3 ms·

Again, I don't think you are aware of what "indistinguishable from reality" actually entails. The capabilities are so extreme there that you'll have essentially

by Retra 11y ago

Again, I don't think you are aware of what "indistinguishable from reality" actually entails. The capabilities are so extreme there that you'll have essentially created your own universe. And what do you care if you live in a different universe? You don't even understand this one well enough to know the difference. So you're basically making this decision on the grounds of your own ignorance. What if this world is a simulation, and the real world is a wonderful and happy place? You don't know the difference, so what business do you have taking a stand on the issue? >However, I believe there is so much more to existence than our own perception even though I am not spiritual at all. You don't know what that word means, then.

bko 11y ago
Fair point. What I had originally thought of as an experience machine was drugs that would produce chemically equivalent reactions as those produced from our experiences. Spiritual usually has an anthropomorphic meaning which is what I object to: Defined as "of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things" Maybe a better way of stating it is that I am not an empiricist that believes that sensory experience is the end-all be-all.
- Retra 11y ago
  That's a better way of putting it, though what I was really getting at was that, whatever reason you have for believing in the importance non-empirical information, you could employ that same reasoning to believe in anything spiritual as well. If what you believe isn't supported by evidence, then a rational person has no reason to agree to it. Don't underestimate how easy it is for a human brain to confuse wishful thinking with rational belief. I know what you are talking about -- a sense of objectivity -- but I see no reason to believe it is a valid point of view, rather than a pretense of human desire.

by Retra 11y ago

bko 11y ago

Fair point. What I had originally thought of as an experience machine was drugs that would produce chemically equivalent reactions as those produced from our experiences. Spiritual usually has an anthropomorphic meaning which is what I object to: Defined as "of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things" Maybe a better way of stating it is that I am not an empiricist that believes that sensory experience is the end-all be-all.

Retra 11y ago
That's a better way of putting it, though what I was really getting at was that, whatever reason you have for believing in the importance non-empirical information, you could employ that same reasoning to believe in anything spiritual as well. If what you believe isn't supported by evidence, then a rational person has no reason to agree to it. Don't underestimate how easy it is for a human brain to confuse wishful thinking with rational belief. I know what you are talking about -- a sense of objectivity -- but I see no reason to believe it is a valid point of view, rather than a pretense of human desire.