5 ms·

Sometimes I wonder if VR is building Plato's Cave or revealing more of the way out of it. The more we learn about humans the more its clear our narratives and

Sometimes I wonder if VR is building Plato's Cave or revealing more of the way out of it. The more we learn about humans the more its clear our narratives and "real world" are at least partial figments of our imagination. We remember narratives that we choose to and ignore evidence to the contrary. VR could help reveal this for people (somewhat the same as is claimed for hallucinogens). It could also allow us to increasingly choose to build fully artificial realities. Who wouldn't choose to be a god? Interestingly, I find this somewhat similar to looking at landscape photography that people enjoy - especially from vacation destinations. Almost every picture now has more dynamic range, edge contrast, contrast, and saturation than the human eye experiences. This means people get to amazing places but are disappointed when reality doesn't match the photo. Then they use various apps on their smartphone to try to take a picture that matches the fantasy (often by erasing any of the local context or culture).

drzaiusapelord 10y ago
> It could also allow us to increasingly choose to build fully artificial realities. Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears. — Nick Bostrom, Are you living in a computer simulation?, 2003
- lomnakkus 10y ago
  > [...] predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. This bit is seems little bit strange to me in that it's actually not necessary at all[1]... a simulation runs on its "own timescale", i.e. it doesn't actually matter how fast/slowly the simulator runs -- the simulation still experiences time advancing at the proverbial dt/dt. This paragraph just seems to be scaremongering to the effect of "it'll happen soon because new processors!" Regardless: If we're living in a simulation of such fidelity it doesn't really matter if it's "really real" or a simulation; our lives will still start and end inside the simulation. (And I daresay this whole thing is just a trivial rehashing of solipsism with an added tinge of technophilia. I really wish physicists had more interaction with philosophers.) [1] I could imagine an argument for positing that e.g. Quantum Computing would be necessary, but the "enormous amounts of computing power" phrasing is incredibly vague, so who knows what the actual premise is? EDIT: Trim pointless "who said what" bit.
  - crooked-v 10y ago
    > a trivial rehashing of solipsism Solipsism doesn't seem to quite fit. Like, sure, you're a brain in a jar in this scenario... but there are a lot of other brains sharing the jar with you, too. Solipsism inherently requires a singular existence rather than a communal one.
    - lomnakkus 10y ago
      Ah, but as a brain-in-a-vat how could you distinguish other brains telling you things from the simulation just telling you what you want (or don't want) to hear? As long as we posit the "simulation" it doesn't really matter. EDIT: Pithyness. Solipsism is fun, isn't it? :) EDIT#2: I didn't mean to dismiss your point preemptively. I actually think it might be interesting to explore whether there could be (in principle) such a thing a shared-yet-simulated reality without succumbing to the solipsism argument. I don't think it's possible, but I'm not a philosopher. Incidentally physics has a similar problem. If you're interested, look up Boltzmann Brains and the "Arrow of Time".
jly 10y ago
> This means people get to amazing places but are disappointed when reality doesn't match the photo Photographs with modern digital technology have many advantages over what our eyes can do, but I find it's typical the opposite problem of trying to make an image that adequately captures reality. The advantage is that our brain can interpret the information from our eyes in real-time, meaning we can extract much more from a scene in real life. A photograph is just a snapshot with a pre-selected focal point, exposure, and view angle, and it can never reproduce the sensation of viewing something for real.
kbart 10y ago
"Interestingly, I find this somewhat similar to looking at landscape photography that people enjoy - especially from vacation destinations. Almost every picture now has more dynamic range, edge contrast, contrast, and saturation than the human eye experiences. This means people get to amazing places but are disappointed when reality doesn't match the photo." Strange, I always assume it's the other way round -- photos can't capture these amazing views. That's especially true in the mountains, where in photos it's usually "meh, just some rocks" while standing on the top of a mountain irl has all these amazing views and feelings that cannot be expressed easily otherwise. Though in a crowded, popular tourist destinations[0] your argument is closer to truth. 0. http://www.boredpanda.com/travel-expectations-vs-reality/ http://www.boredpanda.com/travel-expectations-vs-reality/

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

> It could also allow us to increasingly choose to build fully artificial realities. Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears. — Nick Bostrom, Are you living in a computer simulation?, 2003

lomnakkus 10y ago
> [...] predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. This bit is seems little bit strange to me in that it's actually not necessary at all[1]... a simulation runs on its "own timescale", i.e. it doesn't actually matter how fast/slowly the simulator runs -- the simulation still experiences time advancing at the proverbial dt/dt. This paragraph just seems to be scaremongering to the effect of "it'll happen soon because new processors!" Regardless: If we're living in a simulation of such fidelity it doesn't really matter if it's "really real" or a simulation; our lives will still start and end inside the simulation. (And I daresay this whole thing is just a trivial rehashing of solipsism with an added tinge of technophilia. I really wish physicists had more interaction with philosophers.) [1] I could imagine an argument for positing that e.g. Quantum Computing would be necessary, but the "enormous amounts of computing power" phrasing is incredibly vague, so who knows what the actual premise is? EDIT: Trim pointless "who said what" bit.
- crooked-v 10y ago
  > a trivial rehashing of solipsism Solipsism doesn't seem to quite fit. Like, sure, you're a brain in a jar in this scenario... but there are a lot of other brains sharing the jar with you, too. Solipsism inherently requires a singular existence rather than a communal one.
  - lomnakkus 10y ago
    Ah, but as a brain-in-a-vat how could you distinguish other brains telling you things from the simulation just telling you what you want (or don't want) to hear? As long as we posit the "simulation" it doesn't really matter. EDIT: Pithyness. Solipsism is fun, isn't it? :) EDIT#2: I didn't mean to dismiss your point preemptively. I actually think it might be interesting to explore whether there could be (in principle) such a thing a shared-yet-simulated reality without succumbing to the solipsism argument. I don't think it's possible, but I'm not a philosopher. Incidentally physics has a similar problem. If you're interested, look up Boltzmann Brains and the "Arrow of Time".

jly 10y ago

> This means people get to amazing places but are disappointed when reality doesn't match the photo Photographs with modern digital technology have many advantages over what our eyes can do, but I find it's typical the opposite problem of trying to make an image that adequately captures reality. The advantage is that our brain can interpret the information from our eyes in real-time, meaning we can extract much more from a scene in real life. A photograph is just a snapshot with a pre-selected focal point, exposure, and view angle, and it can never reproduce the sensation of viewing something for real.

kbart 10y ago

"Interestingly, I find this somewhat similar to looking at landscape photography that people enjoy - especially from vacation destinations. Almost every picture now has more dynamic range, edge contrast, contrast, and saturation than the human eye experiences. This means people get to amazing places but are disappointed when reality doesn't match the photo." Strange, I always assume it's the other way round -- photos can't capture these amazing views. That's especially true in the mountains, where in photos it's usually "meh, just some rocks" while standing on the top of a mountain irl has all these amazing views and feelings that cannot be expressed easily otherwise. Though in a crowded, popular tourist destinations[0] your argument is closer to truth. 0. http://www.boredpanda.com/travel-expectations-vs-reality/ http://www.boredpanda.com/travel-expectations-vs-reality/