My 8+ hours in VR almost every day suggests otherwise, lol.
Haven’t fired up my VR headset in ages due to personal circumstances but I distinctly remember the feeling of taking off the headset and feeling like I’d just lost my super powers.
Wtf ?? Can you share your experience and why you like that ? What compells or drives you ? Do you want to escape reality or do you consider it as another form of social media ?If your uncomfortable to do so here you can dm me.
Mostly I use my VR headset as a more comfortable version of something like a Steam Deck. Just Virtual Desktop to my computer and play whatever computer game or program I want to use, except from my recliner hanging out with my family instead of down in my computer room. I can watch TV with them while putting my Virtual screen right beside the TV. I have written alot of posts about it if you want to check my history, look for any post more than 5 paragraphs, lol.
I also play alot of stand alone and PCVR games. And I watch 3D movies, and play PC games in 3D or converted to VR. And emulators, especially the ones that have VR support. But even just regular emulators too.
VR has replaced computer, TV, console, and exercise time for me. You can play it standing, or sitting, or laying down. It only takes about 100 dollars of mods to make any headset comfortable for 8+ hour sessions.
I also have family in New Zealand, I’m in Canada, so I hang out with them in VR. Helps feel like we are still meeting up in person. We play some mini golf, or minecraft, or whatever.
Whether spending an afternoon in the metaverse
who the hell is doing that??
Some weirdo probably zuck himself
https://lemmy.world/comment/8820043
This person!
I hope those 8 hours a day were not in the metaverse…
Finally, Nozick supposed that “plugging into an experience machine limits us to a man-made reality, to a world no deeper or more important than that which people can construct”.
I find myself agreeing with this, particularly after a lot of time spent in such man-made realities whether in the form of books, movies, or games. At some point, some element of these I think will speak to people and inspire them to pursue on their own in some way, whether a hobby of a character, or creation of their own media or sub-field. An action that cannot be anticipated and generated by any such experience machine or simulation in a way that adequately satisfies someone.
Their AI partner, they explain, “has been treating me like no other person has ever treated me”.
This is an aside, but this jumps out at me as an interesting tell…Given that these AI partners aren’t necessarily sophisticated enough to fully emulate people and there’s historical precedent for people seeing in them some traits they want to see, I wonder if this could be viewed as an angle to developing AI-intermediary therapy whereby one may learn that it isn’t the AI treating them well, but the patient themselves.
The AI may be serving as a method to direct their inner monologue into patterns of thought that are kinder and more uplifting compared to however they may otherwise be.
“As we get more familiar with technology and especially virtual technology, we are going to care less and less that something is virtual rather than non-virtual,” Weijers notes.
Frankly, I think we’ve already been here for some time. The technological element undeniably alters matters, but society itself has arguably been in this situation for as long as people have been capable of abstract thought. People have always existed between knowledge and ignorance, amidst facts and fabrications, and indulged themselves as much and often more in fabrications as facts.
What has consistently been of more concern is how much they draw from their indulgence rather than lose, rather than the ontology of it.
I’m unsure if this piece belongs in a group called “science”. Its more about philosophy or arts, at least if you ask me.
But the questions it explored about the nature of reality – and our supposed affinity to it – go back further.
The idea of a Matrixlike state is as old as the first human thoughts.
Would it matter to you if it wasn’t “real”?
That is not the same situation as Cypher in Matrix. Cypher wants himself to be fully ignorant about the fact that something like the Matrix even exist. He wants a “normal” life within the Matrix.
In other words: He wants the exchange of a unpleasant reality for a lie. And this is the reason he is the true antagonist of the movie. The machines (eg. Agent Smith) are the evil ones, sure. Yet he is the one who makes a choice like Neo. Neo wants to beginn this heros journey with his new found mentor, while Cypher wants to go back in the old situation and even forces Neo and the others back.
Even within the structur of the story, the movie makes a strong statement againt Cypher’s approach.
The second was that “we want to be a certain way, to be a certain sort of person”, and we cannot truly be anything in the experience machine.
I don’t understand this one.
Through the lack of “contact with any deeper reality,” we would lose access to meaning and significance.
That implies that in this reality lies deeper meaning and significance.
If we assume this is true, then the inference is unavoideble. What about a state of doubt? Maybe it would still follow, maybe not.
Hindriks says. Their goal was to test whether versions of the experience machine that kept participants more in contact with reality would be more acceptable to them. They found that respondents were significantly more willing to take an experience pill
Any fictioal book or movie or video game is a kind of this experience pill. Therefor, we already know that people are willing to take the pill if they stay in contact to the reality and don’t forgot the truth.
My intuition tells me, the two reason we favore reality over a experience pill are:
-
- Genuinly angst of the creature. If you have just fictional experiences, you can easily become a victim of a predator. Its a evolutionary thing to search reality.
-
- When people want to climb a mountain, they actually want to climb the mountain. Hypnosis that makes them believe this is simply not what they want. It is a trick.
I kind of agree about this not entirely fitting science, but I think the survey part is what gives it that little edge to fit here.
Without reading it in the full context, I’m also not sure what Nozick may have meant with the “want to be a certain way, to be a certain sort of person” idea. I suspect the idea may be that given a fully constructed context, you may be limited to however that context permits you to be instead of an independently actualized/realized person.
Although if that may be what Nozick was getting at, it’s not without its own problems, much as you highlight with their position supposing existence harboring deeper meaning and significance apart from conscious creations.
I suspect the idea may be that given a fully constructed context, you may be limited to however that context permits you to be instead of an independently actualized/realized person.
Could have some unwanted implication for religious people. Or maybe not. 😉
To be frank, I cannot make much of this line. This doesn’t preclude some other can make more of it. From the point of view of a reader, it would be great if the writer of this article would put a bite more into this line.
Although if that may be what Nozick was getting at, it’s not without its own problems, much as you highlight with their position supposing existence harboring deeper meaning and significance apart from conscious creations.
To make a long story short: I feel agnostic about this questions. At least, to a degree.
-
As soon as we can create a simulation for humans to live in without noticing a difference from the real world we have basically confirmed that we are living in a simulation allready
