I'd also observe that if one lives more or less their entire reality in some sort of VR simulation... so what?
The meta-question here is very interesting. At what point do humans controlling their environment cease being humans? So yes, you could sit absolutely still and live a tremendously-rewarding virtual life because you have designed a world that emotionally compels you to never leave. To the rest of us, you look like a potted plant. Does that make you less human? Or, to put differently, if you were completely paralyzed, yet were able to think (I believe they call it "locked in") is there anything wrong with you that the rest of us should care about and fix? Is how we define being a human inexorably linked to physical social participation? I believe so, but I'm not comfortable with my own line of reasoning here.
Note that I don't have a problem with us evolving into something else. My only concern is that we acknowledge what's happening so that we can realistically talk about it. If we are evolving, then there will be a selection function that we had get pretty damn good at meeting. I imagine that function is going to be the ability to turn the system off from time to time. What I see instead is millions of folks who spend more time than even they are happy with plugged in and are in a great bit of denial as to exactly what social effect that is having. If you ask me, the singularity is already here. We just can't see it.
If we were to take the concept of a VR "thought is action" simulacrum seriously, I think that maybe current standards for what is seen as socially good can still apply there- it is better to "produce" so that others may "consume", than to primarily consume yourself. So maybe VR actors, musicians, and coders will still be seen as doing something worthy of more prestige than typical VR gamers. The only difference between then and now is how much physical activity your body needs to spend to accomplish that.
> Note that I don't have a problem with us evolving into something else. If we are evolving, then there will be a selection function that we had get pretty damn good at meeting.
That's how evolution works, though, of course. Some individuals will do better than others, and the overall population will gradually become more like them. I don't think there's any sense in worrying about what we'll evolve into - it will be whatever fits our environment best.
I think the more worthwhile concern is, in the relative short term, whether it will make us and those we care about more or less happy. That's probably much more complicated to answer.
Comments
I'd also observe that if one lives more or less their entire reality in some sort of VR simulation... so what?
The meta-question here is very interesting. At what point do humans controlling their environment cease being humans? So yes, you could sit absolutely still and live a tremendously-rewarding virtual life because you have designed a world that emotionally compels you to never leave. To the rest of us, you look like a potted plant. Does that make you less human? Or, to put differently, if you were completely paralyzed, yet were able to think (I believe they call it "locked in") is there anything wrong with you that the rest of us should care about and fix? Is how we define being a human inexorably linked to physical social participation? I believe so, but I'm not comfortable with my own line of reasoning here.
Note that I don't have a problem with us evolving into something else. My only concern is that we acknowledge what's happening so that we can realistically talk about it. If we are evolving, then there will be a selection function that we had get pretty damn good at meeting. I imagine that function is going to be the ability to turn the system off from time to time. What I see instead is millions of folks who spend more time than even they are happy with plugged in and are in a great bit of denial as to exactly what social effect that is having. If you ask me, the singularity is already here. We just can't see it.
If we were to take the concept of a VR "thought is action" simulacrum seriously, I think that maybe current standards for what is seen as socially good can still apply there- it is better to "produce" so that others may "consume", than to primarily consume yourself. So maybe VR actors, musicians, and coders will still be seen as doing something worthy of more prestige than typical VR gamers. The only difference between then and now is how much physical activity your body needs to spend to accomplish that.
> Note that I don't have a problem with us evolving into something else. If we are evolving, then there will be a selection function that we had get pretty damn good at meeting.
That's how evolution works, though, of course. Some individuals will do better than others, and the overall population will gradually become more like them. I don't think there's any sense in worrying about what we'll evolve into - it will be whatever fits our environment best.
I think the more worthwhile concern is, in the relative short term, whether it will make us and those we care about more or less happy. That's probably much more complicated to answer.