I think philosophical rigour is just not something he cares about. I recently read his "You can't argue with a zombie" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=318

I think philosophical rigour is just not something he cares about. I recently read his "You can't argue with a zombie" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31807798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31807798) again, arguing that machines could not have consciousness or that human consciousness is non-physical, or something, anyway it's very rambling and none of the arguments hold up if you try to follow them from one statement to the next. But it's written in 1995, different times, different atmosphere around AI and cyberpunk, plus ofc he was 30 years younger.. So this made me wonder if he'd still hold those same views and argue for them in a similar way today. Apparently, mostly, yes. So I think you can read him as simply vouching for implementing certain technologies in a certain way that would make him happy, and frankly you don't need much rigour for that. He's really just saying that he wants some prototypical human experience to remain the most valuable, and if you also want that, here's how you'd want to use VR. As for why that kind of experience is or should be valued, you won't get that from him beyond a bit of emotional handwaving, because it's just not what he's setting out to do.