The Reality of Virtuality

We assume that we know what is real. We can describe reality as something which our senses can detect. Does reality, however, have to be something that only biological beings can inhabit. Can a virtual world or being be considered real? It can be detected by us through sight inarguably, along with other senses more controversially. What defines reality and who are we to judge what it is?

Virtual worlds are inhabited by virtual people; that is how things go. If a virtual person were to possess a consciousness and awareness rivaling (even surpassing) that of our own, who are we to tell them that they are not real? Assuming that mind doubles come to inhabit their own world, what would make them less based in reality than ourselves? If, as is likely, they become more intelligent and conscious than ourselves, would we have to define their virtual world as real as ours? What is the threshold upon which we attribute reality?

This problem does not have much relevance at the moment, but it will likely become a philosophical obstacle in the next few decades, as virtual worlds and beings become more advanced and thus more "real." Throughout history, we have known only one reality; one biological truth and system. With the advent of digital technology, we have created a new system of evolution. Instead of biological evolution being the only variable, we now have another process which far surpasses its predecessor in terms of growth.

Computing technology has exponentially grown since its inception, as anybody familiar with Moore's law will tell you. Still, we haven't yet computed what we define as consciousness, or what is the complexity of the human brain. It is believed that this feat is not far off, however, within decades.

Once we have come to grasp the computing mechanisms of consciousness and created beings that replicate our own minds, what gives us the right to say that these beings (even though they are clones) are not real? As an analogy, we consider biological clones to be real even though they are copies, so wouldn't digital clones be real?

One may argue that the reason for denying a virtual world or beings the adjective of real is that we can "pull the plug" at anytime and that they are under our control. I retort by reminding people that we grow animals for the purpose of food and that we indeed "pull the plug" on their lives routinely, yet we consider these animals to be real.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that reality has always been stranger than fiction, and that the most ironic aspect of this is that reality may not just be biological, but can also be digital.