Guest guest Posted May 12, 2006 Report Share Posted May 12, 2006 a " virtual person " would presumably be a software rendition on computer hardware of what could " pass " for being a person. but if the hardware is a human nervous system... then the so-called person (inhabiting that hardware, I suppose we could say...) is a software rendition which " appears as " a person so is it not at the very least ironic that what is called an *actual* person (as opposed to a virtual one) is itself just a software representation... and that the representation is *taken as* real, just as with what is called virtual. in other words, what is *not* virtual? even " reality " is necessarily virtual, is it not? and there is nothing fundamental anywhere that can be pointed to that is " real " ... (no, not even simple sensory experience) it is all a slippery sea of slipperiness. just a different way of looking at the buddhist notion of impermanence Bill (a convenient " handle " for the software that is constructing this message) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.