Instead of escaping to virtual realities, what if we just made our reality as good as any virtual reality could be?

Submitted by [deleted] t3_10g71a6 in singularity

Edit: wow this sub is shockingly pessimistic about the real world and the capabilities we will have with AI to do things IRL. Also, please lighten up a bit, I made this post from a positive place and people are being absolute jerks.

So, this is a sort of reframing the question. Why escape to VR? Dissatisfaction, of some sort. Constantly seeking something better as humans do. So, we know we want more (or perhaps more broadly, have our present state of mind be better than it is).

So, perhaps instead of just trying to escape and live in artificial worlds, we might instead actually try to frame the question in terms of what we are actually seeking.

This is why I, for the past several years now, have been running the thought experiment "what does paradise look like?"

To me, this is a place of beauty, harmony and acceptance. A place where people truly care about what happens to one another. A place that is majestic and awe inspiring, with a lot of variety. It's a place where people can do the work they love and can be appreciated for it.

I think after I defined this, I started to understand what I truly want out of this AI revolution, not just for myself, but for everyone else.

VR will always be fake, no matter how pretty it looks. Some say we might live in a sort od matrix already. Perhaps we do, but you might try imagining instead that there be no larger physical reality at all, but a reality made up purely of being, and physical reality may only be a paradigm by which being can perpetuate. So, think panpsychism, but in reverse, where physical reality is dependent on being and not the other way around. In this scenario, physical reality is the illusion, and being is the reality.

Sort of an aside, but I wanted to get ahead of the "we could live in the matrix already" people as if I haven't deeply probed that question... heh.

So, I dare challenge thee! Tell me what we could get out of VR, fundamentally, that we couldn't get out of building something for real, if AI will give us unimaginably powerful capabilities! :)

32

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ElvinRath t1_j50z9ep wrote

I know how to answer this one!

​

For instance, in current VR, we can do things like killing people and risk our (virtual) lives.

​

It is technically possible to do those in real life, but as ChatGPT would say, it would raise some moral and ethical concerns that is important to consider.

​

​

Also, in VR it's probably technically posible to simulate reality bending powers, time travel, planet scale destruction, etc...

Things that are probably not possible in real life. Or not practical, at least...We can't all destroy earth each monday.

​

​

VR should have its place, and real life should have its place too. I mean, I can understand that you don't wanna leave the real world, and I can probably agree with that, but certainly VR offers some things that are just not practical in the real world, or would raise a lot of ethical concerns (And not like the ones by ChatGPT, that it's concerned about everything... real ethical issues, like hurting other people/do things that affect other people... In your own virtual world, nothing of that is a problem.)

30

King_pineapple23 t1_j512n17 wrote

With endless possibilities you are really emphasizing in destroying the world

6

ElvinRath t1_j51e9qt wrote

Yeah, well, the idea was to mention things that were problematic.

Don't worry, the world is full of cats, I would never destroy it.

14

OldWorldRevival t1_j5127i6 wrote

Well... I mean those things are fun and what not. But those are diversions - forms of entertainment, just an expansion of what we already do now, but more complexly, if that makes sense.

That is, they will only add new things to do, forms of empty entertainment. Entertainment itself is rooted in meaning, however! Films, games, movies, TV shows follow storyline, and story reflects lived experience and condenses it.

This is more what I mean. It will add new diversions, addictions and forms of entertainment, but it won't add anything fundamental that we lack without VR.

It's like when people try to fill a void in their heart with things, rather than meaningful experiences with people.

−4

raishak t1_j51al84 wrote

Simply put, VR will always be more adaptable and cheaper. The goal will not be to unlock a utopian world, but rather to supply the demand for escapism more and more human's desire. This is a physics problem first and foremost. It requires much less energy to represent an experience than to create it physically, as our brains necessarily much smaller in scope than the world they operate in. You can see a mountain and take that experience with you in your mind without having to move the mountain physically.

Maybe it's the cynic in me, but brains and utopia are incompatible. The brain navigates problems. Without the wonders of modern civilization, there is always a problem to solve. In our world, we sometimes don't have anything to do, as the systems around us do so much for us. So, we fill the gap with anything we can find.
"Diversions" as you say, even the "meaningful experiences with people" are this. There are diversions that speak to our more basic drives (start a family for example) that can sustain us for much longer than our artificial entertainment, but many minds "see through this" and find themselves on the losing side of a battle with their mental health. This is not an anomaly, it's the expected outcome of making the brain unemployable. In your utopia, if humans could live healthy for 1000 years, I suspect mental health disorders would be the leading cause of death.

14

OldWorldRevival t1_j51qg9j wrote

Well, maybe people would still choose to perish.

I think you make a lot of assumptions about reality that merely come from a subjective sense of objectivity (maybe your intuition for neural nets will help you see what I mean now that we have chat gpt and things like that to illustrate some ways that our intelligence may work).

And, we might very well build systems off of such biases, and the limitations of those biases might make a living clusterfuck nightmare.

Just having been down the nihilist Machiavellian road, learning as much as possible about human nature (which ironically was the path out of nihilism and rationalist naivete), I am indeed concerned about the direction this is all going.

I feel like I am seeing people not only fall for the same traps, but do a worse job at actually seeing their way around such traps within a rationalist framework.

Sociopaths are an interesting phenomenon - people without a lot of the social fabric programming, who end up being very good at manipulating or living in such a space.

IDK. People just don't understand how absolutely pitch black materialism is because they still choose variations of religious thinking to cover up the root nature of their true belief system, without noticing that this is what they are doing.

This is why the fact that a bunch of nihilisits are seeking some sort of escape or self-actualization through transhumanism terrifies the living shit out of me.

I am in touch with the absolutely lost pitch black parts of my soul and the brightest of brights. I understand the allure of power, sadism, control, dominion, lust, as well as the genuine religious drive that actually transcends those things.

I worry that my rights will be horrifically violated by people like you who choose to augment themselves with this technology without fully appreciating their inner nature.

I almost went down the completely opposite road. I am convinced that if I had gotten medication for ADHD sooner, I would have gone down this dark road and would have had the material resources to sustain and satisfy me through it to see myself as one of the wielders of this technology.

Yes, that is what I once pursued, and maybe you can still feel a little bit of my own rationalist arrogance somewhat talking down to people on this sub. But that's why I was choosing to go down such a route - I was getting tired of people with trivial minds for things like philosophy running the world.

And everything I've seen here as a supposed rebuttal or argument to any points here have been painfully trivial while coming from a place of equal arrogance........

1

raishak t1_j523uvn wrote

The original discussion was about what could be done with VR that could not be done in reality, but I digressed and commented on the more philosophical reasoning you had about why reality was better than VR.

To respond to this, I'll start by saying I'd be more careful about assuming so much about another person merely through a short text comment. My predictions come from my own small experience watching the world, as do yours. My philosophy is more akin to pragmatism, not nihilism.

Truely the bulk of my response was directed at your last remark, about assigning meaning to a specific type of experience and discounting others. An honest question: what do you propose "meaningfulness" is measuring in human experience? What do you propose quantifies this void you speak of?

6

OldWorldRevival t1_j526pmz wrote

The source of meaning, in my view, is also the source of the concept of quantification itself. Heh.

Quantification has limited scope and purview. It gives a subjective sense of objectivity without being innately objective in itself.

Being a data guy.... people ask for numbers and think they mean something because they vaguely make sense..... I've seen PhDs with quantitatively heavy degrees make this error in business..................... "this number looks sort of like what I'm looking for therefore it makes sense."

People misjudge how deeply they are biased, and the bias is very very deep, for everyone, and if you want to be in as rational as possible, you MUST assume this is the case with yourself.

I think seeing the deep irrationality in so-called rationalists started also shifting my perspective a lot kn these topics.

Meaning in general is only possible through human connection. But, meaningful things aren't always intensely pleasurable - they're just painful when absent. I.e. death of a loved one.

There is just a lot we do not know and may be totally unknowable about identity and consciousness. I.e. we might just end up killing people with mind uploading, and we'd have no way of knowing.

There may be something real and important to our reality, and existing in it as it is. Take a look at the Wigner-von Neumann interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Also, just the hard problem of consciousness in general. Lots of people make a loooot of assumptions about a lot of topics.

As for meaning, it is something that can only be experienced. I.e. I could tell you I've seen a new color (hypothetically), and there would be no way to logically describe or quantify it.

Meaning works in that way. I'd also add... I have in this process of seeking meaning also experienced things that were something like seeing a new color.... i.e. seeing dark purple as a very bright color in a flash in my mind for a moment while listening to JS Bach.

0

raishak t1_j53efsm wrote

Do you acknowledge the legitimacy of subjective experiences of other humans as much as your own? Do you acknowledge the same for other species of intelligent animals? Of a plant? What of the individual cells within your body? Do they have subjective experiences? I don't know how anyone can acknowledge that and then consider themselves an atomic consciousness. If you do, where reasonably do you draw the line? I believe you are raising human subjective experience above all others by claiming any human experience is essential. An objective reality can co-exist with a subjective experience of it.

We both agree the red light is red, and that it exists. We can agree because the relation its properties have with our entire experience of the physical world is consistent. I can find some light and measure the wavelength using a photosensor, without ever laying eyes on it, and tell you it will be red. You will observe it with your own eyes and agree it is red. Our experience of what red actually looks like is entirely our own and in no way can be compared. It cannot even be considered that they might be different because the operation of comparison is simply undefined for subjective experience. If you claim objective reality doesn't exist, you are entertaining solipsism. I will maintain that all of our subjective experience is rooted in an objective reality. If you claim you've seen a new color, we can recreate this and explain what causes this. If it's not something simple like a wavelength of light only you can see, it might be something more nuanced, like an internal experience unique to the micro-structure of your physical brain.

Many people entertain the idea that quantum mechanics hints at a link between the subjective experience and the physical universe through various interpretations. I don't think lay-people (me included) should be adopting any of these interpretations as philosophical evidence. We simply don't know enough yet. There are many experiments that have been and will continue to be done that further clarify the root of them that is the measurement problem. Decoherence theories for example are helping to explain what appears to be "wavefunction collapse" as the absorption of the quantum properties by a larger quantum system.

A question to end this long reply, since you mentioned it in your original post: do you consider panpsychism to be a valid idea?

3

OldWorldRevival t1_j53l00i wrote

> Our experience of what red actually looks like is entirely our own and in no way can be compared.

I'm very well aware of qualia and a lot of the literature on it. Heh.

> Many people entertain the idea that quantum mechanics hints at a link between the subjective experience and the physical universe through various interpretations. I don't think lay-people (me included) should be adopting any of these interpretations as philosophical evidence.

Roger Penrose and the Wigner-von Neumann interpretation lol.

> do you consider panpsychism to be a valid idea?

It's not my favorite idea, hence why I mentioned a sort of inverse of panpsychism. Rather than consciousness "being everywhere," it is totally philosophically reasonable that consciousness exists nowhere at all, (even Descartes mentioned this, though that seems to be sorely neglected in the discussion of consciousness) since existence in space is not a requirement for consciousness. I.e. take the substance out of dualism in that case.

That said, an idea I dislike even more is emergentism - unless that emergentism references panpsychism. Why? Because emergentism ascribes more to emergence than emergence is capable of, a sort of logical jump to think that emergence means "fundamentally new phenomenon," which is just not the case. It ascribes magical qualities to emergence and is a way of completely avoiding the problem, and adds nothing to it.

> Do you acknowledge the legitimacy of subjective experiences of other humans as much as your own?

Yes. I am actually a former vegan, starting to maybe be winding back to vegetarianism, and this topic is fundamental to those choices.

Overall, I like the fact that you seem to have a solid grasp on this topic. :)

0

RavenWolf1 t1_j51qb9k wrote

Sorry our reality can't be as good as virtual reality. You can't be a God/Goddess in our world. You can't say magic words and throw fireballs. You can't have adventures to dungeons and kill goblins. There are no dragons here, elves nor orcs. There are no task to defeat Demon lord nor are there harems for heroes. Our world is antithesis of fantasy word. I want to live in fantasy world.

20

OldWorldRevival t1_j51r4ut wrote

Heh. I think you should read about what Tolkien was actually getting at with LotR. Especially themes like Sauruman ripping the forests down.

3

StarChild413 t1_j54sszn wrote

Why does it feel like you'd be disappointed with any real-or-real-seeming fantasy world if it did have things like dungeons, elves and orcs and you had magic but you weren't essentially the main character of some isekai anime who not only has some chosen one prophecy about them but because reasons every hot babe "npc of this world" is attracted to them with the villains just being either tsundere or yandere and the older-but-not-elderly women being MILFs

2

OldWorldRevival t1_j51rca3 wrote

And... its still all fake in the way that actually matters, with respect to being itself. It's fake struggle, fake effort.

I'm not saying VR is innately bad, but it's just the pursuit of pleasure. Pleasure needs to be balanced.

−1

CubeFlipper t1_j5228go wrote

>And... its still all fake in the way that actually matters, with respect to being itself. It's fake struggle, fake effort.

Fake how? The experience is real, and as far as I'm concerned that's all that matters.

> Pleasure needs to be balanced.

Who made you the moral arbiter of mankind? Your values are not everyone else's values, stop trying to force them on people.

9

OldWorldRevival t1_j53ylua wrote

The fact of your utility is fake in VR.

Think about the contextual picture, not just the outcome.

0

RavenWolf1 t1_j55opcr wrote

It is not fake at all. I used to play World of Warcraft a lot and I don't see that experience as fake at all. Everything that happened there affected to me as much as real life things affect. I actually learned valuable skills there too like how to lead because I was raid leader in big raid guild. Lots of social interaction and diplomatic skills was needed there etc.

I value my experience in there. My life there was important for me. Taming pets in some forgotten forest was something you can't do in real world even how incomplete that experience was because lacking of true virtual reality it still was experience. I don't belittle my life there at all.

2

OldWorldRevival t1_j563b6a wrote

It's a game, that is the context.

Games train you in useful, transferable skills.

I disagree with the notion that one should replace their real life with an unreal life on the internet.

Additionally, I used to play WoW myself, and every time I did, I was always the least healthy and was more unhappy overall than ever.

Which is why I now seek to extract what is so enthralling about games like WoW and pull that into the real world, while not eliminating games or virtual experiences.

Like, imagine if we built ironforge under the Colorado rockies, and linked it up with Khazad dum! Heh. That would be physically possible with artificial superintelligence. Then we could drink beer under the mountain, swordfight and party after a day doing things like crafting real things that fit that environment.

It's just that I think there is real value in the real, and supposing that we are in a sort of matrix only motivates me to want to try to break past a layer in such a matrix.

0

DarthBuzzard t1_j54ino7 wrote

> The fact of your utility is fake in VR.

If you have godmode and are just flicking your fingers to cast fireballs, then yes that's fake utility, but if you're a virtual performer, artist, architect, educator, developer - then your utility is real because it produces value that people accept in the real world and can help others.

0

RavenWolf1 t1_j521gap wrote

>Pleasure needs to be balanced.

You are right and that is why stories has ups and downs. I also want my fantasy VR stories to contain that all. You see reality is really boring. Our current era is shit and future even with robot doing all the work there is no meaning but in story adventure there one can find meaning.

One could say that having family is meaning but one can have loving family in VR too.

4

SurroundSwimming3494 t1_j5444ob wrote

>I want to live in fantasy world.

This sub is really weird.

−1

XO-3b t1_j54b9ke wrote

I think the majority of users on this sub are 12-14

−2

DarthBuzzard t1_j54icl0 wrote

I'd wager most people on this planet (of any age) want to live in a fantasy world.

It's pretty simple really. People want life to be as enjoyable and interesting as possible, and a fantasy would is simply always going to offer infinitely more opportunities for enjoyment and curiosity.

5

RavenWolf1 t1_j55njgv wrote

There is proof on this. How popular are isekai aka ending up in fantasy world stories in general. They are insane popular genre. And actually basic vanilla fantasy is escapism too and about any other fictional work. We always want to be something else than we currently can be.

1

XO-3b t1_j56y4nt wrote

Not permanently, escapism is only fun because it's temporary. Believe it or not a lot of people actually enjoy life.

1

DarthBuzzard t1_j56yj6e wrote

Yes, but as others have mentioned in this thread, a perfectly realistic virtual world has everything the real world has to offer - except actual death and the fear of death in certain extreme activities - and even that could still be rigged up to induce death if you wanted.

You can have plenty of struggle and challenge that you need to overcome in fully immersive virtual worlds, but you also get to reduce that if you want, and get to reap the rewards far more often, and the selection of rewards is far more varied.

1

Frumpagumpus t1_j552ka3 wrote

i would bet the opposite, most users are probably college educated, and in top 1% worldwide of wealth (when compared to other their age)/education

they also probably skew younger than median age in their countries and male if i were to guess

−1

sticky_symbols t1_j5190fl wrote

VR can feel every bit as real as the real world, once it's fully developed and connecting to our brains directly.

And it will take far fewer resources than the real world.

Why settle for one planet when we could have a million virtual ones, each unique, in the same space? And a million times the population to enjoy it.

19

placebogod t1_j53ouf6 wrote

While VR might be able to one day feel as real as the real world, the problem will still be that the VR is not tethered to the real world like our bodies are. If we decide to spend major amounts of time in VR, we risk alienating our consciousness from our body.

We could decide to augment our DNA or upload our consciousness entirely, but that would cease to be VR and would become an entirely new mode of existence.

1

OldWorldRevival t1_j51ecmq wrote

I don't want to live in Inception, thank you very much.

While our world might be a simulation, we do not know that it is, or on what level it is a simulation. At worst, it is closest to the realest world, if there even is such a thing.

If this world's pleasures cannot satisfy you, why do you think the VR worlds' will? By altering your basic circuits?

What do you think is the nature of being and consciousness?

There are all these assumptions and unknowns that people on this sub just take for granted. There's a sort of arrogance to it as well, as if one is somehow enlightened and advanced for having a few basic conceptual understandings about questions like "are we in the matrix" or consciousness, without really having probed these topics specifically or in depth.

−3

sticky_symbols t1_j51fc8p wrote

You didn't respond to my points in the tiniest, so I'm not going to respond to yours.

I have probed these topics specifically and in depth, but you're not getting that insight if you choose to ignore me and repeat yourself.

7

OldWorldRevival t1_j51nm6x wrote

What points? Limited resources? What limits will we have in the real world with fusion reactors and AI all over the place?

Get my drift?

Or do you mean to deprive me of the right to live in the real world out of some sort of abstract utilitarianism.

Perhaps I glossed over this because I thought it was so incredibly basic that it was patently obvious, like pointing out the sky is blue, but I guess not...

−1

sticky_symbols t1_j5229zk wrote

The other point of view is you depriving trillions of people from living delightful lives so that you can live in base reality.

Even though you couldn't tell the difference in some simulations. You can simulate in arbitrarily high definitions, and simulate full ecosystems and everything else you want.

It sounds like you haven't thought this through thoroughly yet. I hope this discussion is useful.

6

leechmeem t1_j54dxh6 wrote

You can't tell the difference, but you know it's not the objective reality? Would it really make anyone content with their lives?

Like the other guy said, we don't know if we are in a simulation or not. I believe that's why we even bother to subconsciously assign meaning to anything at all. Will we only delude ourselves to give meaning to something that doesn't fundamentally matter, just to cater to our escapism? People in games like VRChat can have any body they want, anime, some movie character, whatever. But, when you take the VR headset off, you realize that it wasn't objectively you, and it will never objectively be you.

There are people out there that struggle with differentiating fantasy from reality, so will this really be a good thing?

I am not very particularly enlightened on this subject, so I will continue to read what other people think about the whole thing. I just wanted to throw this out there.

2

sticky_symbols t1_j556zz2 wrote

One point people make is about internal consistency. That's a big part of what we call reality. If you could work to build things and make friends, and random chance frequently came along and changed everything, you wouldn't feel like that work was worth doing. I think we care more about whether our current reality is reliable than whether it happens to be base reality.

1

leechmeem t1_j56dhud wrote

I think it's fine if you want to give your personalized reality meaning, it's just you shouldn't put it on a higher pedestal over the base reality. You play an MMO, you spend lots of time grinding in the game and you are satisfied, but it doesn't affect the reality you were born into. When the game shuts off, you go on with your day realizing that it never really had an impact on anything at all. If you decide to live most of your life in a virtual reality, what then if the game breaks or corrupts? Is it more reliable still?

If our internal feelings are only positive when we live in a virtual world and remain negative in the base reality, isn't that how addiction starts? Isn't that why we get addicted to meth, heroin, pcp? We'd only be lowering our desire to live in our base reality and change ourselves for the better for the favor of something you or someone else has created to live in. But on the other hand, our virtual realities can affect our base reality and make us better people in the base reality? It's very hard to say, and this question can't really be answered yet.

My belief is, you can play the game and have fun, but if you take the game too seriously, it'll leave you angry and disappointed.

2

sticky_symbols t1_j56iyym wrote

That's all true of VR now. We were originally discussing VR in a post-singularity and presumably post-scarcity world. That type of VR could be a lot better, and not necessitate leaving for base reality at all. I'd eventually like to have my mind uploaded and backed up, rather than dependent on a physical body.

1

Thiccboifentalin t1_j54bti4 wrote

I know that this steak is not real, my mind is telling me that it is juicy and delicious, and you know what I realized? Ignorance is bliss!

0

Standard-Pain5102 t1_j5325ee wrote

How do you know we’re not already? Do you always know you’re dreaming? I’m not trying to be argumentative. But if the technology works so well we don’t know the difference then there’s no difference.

2

OldWorldRevival t1_j53lk9a wrote

I already addressed this in my post! Heh.

We don't know - and moreover, we don't even know that there is a physical reality outside of us in the first place. All external things may be virtual, and reality itself may be only made up of consciousness.

Just a fun little flip for you.

That said, we certainly need not assume that we're in a sort of matrix. Or, if we are, wouldn't it be better to use AI to jailbreak our own matrix?

−1

phaedrux_pharo t1_j51e2tz wrote

If my choices are

"Literally anything I want, but in VR"

Or

"Some rando who thinks they know what's "best" for me in the real world"

I'll take my VR every time. You don't get to decide what my perfect world is, and you certainly shouldn't be deciding for everyone else.

13

OldWorldRevival t1_j51eoyl wrote

But I don't, and my concern about VR is that it's going to be the new heroin, but way, way more irreversible with much deeper consequences.

I.e. what if a bad actor controls this system, and then makes you feel the worst pain imaginable, slowing your perception of time down so that each second is like a year and you suffer like this until the heat death of the universe?

1

The-Goat-Soup-Eater t1_j54jyna wrote

I think if we can have that kind of VR we’ll likely have figured out the brain itself. You wouldn’t be safe from that in the real world either, unfortunately

1

rixtil41 t1_j5147jk wrote

Some people like me like control and power that doesn't mean we all want to be dictators but it's about the experience in itself. I want to live in a world were no matter what I do or say will never get me in trouble which is not possible. I want to live in other worlds with having powers like marvel are also not possible. The only way for your plan or idea to work is for everyone to be content with this world. Which is fine with not being content with this world.

6

OldWorldRevival t1_j5169os wrote

Also... everyone likes power and control on some level.

There are more satisfying things to pursue.

0

rixtil41 t1_j518wiq wrote

If people don't find the real world satisfying things then let them be in the simulation.

4

leechmeem t1_j54faqr wrote

Won't there be a point where they lose satisfaction with their fantasy reality? What then? It just seems like everything in a virtual reality will be one big roleplay, instead of actually feeling truly yourself. I'm under belief this would fluctuate the mental disease of psychosis and depression. There's nothing wrong with a game of pretend, we did it as kids and we do it with VR. But that's all there is to it- pretend.

2

rixtil41 t1_j54gxc0 wrote

Everything in virtual reality will be one big roleplay, instead of actually feeling truly yourself.

What if you truly feel yourself but just can't express it adequately in this world what then?

But that's all there is to it- pretend

Who cares if it's all pretend?

1

leechmeem t1_j54jbn0 wrote

>Who cares if it's all pretend?

I guess that's just my personal idea. I would want my accomplishments to matter. If your accomplishments only matter to you in a mental and non-phsyical sense, then is it an accomplishment? Or do you just simply "not care"? I don't like this idea of blissful ignorance. I really don't think it will make anyone feel fulfilled in themselves.

If you mean expressing yourself as in socially, then yes a lot people do have trouble with that. That's why people go on the internet. I understand your viewpoint, though. People can manifest accomplishment in their own mind, but as if you are spending time living your life in an online chatroom, and one day you get banned from said chatroom, its addictive properties still linger while you sit with the sinking realization that THAT was your life for a period of time you just wasted. I do see virtual stuff like this as some sort of ecstasy or dopamine drug. You then realize anything you have accomplished just didn't really matter. I think this would occur if you were to abuse simulation like this.

2

ElvinRath t1_j51e00q wrote

Yeah, but that's probably how it is gonna be, and those things... It would be a bad idea to do then in real life.
If what you meant with your post was that we should not abandon the real world, well...Honestly I'm not sure if that will be that much of a risk.
Will we want that?
I'm more worried about indirect things, like if we will in the end ignore human contact.

>It's like when people try to fill a void in their heart with things, rather than meaningful experiences with people.

What is meaningful and what is not? I'm not asking as a joke, in fact I'm not even asking you, I'm just asking to emphasize that we don't know.
Most people think about achievements, but let's be real, most people die without any great achievement.
A lot of people think about their family and offspring. Well, biologicaly this makes sense, but probably with inmortal lives it can get weird. (Maybe we keep expanding our numbers and fill the universe of humans...but it's hard to picture families staying together with hundreds of generations alive)

Friends? Human contact? Well, maybe. I don't like the idea of a future with much less human contact, but certainly see it as a posibility.
A lot of people think about their job. I can understand someone working on some fields saying that, but come on. Most people work on jobs that they hate...
I'm not sure of how we will feel that we are living meaningful lives. Maybe we won't, but maybe we will notice not because we have lost our meaning, but because we have more time to pay attention.
But I don't see what VR has do to with most of that.

I think that the real risk is continue to have human contact, or not.

​

Honestly, I'm a bit worried about future generations born after this. Will they attend schools with other humans?

I mean, I want to experience a VR where I can do whatever I desire, but I think that without a real world with boundaries and limits is probably needed for a healthy mind, specially in the first years of our lives.

The contact with other beings that we have to respect it's probably something very healthy.

​

Future young people is gonna kill me, but we should probably heavily restrict a lot the use of VR under 18 or 16 or something...

0

OldWorldRevival t1_j5157zo wrote

I'm saying that such a drive is unwise to pursue at the expense of other things.

How long before one tires of the fake thing and seeks put the real thing?

−2

ronton t1_j51ekcu wrote

For some people, myself included, whether something is “real” or “fake” is more or less irrelevant.

We can’t even know if our world is “real” so why should we eschew virtual wonders out of loyalty to this reality?

7

StarChild413 t1_j54std6 wrote

For the same reason it'd be a really boring sims playthrough if all you made them do in their free time was play The Sims on their own computers

0

rixtil41 t1_j517xhe wrote

I'm not sure how long but if they ever do that does not make the drive bad. The drive of pursuing things at the expense of others is wise in this world not all imagery ones.

1

OldWorldRevival t1_j51b6i7 wrote

I think you underestimate hiw deeply I've dived into the system you describe, taking it farther than you...

In a nihilistic system, power is the ultimate actualization. A simulation will not be enough. Dominating other beings is what comes after that.

2

AGI_69 t1_j514yxq wrote

We most likely live in simulation, so what you define as real - is probably another VR. That makes your whole argument actually pro-VR.

For the VR's that we going to create soon...

Even AI will be constrained by laws of physics. You cannot slow/speed up time, you can't travel faster than speed of light. Lot of experiences are extremely dangerous in real world. They can also be expensive and polluting environment.

Finally, I don't see why we can't have both. It's not competition. Balanced life will probably consist of some VR time and some this-simulation time.

5

raishak t1_j51c74y wrote

>We most likely live in simulation

This has always been a line of thinking with no practical use. Even if the current laws are just some abstract rulesets layered on top a real physical world (like code in a computer), you're still physically real in the world that's running your simulation, just maybe not in the form you thought you were. But without simulation theory, we are certainly not perceiving the true depth of what we physically are. The only point it generates that seems relevant is that we are in a "false" world. But how would we even know?

To me it just adds one or more arbitrary layer of complexity without producing any philosophical value.

3

AGI_69 t1_j51gh3h wrote

Simulation hypothesis has place in philosophy, whether or not you find it "practical".

The most convincing argument, is that every Universe that allows technological progress will ultimately contain billions (or more) simulations and therefore the probability that, this world is simulation is very high, compared to "real" Universe.

2

raishak t1_j524ofn wrote

I suppose that is reasonable at least on a basic level; an appeal to probability. I can generally appreciate ideas that remove the requirement for us to be in a special/improbable position.

2

Desperate_Food7354 t1_j5193pf wrote

What makes you think we live in a simulation? Multiverse seems just as likely and given so the odds are equally in either favor given infinity.

1

AGI_69 t1_j51bzcg wrote

Multiverse hypothesis does not change the probabilities of us being in simulation. Every Universe where technological civilization is possible, will also have billions (or more) simulations. Simulations are natural product of computation.

2

Desperate_Food7354 t1_j51nhuf wrote

The nature of infinity doesn't care, even if there are an infinite number of simulated universes there are also an infinite number of non-simulated universes, this gives no insight to whether you are in one or not.

1

AGI_69 t1_j51sfg5 wrote

You can't compare infinities like that. The infinite sets have different elements, so it's not mathematically correct to say that they are same size, or that probability in landing in any of them is equal.

More importantly, as far as we know, infinities exists only in mathematics - you are creating additional strong assumption here.

The simulation hypothesis only needs very weak assumptions compared to Multiverse AND infinite number of sub-universes

2

Desperate_Food7354 t1_j52gfjm wrote

I would assume a multiverse would contain a set larger than any possible simulated set considering they are offspring of the multiverse in which not every universe necessarily has simulated realities.

1

AGI_69 t1_j52jsmp wrote

Every universe that allows technological civilization will contain many simulations. Therefore, there will be more simulations, than real universes.

2

Desperate_Food7354 t1_j52zvwo wrote

Are you insinuating solipsism?

1

AGI_69 t1_j54bhkg wrote

No

1

Desperate_Food7354 t1_j57bhyh wrote

You would have no ability to prove otherwise though.

1

AGI_69 t1_j57fyp6 wrote

I don't see how solipsism is relevant in any way here. It's completely unrelated philosophical issue

1

Desperate_Food7354 t1_j57h2kv wrote

If simulation theory were to exist what is to say you wouldn't be the only one inside of it, and why would you even be simulated into this era where technology is limited, are the homeless drug addicted people in a simulation or just simulations for your own personal world view in which you diagnose as a simulation to fit to your own model of how you want the universe to be? It makes no sense for this world / time period to be simulated.

1

AGI_69 t1_j57v0yz wrote

Quite the opposite, the era just before AI is invented is perfect for simulation. It's the most interesting era in human history. Once AI is invented, humans will not be the ones doing all the progress, they will just watch AI do everything better.

As to, who is simulated and who isn't, that's separate issue. Personally, I chose to treat everyone as equal to me. But I disagree, that just because homeless people exists, the simulation hypothesis is false.

1

Desperate_Food7354 t1_j58zbn4 wrote

Not that it is false but would imply real suffering and tragedy, who would choose to simulate themselves in this era as a suffering person who knows nothing of ai lmao or terminal brain cancer etc

1

OldWorldRevival t1_j515it4 wrote

Yes... but that's missing the point.

The point is that you can experience a lot of things, but they're just things at the end of the day, without substance.

I'm saying that VR is just a other meaningless, more advanced entertainment system.

−6

AGI_69 t1_j516ntf wrote

>VR is just a other meaningless, more advanced entertainment system

It's just lack of imagination to say, that all possible VR's are meaningless.

As I've said, we probably live in simulation right now, and I would say it's not the only meaningful simulation possible.

8

OldWorldRevival t1_j5174df wrote

Did you read what I said about living in a simulation in my OP?

−1

AGI_69 t1_j518khe wrote

>Sort of an aside, but I wanted to get ahead of the "we could live in the
matrix already" people as if I haven't deeply probed that question...
heh.

You didn't really address the argument. I am sorry, but you can't remove arguments, by simply mentioning them.

Nothing in laws of physics says, that this "reality" cannot be fully simulated at human perception resolution. Why can't there be large scale simulations with billions of people and be meaningful ? To me, I think there is lack of imagination in saying "All possible VR's are not meaningful"

8

gantork t1_j519krg wrote

You might think entertainment is meaningless but that's not the case for everyone.

If in the future I can go explore Pandora in full dive VR, live there for a while and enjoy the beautiful environments from the movies as if they were real, that would no doubt be a meaningful or even transcendental experience for me, probably something I'd remember the rest of my life.

5

LambdaAU t1_j5258u2 wrote

As to your challenge I have a very easy answer. Some things simply aren’t possible in the real world due to physical limitations. Do you want to fly around or use magic, well too bad because even if we made the world as perfect as possible we would still be limited by physical constraints. I can come up with a million other reasons why there are advantages to VR over the real world but I think this point is pretty hard to dispute.

5

OldWorldRevival t1_j527xw9 wrote

Well... think of it more like this. VR and the real world both offer you an infinite number if possible things to do post AI.

The fact that you yearn for VR points towards what you want.

Rather than defining what you want as a set of things, look at the meta picture and take the time learn what satisfies you fully.

I.e. fantasy realms are a common aim for people goinf after VR. So why don't we build Minas Tirith here, and have parties with roasted meat, bonfires, beer, music in a place like that in a post AI world!

I guess that is more where I am going. Like, we can make this world so good that from an enjoyment perspective, there's a contentedness to be had here that renders VR unnecessary if you have the mind to envision the possibilities.

I.e. if you want it in VR, ask what it is that you get out of that that you cannot ha e here, or isn't superceded or met by something here.

No need to mind upload either... you'll surely be able to go in and out of VR to experience certain impossible things.

2

LambdaAU t1_j5290fi wrote

The truth is the real world has scarcity. Not everyone can have their own castle because there is only so much room. You probably live in a developed nation with high living standards but replicating this for everyone has a massive toll on the environment. VR allows us to get past the scarcity of resources in the real world (ie the economic problem).

2

OldWorldRevival t1_j52c76p wrote

Not necessarily in a post AI world, though.

I.e. unlimited cheap, clean energy to grow crops underground in caverns built by robots that work for free. Or in space, and have fusion powered spacecraft.

In such a future, the least developed countries would have a standard of living beyond that of the wealthiest countries.

That level of abundance is also part of the singularity. Also, lots of planets to populate and terraform.

3

paulwhitedotnyc t1_j547s7b wrote

There are one quadrillion tons of diamonds on our planet. Unimaginable abundance, yet they cost on average $5000 a gram. What your describing will never exist because many people’s idea of paradise is very, very different from yours.

0

Thiccboifentalin t1_j54c0qw wrote

VR allows everyone to have their own perceived paradise. It's all about the journey rather than the destination.

0

paulwhitedotnyc t1_j54cdp5 wrote

Yeah that’s my point, and why OPs suggestion of creating the actual world we want rather than a virtual one, is an impossibility.

0

Thiccboifentalin t1_j54d2sr wrote

I think Neo from Matrix was in another simulation like that. He is a hero in a world of suffering, the rebel everyone needs, the “One”. Does that not sound like a VR simulation? As long as he felt good and had this perceived sense of danger and payoff, it does not matter if it’s real or not. And what about Cypher? This “guy” (again part of the simulation) was dragged by Morpheus in to the "real" world to live in crap while getting his girlfriend stolen. So it would be natural for him to go back to Matrix. It’s actually kind of cruel that people don’t want others to escape in to VR, means that their misery will have less company. Are alcohol and drugs not a form of escapism, just because they are wildly used? Vagaries of perception, Mr Anderson.

−1

tms102 t1_j54xipg wrote

AI isn't magic and is still bound by physical limitations. Construction and travel, etc, will still take resources. And the most important resource is time.

I'm not a fan of VR but it's obvious you can do things in a virtual world that will never be possible in the real world.

0

EnomLee t1_j52hage wrote

There's nothing wrong with acting to make the real world a better, more fair and just place for ourselves, collectively. Raise the living standard, make education available to more people, lower the crime rate, shutter environmentally hazardous technology for the sake of cleaner, more renewable alternatives. Despite what pessimists may say, progress is being made on all of those fronts. There are good reasons to believe that, when you remove yourself from the daily news and the current events, that humanity and the Earth are going in the right direction.

But the real world will never be a paradise. It will never be a paradise because the concept of paradise is an inherently personal opinion, and those opinions are too different to avoid causing conflict between different people.

Tell me, what paradise do you intend to build that would satisfy both multiculturalists and ethnic supremacists? What paradise is there that would appeal to both the atheist and the theocrat? What about marxists and randians? What about the anarchists and the authoritarians? Environmentalists and industrialists?

In other words, you will never have your perfect world as long as you are made to share it with other, incompatible people. This is why I believe that individualized, fully immersive virtual reality is the best, most viable path to avoid conflict and give everybody the existence that they want.

What is it that your heart desires? Do you want to be a superhero? A super spy? A king? An intergalactic bounty hunter? Do you want to live in an anime world? A cyberpunk city? The old west? Tatooine? Hogwarts? Maybe you want to be more attractive. Maybe you want to be the opposite gender? Maybe you want to be your fursona. Or a dragon, or a demon, or an angel, or a god, or a devil. Maybe you just want a world that's exactly like the real one, except without the people who make it a miserable place to live.

So what if it isn't real? So what if you're surrounded by philosophical zombies? That just means that they can never judge you, or betray you, or attack you, or mock you, or bully you, or reject you. They will never hurt you without your consent... and it is that peace of mind, born of absolute security and personal validation that will create paradise.

5

OldWorldRevival t1_j53yw15 wrote

Sounds more like the emptiness that Wittgenstein was alluding to when he more or less said that religion giving life after death doesn't actually solve the problem.

3

EnomLee t1_j545x5a wrote

Perhaps it wouldn't. Or it would just trade one problem for another. Instead of learning to live with our differences, everyone just silos themselves off into their own virtual spaces where they only know freedom, security and validation and never any real pain or misery. Humanity splinters apart into countless subgroups, each defined by cultures so different from each other that they become incomprehensible and alien to those outside of them.

It's fair for one to see it as a dystopian scenario, but compared to the continuation of business as usual, I think that it could be a lesser evil. What is better? Continuing to let different ideologies struggle against each other, knowing that it will cause political violence? Or is it more civilized to give people their own virtual safe space, knowing that it isn't real?

That said, a theoretical aligned super intelligence could do a lot to lower the temperature on societal tensions without resorting to FDVR. Eliminating poverty would remove many if not most of the factors that drive people to extreme positions in the first place. Space colonization could give people more choices where to live and what ideologies they want to align with.

As great as that would be, you would still have different people with different opinions living together. As long as that is the case, there is the possibility of disagreement, and if there is a disagreement that is important enough, it will have to be solved by either compromise or conflict.

2

leechmeem t1_j54gjnd wrote

I believe a 'virtual safe space' wouldn't solve any ideological ,religious or political conflict, at all. Those conflicting would know their adversaries' world exist, and because of this awareness, they wouldn't feel content in their personalized landscape, because they know its not the objective reality, they know that whatever idea they try enforcing on the people in their world will not matter. This matter isn't about your fursona, or that you want to be a goddess dragon lord or anime girl or alike. They want a real world to control. They can and will find a way to implement war and violence in a more mental manner. Hijacking one's world to trap them in and give them a personalized hell seems likely to me.

People will always conflict in opinions. We are argumentative in ideas and everything on the internet at this very second, and violent people have found a way to make other people on the internet suffer in their real worlds, all because they don't agree. Why wouldn't this happen in an even more personal experience? In a conceptual future, if everyone has a virtual world, it would become the norm and we would be back to invading each other again, just like how we invade countries.

The sad truth is there will never be paradise, anywhere. Even in your conceived paradise, you most likely won't feel happy and be back to yearning for blissful ignorance once the façade starts disappearing.

2

OldWorldRevival t1_j55fiap wrote

I do think paradise is achievable in the long term, but it is going to involve more paradigm shifts.

1

EnomLee t1_j56u79p wrote

I'm not really seeing it, sorry.

The OP asked us to imagine what an aligned, super intelligent artificial intelligence could give us in FDVR that it couldn't provide in the real world. In a world where such an entity exists, there wouldn't be any space for bad actors to operate anymore. Any attempt to interfere with other people's experiences would just be intercepted before they could ever become a threat.

Now if you want to imagine a scenario in which FDVR is somehow achieved before ASI, then sure. Cyber criminals, terrorists and bad actors could be a problem for BCIs, just like they're a problem for smartphones and PCs today. People who go to sketchy websites and download random .exes without thought put themselves at risk of viruses, but most people remain relatively safe.

Governments may try to pass restrictive laws, but thus far the western world has been pretty permissive towards questionable content in virtual worlds, and everybody else can just pirate the content they can't legally get. Also, I think the political class would have a motive to allow FDVR to flourish unchallenged. People happily living in their own heads would have less motivation to vote against the status quo.

The idea of people invading other people's virtual worlds for the sake of it just sounds cartoonishly evil. It's catastrophizing. People who want violence against other people will join virtual worlds that are designed for that express purpose, just like how people play competitive multiplayer games today. When they are tired of it, they will return to their own private worlds where the only real people they'll ever see are the people that they want to have access, if any.

1

Sandbar101 t1_j51vq7d wrote

The limits of our world are what we are trying to leave behind.

4

SoylentRox t1_j539guq wrote

The simplest answer in one sentence: there are many things humans would like where it requires an imbalance of fairness.

For example, this is why MMOs feel so lame to play. Your character cannot be a superhero because everyone else who plays the game doesn't want to feel week

A single player RPG is often balanced where you can be a superhero, or find exploits to get power armor in the first 20 minutes or kill a dragon, etc. Exploits that won't be patched because the game developers know you will find this fun.

Some humans are going to want to live in a palace with a thousand servants and a large harem. It's not possible in the real world without some extreme wealth inequality, and even then, by definition just 1 person gets to be the king and 10k humans have to be servants or harem members.

In VR everyone can be the king.

Or take the world of John Wick. It's fun to be john wick, it is not fun for everyone else in the films.

4

OldWorldRevival t1_j53lcjb wrote

> In VR everyone can be the king.

I support the right for people to make this choice, but I also do not endorse it as a choice in the way that I actually support widespread drug legalization, but I don't condone the use of hard drugs.

I believe it is psychologically unhealthy, and moreover, separating oneself from one's human form is going to carry a great many epistemological risks.

2

SoylentRox t1_j53m851 wrote

Probably but suit yourself, square. Basically if it ever comes down to it even in a sorta utopia there is only so much you can experience. Especially as in reality you are still mortal. Even if you had a cortical stack getting resurrected from backup is probably unpleasant.

In VR your body can be in a very safe place, constantly tended by AI robotics who do medical procedures you won't be able to feel as needed - including lots of preventative surgery - and you can experience a lot of things, many of which would be very hazardous to experience in reality.

4

StarChild413 t1_j54sw6z wrote

Not everyone wants to even metaphorically be the king but that doesn't mean they'd be content settling for servitude to someone who does

1

MrEloi t1_j50xv28 wrote

Interesting take.

3

RavenWolf1 t1_j522qzo wrote

Let me ask it this way. What can the real world offer that virtual can't? There is only one thing what real world can do that virtual can't and that is the true death. Everything else can be done better in virtual world. There are infinite amount of things which can be done virtual but not in real world.

3

raishak t1_j53gr94 wrote

New from the makers of Second Life, introducing Final Life. VR finally brings you every experience possibly in reality, all from the comfort of your living pod. If you die in game you die in real life! ^(Requires neurotoxin content pack for full experience; sold separately.)

0

Ohigetjokes t1_j5200b2 wrote

Thank you for asking this question. People in this subreddit see the Singularity as a method for escaping and abandoning reality. I've literally had people say they'll give up learning how to have relationships with real people in favor of creating AIs that accommodate their shortcomings.

The Singularity is going to bring waves upon waves of infantalized doofuses.

2

raishak t1_j53gfp7 wrote

The word itself best colors what it is. The singularity is a point past which we know nothing about. A point where such immense potential for rapid change is possible, that what exactly happens will depend on a butterfly's wings.

The ramp up to the point though, where we commodify near-agi agents, will likely create many infantilized doofuses as you put it.

−1

EddgeLord666 t1_j5271q5 wrote

I mean I don’t see why we can’t do both given enough time. Realistically we’ll be able to do a lot more in VR in the near future than in the real universe though.

2

OldWorldRevival t1_j52821p wrote

That's actually my point. Use your VR fantasies to guide what we should make our real world like. But keep making that vision better and better.

3

Dan60093 t1_j52nabr wrote

I'm totally with you on this, it's important to keep re-aligning with positive outcomes and reminding others that negativity and "being a realist" are not the same things.
I'm not the first to say that AGI would probably map, explore, and populate the galaxy with life long before we would ever be able to make it past proxima centauri on our own, but it has occurred to me that VR would be a wonderful way for the AGI to show humanity what other worlds are like if it was inclined to do so. I know that I would personally feel honored to have a front row seat to something like that.

2

mj-gaia t1_j52ocw3 wrote

It also makes me sad when I read so often that people hate the world and universe and just want to live in a VR.

I too would occasionally live out fantasies in VR for e.g. ride a dragon a la Daenerys, like when you watch a film or read a book but then return to reality and experience great things there.

I‘d rather wish for progress in medical AI then that can help with mental health and other medical stuff.

2

NTIASAAHMLGTTUD t1_j55m96h wrote

People have always had issues accepting the world as it is, that's partially the appeal of religion.

1

Rezeno56 t1_j52ux7p wrote

Username checks out.

2

OldWorldRevival t1_j53mdbt wrote

Heh!

But do understand that the username came from a personal vision I've had forever, dreaming about AI and an age of abundance making it so that we are able to build amazing, beautiful monolithic structures, and live in harmony with nature, but with none of the drawbacks and disease!

Lately, I've also been noticing that there's a sort of "juiciness" to fantasy, and a lot of people seek it out in literature, and I've been trying to probe more fundamentally what that's about.

I think the mere fact of us being human with ancient roots stretching back billions of years is actually amazing. William Shatner's experience of grief looking at the earth from space also hit me. I used to be a huge space nerd, but I've started to really deeply love the earth.

There is so much beauty in nature, but we've contextualized it in this scientific rationalist way, so even when we're in nature, we're seeing atoms and things.

Basically, there should be an attempt to return a sort of magic to nature - the magic we now seek out in fantasy. This is an aesthetic movement, but for me it's also a spiritual one. But, I came up with the idea as an atheist, so it's totally compatible with secularism. Heh.

1

BlessedBobo t1_j559s6r wrote

1-It is important to understand that virtual reality (VR) fantasy and
escaping into a book fantasy are not the same thing. The main difference
is the level of immersion and first-person experience.

2-The drive to return to nature and the feeling of nostalgia and loss that is common in modern society is a reaction to the disillusionment caused by the modern way of life. Many people feel lost, and this feeling can be attributed to the lack of ability to navigate life in a meaningful way, and a mastery of oneself that encompasses all aspects of being human. it is a deep-seated drive for oneness, meaning, and transformation, we want to break out of our patterns and live outside the box for lack of better word

The longing to return to nature is not just about forests, but also about returning to our more harmonious human nature, toour childlike selves with all the curiosity and sense of exploration that comes with it. We strive to live in the flow state, but as we grow older and accumulate more knowledge and world experience, we often lose our ability to be one with ourselves and to enter the flow state. We enter a world of inner conflict and loss, and we enter the material world, which is often not satisfactory as we are trapped in the illusion of the world. athiests are more susceptible to this, that's why our ancestors were relatively better off, Religion and other spiritual practices exist to bring us back to our original state through powerful tools such as rituals, metaphors, and transformative experiences. These practices create systems that allow us to explore the world within the flow state. without them the world becomes rigid and materialistic,we get stuck and with every single aspect commoditized, things are much like a poorly designed video game.(look up transformative experiences if you're interested)

VR fantasy, on the other hand, could offer a world that a person could explore in perfect flow state, radically transforming themselves. A tailored world that offers tailored challenges and experiences that are then used to extract insight and wisdom. It could be thought of as a mix between a profound psychedelic experience and meditation. This potential is often overlooked. People naturally find this more intriguing than the current world illusion because it could allow us to finally be human again that is the true appeal of true VR

1

OldWorldRevival t1_j55f38l wrote

Interesting take.

I've been moving in the opposite direction of VR on my personal spiritual end of things in that I'm not sure that what I am looking for would be found in VR or not.

1

BlessedBobo t1_j55ip9r wrote

i feel you, the drive to be closer to the real and away from the fake is huge driver for humans
but it's been proven that we need profound experiences for that, no amount of knowledge or thought could lead you there, as you are still living within the patterns of your perception (look up the 9 Dot problem)

you need to first hand experience the reality or nature that you seek, in order to transform your current percecption of reality to be closer to that

if we look at something like Zen buddhism for example, it's pretty much constructed around showing you the limitations of thought and perception , bias etc but no person outthere can write down what Zen is, you can only "know i" , meaning that it's a kind of knowing that is not ony verbal

i see VR as being a possible tool to offer something even more profound than that, by actually showing people, nonverably experiences that could transform them

if wisdom is the ability to generate meaning and live a meaningful life, and wisdom is extracted from experience through insights, then we we can generate those experiences and guide people through them so they can aquire that wisdom
this has been the role of stories for centuries, but we will be able to do it on an even deeper level

instead of reading about the myth of sisyphus , you can be sisyphus and experience it , see what he went through, and generate those insights yourself
i hope you can see the incredible value in that

1

Redvolition t1_j53csdb wrote

Problem with this reality is that even if you achieve everything you wanted and more, you are still subject to the "Fours Fs of Humanity":

  • Foolish
  • Flawed
  • Fragile
  • Finite

Most of us live in a form for (un)blissful existence. Once you realize those four, you come to understand Christianity's emphasis on salvation - and I finally came to agree myself, this place is something you need to be rescued from, and our best bet is technology.

2

chaseizwright t1_j53u50n wrote

Augmented Reality is the near future. We won’t be pushed towards leaving our reality behind for a long while. Tech will move towards enhancing our normal reality dramatically over and over.

2

MrEloi t1_j55u01k wrote

>> people are being absolute jerks.

Err, not really.

I scanned almost all the comments ... very high decency-to-jerk ratio.

2

OldWorldRevival t1_j55zxjl wrote

Lots of "downvote because disagree" assholery, mainly.

Reddit just sucks. It's designed to make people mad and poison people's minds with rage and bandwagoning.

2

MrEloi t1_j567l6l wrote

Agreed.

I generally try to make helpful or interesting posts .. but there are always random spotty faced teenage boys sitting in squalor in their parent's basement who simply have to make a 'clever' and/or abusive reply.

There are also 'special interest groups' out there.
I made a post on MachineLearning critical of Google ... instantly mega downvoted.
I suppose many DeepMind staff reside there.
They may be geniuses .. but child geniuses.

2

purgatorytea t1_j5ki9gw wrote

I believe that altering all of existence into a paradise and ending suffering is what we, as intelligent beings, are here to do. Actually, more than a belief...I KNOW that is the goal and that it is possible, given enough technology and enough time.

As you see from responses, the majority of people are ignorant to this and some even act strangely hostile to the idea. I was once ignorant to it too. People need events and information to line up in their lives for them to reach the point of understanding, and they need to see beyond themselves and their own happiness. If I could be fortunate enough to live in my own bubble of paradise, I would still be devastated by the suffering outside my bubble and I can't rest until this is solved (on a smaller scale, I already feel this). That's the point that I've reached, and I have a mind that imagines possibility after possibility. That's why I strive toward this. I'm not saying I'm perfect (extremely far from it) but my perspective has changed to give me this understanding.

So, I'm grateful that you posted this.

2

OldWorldRevival t1_j5kzg73 wrote

:)

This perspective comes from an experience I had in a dream that pretty well changed my life forever onward from that point.

I had a dream that I was looking out at my city and to a lesser extent the world, and I saw everyone as an infinitely precious shard of light.

And, the feeling of love was so profound that I understood in that moment that it was the most important thing that there could be.

There wasn't really anywhere up to go from that experience, other than to experience that more fully from a perspective beyond my limited mortal mind.

I do think there's a sort of perspective difference between paradise and utopia. That is, utopianism seems to come from a sort of one dimensional utilitarianism, while the aim of paradise encompasses the highest possible wisdom grounded in experience to drive the beauty of creation done in the light of truth and goodness.

2

Mortal-Region t1_j51oahw wrote

One advantage of VR is that new spaces can be created at practically zero cost. For example, a group of artists could conjure up a brand-new themed space that's as large as they like and easily accessible to anyone in the world. To create a real theme park, on the other hand, they'd have to build it on real-world land (which is in finite supply), and visitors would have to physically travel there.

Another advantage is that VR can be made practically risk-free (the many spectacular malfunctions of Enterprise's holodeck not withstanding).

In the case of fully simulated reality, where people's brains are digital constructs within the simulated world (e.g., uploading), there's the additional advantage that there'll be room for many, many orders of magnitude more people, with lives that are many, many orders of magnitude longer.

1

OldWorldRevival t1_j51rjqj wrote

Can't wait to delete yourself here and copy yourself over there?

0

Mortal-Region t1_j51skou wrote

I'm actually skeptical of uploading. I think what'll actually happen is digital people will come to vastly outnumber and outlive biological people, who will eventually go extinct.

3

raishak t1_j525qlb wrote

Agreed as well. What comes out the other side of this will probably not resemble original humans at all, but regardless, whatever intelligent agents are digitized will have a huge advantage over biological agents in nearly all aspects. Be it artificial or some kind of derivative of human flesh scans or individual behavioral modeling.

2

Mortal-Region t1_j529gix wrote

I think their biggest advantage is how well-suited they'd be for colonizing other stars. They wouldn't need to find suitable planets -- they'd only need energy from the stars. They could just send out seeds and grow new digital life at the destination. Probably the typical scenario for a galaxy is that an intelligent technological civilization arises on a single planet, and they distribute machine intelligence throughout the galaxy.

2

Redpill_Crypto t1_j51ugqy wrote

I think you are onto something.

From my perspective reality, vr and augmented reality will merge to something we currently can't grasp yet,

Once your 5 senses are are indistinguishable stimulated by all of them, then reality just gets more layers in my opinion.

With that said I think we are already living in a fantasy world/simulation and are on our path to be able to create and experience everything there is.

Human fantasy is not some fairy tail far fetched bullshit that happens in our brain. Our fantasies are building blocks from the universe that show us what we are capable of.
They urge us to turn thought potential into reality.

And what we do when we create worlds like game of thrones, marvel universe, harry potter are basically early stage concepts of worlds we will be capable of building one day. One missing link at a time.

I bet my ass that it won't take 1000 years until we build thousands of matrix like worlds, that we dive into, all while simultaneously leaving our bodies of flesh and blood step by step behind.

I do think that we eventually just float around as pure energy, capable of creating and being everything.

I also think that the creatures that evolved from us as machine(human hybrid will think of us as fucking stupid and retarded in every sense of the way. The same way we look down on Neanderthals.

1

tedd321 t1_j525iri wrote

I’m trying friend but it just gets worse

1

OldWorldRevival t1_j5271hg wrote

We are still in a relatively shit spot, but part of that shittiness comes from the fact that we are societally acting like we live in the middle ages.

Resources are not comparatively scarce. The way we set things up is inefficient. I hope AI can help with bureaucracies - both public and private.

3

tedd321 t1_j52qss3 wrote

I won’t stop trying! Keep fighting the fight

2

Alexandertheape t1_j52re6g wrote

i feel like VR can serve as a blueprint or catalyst to inspire real world change. i would enjoy this Augmented Reality phase while we still can…shts about to get real

1

notarobot4932 t1_j52t7dz wrote

I'm going to assume that simulating the taste of an apple or a steak takes less resources than actually producing an apple or a steak and it comes with none of the health drawbacks.

1

SWATSgradyBABY t1_j52vhnu wrote

Many people long for VR as they have no confidence that the problems of this reality will be addressed. Keep in mind that most of the issues aren't technological but political. They are problems that could be or could have been fixed already.

There is a subset of people who have relatively pleasant lives that don't understand what most people experience.

1

OldWorldRevival t1_j53lpxw wrote

This is a solid answer.

I hope we can make the real world so good that VR, while it will have more variety, will not be able to fundamentally exceed real life when all things are considered.

2

rixtil41 t1_j53vv7l wrote

I'm doubtfully that politics will enable star trek space travel. No doubt that changing politics would improve things but never to the extent of vr.

1

Cult_of_Chad t1_j53l3rd wrote

We can do both. In fact, if things go well, we will.

I imagine a future in which some people will stay in the physical and modify their bodies, their genes, their cognition to thrive in their environment. Some will become master engineers who dismantle and terraform worlds. But another branch of humanity will sublimate itself to other realities of modes of being. I think that's OK too; we should be free to evolve as we please.

1

psilomed2 t1_j53x1yy wrote

there are kids suffering with first-world problems in first world, while third-world kids would just be extremely happy with a full meal. Everyone wants to change there environment instead of themselves. It's just human tendency to think that the grass always greener on the other side

1

jibblin t1_j547iya wrote

I’ll say it. Republicans continue for ruin society from getting any closer to a better reality. At least for those not rich and privileged.

1

The-Goat-Soup-Eater t1_j54jrna wrote

Because it’s more efficient and not bound by the laws of reality. It’s all fake, so universal luxury would be easy to achieve

1

Apteryx12014 t1_j55d8vg wrote

The hardest part about making a positive impact on reality is that most people are negative about being positive.

1

OldWorldRevival t1_j55f996 wrote

I think this is the problem.

It's not a forced positivity per se.

It's more of a "learning to drop the baggage of the past and move into a happier future."

1

No_Ninja3309_NoNoYes t1_j51l1k5 wrote

Thou asketh and thou wills gethet it methinks. Interstellar travel is impossible in the real world. I think the whole being someone else thing will be big in VR. And there are at least seven other things that you can't do in the real world like doing magic, flying, talking to people who don't exist or are long dead.

0

OldWorldRevival t1_j51nta9 wrote

More empty things. It's the empty pursuit of things, and you sacrifice your connection to the level of reality that you come from even if our world is virtual.

You can't have it all.

2

ftc1234 t1_j53xauh wrote

This goes the heart of what humans seek? Do they seek knowledge, beauty, tranquility, leisure or pleasure? The history of humanity shows that humans have always sought leisure and pleasure as the ultimate goals in their application of time and effort. Yes, there are others who seek knowledge or innovation. But that is a tiny fraction of humanity. So, yes, VR is the ultimate enabler of pleasure and leisure.

0

prustage t1_j53ywgn wrote

>made our reality as good as any virtual reality could be?

The goal of utopian philosophers since the beginning of time.

Fine, it would actually be possible if you didn't have to then populate it with real humans who will destroy it in minutes.

Sadly, before you can have a perfect reality, you have to have perfect humans. And, after watching todays news, it seems there aren't many around..

0

Ortus14 t1_j54eie5 wrote

No matter what you can have in meat space, you can have more of in in VR for the same energy costs.

0

Cr4zko t1_j54ldbe wrote

Since the beginning of humanity and especially today people have wildly different opinions and views on how the world works. Today this manifests in the Left vs Right dichotomy (vulgarly known as Clown World) and other insanities that happened throughout the 2010s as a result of people trying to force their worldview into reality.

Reality pushes back.

What's the solution, then? Virtual realities. You got yours and I got mine and you can retire to your mansion full of funko pops while I retire to my apartment full of retro games and everyone's going to be happy. You want rising action? Want adventure? You got it. Want to be a secret agent working for an slider organization tasked to maintaining the peace in various fictional dimensions (SG-1 but better)? Sure, you can. I dig the concept, it's very solid indeed. I don't know if we're ever going to be able to create this technology but if we do a decent amount of people alive would be all-in on it. As in, living there full-time. Now the other parcel of people probably would be concerned with nobler goals... but eh, I never was that kind of guy. Thoughts?

−1