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? — hypericin

Because the alternative is death. If I could opt for virtual experience of my own choosing, why would I prefer no experience of any kind at all?

Because the alternative is death. If I could opt for virtual experience of my own choosing, why would I prefer no experience of any kind at all? — Vera Mont

No, the alternative is not death. The alternative is living out the remainder of your life naturally. You will die in the simulation, when your physical body dies.

Of course. My main concern is to uncover the true nature of reality, to fathom the real, the absolute. Inside the machine I will be free from the hustle and bustle of everyday existence, having to work, cook, eat, etc, just contemplation. This will allow me to be focus on the real, intelligible world of eternal Nous without the distraction of the mutable and ephemeral.

Although I suppose I could just as well go the low tech route and become a Carthusian, Anchorite, or Cistercian.




IDK if I could hack it though. I stayed with the Cistercians not long ago and those guys get up at 3:15 am 365 days a year to start the Liturgy of the Hours and then get to contemplating before sunrise prayer at 5:30. Compline, the last communal prayer of the day, isn't until 8 pm, and its very cold at night. Seems grueling.

No, the alternative is not death. The alternative is living out the remainder of your life naturally. You will die in the simulation, when your physical body dies. — hypericin

You never told me that! Or maybe you did and I forget: that happens a lot at my age. Ok, in that case, I'll enter the simulation when I'm declining in my terminal illness. A few weeks or months, being my best physical self in Utopia is still far better than my expected natural life.

Ok, in that case, I'll enter the simulation when I'm declining in my terminal illness — Vera Mont

But waiting until the very end is waiting until the stakes are lowest. What about now? Would you consider even the third option?

Of course. My main concern is to uncover the true nature of reality — Count Timothy von Icarus

What if you uncover the true nature of reality, and no one is there to appreciate it? Wouldn't it be better to live a simple, contemplative life in the real world, if that is all you are after?

Inside the machine I will be free from the hustle and bustle of everyday existence, having to work, cook, eat, etc, just contemplation. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Taking that the machine operates based on its programming, and not on the laws of nature, you would not really be uncovering true reality, but a subset of it.

What about now? Would you consider even the third option? — hypericin

No, it would be unkind and irresponsible. I still have commitments and unfinished projects.

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? — hypericin

The meaning we create in reality is closely linked to making a mark on history. It does not need to be noticeable or make you famous, rather it is about being part of this entropic universe. As I live in this reality I am in sync with the entropic forces of this universe, I am part of something and that has meaning, however minute that meaning is to us and how essentially meaningless that is within the context of what we consider having purpose.

If my actions and existence lose that core and basic meaning as being a functional part of reality, then there is only an absolute meaninglessness left and I don't believe anyone could find joy in that other than for a brief moment.

I don't believe anyone could find joy in that other than for a brief moment. — Christoffer

And yet people lose themselves to drug-induced euphoria, or role-playing video games. Not every life is purposeful and meaningful in reality.

And yet people lose themselves to drug-induced euphoria, or role-playing video games. Not every life is purposeful and meaningful in reality. — Vera Mont

You missed my definition of meaning. I focused on the absolute core meaning that can be objectively argued for, the core universal purpose of entropy; how we are a part of how our reality fundamentally works:

It does not need to be noticeable or make you famous, rather it is about being part of this entropic universe. As I live in this reality I am in sync with the entropic forces of this universe, I am part of something and that has meaning, however minute that meaning is to us and how essentially meaningless that is within the context of what we consider having purpose. — Christoffer

You still do that when engaging with art/video games or taking drugs because you interact with actual reality and people. But you aren't doing that when living inside a simulation that only have p-zombies as its population and no real consequences to its reality.

If I'm facing death and this is a way for me to continue existing, then yes, if you fear death and don't want it, it may be preferable, as long as you have an off button for when that reality reaches its pointless conclusion.

If, however, you are speaking of a simulation with other people in which you can continue your existence and have meaningful interactions with others, then it would be a rather soothing continuation of your self when you face death in the real world.

I would not, however, in good health in actual reality, choose a simulation over reality when I still have life left to live. I see it only as a continuation for when my physical body can no longer function and provide me life.

Absolute core meaning the same whether your presence in the world causes improvement or decline? Just marching down the entropy train is enough? OK.

I would not, however, in good health in actual reality, choose a simulation over reality when I still have life left to live. I see it only as a continuation for when my physical body can no longer function and provide me life. — Christoffer

Nor would I, as previously articulated. But fantasy beats all hell out of gasping and groaning at the center of a web of wires and tubes.

Taking that the machine operates based on its programming, and not on the laws of nature, you would not really be uncovering true reality, but a subset of it. — Lionino

I would say, for the purposes of the thought experiment, that it is a reasonable enough facsimile (should the user choose) such that philosophical conclusions drawn from experience in the simulated world are valid in the real world.

The meaning we create in reality is closely linked to making a mark on history. It does not need to be noticeable or make you famous, rather it is about being part of this entropic universe. As I live in this reality I am in sync with the entropic forces of this universe, I am part of something and that has meaning, however minute that meaning is to us and how essentially meaningless that is within the context of what we consider having purpose. — Christoffer

I don't think I agree. Making your mark in history doesn't mean leaving a mark on the entropic universe. It means, making a mark on other people. Consider writing a novel. The words on the page are a change of the universe (assuming the novel is print, not digital, where the physical change is pretty rarefied). What matters though, is that people read it, that it affects other people. Would you rather print a million physical books that nobody reads, or have a million digital copies of your book read?

I think other people is what is crucially missing from the simulation, not a physical universe. If the simulation was populated by other people, then no problem, I would happily enter, even though I would still leave no mark on the physical world. But imagine a novelist entering the simulation, to finally have time to finish that novel. Oops.

But imagine a novelist entering the simulation, to finally have time to finish that novel. Oops. — hypericin

But isn't the fleeting preciousness of the time what confers the value on such a work? If you make conditions ideal for writing, will that produce the best writing?

The sort of experience/hallucination proposed in the OP has no real-world equivalent, we have not collectively assigned a word to it yet. — hypericin

The simulation is indistinguishable from reality, recall, yet the experience "has no real-world equivalent"?

To be indistinguishable from reality means that the simulation is experienced as reality. In this sense the experience has a "real-world equivalent". But this sense is switched into another sense when you talk of the experience as having no real-world equivalent, since it is not reality that is experienced but a simulation of reality.

By vacillating between these two senses of what is experienced we are promised that one could be fully immersed in a simulation, and thus experience only simulation and no reality. Like a brain in a vat. But I think the promise is based on a fallacy of ambiguity.

"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. — hypericin

What could "..externally from the brain." mean?

Let's say the proposed future brain-computer interface (BCI) has replaced your eyes, so instead of seeing things the BCI stimulates the brain to evoke the experience of seeing things that the computer constructs, like the things we see in computer games.

But when you play a computer game the things that you see, e.g. real light, real screen, real images (that simulate the optic features of things), are not inside nor connected to your brain's perceptual system. What you see is external to the process of seeing. In this sense your experience of the computer game is veridical (it doesn't matter if the real images that you see are images of fictional things).

But when you skip the real light, screen, and images, and replace your eyes with a brain-computer interface, then the relation between brain and computer is basically the same as the relation between brain and a mind-altering drug or decease. Hence 'hallucination'.

By vacillating between the sense in which a computer game is being experienced, and the sense in which the experience is a process in the brain's perceptual system, we are offered the promise that in the future the computer game could be played inside the brain. But that's because the word 'experience' is used in different senses.

Yes/no but slightly confused.

Yes to forgetting entirely and having a commensurate memory scheme installed for the new life to make sense - and yes If the bridge memory is inserted but I can’t forget my own life.

No, if I cannot forget.

I believe the life I've experienced and the memories I've gathered throughout my life have helped shape the essence of who I am today. I also believe I would not choose a simulated life unless I were already living in a vegetative state. (and what a great option to have for anyone already living in that level of hell). Then it would be my desire to live what life I had left in a simulation with all previous memories intact (except for maybe the event that caused my catatonic state). And also, I don't think I would want to know it was a simulation. However, all of this could change when and if I were actually presented with a real-life situation (which I'm not) where this decision would have to be made. And I am beyond grateful that I don't have to make such a huge life-altering decision as that.

I’d prefer a harsh reality or truth rather than a comforting lie which is why I voted against living in such a simulation. One of the enjoyable aspects of natural and real life is the challenges and adversity it can sometimes present and our ability to deal with such adversity which would help an individual build character and resilience. For me then the simulation would be a cop out.

But then again if prior to being born I was offered the option of being born into wealth rather than say to a poor family then that would present to me a bigger dilemma than the artificial wealth of a simulated environment.

One of the enjoyable aspects of natural and real life is the challenges and adversity it can sometimes present and our ability to deal with such adversity which would help an individual build character and resilience. For me then the simulation would be a cop out. — kindred

I like this, and I think I agree. There are many things I wanted to be when I was younger that I cringe at now. My "perfect" world then would betray the world I want now. Also, I think older me deserves what it will have brought about. Negative experiences shaped my life and character in tremendous and painful ways, but I wouldn't have what I do otherwise. Should the magic genie offer to take bad times away, I would risk "now" and the happiness I've earned through imperfect conditions.

I could see how many would take the "dopamine drip" though.

One of the enjoyable aspects of natural and real life is the challenges and adversity it can sometimes present and our ability to deal with such adversity which would help an individual build character and resilience. For me then the simulation would be a cop out. — kindred

This sounds good, and there is probably truth to it. But I'm not sure people actually act according to it. By this logic, you should refuse a gift of a million dollars, because that would automatically resolve a lot of valuable adversity. Most wouldn't even if ideologically they value adversity.

Moreover, you have total control of the character of the simulation. You can absolutely build in adversity, the kind of adversity that is most suitable for your personal growth, rather than the actual adversity that can so often tear us down.