I think what all of these 'thought experiments' and related threads loose sight of, is the somatic nature of experience - it's felt nature, the fact that it resides in a body. Life is not simply perception, sensation and experience - quite what it is, is impossible to specify exactly, notwithstanding the allure of the 'brain in a vat' or 'matrix' it is felt, situated, lived, in ways that go beyond simulation, although obviously nowadays our abilities to simulate are amazing.

Yet all of those ideas definitely evoke something in us - the possibility of life as a grand illusion, an imaginative theatre. It is that, in many ways, except for the fact of suffering, the pain of existence, which we know can't be an illusion, although we often wish it were.

So being 'transported to Nirvāṇa' might indeed be release from that, but there is no way that will ever be realised by the transhuman fantasy of 'transplanting one's mind'. After all the Universe has taken some billions of years to give rise to us, whatever process is unfolding here is not going to be subverted by whatever is dreamed up by the Kurzweils and Deutschs of this world, no matter how clever they appear to be.

in that case what choice would you make for yourself? — John

For me this is a null question. I could never be in the position to make that choice because for the choice to be possible the world would have to be so inconceivably different from how it is that 'I' - the person with the preferences, inclinations and values that the organism writing this has - could not be in it.

That goes along with my view that thought experiments like this can tell us nothing. They portray ethics as something involving ontological commitments, whereas for me ethics is fundamentally a practical activity, founded in our experience of this world.

Peter Singer, despite being in my view a very practical ethicist, did at one stage write an essay considering Nozick's experience machine. As I recall his response was nevertheless a fairly practical one: that he would not leave to go into the machine because there was too much suffering in the world that he felt he could help ameliorate by remaining in it, and that if at some indescribably distant point in the future the world had no such suffering in it, and the Machine was offered as an option at that time, then he doesn't know what he'd do because the world would be so different from this one that he wouldn't recognise himself or his feelings.

The world is shit, I'd press it in a heartbeat. — dukkha

Maybe for you. I for one cannot conceive life without suffering. The possibility of suffering is an integral part of what it means to be alive. Yes the world is full of suffering, some of it great suffering. But that does not entail the emotional judgement "the world is shit". You can look at life and perceive it to be just as full of suffering as the man who calls it shit and yet not call it shit - I cannot call it shit because I cannot imagine it without suffering. Without suffering it loses its value. Without suffering virtue is impossible. Without suffering there is no courage, no loyalty, no perseverance, no chastity, no patience, no charity, no knowledge, no nothing of value. All value - like diamonds - appears under pressure.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. — C.S. Lewis

It seems you may just be that tyrant. You project your own fear of suffering as a driving motive in everyone. But not everyone wants to get rid of their sufferings. For example if someone told me they will fulfil all my desires - anything I want - today and get me rid of all my present sufferings, I will say no. That would be the absolute worst thing someone could do to me. The whole thing is that I want to do it myself, I want to overcome obstacles, develop my character, and learn myself. I don't want someone else to do it for me. That would be the horror of horrors.

ethics is fundamentally a practical activity, founded in our experience of this world. — andrewk

Yes.

I could never be in the position to make that choice because for the choice to be possible the world would have to be so inconceivably different from how it is that 'I' - the person with the preferences, inclinations and values that the organism writing this has - could not be in it. — andrewk

What is it that you mean here? I'm trying to understand the sentence and read it a few times but I don't get it. Are you trying to say you don't think you're in the position to decide what would be good for everyone else in the world?

I understand I wouldn't know I were a brain in a vat, but such is always the case. Even as I stood there deciding to become a brain in the vat, logic would dictate that I might already be in a vat and this is just part of my vat brain experience.

https://youtu.be/zE7PKRjrid4

You can't know that the red pill isn't just part of your matrix

Yes but it's vacuous. It's empty of content. It makes no difference if you are a brain in a vat, or you are actually a living human being - it makes no difference to the actual business of living. Descartes was fucked up because his skepticism undermined itself. Such skepticism undermines the meaning of truth, and thus renders its own truthfulness non-existent and incoherent - it destroys the context in which talking about truth and falsity makes sense, and then proceeds to talk about truth and falsity. The evil demon, brain in a vat, etc. hypothesis is nonsense - utter nonsense.

I think of 'brains in vats' tales as imagined by the idle rich, who can somehow conceive of such scenarios without the many labourers and other resources and energy that would be needed for each brain. — mcdoodle

Fully automated society = envatting everyone into their ideal world? Was that Marx's true goal???

have yet to meet anyone who wants to be a brain in vat. — wuliheron

Then you just haven't argued with any of the dream machine advocates yet. They do exist. Their position is basically to hell with truth and reality, experience is what matters, and having the best possible experience trumps everything else.

Based on what I've seen said about the Cyrenaics, my guess is they would have agreed, since pleasure is the only good for them.

But not everyone wants to get rid of their sufferings. For example if someone told me they will fulfil all my desires - anything I want - today and get me rid of all my present sufferings, I will say no. That would be the absolute worst thing someone could do to me. The whole thing is that I want to do it myself, I want to overcome obstacles, develop my character, and learn myself. I don't want someone else to do it for me. That would be the horror of horrors. — Agustino

And if you get to suffer and overcome in the best possible world for doing that as Agustino, instead of this life, with all it's happenstance, would you still refuse?

As for others, the truth of this life is that some people do live a horror of horrors. There have been very many horrors in human history, and a great deal of suffering.

And if you get to suffer and overcome in the best possible world for doing that as Agustino, instead of this life, with all it's happenstance, would you still refuse? — Marchesk

You mean a world where my overcoming is guaranteed instead of merely possible? I would refuse, because then it wouldn't be my merit. My virtue, my character - neither would be the result of me, but rather the inevitable result of history.

I mean, people regularly watch all kinds of horrendously violent TV drama; and I'm pretty sure they don't want their lives to be like that. — John

Yeah, The Walking Dead is entertaining to watch, but it would be hell to live.

Yeah, The Walking Dead is entertaining to watch, but it would be hell to live. — Marchesk

I don't find that entertaining, actually that's fucked up and disgusting. If I was in charge, I'd ban all horror movies for teaching and entertaining psychotic mindsets. Take Saw for example - why the hell would anyone watch that? Some folks even find it cool. Their mind is fucked.

You mean a world where my overcoming is guaranteed instead of merely possible? I would refuse, because then it wouldn't be my merit. My virtue, my character - neither would be the result of me, but rather the inevitable result of history. — Agustino

I mean more like playing a video game, where you can accomplish goals, or fail to, but one tailored completely to your desire to suffer and overcome. The world we all live in isn't tailored for anyone. Shit just happens to all of us in meaningless proportions. Some people manage to get enough money and power to make it a little more tailored. But that's no guarantee against a thousand things that could go wrong at any moment.

I mean more like playing a video game, where you can accomplish goals, or fail to, but one tailored completely to your desire to suffer and overcome. — Marchesk

No - because a world tailored to my needs takes away from the merit of my character. The world we live in isn't tailored to anyone's desires. That's great!

Some people manage to get enough money and power to make it a little more tailored. But that's no guarantee against a thousand things that could go wrong at any moment. — Marchesk

Pity on them. While the gaining of the power may be meritous, the mere use of it to make the world more tailored is lowly. It's the making of something out of nothing that is great. In fact, the greater the opposition, the greater the victory, the greater the triumph. God overcame the impossible to create the world - made the world out of nothing. What greater triumph than possibility beating impossibility?

I don't find that entertaining, actually that's fucked up and disgusting. If I was in charge, I'd ban all horror movies for teaching and entertaining psychotic mindsets. — Agustino

Guess what? In your envatted world, you get to be in charge and ban all such shows. Although, it won't affect any of the other envatted minds, so you might not get the same satisfaction from doing so. That's one strike against being envatted. I suppose you could choose to delude yourself during the envatment procedure.

No - because a world tailored to my needs takes away from the merit of my character. The world we live in isn't tailored to anyone's desires. That's great! — Agustino

I'm glad you find it to be great. Very Nietzschean of you. Here's a thought, though. Do you ever wonder why we live in such a technological world? It's probably because people were never entirely happy with the way the world was, and figured out some way to tailor it. We could all just be overcoming lions and thirst on the Savanna with our two legs and opposable thumbs, but someone clever was always dissatisfied.

n fact, the greater the opposition, the greater the victory, the greater the triumph. — Agustino

If only we could all endure the holocaust. What titans of virtue we would become.

God overcame the impossible to create the world - made the world out of nothing. What greater triumph than possibility beating impossibility? — Agustino

Making a better world than this. Question for you. Why is it that believers wish to enter paradise when they die? Why not more character building?

Guess what? In your envatted world, you get to be in charge and ban all such shows. Although, it won't affect any of the other envatted minds, so you might not get the same satisfaction from doing so. That's one strike against being envatted. I suppose you could choose to delude yourself during the envatment procedure. — Marchesk

Yes, banning them only makes sense if I am opposed. Romeo's and Juliet's love only made sense because of the great opposition against it. Because they had to throw their lives to keep their love, that's what made them great, that's why they are eternal - they will be remembered. It is those who overcome the greatest obstacles based on their love for Truth and Justice that have overcome the world. It's not even about achieving - it's about fighting, it's about never giving up, it's about not yielding. That's what matters - not success. Romeo and Juliet failed in the flesh. And yet, in the spirit they have overcome - they have left this world with their heads up high - unlike other petty fools who cling to a few more days of life, these two threw it all on the line, gambled with it as if it was nothing. Their detachment from life - based on their greater attachment to Love - that was what overcame the world, that was what propelled them from mere mortals into eternity. It was their leap of faith.

Tyrants, dictators, and psychopaths - they are the world's greatest failures, because they undermine the very opposition they need in order to be great. Take a rapist. A rapist enjoys the sexual conquest of a woman, and thus does ANYTHING in order to achieve it. BUT - there always comes a point when she will stop resisting, and that moment the rapist will encounter his own pettiness and his own nothingness. There's nothing great about having sex with a stone. He has total obedience, but it's worth nothing. It's different than the obedience that comes out of the woman's own submission, out of her own free will. That latter is earned, the latter is worthy, but the former is nothing, it's petty, it's disgusting.

I'm glad you find it to be great. Very Nietzschean of you. Here's a thought, though. Do you ever wonder why we live in such a technological world? It's probably because people were never entirely happy with the way the world was, and figured out some way to tailor it. We could all just be overcoming lions and thirst on the Savanna with our two legs and opposable thumbs, but someone clever was always dissatisfied. — Marchesk

Yes and I congratulate those who were dissatisfied and did something about it. They have made something out of nothing. They are great.

If only we could all endure the holocaust. What titans of virtue we would become. — Marchesk

Well the people who did endure the Holocaust did become titans of virtue. I have great admiration and respect for people like Viktor Frankl - who showed that the human spirit is greater than the world, even in the worst of circumstances.

Making a better world than this. Question for you. Why is it that believers wish to enter paradise when they die? Why not more character building? — Marchesk

Yes making it better is worthy only if there is the struggle to make it better. Believers want paradise, because after living a life in hell, one wants a quietus. But that's only AFTER the great struggle is over, not before.

If it would do everything that it is claiming to be able to do then I'm sure everyone would, and probably someday will be pushing a similar button for at least a few hours a day. — Wosret

There is already a lot of hours spent watching screens, and plenty of people still enjoy escaping into a book. If and when we do have a Star Trek Holodeck quality VR, it will be interesting to see what happens. It's rather hard to believe that the characters on ST spend relatively little time in the Holodeck. But then again, most of those characters have rather exciting and demanding careers, being on the frontier of exploration with alien contact and spacial anomalies, so maybe that keeps the temptation at bay.

Star Trek didn't focus on regular folk much. Picard had a brother in France who maintained a vineyard. I guess that's still rewarding work in the 24th century?

True. Maybe I could formulate it a little better... I'll work on it.

Yes making it better is worthy only if there is the struggle to make it better. Believers want paradise, because after living a life in hell, one wants a quietus. But that's only AFTER the great struggle is over, not before. — Agustino

What was the plan before Adam & Eve screwed the pooch? Just give people virtue up front and a free ticket straight into paradise?

What was the plan before Adam & Eve screwed the pooch? Just give people the virtue up front and a ticket straight into paradise? — Marchesk

That's why they screwed the pooch, you answered it yourself. Because they only want paradise aftera life of great struggle. it's the struggle that teaches them about themselves (spirit) and about God.

Yes, banning them only makes sense if I am opposed. Romeo's and Juliet's love only made sense because of the great opposition against it. Because they had to throw their lives to keep their love, that's what made them great, that's why they are eternal - they will be remembered. It is those who overcome the greatest obstacles based on their love for Truth and Justice that have overcome the world. It's not even about achieving - it's about fighting, it's about never giving up, it's about not yielding. That's what matters - not success. Romeo and Juliet failed in the flesh. And yet, in the spirit they have overcome - they have left this world with their heads up high - unlike other petty fools who cling to a few more days of life, these two threw it all on the line, gambled with it as if it was nothing. — Agustino

As a story, anyway. How many couples in love do you suppose want to die young so that their love can be immortalized?

A saying comes to mind: "A live dog is better than a dead lion". Might have even come from Solomon. I suppose your view changes if the struggle leads to perfect envatment in the afterlife.

That's why they screwed the pooch, you answered it yourself. Because they only want paradise aftera life of great struggle. it's the struggle that teaches them about themselves (spirit) and about God. — Agustino

I don't think one life of a few short decades is enough for an eternity of no struggles. Seems to me that the Hindus have a better idea. Reincarnate over many lifetimes until you reach envatment. 70 years just isn't worthy.

As a story, anyway. How many couples in love do you suppose want to die young so that their love can be immortalized? — Marchesk

That's because they're weak and petty, and worth nothing. They are like worms and vermins, they will do anything to cling to one more day of earthly life. That's their pettiness. They have surrendered the only freedom they truly had, the freedom of dignity, for what? To live like beggars and scum a few more days, hours or years. What difference does it make, 5 more years or 50 more?

A saying comes to mind: "A live dog is better than a dead lion". Might have even come from Solomon. — Marchesk

You should read it in context:

This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that there is one fate for all men. Furthermore, the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil and insanity is in their hearts throughout their lives. Afterwards they go to the dead. For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten

It's talking about the afterlife, not about this life. "Whoever shall lose his life for my sake - shall gain it". That's the promise Jesus made. Whoever throws this earthly life as if it were nothing, and gambles with it for eternity - they are those truly worthy for the Kingdom and Heaven, and they shall overcome, despite the appearances. They shall be eternal, and live amongst the stars. While those who cling to life, scared, they will perish and will be forgotten - that's the GREAT irony. Those who cling to life will lose it, but those who gamble with it as if it were nothing shall take it all back, just as Jesus Himself did.

It's talking about the afterlife, not about this life. "Whoever shall lose his life for my sake - shall gain it". That's the promise Jesus made. Whoever throws this earthly life as if it were nothing, and gambles with it for eternity - they are those truly worthy for the Kingdom and Heaven, and they shall overcome, despite the appearances. They shall be eternal, and live amongst the stars. While those who cling to life, scared, they will perish and will be forgotten - that's the GREAT irony. Those who cling to life will lose it, but those who gamble with it as if it were nothing shall take it all back, just as Jesus Himself did. — Agustino

Christians are amazing at reinterpreting the Jewish scriptures to fit Christian theology. Solomon says nothing like that in the full verse you quoted.

But the idea of life being a struggle to be embraced for a better life later on is an interesting idea. If only there were evidence.

So according to you Solomon says the following:

If someone, under the threat of death, tells you to have sex with them (for example), then you should do it, because it's better to live than to die? No - it's much better to die with honour, as Socrates did, as Jesus did, as Seneca did, as the world's greatest of human beings did - than to cling to life like some dirty and shameless scum, willing to do anything for a few more seconds of life. Is your spirit not greater than this earthly life itself? Would you humiliate yourself for a few more seconds of life? Is this what Solomon could possibly be saying? Tell me. Is he saying do whatever it takes to live a few more seconds? Is he saying have no shame, have no honour?

I think Solomon is just making some pessimistic observations about life. You're turning it into a Nietzschean overcoming the world thing with a Christian afterlife.

But the idea of life being a struggle to be embraced for a better life later on is an interesting idea. If only there were evidence. — Marchesk

Except that I don't embrace struggle for a better life. I embrace it because the SPIRIT is greater than the FLESH - IN THIS LIFE. You can kill the flesh, but never the spirit. if I never give up, even if I end up dead, so what? My spirit was never killed. My spirit was never touched. My spirit clinged to itself, and thus saved itself. The real death is when your spirit is killed. When you bend down, for a few more seconds of life - THAT my friend, is the real death. To be attached to life is disgusting, it is shameful. It's saying that your spirit, your will, is worth less than this brutal and petty life itself. You'll take this hell itself, over your dignity. That is shameful.

I think Solomon is just making some pessimistic observations about life. You're turning it into a Nietzschean overcoming the world thing with a Christian afterlife. — Marchesk

No answer my question. Is Solomon saying that it is better to humiliate yourself in order to live longer? Is he saying that or not?

No answer my question. Is Solomon saying that it is better to humiliate yourself in order to live longer? Is he doing that or not? — Agustino

I don't know, but he seems to be saying that being alive is better than being dead, in general, because the dead aren't aware of anything.