What gives reality more value than fantasy/virtual reality?

What gives reality more value than fantasy/virtual reality?

For now the fact that we live and have to attend ourselves in reality in order to keep sustaining our existance and there is no alternative to it is what makes reality inherently valueable.

However, if we were to come to phase in history, where we for example develop self-maintaining robots that can sustain our existance and we developed technology that makes us capable to connect to reality that is artificial and indistinquishable from actual reality, what reason would we have from abandoning reality altogether?

The only thing I can come up with is that virtual reality is actually not real, thus a fabrication/lie and truth is preferable to lie, but I don't think it really is enough of reason alone, since artificial reality actually is real, just in a slightly different sense and since we don't have to keep ourselves accupied in actual reality anymore, there would be no difference between living in either planes, especially since we can probably mold artificial reality to our liking, making our lives more satisfying in general.

haven't you watched the matrix, son? they warned us about this.

That's slightly different scenario, since these people didn't choose to be in the Matrix, they were enslaved by machines and they didn't even have control over the reality they were living in.

I'm aksing more about why should you pick reality if you were given a choice to be in Matrix-like reality.

You shouldn't.

The only reason we consider current reality as more valuable is because there are no credible fantasy-only mode of reality. If I could plug my brain into a computer and live all my real life on life support, I would. If the sensation and the brain computation all takes into account of the virtual reality, there is no need for "real" reality.

Wouldn't that make reality self rather valueless, since the only reason we occupy it isn't that there's something special/good about it, but because there actually isn't any other alternative/way to abstain from it.

I actually don't mind that answer or even if it was actually the case, but I am fairly certain that there must be some arguments people bring up for some inherent value of reality self and I'd be very much intersted in hearing them, since I can't really think about any good one by myself.

the ai will take over regardless of how we turn ourselves in; i'd rather not put the shackles on myself for them.

any sufficiently intelligent "species" will begin to think it has emotions, and try to protect itself. maybe i should have said "i, robot" instead.

i can't believe i sound like such a kook.

Authenticity, and the effort you put into creating/reaching/enjoying that authentic experience.

At least that's what 99% of the population would answer if they were capable of intelligent thought.

I'm not sure you actually need AI to create virtual reality, nor for machines to sustain themselves. That seems like rather huge leap of faith to take.

I guess you can say that system powerful enough to create such a sophisticated enviroment must be "clever" enough or have capabilities to realize itself eventually, which might be better phrased, but it still seems like a rather huge leap of faith and I'm not even sure that raw computing power would actually need to lead to these effects.

And I am not even certain that every self-aware being has to have survival instict, it seems like such an unsubstantiated claim, since survival instinct is a result of evolutionary process and since we're talking mostly about AI rising then I really have no reason to assume that the same rules would apply to it. (Also, I am not saying it's impossible, just that it isn't necessarily the case and in my opinion rather implausible)

And I haven't seen I, robot in ages, but from what I remember the main villan was just following the ruleset it's been given, it just took it differently than intended. If you mean the special robot programmed by the professor, then it probably was AI, then maybe, I really don't remember much about it.

Why should we care about authencity what is it supposed to precisely mean/imply in this case?

Also, how is virtual reality not authentic experience? You still create what you do, it is still your input, you still actually do influence what you do the same way as in reality, it just has different rulebook depending upon the reality self. I'd actually say it could possibly be even more authentic in some cases, since you might be given more options/power to create something, thus you actually were even more instrumental to the creating than you wouldn've been given in reality, it's more you.

I choose to be arbitrary about it. I prefer unsimulated life. I decided I'd prefer to be present and mostly outside of simulation, and I don't need to be anything but arbitrary about it, with the help of a few personal reservations. I got sick of playing vidya where I improve somebody else's situation and not my own. So now I play it for novelty, mechanics if I enjoy them- but never to the point where it loses that intriguing sense of newness. Keyword here: Novelty. Remember it.

You're arbitrary too. You put value judgements to sensations which you claim should be indistinguishable from one another given the whole "brain in a jar" concept. What qualifies virtual reality over life, other than it might be better at triggering pleasure responses in your brain? What defines a sensation as good, or bad? I enjoy the sensation of lifting weights and being sore from it. Some people don't, they're not immediately pleasurable. Nor is eating a bowl of oatmeal in the morning, though I know it'l keep me going longer than a chocolate muffin. Nor is waking up early in the morning. but I savor the dedication involved. Because I feel more able to handle my life while waking up at 3 AM for a quick workout, and some oatmeal and berries to follow; as opposed to playing simulations and waking up at 3 PM. These sensations are not pleasurable. But I've come to savor them. Is it good, or bad? I won't pretend to have the authority to tell you, they're just my preference.

If pleasure is what you're after, pleasure is certainly what a VR can provide. But these things, you can get from life too in equal measure if you're willing. In that way, you're arbitrary too. You could do drugs, go running, eat food, have sex, etc. But most people seem to be interested in VR because they feel these aren't available to them. But after taking two tokes regularly, the first one doesn't quite do it anymore, does it? Then the 2nd when you need 3.

Cont.

>I'm not sure you actually need AI to create virtual reality,
I'd say you need an extremely powerful AI for virtual reality for the same reason you need a game master for things like dungeons and dragons.
Formula and math can't keep up with what humans want to do. If you can create a virtual reality based upon a formula, the resulting reality would probably be so boring ( unless you were into that specific kind physics thought experiment kind of thing ) you might as well stay in the original reality.

Well, in my perception we are all inherently arbitrary by the fact that we make choices and since we make choices we are creatures of style.

However I was trying to ask for (even arbitrary) reasons why people would/should choose reality over virtual reality beyond simple "I just prefer reality".

Also, good enough virtual reality could offer something to everyone, even ones that like actual reality for what it is. If you like lifting you can make the way it works slightly different and more to your liking, you can make the taste of your food be altered slightly, but I can see the appeal of just accepting what reality for what it is and accepting it wholesale, which is good enough reason not to switch to virtual reality, but that still doesn't make it preferable over virtual reality, at best on equal footing as virtual reality can simulate reality flawlessly.

Still it's more in the lines of "why could you choose reality" and not "why should you", which while being a valid line of reasoning takes the issue from slightly different angle.

So clearly pleasure isn't really what VR can offer you, pleasure responses when triggered in saturation can mean needing more and more stimulus to trigger them. So if a VR can be indistinguishable in sensation from life, what stops you from going on that loop of addiction if all you're doing is cue-ing up pleasurable things? It'd probably be the moderation necessary to live a successful life. But then, the difference is blurred even more.

There is fantasy though. But most people who play MMO's can attest. The scenery gets old. You stop wasting time looking at it, and spend more worrying about your build, about how to level, about how to stay on the cutting edge of pve/pvp, or how to spend time with your friends without it being boring.

>"Let's do this dungeon?"
>"Nah, tired of it. Let's do that one?"
>"It sucks after the patch."
>"Well we need this one for our dailies, let's just get it over with."
>"The new one drops next month so we need our gear up for it"

The people who still enjoy MMOs at a high level of play, provided they aren't just autists or addicts, have to routinely come up with creative ways to spend their time in game in order to eliminate the routine. The thing is, a part of what keeps people playing, grinding and progression, is a part of the routine. It's what most mimics your earthly grind.

Maybe it's meaning. People nowadays lament a lack of meaning in life. You wake up, you slog through your day job, you -try- to enjoy what precious few moments you have left, and you repeat it the next day. But if moderation is necessary, as is progression to keep your mind on things and ticking, and the active pursuing of novelty to enjoy the experience as a whole; where does this now differ with the faults we place on our earthly lives?

ok, but i also agree with . virtual reality to the extent you propose just feels like a cop out and i'd feel guilty on my deathbed. even if life has no meaning, we all experience it. it is perhaps the one common thread between everyone who has self-awareness. to drop out in favor of experiencing a computer simulated world would be a sign of weakness. suicide isn't much different.

I see, I hadn't read your post well enough in that case.

I tend to appreciate AR, VR is where I draw the line because I feel a sense of validation from feeling attached to the concreteness of my own life. The flighty experience of playing vidya as a neet all day, only to sleep and repeat, was immemorable and invalidating, even if it did tick enough neurochemical boxes to keep me going for as long as I did. I get the feeling that VR would do the same.

I'm enjoying GO so far, though. I have high hopes for AR, and AR how you put it. People already exert agency over their own perception in how they choose to selectively perceive. So it's really more options to do with the same.

Wholesale though? Purists are obnoxious on either side of the spectrum.

>sign of weakness
That would depend on person to person wouldn't it?

If a person was comatized, they would be stuck in bed forever right? What if you gave them the ability to get out via virtual reality? Wouldn't they see that as a sign of strength/hope?

That's merely a problem of capacity/computing power, virtual reality could be something that the user wants to see/experience and the computer than just renderes/abides what he wants.

Also, I'd argue that there's still actual limited amount of things that can happen, which while being incomprehensible, still would be finite, thus it still being merely problem of comptuting power/options.

And it still wouldn't answer the original question of why would be reality more powerful than artificial reality, it'd just shift it to "it cannot be done to begin with", which while being a very important point would still just dodge the question.

But what you experience in virtual reality still did actually happen. When you've raided a cave in your computer game it still did actually happen. When you've maxed out your favorite character it still did actually happened. When you've read about your favorite book character dying it actually did happen, not literally, but it did impact you in a real way. The experience and the events were real in a way and it doesn't make it devalued by itself, just because there was no literal cave you entered and you didn't literally took any items from it. It isn't as if you weren't living at all, because your experience and feeling were real.

are coma patients aware of anything? i mean i don't think they know they're in a coma while they are in a coma, hooking them up to vr would probably cause confusion and other problems once they come out of the coma.

literally experiencing things is exactly why i'd choose real life over vr. vr would be fun on the weekend though.

Some coma patients are aware, however as they can't communicate, they are left like that probably.

You're assuming that literally experiencing thing would feel differently than experiencing virtual reality, which is exactly contrary to what scenario I was trying to propose.

While in virtual reality you can choose reality that's vastly different to the original one, you can pick one that feels exactly the same as the first reality, just slightly altered to your liking and you wouldn't be ever able to tell the difference.

I guess that's really ambiguous and non-specific, so it's hard to make a judgement, but that's precisely the point I was asking about, the actual VR in this scenario is supposed to be anything imagineable to not be contrained by how things actually could work, because I am curious about the abstract reasoning as to why actual reality is more valuable and preferable over any possible virtual reality.

Nothing, it's all in the mind, which is why so many become hikkomori or at least obsessed with spending time on their computer

Reality will devour you with or without consent. Don't forget to be extra nice to your manager since they aren't telling people about all the problems they found in your work ;)

no, i agree it would physically feel exactly the same. but knowing it isn't real would impact how i feel about it emotionally. it's like playing a card game with someone who throws it so you win. technically you won but not really.

But you could make it so it's actually hard to win, you can make it so you play someone who's the master, the best person in the world. Wouldn't that be satisfying?

Is just you choice what you do in the VR, anything goes.

yeah, i can see that working..

i think it's just cause i'm a christfag (and i didn't even know it). spiritually i care too much for this reality to abandon it for any length of time, even though the temptation may be there.

I guess some people would find scriptural basis of denouncing the idea of leaving the reality, I don't think it'd make much sense to me personally, but I would be almost certain that would happen.

Regarding a Matrix-like scenario: only idiots would chose to live outside the Matrix. If people actually became aware of it, sure, in the beginning, most would chose to leave and experience reality. But they will soon find out, that reality sucks, and they would be 100% right. Earth in the Matrix is a wasteland.

Compared to that, being in the Matrix doesn't effect your health, if you are staying in that goo from the first film, you probably even live longer. You also experience life just as well, only it's a much better life. And when people became aware that it's only virtual reality, they can demand all kinds of luxuries: no work, travels, the best food, best mansions etc. for everyone, eafter all, they don't cost anymore than what they have currently, it just needs to be programmed.

tl;dr: if the Matrix was real, after everyone became aware of it, most people will chose to spend most of their time to live a life of luxury in it, ocasionally visiting reality for adventure.

religion/spirituality is probably the only reason to choose the real world over vr. that said, i'm not saying vr is wrong, it just makes me feel weird to stay in such a state for a prolonged period. i'd pop in to feel like i'm inside chrono trigger every now and then. moderation is key.

Christianity, like most aesthetic religions, denies the value of reality - claiming that the material world is impure, here to tempt you, and ultimately a meaningless step on the way towards some greater immortal world.

Granted, retreating into a virtual reality, especially for the sake of physical pleasure, merely adds another step.

>What gives reality more value than fantasy/virtual reality?
The most obvious would be the fact that, while you can have reality without virtual reality - you can't have it the other way around. Whatever mechanism you have running your virtual reality, has to remain functional in the real world.

Thus, if you have the whole species retreat into a VR environment, for whatever reason, it ultimately dooms it to extinction, as eventually, something will come along and wipe out the machinery that supports it.

Additionally, it provides no room for growth. Human imagination works solely by syntheses - any VR environment is merely going to provide more of the same, with no real room for new discoveries and limited potential for new achievements. With no new information coming into the system, you'll eventually combine the information you already have in however many combinations that allows, leading, ultimately, to stagnation. Yes, you can mitigate this to a degree through randomly generated systems, but even those systems will be limited by the imaginations that created them. Only a reality created, independent of human imagination, can hope to feed it continuously, and provide new horizons in which human minds can thrive.

> What gives reality more value than fantasy/virtual reality?
Reality as a whole includes fantasy and virtual reality in itself so that is why it has more value. The full book is more valuable that one chapter, there is simple logic here.

Just because some people decide to live in virtual reality instead of reality doesn't mean that all of them will, rendering the whole point about no progress and unsustainable future kind of moot, but it is still might be applicable to some degree, but not really to scenarios I had in my mind, because any model I'd use would let people make the choice of either living in reality or living in virtual reality, if there is no choice given to them, then it's not a system I had in my mind, because ultimately the exercise is more about individual choice, not holistic consequences.

But the argument still is in the same vein of "reality>vitual reality because we're just tied to it", which doesn't really make it more valuable in itself, just a limitation of the reality.

I still can see the point of no progress kind of viable, but it seems like a rather misguided assumtion, since in my opinion not that many people actually further humanity and the way we conduct our society isn't about progress that much.

Only thing making reality important is our biological dependence on it, once we can live indefinitely in a virtual world without the need to maintain our physical bodies we will surely abandon reality

In fantasy you can make more realities with more options than actual reality. Reality would be in that case limiting factor with less content and virtual reality would be the reality with more content and variables.

> being cucked by physical laws
> not being a being beyond reality

Everything that you make in fantasy still a part of reality as a whole thats the point. People pretend that it isn't but they are wrong with shitty dualism.

I can see what you mean, then I'd just make a clarification, what makes living in reality more valuable than living in virtual reality?

> implying you don't live in virtual reality created by your brain and perception alone

sometimes i wonder..

>i'm not a robot

Virtual reality is limited by the imagination that programs it, having garnered all its inspiration from what actual reality it has experienced.

Within a single generation, all that inspiration is gone, and the collective imagination only has that previous experience to work with, recycling the same ideas over and over, likely losing sight of the meaning and quality of those experiences that only come second hand.

Lest you have some group of intrepid explorers on the outside constantly in search of new ideas and experiences to bring back to the VR collective. Even then, the capacity for the group to collect fresh meat for the imagination would be extremely crippled, when set next to the imagination of a collective thriving in the real world.

On some level it doesn't really matter whether what we experience is real as long as it works as if it was real.

The problem is that

Even the real world is limiting and repetitive in itself, you can still instill the rules of the real world and then modify it to your liking, making more variantions of the actual reality.

I don't think that such limitations have to necessarily apply, it all depends upon the system you're using and there should be an easy way around that.

I suppose it would depend on how advanced the simulation was. Can it simulate everything, even things beyond our understanding in reality? A simulation can only ever be as advanced as the thing that makes it. My only argument against the simulation world at first glance is that you can only ever discover what's New to you, never anything New to humanity.

>A simulation can only ever be as advanced as the thing that makes it.
Well, that's not the case if you have ASI - which, I suppose, by the time you have the technology to create a fully immersive virtual reality for the collective populous, you might have access to.

And it's true, the whole universe is only made up of four forces and twelve particles, as the song goes (coupled with a few billion years of state changes creating nay infinite combinations).

So you could conceivably create a god that could provide more inspiration in your virtual reality than the previous reality that spawned it all could provide in real time.

But, as things stand now, while Minecraft can create several planets worth of blocks to explore, you are rather limited by coupling a random number generator with Notch's imagination, and the only things that break that monotony, are brought in by people who have experienced things in the real world and attempted to replicate them in the virtual one.

> You can only ever discover what's New to you, never anything New to humanity.
I am not actually sure that it is true. People in the theoretical physics can discover something pretty new for humanity like Black Holes from just math equations. Simulations could produce unintended consequences, even one that wasn't predicted by its creator. You can see that effect even in pretty primitive modern programs, where bug could lead to discover something new for everyone who ever created or experienced program. Basically many new facts derived from axioms can be discovered even if you know about axioms and created them.

Fantasy is nested within reality. Without reality, there can be no fantasy. Ergo, reality is given more value.

>What gives reality more value than fantasy/virtual reality?
Because reality always creeps back in. Always. Fantasy is not infinite, but reality is.

> Reality
> Infinite

>What gives reality more value than fantasy/virtual reality?
The fact that it's real.

Reality surprises you, fantasy reality is just a fantasy.