Half a century ago, a philosopher imagined a world where we could fulfil our desires through a simulation like in The Matrix movie. He argued we'd prefer reality, but was he right?
I’m unsure if this piece belongs in a group called “science”. Its more about philosophy or arts, at least if you ask me.
But the questions it explored about the nature of reality – and our supposed affinity to it – go back further.
The idea of a Matrixlike state is as old as the first human thoughts.
Would it matter to you if it wasn’t “real”?
That is not the same situation as Cypher in Matrix. Cypher wants himself to be fully ignorant about the fact that something like the Matrix even exist. He wants a “normal” life within the Matrix.
In other words: He wants the exchange of a unpleasant reality for a lie.
And this is the reason he is the true antagonist of the movie. The machines (eg. Agent Smith) are the evil ones, sure. Yet he is the one who makes a choice like Neo. Neo wants to beginn this heros journey with his new found mentor, while Cypher wants to go back in the old situation and even forces Neo and the others back.
Even within the structur of the story, the movie makes a strong statement againt Cypher’s approach.
The second was that “we want to be a certain way, to be a certain sort of person”, and we cannot truly be anything in the experience machine.
I don’t understand this one.
Through the lack of “contact with any deeper reality,” we would lose access to meaning and significance.
That implies that in this reality lies deeper meaning and significance.
If we assume this is true, then the inference is unavoideble. What about a state of doubt?
Maybe it would still follow, maybe not.
Hindriks says. Their goal was to test whether versions of the experience machine that kept participants more in contact with reality would be more acceptable to them. They found that respondents were significantly more willing to take an experience pill
Any fictioal book or movie or video game is a kind of this experience pill.
Therefor, we already know that people are willing to take the pill if they stay in contact to the reality and don’t forgot the truth.
My intuition tells me, the two reason we favore reality over a experience pill are:
Genuinly angst of the creature. If you have just fictional experiences, you can easily become a victim of a predator. Its a evolutionary thing to search reality.
When people want to climb a mountain, they actually want to climb the mountain. Hypnosis that makes them believe this is simply not what they want. It is a trick.
I kind of agree about this not entirely fitting science, but I think the survey part is what gives it that little edge to fit here.
Without reading it in the full context, I’m also not sure what Nozick may have meant with the “want to be a certain way, to be a certain sort of person” idea. I suspect the idea may be that given a fully constructed context, you may be limited to however that context permits you to be instead of an independently actualized/realized person.
Although if that may be what Nozick was getting at, it’s not without its own problems, much as you highlight with their position supposing existence harboring deeper meaning and significance apart from conscious creations.
I suspect the idea may be that given a fully constructed context, you may be limited to however that context permits you to be instead of an independently actualized/realized person.
Could have some unwanted implication for religious people. Or maybe not. 😉
To be frank, I cannot make much of this line. This doesn’t preclude some other can make more of it. From the point of view of a reader, it would be great if the writer of this article would put a bite more into this line.
Although if that may be what Nozick was getting at, it’s not without its own problems, much as you highlight with their position supposing existence harboring deeper meaning and significance apart from conscious creations.
To make a long story short: I feel agnostic about this questions. At least, to a degree.
I’m unsure if this piece belongs in a group called “science”. Its more about philosophy or arts, at least if you ask me.
The idea of a Matrixlike state is as old as the first human thoughts.
That is not the same situation as Cypher in Matrix. Cypher wants himself to be fully ignorant about the fact that something like the Matrix even exist. He wants a “normal” life within the Matrix.
In other words: He wants the exchange of a unpleasant reality for a lie. And this is the reason he is the true antagonist of the movie. The machines (eg. Agent Smith) are the evil ones, sure. Yet he is the one who makes a choice like Neo. Neo wants to beginn this heros journey with his new found mentor, while Cypher wants to go back in the old situation and even forces Neo and the others back.
Even within the structur of the story, the movie makes a strong statement againt Cypher’s approach.
I don’t understand this one.
That implies that in this reality lies deeper meaning and significance.
If we assume this is true, then the inference is unavoideble. What about a state of doubt? Maybe it would still follow, maybe not.
Any fictioal book or movie or video game is a kind of this experience pill. Therefor, we already know that people are willing to take the pill if they stay in contact to the reality and don’t forgot the truth.
My intuition tells me, the two reason we favore reality over a experience pill are:
I kind of agree about this not entirely fitting science, but I think the survey part is what gives it that little edge to fit here.
Without reading it in the full context, I’m also not sure what Nozick may have meant with the “want to be a certain way, to be a certain sort of person” idea. I suspect the idea may be that given a fully constructed context, you may be limited to however that context permits you to be instead of an independently actualized/realized person.
Although if that may be what Nozick was getting at, it’s not without its own problems, much as you highlight with their position supposing existence harboring deeper meaning and significance apart from conscious creations.
Could have some unwanted implication for religious people. Or maybe not. 😉
To be frank, I cannot make much of this line. This doesn’t preclude some other can make more of it. From the point of view of a reader, it would be great if the writer of this article would put a bite more into this line.
To make a long story short: I feel agnostic about this questions. At least, to a degree.