Would you live out your life in a simulation?

hypericin

Suppose that in the future immersive simulations have reached a technological level where they are indistinguishable from reality. Companies now offer "new lives", perfect fidelity realities constructed to your specification. You can live out your wildest fantasies, be anyone you choose, in any time and place, real or imagined, with any capabilities you can dream of. Being a simulation, you are "immortal", for as long as your physical body survives.

There is just one problem: the brain-computer interface requires intensive surgery, and the body is simply not independently viable afterwards. In other words, once you enter the simulation, there is no going back.

You have accumulated the staggering amount of wealth necessary for the procedure, and the lifetime of maintenance. You are talking to the sales guy, who is excitedly offering suggestions for your next life. However, you start to have misgivings. Do you really want to live in a "heaven", populated by shadows, guaranteed to be (in reality) completely alone, for the rest of your life? Where every achievement will in fact be in vain, and go unnoticed, except in your mind? To live a life, in truth, that will be guaranteed to be meaningless?

You express your misgivings to the sales guy.

"Ah, sir, I'm so glad you brought this up. Many have the same concern. Thankfully, we have the perfect solution. For an additional charge, which I admit is high, we can modify your memory, so that you forget your old life entirely. A suitable replacement memory will be installed, matched to your specifications. As far as you will know, you will be born, live, and die in your private world, and will never be the wiser, aside from the odd philosophical speculation you may be inclined to, from time to time."

Do you agree to the procedure?

(If you like, check my story based on this concept)

EDIT:

"Ah, sir, I understand completely. Of course you don't want to abandon your memories. Very discerning of you. That is why we offer our Continuity+ package. It comes at twice the price. But hear me out:

Our team of Memory Specialists will precisely edit your memory. Not only will you not remember this conversation and the (quite traumatic) surgical procedure melding your brain with the simulator, but any memory that this technology even exists will be edited out!

In its place, we will insert a custom "bridge" memory designed to fool you into thinking your simulated world is continuous with the real one. Just last week, I helped design one for a customer, wonderful woman. Psychometric testing revealed a vague lingering belief in Small Folk. And so she thinks, over the course of the last month, that a gnome started appearing to her, and offered her a one way trip to another dimension. It sounded too wonderful a place to pass up (of course, she designed it, which she no longer remembers), and she entered the narrow, crooked door revealed by gnome. And poof, there she is, enjoying her new life in a heaven of her own design, all her important memories intact!"

(Unfortunately, I can't add a poll question)

Art48

Interesting post. Some thoughts.

I can see two perspectives for answering.

First Perspective: No, I would not agree because I would not trust the technology to not have a bug which might lead to a nightmarish experience.

Second Perspective: Suppose God Himself assured me that everything is as described in the post; that there will be no unpleasant surprises.

In this case, I have a question: if I picked “could forget,” would there be any discernible difference between my experience of the world now, and my experience after the procedure? If I could not distinguish the two types of experience, then maybe I’d accept the procedure because, for all I know, I might currently be in a simulation, and so I would merely be trading one simulation for another, more enjoyable simulation.

If I picked “could not forget” then I would know that I was in a simulation. I might not trade in what is, or, at least, what may be, reality for a simulation.

YiRu Li

Yes! Why not?

180 Proof

↪hypericin

No. No.

A "fully-immersive simulation" prosthesis (with no off-switch / exit) = a lobotomy plus continuous 24/7 morphine drip.

Vera Mont

I'm old enough to contemplate non-existence on a daily basis.
Offered an alternative of my choice, I'd certainly opt for my version of Utopia. But I would still like to remember everyone and everything I liked about this life.

hypericin

No, I would not agree because I would not trust the technology to not have a bug which might lead to a nightmarish experience. — Art48

This kind of misgiving, while undoubtedly accurate (who wouldn't have such fears?), nevertheless seems to sidestep the larger question. Like you say, lets presume that you know with complete certainty, from God or otherwise, that the simulation is exactly as described.

In this case, I have a question: if I picked “could forget,” would there be any discernible difference between my experience of the world now, and my experience after the procedure? — Art48

None at all, save that the world as you know it now is probably not arranged in a way that you would have likely chosen in the simulation.

f I could not distinguish the two types of experience, then maybe I’d accept the procedure because, for all I know, I might currently be in a simulation, and so I would merely be trading one simulation for another, more enjoyable simulation. — Art48

But is your conviction that we *might* be living in a simulation now high enough to be a factor in this decision? For my part, I think there are pretty good reasons for presuming that we are *not*: a simulation is necessarily a vastly more complex explanation for what is, than a world that is as it seems. Therefore, the simulation explanation should be discarded. That is a topic for another thread.

hypericin

A "fully-immersive simulation" prosthesis (with no off-switch / exit) = a lobotomy plus continuous 24/7 morphine drip. — 180 Proof

But a lobotomy + morphine can only offer dull, undifferentiated pleasure, whereas the simulation can be of the richest, most vibrant and stimulating world you can dream of.

Offered an alternative of my choice, I'd certainly opt for my version of Utopia. But I would still like to remember everyone and everything I liked about this life. — Vera Mont

You would prefer keeping your memories, even if they meant knowing that your existence was a lie? How much would the artificiality and meaninglessness of your life bother you?

180 Proof

↪hypericin

Habituation to stimuli (e.g. dopamine-on-demand) sets in and eventually it's all "dull, undifferentiated pleasure" (just ask any (rich) junkie ... they never complain about that).

... knowing that your existence was a lie?

The truth is I exist both before and after I stick my head into a permanent brain prosthetic. The only "lie" would be not to remember, or deny, that I'm now "living for the rest of my non-simulated life in a simulation".

↪Vera Mont

:up:

petrichor

The real issue that people should be considering here, and probably the point, is that the other people you relate to would not be real, would not have their own points of view, would not experience anything you do. Your actions would arguably have no real moral consequence. Your spouse, if you were to have one, would be an illusion, with nobody looking out at you from behind those eyes.

I wouldn't enter for this reason alone.

If, instead, every single human or animal entity would be "inhabited" like my own avatar, that might be a different story. But in that case, there is no guarantee things would go so perfectly.

hypericin

probably the point — petrichor

:up:

If, instead, every single human or animal entity would be "inhabited" like my own avatar, that might be a different story. — petrichor

"No sir, I'm afraid that the technology just won't allow for it."

I wouldn't enter for this reason alone. — petrichor

"But sir, might I remind you of our forgetfulness package? We have done studies, our clients which purchased the package are slightly *less* troubled by thoughts of solipsism than meatwalkers like us! This speaks to both the fidelity of our agent simulators, and the fact that they are just having too much fun to be troubled by such notions!"

Pantagruel

Stop accepting new input from the universe in favour of my own fantasies? That's a pretty unimaginative and unchallenging way to spend the rest of my life. The only scenario in which something like this makes sense for me is in the context of a prosthesis, where the simulation is an attempt to reproduce the full spectrum of events in the actual environment and includes the capability of interacting with them via external effectors.

180 Proof

Stop accepting new input from the universe in favour of my own fantasies? That's a pretty unimaginative and unchallenging way to spend the rest of my life. — Pantagruel

:up:

Vera Mont

How much would the artificiality and meaninglessness of your life bother you? — hypericin

Having chosen it knowingly, the artificiality wouldn't bother me at all. I already don't think life has a "meaning". The idea of Heaven doesn't seem to bother Christians or Muslims, so why should a disembodied dream trouble an atheist?

ssu

At the first place: why is ordinary life so bad?

Aren't we here for others too? Isn't life something about continuation of life?

Aren't hardships, disappointments, failures that then make success and achieving something so great?

So No. No.

If this would be a possibility for someone who is totally paralyzed, basically a 'vegetable', this might sound very humane...

Lionino

The vote distribution makes me suspect people did not understand the question. They would be more willing to go into the machine IF they kept their past memories and knew they were living a lie? Odd.

On the other hand, what guarantee do we have that we are not plugged in in a machine right now?

On one side, even if we are, going to yet another machine adds another layer of lies we are living in — but does it make any difference how many layers?

On the other side, why not replace this imperfect, often catastrophic reality for an idealised one?

Vera Mont

Aren't we here for others too? Isn't life something about continuation of life? — ssu

Suppose you've been here long enough and done all that. Life is not going to continue: you'll have to decline, suffer and die. But most of us don't like the idea of ceasing to exist. The possibility of continuing in some form is what all the afterlife and upload fantasies are about, but there is no pleasure in continuation if you lose your identity.

jkop

Suppose that in the future immersive simulations... ..indistinguishable from reality — hypericin

I think it would still be fairly easy to distinguish between, for example, drinking a glass of beer and a simulation of it. The conditions under which the two experiences arise are radically different, and beer drinking is certainly more than the experience. I prefer the real thing.

Michael

continuous 24/7 morphine drip — 180 Proof

Sign me up.

Pantagruel

The vote distribution makes me suspect people did not understand the question. They would be more willing to go into the machine IF they kept their past memories and knew they were living a lie? Odd. — Lionino

Yes, I thought that too. But maybe the point is that people much prefer to keep their memories than to abandon them? So even though you said "could" forget perhaps it was interpreted as being a necessary condition, if you "had" to forget?

hypericin

The idea of Heaven doesn't seem to bother Christians or Muslims, so why should a disembodied dream trouble an atheist? — Vera Mont

But Heaven is presumably a real place, importantly populated by other real entities, such as dead loved ones. You get to resume your real relationships with these people. Whereas with the simulation, you would be condemned to spend the rest of your life with very advanced, animated chatGPTs.

The conditions under which the two experiences arise are radically different, and beer drinking is certainly more than the experience. — jkop

Is it though? Why does it matter under what conditions they rise? Experientially, according to this thought experiment, they are identical.

On the other hand, what guarantee do we have that we are not plugged in in a machine right now? — Lionino

We have no guarantee, but personally I consider it highly unlikely. Whereas, if you enter the machine, you would have an absolute guarantee.

The vote distribution makes me suspect people did not understand the question. They would be more willing to go into the machine IF they kept their past memories and knew they were living a lie? Odd. — Lionino

Yes, I thought that too. But maybe the point is that people much prefer to keep their memories than to abandon them? — Pantagruel

Yes, I honestly didn't consider this aspect. I wish I could reword the poll, or create a new option. You get to keep your memories, and yet not know you are living a lie. So for instance, they erase only the memories of signing up, and even the memories that the simulation tech exists, and then create the memory of getting sucked into a magical portal or something, so you think that your experience of old and new world is continuous.

At the first place: why is ordinary life so bad?

Aren't we here for others too? — ssu

A true denizen of the happiest country on Earth.

Vera Mont

But Heaven is presumably a real place, importantly populated by other real entities, such as dead loved ones. You get to resume your real relationships with these people. — hypericin

Maybe. Of course, nobody changes or achieves anything, so the relations, tearful reunion once over, are static and the whole exercise is pointless. Plus, they risk discovering which loved ones are missing, and a much bigger risk of themselves being denied admission. And that, after a lifetime of fear and self-abnegation. And yet they take all that in stride, so strong is the desire to continue.
That's why I think losing oneself in forgetfulness is a deal-breaker for many.
Just think how terrified we all are at the prospect of senility.

One of our most important living philosophers, David Chalmers, has published a recent book that deals with this, and many similar questions about techno-philosophy. It's called Reality + -- I highly recommend it.

hypericin

Maybe. Of course, nobody changes or achieves anything, so the relations, tearful reunion once over, are static and the whole exercise is pointless. — Vera Mont

Or is that just an inaccurate, cartoon version? Perhaps every relationship in heaven evolves into its deepest, maximum potential? Everything left unsaid gets to be said.

Plus, they risk discovering which loved ones are missing — Vera Mont

Or, the benevolent deity provides a perfect simulacrum in these cases. Maybe not as good as the real thing, but less painful for the deserving souls.

That's why I think losing oneself in forgetfulness is a deal-breaker for many.
Just think how terrified we all are at the prospect of senility. — Vera Mont

Yeah, in my stupidity I didn't think it through. I don't actually want that tension mucking with what is to me the central question. I edited in a third option, what do you think?

180 Proof

↪Vera Mont

:up: :up: :up:

hypericin

I edited in a third option. Would you take this one? Unfortunately I can't add a poll.

NOS4A2

↪hypericin

It all reads like an exercise in destroying oneself and leaving an abomination in its place. That’s a big nope for me.

JuanZu

Why would you want to live in a world alone where everything, including people, is fictional? Sounds terrifying. It is also very disrespectful to the people you love and people who love you. I can't think of anything more selfish.

jkop

Why does it matter under what conditions they rise? Experientially, according to this thought experiment, they are identical. — hypericin

In the veridical case beer is experienced whereas in the simulation no beer is experienced. Yet we suppose that also in the simulation beer is experienced. How come? One plausible explanation is that the word 'experience' is used here in two different senses. In one sense it refers to the beer that I experience, and in the other sense it refers to the experience regardless of the beer (e.g. brain states)

In the thought experiment we are supposed to vacillate between these two senses, for if there is nothing more to an experience than the brain state, then one might as well replace the experience of beer with artificially produced brain states, i.e. pure hallucinations.

Yet the distinctions we make between hallucinations and veridical experiences are not so dependent on whether one can spot experiential differences between two supposedly identical experiences. What distinguishes hallucinations is that nothing is experienced, hence the word 'hallucination'. To call it 'experience' is a fallacy of ambiguity.

Vera Mont

Or is that just an inaccurate, cartoon version? — hypericin

It's the one churches are selling. I don't believe any version of it, but millions of people apparently do. More cartoonish ones, even, involving wings and harps or brainless, powerless virgins.

Everything left unsaid gets to be said. — hypericin

As one has had parents, a sibling, a spouse and children, I can tell you that's one of the worst ideas, ever. Think of what you have had to hold back.

Or, the benevolent deity provides a perfect simulacrum in these cases. — hypericin

How does that differ from a computer simulation, where you can choose your cast, plot and setting?

Maybe not as good as the real thing, but less painful for the deserving souls.

Maybe, maybe, maybe.... I'd rather trust a computer than a god.

I edited in a third option, what do you think? — hypericin

You fixed the only thing anyone can object to. But I was fine was fine with the original.

hypericin

You fixed the only thing anyone can object to. But I was fine was fine with the original. — Vera Mont

The main objection to me, and to some others here, is that you are condemning yourself to live in a solipsistic world. Why wouldn't that bother you?

As one has had parents, a sibling, a spouse and children, I can tell you that's one of the worst ideas, ever. Think of what you have had to hold back. — Vera Mont

:lol: True.

It is also very disrespectful to the people you love and people who love you. I can't think of anything more selfish. — JuanZu

Oh indeed, check my story.

It all reads like an exercise in destroying oneself and leaving an abomination in its place. — NOS4A2

Perhaps. But that abomination is probably leading a more satisfactory inner life than you or I. Surely that counts for something.

hypericin

Yet the distinctions we make between hallucinations and veridical experiences are not so dependent on whether one can spot experiential differences between two supposedly identical experiences. What distinguishes hallucinations is that nothing is experienced, hence the word 'hallucination'. To call it 'experience' is a fallacy of ambiguity. — jkop

It is not incorrect to call a hallucination an "experience". Hallucinations have experiential content. The sort of experience/hallucination proposed in the OP has no real-world equivalent, we have not collectively assigned a word to it yet.

But, suppose you were completely immersed in a computer game, to the point where at least part of you believed you were actually experiencing the virtual world. Would you use the word "hallucination"? No, I don't think so, "experience" would be more apt. "Hallucination" denotes that the experience originates from within the brain, probably from some temporary or permanent brain disorder. Whereas the "experience" of the computer game, or the OP's simulation, arises externally from the brain. Whether it is veridical doesn't matter.

Would you live out your life in a simulation?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions