GUEST BLOG: Sean Lennon on "Virtual" v "Real"

Upon watching the recent CNN feature on future technologies I was inspired to begin this topic.

There was a lot of talk about the 'differences,' between this world ? corporeal reality ? and other so called 'virtual,' realities.

Obviously places like Second Life are virtual. Video games as well.

But if you try and distinguish between what is more virtual about a video game than a book, you run into problems.

They are both NOT 'real.'

They both use 'media,' to suspend your disbelief to such a degree that you can buy into a fantasy.

The same could be said of a painting.

So in a way what separates real from unreal, is that which is fundamental: you sitting here reading this in a room, verses that which is media: this website, our message board etc...

But if you examine this definition it also proves to be shaky.

If we look at the realness of sitting in a chair in a room staring at a monitor, and compare it to the realness of that which goes on on this message board, or in other virtual worlds, there is no clear winner.

I say this because often times, now for instance, my engagement in the medium occupies much more of my awareness than the room does.

So for me, at this moment, this topic, and this message board are giving me more of an experience than this ugly hotel room is, (thank Zeus for that).

So now we come to Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum, 'I think therefor I am.' For those who have not read Descartes, he basically proved (to some), that conceptually, nothing we perceive can be proven to be real, other than the fact that we are 'thinking,' and therefor must exist in some form in order to think, although everything else about that form and its characteristics are questionable. The only thing we can't question is whether or not we ? or at least something ? is thinking and therefor 'something' must exist.


So now if we apply this logic to our definition of virtual verses real, we find that we can no longer truly distinguish between them. Every experience can be defined equally as: that which our brain perceives.

So what I'm getting at is that all this talk of media and computers competing with real life should be about how computers have changed what is 'real' and not how computer experiences are unreal.

Relationships and communication have clearly been transformed through emailing, IMing, texting etc...

Now the difference between a text message and a real life conversation is not that one is real and one isn't. The difference is technical, like the difference between a painting and a sculpture, which are both just different media for communication. In the case of talking verses texting, one is language vocalized with our tongues, and the other is language expressed with our thumbs.

Language, writing, art, music, faxing, letter writing, text messaging, are all just different media.

On some level the brain itself could be argued to be a medium, since its ability to perceive what is 'real,' is observably flawed even to us (who are limited to using it to observe things with).

So really, given our perceptual limitations, we humans have no right to distinguish between virtual and real. We should just accept that we live in a reality that is defined by our perceptions, whether those perceptions are being given to us by a Gameboy, or a field of daisies. The reality happens when our minds decide to 'buy into,' the experience.

One of the most beautiful things about the human brain is that it will 'buy into' almost anything. All it takes are some symbols on a page (this topic) to stimulate an experience. That is why we are so creative. We can represent a buffalo with some paint on the wall of a cave, and after a hundred thousand years, that representation remains clear and beautiful to all who see it.

But our ability to 'buy into,' most anything is also our greatest flaw.

That's why we believe in the images that magazines promote. We believe in tabloid journalism. We believe in negative fantasies that are used to justify war and human rights abuses. And it's all propogated by, (you guessed it), the Media. But who are the Media? Journalists? No. It's everyone who communicates through media, and that's ALL of us.

Finally, I'd like to say that I do believe there is a real reality that is beyond our subjective perception. I would define that reality to be everything that we do not create. Distinguishing between what our minds have created, and what is really real, is impossible. Yet, call it Faith, (not religiousy), I still intuitively believe that the sun and the universe exist outside of my mind, it's just that my experience of them is limited to subjective representations in my mind. I can only experience the universe through the medium of my mind.

But! Ultimately, since the atoms that make up my mind are as much a part of the universe as the sun is, distinguishing between them seems at best a vague affair.

That's why I really do believe that all is one, and the one is love.

Call me a hippy.

I've said what I have to say. Hope this was not too convoluted. Sorry about the typos.

Much Love,

Sean

***