, etc.) of SL exist in a highly compressed and abstracted form (electrons on circuit boards and magnetic media that describe logical and mathematical outlines of objects) that are completely under human control, they may be replicated far more easily and quickly than resources in RL (which we do not understand or have the power to replicate (yet)). Therefore RL resources are perceived to be very scarce compared to SL resources, thus the sentiment "Why would you spend precious RL resources (scarce time and money) to obtain meaningless (abundantly reproducible) SL resources?"

Immersion
We are 100% immersed in RL from birth to death which, as far as we may currently scientifically prove, are the limits of our existence. We experience five (or more) senses in unlimited analog intensity and resolution, while SL is currently limited to two digital senses (sight and sound) at 1024x768 resolution of 16 million colors and 16-bit depth 44.1khz sampling rate audio (assuming CD-quality) (these are just examples of course). Possible SL experiences cannot really compare with possible RL experiences.

While SL is intriguing and fun, we must admit that meatspace trumps it in priority every time -- at least in the physical sense. In the emotional and intellectual sense, since these exist entirely within our own minds, well, you might conceivably fulfill these aspects of your life entirely within SL, separate from your physical experience, and I don't really have a good argument why not to, except that there are a lot more people in RL than SL, and a lot more possibilities for the manifestation and fulfillment of relationships, and you have to participate in RL relationships *somehow* in order to procure the physical requirements to access SL (see Pervasiveness). Even those who form lasting relationships in SL usually transfer that relationship to RL in order to cement it (again, see Pervasiveness).

For these reasons, as well as the three factors explained above (Pervasiveness, Scarcity, Immersion), I believe the healthiest way to enjoy SL is as an occassional supplement to, not a replacement of, RL experiences.**

It is, however, conceivable that, for reasons physical, emotional, or otherwise, some individuals may find their RL situations much more limiting than their SL possibilities, and believe they may gain more fulfillment from SL than is possible in RL. I empathise with this sentiment, especially in the short term, but due to the reasoning stated here, I would encourage such individuals to search for alternative solutions to their RL limitations, as energy spent in RL is likely to bring more long-term fulfillment than SL can reliably provide.

Tangential:
Virtual Reality
I like your idea of the telephone as an example of primitive virtual reality. The difference, as far as behavior, lies not in the technology, but in the absence of pre-existing relationship. Usually we know who we are talking to on the phone because we already have an established relationship with that person, be it friend, family, customer, etc. People tend only to be jerks to people with whom they have no perceived relationship.
In addition to mouthing off to strangers, jerkiness is amplified by anonymity. SL allows even more anonymity than the telephone because one can completely disguise their RL voice and manner of speaking, both of which can convey rich information about an individual's sex, age, location, personality, etc.

**A couple interesting side effects of my limited SL experience, which might go towards justifying it as a worthwhile supplement to RL:
* More appreciation for diversity. When you can look any way you want to, you begin to appreciate the uniqueness of the non-idealized appearance.
* Increased RL confidence. If I can say and do things in SL, why not do them in RL? As far as relationships and behavioral consequences, they really aren't that different. RL can be seen as a social game as much as SL can be (to a point, in that RL doesn't allow you to switch avatars or accounts at a whim).

Wow that is the best reply I ever got

A lot of the time I get asked why I want to escape my own body. The reason is simply that I feel the mind is hugely restricted by the physical limitations of our biological forms. While we can imagine soaring like an eagle or swimming like a dolphin, we can't physically do these things. Well, we could with technologies but hang-gliders and mini-subs don't really capture the effortless grace of animals adapted to life in the sky/sea.

In virtual worlds the body is whatever the mind needs it to be at this point in time. Well,um, it COULD be. I mean, most VR worlds don't have the level of customization that SL has.

I don't want to escape from RL. A sunset in SL is no match for a sunset in RL. A hug from a loved-one in SL is no match for a hug from a loved-one in RL. Let's face it, RL is virtual reality that incorporates all of the senses. Why would I leave it?

Well it does have it's drawbacks. It is very constrictive. I might cycle off of a mountain in San Andreas, but I wouldn't try that in RL! Also, and this might be controversial, but in RL you are more likely to be a success because of WHO you know, whereas in SL it is WHAT you know that makes you successful.

RL is mature technology. It has reached the end of its S curve. But VR is still climbing the upward curve- indeed, it is the continuation of the curve of reality. Since RL is merely signals interpreted by the brain, I see no reason in principle why a future SL could not feed the signals to the brain, signals it would recieve were you standing in that environment.

Reminds me of a dream I had. Was in a prison that I knew did not exist. IE I knew I was dreaming...and yet I could smell the dampness, could feel the metal of the bars, could even chat with the inmates...it was so real! This to me is proof of principle that the mind CAN provide full immersion virtual reality. It's all in the information flow

We need to explore ways in which VR and RL can be made to enrich each other IMO

Extopia and Kira have both covered this subject rather completely and elegantly. They have provided much food for thought. I would only like to add a brief comment. SL is real but it is not physical...RL is physical and real.

A friend mentioned that her husband had gone to a prostitute but did not consider this cheating on her. It was physical but not real. Yet he feels jealous of her SL boyfriend...not physical but uncomfortably emotionally real.

I agree that the more technologically advanced virtual worlds become the more they will intertwine with our offline lives. In some ways the anonymity of SL allows us to be more open and gives a safer environment for us to try new ways of relating to the real people behind their avs. A kind of behavior laboratory if you will.

Very fascinating discussion. Thanks to all who contributed.

This reminds me of The Matrix too... Except we can all do our "Superman thing".

I haven't been playing long enough to really compare it to real life. I've read on the TV and online articles about how people make a living out of SL and experienced how serious people are about the world. In MMORPG games i've met people who have actually formed relationships online, which I thought was weird. But after playing SL I'm understanding it a bit better. I still think it's strange, but as technology improves over the years this kind of interaction on the net will be more common.

I'm not really into the whole using Second Life as a real life though, since it's not like real life in many ways. In fact, the reason I go on online games is to be entertained by things that don't exist in real life. When I found out people could let their imaginations run wild in this game by creating anything, I was immediately hooked.

Well there is a reality, but no one has ever seen it. We, as human beings, percieve things differently. No one can prove the absolute reality because to do so would require no perception/every perception of said thing and have no past memories or things to relate it too, otherwise we would just put a twist on it.

If you had seen a circle, and then an oval, you would compare them. You couldn't stop yourself. You would also base the oval off the circle because you saw the circle first. If you learned what sound is and then heard somthing, you would automatically associate it with sounds and lable is as such.

I remember reading about this once and thought it was quite interesting. We can't do anything really to ever try to find out what reality is, because we will never get closer to the truth (and we may be very far from it).

Just my 2 cents.

A lot of words and thoughts for the simple fact that "a person" is an pure interpretation of our mind - if I may summarise.

I don't think that we need quantum physics to explain this, it's all about psychology. Read about the effects of LSD i.E. and you'll see that you can take absolutly anything for real regardless of what's "really real". (I still believe in the laws of nature though, gives me a feeling of safety at least to the day they change just for fun.) We're fundamentally "slaves" of what our mind think is real - and what other minds think it's real of course ...

I had answered: "Why shall I call YOU a person? You're a bunch of atoms an molecules luckily held together by some laws of nature."
Simple as that. Anyone with at least some rudimental intelligence should get the idea.

If atoms or polygons - there's always a mind underneath the surface and that is what counts and makes us "a person". I find it very hard to say that somebody is "not a person" because he/she appears as an avatar in an artificial enviroment. Even if it's just a nick name in a chat channel or forum, it's still a person.
But actually a lot people don't see this (unfortunately). They are tied in some way to their picture of reality and can't adapt the virtual nature of online worlds. Since Im grown up with computers myself I feel just the other way around - Ive to care about that I don't get to attached to SL. I like my RL, it's not the best, but I stick with it.

I strongly believe in two or three decades the last borders between offline and online world , between us and the technology will vanish in some way - at least for some of us with access to the technology. First and second life will merge and only some old geezers like me will still believe that there's a difference.

Well, for some people it happend already. They don't ask or care anymore.

When you find yourself with the option of branching avenues of contextual reality perception in terms of their basic make up, the best advice is to make sure to appear rational to the peers in the context that required the most investment.

Since in the simulation that we here commonly call RL is the most viscerally sensational, we had to be born into it with a long
orientation process, and we do not get any practice deaths I would say this one qualifies as "the Show" for most of us.

I am convinced that the tree absolutely makes a sound, simply because If we can step back from the arrogance of our species
for just a moment.
There are always ears to hear the tree fall.

In fact from a possible alternative global info processing theoretical view, the existence of any other sensation processing function on the planet, even to the point of simple
photosynthesis may comprise a current status mem update
of world detail. (i.e. collectively)

Which once again may only come into focus when it is observed, and only to the degree of the complexity of the network of sensory cells doing the focusing.

I love philosophy because it is the contemplation of the unknown and the projection what may be real.

It appears to me that the real that is being projected is not
just one that we will eventually find and be done with, but
the real of the many that is continously evolving and changing.

The more that we agree to hold similar perceptions of what that real is it seems the more we have the power to create
and give ourselves the permision to create what that group
real will be.

In a rediculously tiny example one day there were handles on shopping bags. All of a sudden almost all shopping bags had handles. How much earlier could "they" have started doing that? Or the more time that passed from that point the further away becomes the dark time of that mythic age
when shopping bags supposedly had no handles.

I am of the multiple, multiple, exponential faction if one exists. I believe that if you have some of something then
then that is indeed proof that there is more to found somewhere in addition to it being proof of a source of that stuff.

Btw, how often are the regular updates of the process of evolution executed?

Occasionally when otherwise relaxing I find mysefl looking for evidence of occlusion culling in RL. However it seems alternatively harder or easier due to the fact that I have to wear readers now.

This is a most excellent thread.

And another thing, what area of science deals with the subject of the rezzing of physical objects?
I mean now many cycles per nano-second or whatever does it
take to give say an apple all of its convincing attributes.

I know for sure there is alot more involved than 24 frames per second.
Like hey dude you might want to adjust your actualization speed.

Plato implied that the ideas are more real than the objects
they inspire. Well we know which ones last longer.
Fact is, ideas are the result of a whole mess of tiny interacting signals. Oh and btw physical objects are the result of a
bunch of tiny interacting signals.

The fact that those signals not only interact in a way that actually produces convincings simulations of results, but that
they move at all is sufficient proof to me.
Of what, I would not be so controversial to say here If I myself am even sure.

Except for that it seems that there is some force that wants
to perceive.

What is the Real difference between a Process and a Object?
If a process can be referred to, then it is a conceptual object.
And I think most of us know that an object is really a process.

So I think Shakespeare was right mostly, that the World really is a stage. But not just for Humans but for everything in it.

So yes that particular pattern of lines is really real. lol.
How real is always determined by the perspective of the perceiver. But that is also true for everything else perceived
in Life as well.

When I first heard the phrase: "We are not Humans having a Spiritual experience but Spirits having a Human experience.",
I mentioned it to my sponsor (AA) and he said "Some are and
some are'nt depending on who we are talking about. lol.

Thanks for that post. I was so excited about it I skipped all the stuff in between. So I apologize if it is repetitive or irrelevent. lol.

P.S. Intention is the missing element in the Grand Unified Theory.