My train of thoughts has been challenged once again. Yeap, let me explain, what do you trust more of its real existence:
a) the money that you have in your bank account and which it is reported in your monthly paper statement.
b) the virtual information that is only in your web-server.
Both concepts exist due to human beings. However we can only touch the money and we cannot touch any virtual information (unless we print it out of course). As a matter of fact the “virtuality” only can be accessed through the use of some kind of hardware. Thus, for its own “nature”, perhaps one could say that the logic of the “virtuality” is more complex to understand than the logic of the money,
Well my dear fellows, I think I am wrong on this. Maybe because I have a close emotional relationship with the fields that are related with -ware (hardware and software) but at least for me at this moment in time:
a) I can try to explain what “virtual” is, and the logic behind it. I think it is clear in my head this concept.
b) I cannot explain what money is, and I am confused about it and its actual logic behind it.
I found a youtube video (bellow attached) trying to explain the logic of money. (I recommend to watch it) . No idea if the concepts and information of it are 100% correct or not. Nevertheless it helped me to clarify:
a) If I lost all my emails (due to a bug or something else) I can keep calm because there are backups for this kind of events. I trust in virtuality!
b) Our economical world system has not backup against wall-street events. And we are exponentially heading to an interesting unknown mess. I just hope that this story has a happy end, because I do not trust (perhaps for the lack of understanding) in our money organization.
Anyway, let’s see what we will happen with these two game arenas 🙂
Interesting video. I’ve got a different story for you.
There is a widespread misunderstanding that virtual things (‘virtual’ as in cyberspace, inside a computer etc.) are less physical than some other things. However, all virtual things exist in a very real sense: as voltage differences in circuits, magnetic blips on a rapidly rotating disk, streams of electrons lighting up the aperture grille, etc.
Now, what’s interesting here is that ‘money’ is still not an inherent quality of any natural object — it is a function we give to an object or class of objects. Green pieces of paper are money only because we’ve collectively given those papers such function. Round pieces of metal are money only because people collectively treat them as tools of exchange. Blips on a magnetic disk are money because we together have decided to treat them as money.
Now, you can go Searle’s way and say that all kinds of physical things can /be/ money if people collectively impose a certain status function on them. (And he says also that institutional facts (“this green paper is money”) are built on physical objects (“green paper”) and cannot exist without physical objects. Or you can go Smith’s way and say that magnetic blips /represent/ money.
Both views have very far-reaching philosophical consequences. Pick your choice.
Thank you for your comment, but overall thank you for the good food for the though.
I need to digest a bit more the idea between Searle and Smith. In addition with the “real” existence of virtuality as you wrote it down. Which I agree with you, it exists in that real sense, however in order for it to exist can we say that it is in function of the hardware that “embody” it? .
Then I will be back on this.