(untitled)

The whole idea of the internet feels like a dream, but one with severe consequences. Normally when a person dreams, the things that happen in the dream don't impact the "real" world. The things we see on the computer aren't real but they impact the real world to a greater and greater extent. If I were to go on my normal person work account and post Nigger, it would be a big deal.

>>7111 >The things we see on the computer aren't real I wouldn't put it that way. Unfortunately, most of what we see on the internet is real and has a strong impact on the world. Even the "fake" stuff (like AIs, bots...) despite their "artificial" nature are just an extension of the real in that they carry meaning and - in fine - also have an impact on the real. I like your theory, but I don't think it's so simple today to consider that the Internet isn't deeply intertwined with reality. I see it more as an extension of it. What you do and say on it is terribly steeped in reality. Even when you're playing a role. And don't we all play a role?

Things inside the dream time are also real and important. You forgot.

>>7112 It is an extension of reality in the sense that a movie is an extension of reality. Yes, we experience it as a real thing, but it is ultimately a phantom. Nothing on a screen is real, it is inherently a spook.

>>7115 Of course, but we can't dissociate reality from its representations. A film, a piece of music, or any work of art, while employing the spectacular model of fiction and representation, is no less real. It always deals with a certain reality that cannot escape the general model of the Real, if only because of the limits imposed by its field of realization and representation. To take a rather extreme example, let's assume that aliens don't exist, yet the representation we make of them is limited by the determinisms and knowledge of our vision of reality. Simply imagining that extraterrestrials exist and theorizing about what they are is already anchoring them in reality, the reality we know. I'm not saying that there are several realities, or that the unreal doesn't exist. I'm simply saying that reality is constantly evolving and conditioned by our sensitive approach to our universe and our theoretical knowledge of it. Isn't the unreal simply reality in the making? Possible reality? Real to come?

ITT: Lains immediately turn this into a general about the line between reality and dream. Pottery

>>7117 In my opinion, you can't talk about concepts such as the real and the unreal without first defining a framework for thinking about what defines the real from the unreal. Of course, this framework is bound to evolve as you go along, since, as I said earlier, the real is in constant mutation, and must not be seen as an arbitrary definition of what we perceive of it, but as a representation defined by the scope of the spectacle and the spectator's ability to perceive it beyond the limits imposed by his or her capacity for representation.

>>7118 True, I just find it funny how fast the scope of the thread expands on this website. It feels like we're discussing the same topic in dozens of threads.

I see the internet akin to the astral plane in which a non-physical duplicate of the physical mind-body can move around except without totally detaching itself from the physical body. This gives cyberspace its dreamlike qualities. The internet is an artificially created layer of reality. Just as we can access the astral plane through dreams and other types of inner experiences, we can access the internet as a plane of existence and wander around although our digital body never really separates from the material body as happens in astral dreams.

yeah OP coming at it from the wrong direction the 'real reality' is (closer to being) experienced in deep sleep, or in a coma. the unfiltered raw reality is what's actually going on. that is filtered through mind (the dream) and that is interpreted by 10% of your brain, the so-called awake state produced by beta waves, is a dull second-order simulation of sense information. as far as connecting the concept to the internet... >>7126 they really sold it to you, huh? its a stretch. that's marketing, that's what they'd like you to believe. but this is what phyber optik was telling us, when he pointed out this digital paradise or whatever IS brought to you BY the visa corporation, intel, ibm, the 'intelligence' community etc. whereas its a weapon aimed at you, and you think its your True Essence speaking to you, like staring at god inside of a loaded chamber.

>>7111 The internet is yet another layer of hyperreality, as such it is as real as our "real" reality. The internet used not to be part of hyperreality for every person in the world, but as more of the population adopts it, it solidifies its place as part of our model of the world. The only reason why there were no consequences on the old internet is that not too many people used it, as such it wasn't seen as "real" or "serious" despite being part of the users hyperreality. You can go to I2P or Gopher and have the unreal internet experience, but the "mainstream" internet is now as real as your neighborhood.

>>8425 >The only reason why there were no consequences on the old internet is that not too many people used it, as such it wasn't seen as "real" or "serious" despite being part of the users hyperreality. The old adage used to be "the internet isn't real life". I think it's still somewhat true but more about specific internet spaces that convince themselves that they represent "sensible normal people".

Any medium is real if enough people partake in it and remain there. People used to mistake the internet as some kind of solitary novel disconnected from our world. Arguably it's more real for some people who stake their social lives or careers on this.