What's more real about it?

As a society we've created so much hype around the virtual world and the negative implications of our involvement in and fixation with this world. The advancement of computer technology is especially frightening for the older generation, according to Sherry Turkle, a generation unwilling to bend it's concept of what life really is. While I won't dispute the idea that computers are not living because they don't have emotions, experience the world sensually, reproduce, or even die necessarily, I think it is absurd to reject human-machine interaction on the basis of them being artificial and therefore foreign beings.
Humans are far too egocentric. Many of us believe our earth is the only one on which life exists. We claim to know anything about animal intelligence despite that fact that innumerable species potentially exist we don't even know of. We interpret the world only as it applies to us, a natural and understandable tendency, but one that is also very limiting. We give ourselves far too much credit, give our world far too much validity, and I'd argue that it is no more real than the virtual one.
Turkle focuses a section of her piece on Multi-User Dungeons (MUDS) in which she discusses the interaction many Dungeons and Dragons players have had with the virtual world. She claims that "the anonymity of MUDs multiple and often unexplored aspects of the self" (RDC, 241). It seems possible that these selves are often unexplored because they are suppressed by the confines of societal patterns. Many people that Turkle interviewed expressed this feeling of being a composite being, made up of multiple personalities that physical society tried to define unilaterally. This fragmented sort of personality is undoubtedly more true more real than the one many people feel comfortable expressing daily. So what makes the physical world more real that the virtual world?
We can't deny the existence of our real identities simply by suppressing the impulses in the "real" world. A college senior Turkle referenced said that he would "rather rape on MUDs where no harm is done" (RDC, 242). So who is he, the 'good guy' who would never be violent towards others or the person who would act upon violent impulses if there were no repercussions? My vote is for the latter, at least in part. That definitely not a definition of everything he is but it is a real, true expression of part of him.
I think the digital world is worrisome for many because it is a reveling mirror exposing many of the lies about human interaction that we play along with daily. Role playing games make us question what our real role is, and in which world we embody it, the digital or the physical.