Support NeoGAF

[Rocky]

Y....you big meanie! D:

You know, making fun of the TC like that is pretty uncalled for. Its people like you that cause people to feel like the OP apparently does.

I'll bet you bullied a lot of kids back when you were in grade school while a group of your friends stood around and laughed and high fived each other.

 

[Crash Station]

Y....you big meanie! D:

Knowing some of the stuff HolyBaikal went through, I can't really laugh at this >_>


Don't know if we should close the thread at this point or not, but there are still some interesting discussions going on, so no idea.

 

[Zane]

I'll bet you bullied a lot of kids back when you were in grade school while a group of your friends stood around and laughed and high fived each other.

that's uh, jumping to conclusions.

 

[Teremap]

I disagree with the idea that it's archaic to assume that people in a society should contribute in-kind with their abilities. Yes, that sentence takes into account disability, physical capacity, and creative contributions.

In a discussion about someone whose end-goal involves the consumption of advanced equipment, resources (material and creative) and all the underpinnings of their livelihood in an arrangement where they don't contribute outwardly or even interact in a traditionally social sense, it's very simple to ask where the allocation of resources comes from. Particularly when they're asking "what's wrong with wanting to live in a virtual world?" A virtual world means maintaining both the physical and virtual spaces and infrastructure to make that possible.

I don't think your being realistic about the way things just are. Sure in a perfect world I'd love to do only the things I enjoy, but the world isn't perfect and you have to be realistic and make sacrifices to achieve your goals/desires. Virtual reality isn't going to solve the worlds problems, burying our heads in the sand isn't going to cure cancer or solve world hunger, stop racial/gender inequality. Your attitude towards people with this mindset is condescending, (and there is a pretty clear split of people who think "fuck it I should be able to do as I please" and others who are more acting more realistic) but if you truly have the answers please go ahead and share them.

Your spiel about not every individual not needing to contribute (and I'm well aware not everyone is physically/mentally capable) what exactly do you suggest these people do, live out their entire lives plugged into a hollow virtual existence ultimately achieving nothing and being completely unfulfilled until they eventually die having basically been a vegetable their entire lives. What kind of existence is that it sounds to me like the literal embodiment of purgatory.

First off, I have to say that I am NOT arguing for a world where everyone puts their head in the sand and ignores everything and everyone else. Like I imagine most others in this thread are saying, I believe that everything in moderation is the way to go, VR included.

What I AM saying is that we need to move away from this mindset and system that assumes everyone has to earn their keep, particularly considering that we do possess more than enough productive capacity to keep everyone clothed, sheltered, fed, etc. with room to spare. In fact, we already have a number of social support systems designed to do exactly that - it's not exactly an enormous jump from here to there.

All I want to see is a future where someone who has a dream can pursue that dream without being dragged down by the system itself. Imagine all those children who had seemingly impractical dreams - children who wanted to get into art, for example, but were dissuaded by their parents because it's so difficult to make a living these days from simply making art. So many people brought down to a level of cynicism that is created by this incentive-minded system that is not designed to maximize us all, but instead only to force us to clash against one another, to claw our way to the top to the detriment of all other human beings.

Unfortunately, the first step on that road is getting all these people who scream and cry out at the mere mention of "socialism" as some kind of horrifying societal ill to realize how silly they're being, and I'm not gonna lie, I'm not terribly confident we'll see the end to that any time soon.

 

[Dai101]

You know, making fun of the TC like that is pretty uncalled for. Its people like you that cause people to feel like the OP apparently does.

I'll bet you bullied a lot of kids back when you were in grade school while a group of your friends stood around and laughed and high fived each other.

BTW, no. I didn't bully no one in grade school, you meanie!!

 

[ArtHands]

Knowing some of the stuff HolyBaikal went through, I can't really laugh at this >_>


Don't know if we should close the thread at this point or not, but there are still some interesting discussions going on, so no idea.

That's the point though. The virtual world can and will be filled with people whom you may not agree too. That's how communication works. You'll still have to face them even in the virtual world.

Unless you choose to interact with only AI, which again, is engineered and artificial and something that can never replace the real human counterpart. You can have lots of robots singing you a song on your birthday, but that will be very different with having a couple of close and lovely people who take time out of their busy schedule, travel for several hours to celebrate your big day (or even a few text messages), where you can sense the effort and sincerity in this case.

 

[Wonko_C]

You know, this thread made me think, if a Sword Art Online level of VR was possible, would I still want to play as a girl as I do in "regular videogames"? Would the level of realism make me feel gender dysphoria or would I still be able to think "it's just a game!"

That's a good question. I often choose or create a female character whenever I am given the option. You know, the old "I want to use a character that is pleasing to look at" argument.

In VR I don't think I would do it, just because I don't see the point since I wouldn't be looking at my character anyway. Also I don't think gender dysphoria would be an issue unless you can feel you now have boobs in your body... And at that point, maybe it would be fun to experiment some new er, sensations, LOL.

 

[Rocky]

BTW, no. I didn't bully no one in grade school, you meanie!!

Doesn't help your argument that you made fun of the OP twice now. But hey, let's pick on someone else now right? Anything to get a laugh and be accepted and thought of as "cool" right?

 

[Crash Station]

That's the point though. The virtual world can and will be filled with people whom you may not agree too. That's how communication works. You'll still have to face them even in the virtual world.

Unless you choose to interact with only AI, which again, is engineered and artificial and something that can never replace the real human counterpart. You can have lots of robots singing you a song on your birthday, but that will be very different with having a couple of close and lovely people who take time out of their busy schedule, travel for several hours to celebrate your big day (or even a few text messages), where you can sense the effort and sincerity in this case.

All I was doing was pointing out a mean comment. If people are free to make them, others should be free to call them out on it. Knowing more about Baikal than some people in here, I found it to be in poor taste.

But yes, if anonymous human interaction is involved, things will not change. Hell, it might not change even with AI if things advance to that point.

 

[FluxWaveZ]

This obsession with being viewed as normal, and how anyone who isn't should be ridiculed or seek therapy. It's hilarious.

 

[Manu]

To be fair, Baikal was asking for feedback. Barring some insults made by morons, nothing in this thread was uncalled for.

You don't ask people for their opinion on your ideals and then bail when they disagree.

 

[Gbraga]

That's a good question. I often choose or create a female character whenever I am given the option. You know, the old "I want to use a character that is pleasing to look at" argument.

In VR I don't think I would do it, just because I don't see the point since I wouldn't be looking at my character anyway. Also I don't think gender dysphoria would be an issue unless you can feel you now have boobs in your body... And at that point, maybe it would be fun to experiment some new er, sensations, LOL.

I actually still didn't watch Sword Art Online, so I'm just assuming you would in fact actually feel your body.

In your case, yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense, but I don't really create female characters just because they're prettier (it is a reason though), I can't really explain.I'm not really into making myself in those games, either in visuals or even personality. I can be myself in real life, fuck that in games. I guess that's one of the main things to me. I also recently noticed I tend to avoid making white characters, so maybe the fact that most of the time I have to play as a male have a big influence on my tendency to play as females too. But that's probably just rationalizing, the actual proccess is pretty natural, if I have the option to play as a female, I'll click it and I'll play as the female, no thinking required. No "the industry have too many males" goes through my head, I'll just choose the female and make my character pretty.

There are exceptions, though. I tried to stay as true to myself as possible in The Walking Dead, since the way characters reacted to you in dialogues were the main thing. It wouldn't be the same if I was just "acting", it would still be cool, but not personal.

All I was doing was pointing out a mean comment. If people are free to make them, others should be free to call them out on it. Knowing more about Baikal than some people in here, I found to be in poor taste.

But yes, if anonymous human interaction is involved, things will not change. Hell, it might not change even with AI if things advance to that point.

I just imagined an AI evolving to the point of making Phil Fish like twitter comments. That amuses me much more than it should.

 

[Anrakyr]

Unfortunately, the first step on that road is getting all these people who scream and cry out at the mere mention of "socialism" as some kind of horrifying societal ill to realize how silly they're being, and I'm not gonna lie, I'm not terribly confident we'll see the end to that any time soon.

I would go a step further and say that this spiritual awakening, everyone living in peace and harmony, a perfect world where people can do what they want to without fear of failure or discrimination will unfortunately never come to fruition no matter how wonderful you can make it sound. I know this probably comes across as being aggressive but so be it. Socialism doesn't work (read Animal farm, still to this day perfectly encapsulates why), a fantastic idea in theory I'll agree 100% but some people will always strive for more, nobody can ever be truly equal, whilst everybody should be it's not going to happen.

 

[aly]

This obsession with being viewed as normal, and how anyone who isn't should be ridiculed or seek therapy. It's hilarious.

Is it really about being normal or more about what's healthy?

 

[Crossing Eden]

Is it really about being normal or more about what's healthy?

Human touch is actually quite healthy.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/the-power-of-touch-physical-contact-health_n_3253987.html Like really heathy.

 

[FluxWaveZ]

Is it really about being normal or more about what's healthy?

I think it's one or the other, depending on some of the statements here. The healthy part is a genuine concern, but then I find myself wondering what does "healthy" mean when it comes to mental health? Does it mean that one has a good grasp of reality, that one is mentally stable, or that one is simply content with who they are? If it's any of these, then I have to wonder why it's supposed to be a fundamental truth that what is known as the "norm" should grant one this mental health if it goes against who they are.

Human touch is actually quite healthy.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/the-power-of-touch-physical-contact-health_n_3253987.html Like really heathy.

Thanks. This is interesting, but, glossing through it, what about those who do not feel comfort, like the author did, through physical touch? What about those who actually feel nervous due to it, or those that it makes uncomfortable? I can't envision—for those in question—physical touch establishes the same "connection" the article illustrates, or has the same blood pressure benefits.

 

[Crash Station]

Human touch is actually quite healthy.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/the-power-of-touch-physical-contact-health_n_3253987.html Like really heathy.

Since we're not only talking about "normal" people here, this isn't something that's going to matter to some. Like for those with extreme haphephobia, touching would cause a lot more harm than good. Even in the best-case scenario, the stress increase would outweigh other physical benefits. For others, it could lead to panic attacks or even worse mental health concerns (which could in turn affect physical health).

But again, I'm not saying people shouldn't work on that if they can. Just that there are worse things in this world than no physical contact, and for some, those things INCLUDE physical contact.

 

[Teremap]

I would go a step further and say that this spiritual awakening, everyone living in peace and harmony, a perfect world where people can do what they want to without fear of failure or discrimination will unfortunately never come to fruition no matter how wonderful you can make it sound. I know this probably comes across as being aggressive but so be it. Socialism doesn't work (read Animal farm, still to this day perfectly encapsulates why), a fantastic idea in theory I'll agree 100% but some people will always strive for more, nobody can ever be truly equal, whilst everybody should be it's not going to happen.

I find this post profoundly sad in just how despondent it is.

But let's address that. I already did, but I'll do it however many times I need to: socialism is NOT communism (the latter of which is what Animal Farm was about), and while a resource-based economy may appear to possess superficial similarities to either, it is its own beast with its own ideology. It's very unfortunate that communism became such a red-letter word after the war, as literally anything that works towards equality is equated with it, whether it is warranted or not. Even worse, communism itself is just summarily dismissed without actual proper analysis of what went wrong.

The thing is, we can take steps. Baby steps. Little by little, working towards that future. We may not see it within our lifetimes, but simply not trying means even your grandchildren will never get to see such a future - assuming the human race survives at all.

And, you know, really, when it comes right down to it we cannot continue the status quo. The status quo is poison to ourselves and to life on the planet as a whole. If we just keep on rolling the way we've been rolling for the past several decades we are simply inviting disaster upon ourselves.

I'd rather try and fail than not try at all and let come what may.

 

[The Technomancer]

I'm pretty pro-socialism development and still pretty anti-full VR escapism. We can certainly move towards a system that recognizes that we don't require the labor of every living human to sustain ourselves. But my criticisms of the kind of full VR escapism we're discussing here are primarily social and psychological anyway, not economic.

 

[Crossing Eden]

I think it's one or the other, depending on some of the statements here. The healthy part is a genuine concern, but then I find myself wondering what does "healthy" mean when it comes to mental health? Does it mean that one has a good grasp of reality, that one is mentally stable, or that one is simply content with who they are? If it's any of these, then I have to wonder why it's supposed to be a fundamental truth that what is known as the "norm" should grant one this mental health if it goes against who they are.



Thanks. This is interesting, but, glossing through it, what about those who do not feel comfort, like the author did, through physical touch? What about those who actually feel nervous due to it, or those that it makes uncomfortable? I can't envision—for those in question—physical touch establishes the same "connection" the article illustrates, or has the same blood pressure benefits.

Regarding the bolded, yes, those are all healthy mental states. And since I can't relate to people who feel discomfort from touch or large amounts of social anxiety, I don't feel that I should speak for them. However there are very kinds amounts of social anxiety, some people genuinely are put in danger due to the amount of stress caused by the simple act of interacting with people, compared to someone who is just too shy and/or to express themselves in social situations.

Since we're not only talking about "normal" people here, this isn't something that's going to matter to some. Like for those with extreme haphephobia, touching would cause a lot more harm than good. Even in the best-case scenario, the stress increase would outweigh other physical benefits. For others, it could lead to panic attacks or even worse mental health concerns (which could in turn affect physical health).

But again, I'm not saying people shouldn't work on that if they can. Just that there are worse things in this world than no physical contact, and for some, those things INCLUDE physical contact.

Oh, that's true. Can't say I relate to those people so I can't imagine not feeling comfort through physical contact. Physical contact is not inherently bad for the vast majority of people. And procreation is the most natural basic human instinct besides survival. Ofc there are exceptions.

 

[Teremap]

I'm pretty pro-socialism development and still pretty anti-full VR escapism. We can certainly move towards a system that recognizes that we don't require the labor of every living human to sustain ourselves. But my criticisms of the kind of full VR escapism we're discussing here are primarily social and psychological anyway, not economic.

Yes, I understand this. Still, some posters are taking the 'those damn leeches' angle (not to put words into peoples' mouths, but that's how they come across to me), and I feel compelled to address that.

But it is fascinating that the subject can produce so much discussion when you consider the fact that the requisite technology may still be decades away from reaching fruition. The human imagination sure is a powerful thing.

Oh, that's true. Can't say I relate to those people so I can't imagine not feeling comfort through physical contact. Physical contact is not inherently bad for the vast majority of people. And procreation is the most natural basic human instinct besides survival. Ofc there are exceptions.

It is pretty crazy to think about. Even as a recluse with high levels of social anxiety, I still yearn for human contact, and largely use my pets to substitute for it. Ah, the wonders of domesticated animals...

 

[Miguel81]

If people want to escape from their problems and lack of social skills then let them.

Why do you care?

Let cowards and failures be what they resigned themselves to be.


And before you get offended at my words, you chose to be viewed as such. Just like I chose to be viewed as antagonistic.

Doesn't change the fact that you're a shell of an human being if your choice is to run and hide from your problems on your fantasy world.

What do you get out of putting people down? This is the type of shit that the OP is talking about. This is much worse for a gentle person's psyche than escaping to VR la la land.

 

[FluxWaveZ]

It is pretty crazy to think about. Even as a recluse with high levels of social anxiety, I still yearn for human contact, and largely use my pets to substitute for it. Ah, the wonders of domesticated animals...

And that's what I mean. We're all different; with different priorities. One thing that can be beneficial for most doesn't have to be for a few. It's why it irks me when people talk as though everyone's the same and that everyone should desire the same things.

 

[blueberry_racehorse]

"What's wrong with wanting to live in a virtual world?"
The scary part about this question is that it implies living in the virtual world is a permanent thing.

I read a book when I was younger, and in this book they had a dream machine or something along those lines. When inside this machine, you can always have pleasant dreams continuously. The end result was that most people wanted to stay in the machines forever, receiving nutrition through the skin and other stuff like that, and ended up entirely neglecting the real world. As the real world got more neglected, the few people tending to the real world opted to try going in themselves rather than deal with the people in the machines. Society kind of collapsed, and people wanted to spend their last moments having nice virtual experiences rather than braving it to try and rebuild.

That doomsday scenario above is really unlikely, and I doubt that it would happen since most people would probably only do VR some of the time, with some doing it more than others. Kind of like most MMOs in the modern world. The people who want to live there scare me a bit though, it feels like the ultimate escapism to me. And if this is what it seems, people will pursue it.

Stuff like single player VR might happen in the closer-than-expected future though. I'm looking forward to it, and I really want VR to be more common because it can lead to some cool experiences. But never, never, do I want people to live in VR.

 

[beercr8te]

I think there is nothing wrong with people wanting to escape to a safe virtual world.

 

[Zane]

i wish the op would come back

come back op

 

[Gbraga]

"What's wrong with wanting to live in a virtual world?"
The scary part about this question is that it implies living in the virtual world is a permanent thing.

I read a book when I was younger, and in this book they had a dream machine or something along those lines. When inside this machine, you can always have pleasant dreams continuously. The end result was that most people wanted to stay in the machines forever, receiving nutrition through the skin and other stuff like that, and ended up entirely neglecting the real world. As the real world got more neglected, the few people tending to the real world opted to try going in themselves rather than deal with the people in the machines. Society kind of collapsed, and people wanted to spend their last moments having nice virtual experiences rather than braving it to try and rebuild.

That doomsday scenario above is really unlikely, and I doubt that it would happen since most people would probably only do VR some of the time, with some doing it more than others. Kind of like most MMOs in the modern world. The people who want to live there scare me a bit though, it feels like the ultimate escapism to me. And if this is what it seems, people will pursue it.

Stuff like single player VR might happen in the closer-than-expected future though. I'm looking forward to it, and I really want VR to be more common because it can lead to some cool experiences. But never, never, do I want people to live in VR.

What interests me is the outside world of this scenario. Love me some cyberpunk.

 

[blueberry_racehorse]

What interests me is the outside world of this scenario. Love me some cyberpunk.

Hm, I feel like if we get to the point where VR is that much of a thing, AR is going to be significantly better as well.

xkcd recently made a joke that "it'd take 2 hours to make an app that checks if a picture is taken in a national park, but 5 years and team of researchers for it to tell that the picture is of a bird", but eventually most of the interesting problems like that will be solved. Facial recognition software is pretty good right now, for example, and that was hard to get right.

The AR boom might be even more prominent than the VR one.

 

[aly]

Human touch is actually quite healthy.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/the-power-of-touch-physical-contact-health_n_3253987.html Like really heathy.

That's an interesting article. I admit that I am not a fan of nor am I use to physical contact with other people. It's an issue that I have to work on and its good to know how important it can be.

I think it's one or the other, depending on some of the statements here. The healthy part is a genuine concern, but then I find myself wondering what does "healthy" mean when it comes to mental health? Does it mean that one has a good grasp of reality, that one is mentally stable, or that one is simply content with who they are? If it's any of these, then I have to wonder why it's supposed to be a fundamental truth that what is known as the "norm" should grant one this mental health if it goes against who they are.

That is a good point and as far as VR is concerned, I guess we won't have real answer until it becomes a reality. I can't think of the closet to it at the moment. At the same time, i don't know if who they are and going against it is all that bad. If who you are has issues functioning in society, like holding a job, taking care of yourself, or constantly unhappy, then there might problems there.

 

[Sami+]

This obsession with being viewed as normal, and how anyone who isn't should be ridiculed or seek therapy. It's hilarious.

Excuse us for being concerned about OP's mental health.

This negative stigma against psychiatric help is exactly what keeps people from seeking it.

 

[Steel]

Hm, I feel like if we get to the point where VR is that much of a thing, AR is going to be significantly better as well.

xkcd recently made a joke that "it'd take 2 hours to make an app that checks if a picture is taken in a national park, but 5 years and team of researchers for it to tell that the picture is of a bird", but eventually most of the interesting problems like that will be solved. Facial recognition software is pretty good right now, for example, and that was hard to get right.

The AR boom might be even more prominent than the VR one.

I don't think AR will ever be much more than a novelty, while VR will probably remain niche. The problem with AR is that you either wear weird glasses or use your phone as a looking glass. To get info on a local area or object, it's fine, but I doubt people would be interested in anything more than that. If subdermal computers and electronics even had a chance in hell of being socially accepted it'd be another story altogether.

 

[FluxWaveZ]

Excuse us for being concerned about OP's mental health.

This negative stigma against psychiatric help is exactly what keeps people from seeking it.

That's not what I'm saying at all; don't put words in my mouth. Those who need psychiatric health should seek it.

 

[Sami+]

That's not what I'm saying at all; don't put words in my mouth. Those who need psychiatric health should seek it.

Then what point are you trying to make with your strawman?

 

[FluxWaveZ]

Then what point are you trying to make with your strawman?

What?

 

[orthodoxy1095]

The fake names and avatars have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Proof: Look at Facebook. Having their real name and face on display does nothing to deter toxic behavior. It's all in the lack of face-to-face communication.

Get that face-to-face communication back into the picture and you're going to see a major change in how people behave.

Nothing? That's a bit of an overstatement. It does something. Sure there is toxicity on Facebook, but it's nothing compared to when people get behind an unconnected and concealing avatar/username. It seems like the more anonymity people have, the less responsibility people feel for what they say. Sure, some people wouldn't care anyways, but most trolls and "e-jerks" are cowards, so the anonymity protects them.

When we have VR, it doesn't matter that we'll have be able to "see" each other's faces or "see" body language. There will still be anonymity to shield people and let them be jerks.

Anonymity, for one thing. According to a September Pew poll, a quarter of Internet users have posted comments anonymously. As the age of a user decreases, his reluctance to link a real name with an online remark increases; forty per cent of people in the eighteen-to-twenty-nine-year-old demographic have posted anonymously. One of the most common critiques of online comments cites a disconnect between the commenter’s identity and what he is saying, a phenomenon that the psychologist John Suler memorably termed the “online disinhibition effect.” The theory is that the moment you shed your identity the usual constraints on your behavior go, too—or, to rearticulate the 1993 Peter Steiner cartoon, on the Internet, nobody knows you’re not a dog. When Arthur Santana, a communications professor at the University of Houston, analyzed nine hundred randomly chosen user comments on articles about immigration, half from newspapers that allowed anonymous postings, such as the Los Angeles Times and the Houston Chronicle, and half from ones that didn’t, including USA Today and the Wall Street Journal, he discovered that anonymity made a perceptible difference: a full fifty-three per cent of anonymous commenters were uncivil, as opposed to twenty-nine per cent of registered, non-anonymous commenters. Anonymity, Santana concluded, encouraged incivility.
Source

 

[Sami+]

What?

This obsession with being viewed as normal, and how anyone who isn't should be ridiculed or seek therapy. It's hilarious.

^Admittedly I skipped a few pages but I don't see anyone telling anyone that if you're not normal you should seek therapy or whatever.

 

[FluxWaveZ]

^Admittedly I skipped a few pages but I don't see anyone telling anyone that if you're not normal you should seek therapy or whatever.

Well I did. You're talking as though I'm targeting you.

 

[Anrakyr]

But let's address that. I already did, but I'll do it however many times I need to: socialism is NOT communism (the latter of which is what Animal Farm was about), and while a resource-based economy may appear to possess superficial similarities to either, it is its own beast with its own ideology. It's very unfortunate that communism became such a red-letter word after the war, as literally anything that works towards equality is equated with it, whether it is warranted or not. Even worse, communism itself is just summarily dismissed without actual proper analysis of what went wrong.

Are you willing to just hand over the control of your life to the Government, Socialism doesn't stop greed amongst the higher class and on the flipside encourages apathy amongst the populace. The rich upper class in government have complete control (dictate your wage,education, food etc.)and people struggle onwards as always but it's ok because we're all equal now right guys?? Right? Give more power to corrupt officials and politicians we can trust them to be responsible, yep they definitely won't go on lining their own pockets.

What about somebody who has ambition and wants to earn more than his/her peers, surely he/she has a right to do so if he works hard for it. No tough shit, your idea belongs to the government and we'll dictate what you can and can't do, now be a good little citizen and run along. Socialism inevitably leads to communism.

Neither right or left wing is perfect but at least you can better yourself in the long run with capitalism, is your socialist government going to contribute towards gender reassignment or plastic surgery, I highly doubt it and in that system its much harder to save the money to pay for the things you want because your income is essentially capped. At least you can can have a say on your own fate with the alternative. Of course both systems are flawed and some people are always going to find a way to game the system but like I said before the ideology is better than the reality.

That's enough on politics from me, you could argue the pros and cons of right versus left for an age and there still wouldn't be a clear answer. There are other ways and directions we can turn too in order to face humanities challenges head on, we may discover a completely free renewable energy source in the future, whose to say what could happen.

In regards to VR, I still believe it is fine in moderation as is everything else (Drinking/Gaming etc.) but when you get addicted to it and can't function without it then you have a problem on your hands. At the end of the day no amount of VR is going to change who you are in reality, and it doesn't solve your problems it just temporarily blots them out or helps you cope (the same could be said for drink and drugs). And if by the end of it all, all you've got to show for yourself is a hollow empty reality, no legacy or lasting impressions on loved ones or friends (or anyone really) then what ultimately is the point? If you think it will make you happy then go for it, buts its not going to be easy.

 

[espher]

Great thread. I've only had a chance to read a few pages and will have to get caught up.

Honestly, this is an issue I've often thought about over the past decade or so as a purely hypothetical thing (and honestly, in my lifetime I would be very surprised if it ever got to the point where one could actually live in a virtual world). To me, whether or not it's feasible depends on a) the person and their real-world situation, and b) the parameters of this hypothetical virtual world.

If someone has real-life commitments or obligations beyond mere self-sustainability -- that is to say, they have meaningful relationships with friends/extended family or have a family of their own -- the only way this would make sense to me is if there is some great contribution that can be made as a result, and if that interaction/engagement is not lost. It only makes sense if there's some transhumanist element to it, in that time is a non-concern or there is a different timescale in the virtual world, allowing someone to 'live' longer or get more done.

For someone without that, the 'more likely' function of 'living' in virtual worlds being the future equivalent of hanging out in IRC all day chatting with other people seems only as 'wrong' as hanging around in IRC all day chatting is today -- which is to say I don't view it as much of a problem on a macro scale. If they're not going to be major direct contributors to society in a traditional way anyway, I see no problems going the virtual route -- especially given that it could allow them to form and develop relationships that they may not otherwise be able to in person (due to social unease/anxiety/incompetence or even judgements by others based on visual first impressions). After all, they may be able to parlay that into confidence and/or future contributions back to society.

That being said, I'm not really a fan of long-term/complete immersion in the 'lol I live in a video game world and am super awesome #winning' sense. The concept of just dicking around in a virtual fantasy to partake in purely selfish or hedonistic behaviours is the one that has a lot of potential to be dangerous, especially if it's multi-party and not just "you and AI" (which is a whole other problem) given the personality types it is likely to attract. As a short-term/leisure choice, sure, just like similar things today which have their own pros/cons (gaming, club scene, recreational drug use, whatever) but nothing long term.

I guess tl;dr whether it's "right" or "wrong" depends on the nature of the virtual world, the person looking to 'live' there, and their goals. I think it's healthier for people to want to live their lives and not a fabricated one, of course, but not everybody is happy in their real life or wants to go on living it -- and if professional help isn't effective, would total immersion be a better alternative to suicide or being placed in a ward? That's probably a far more philosophical question than I feel qualified to discuss.

 

[Sami+]

Well I did. You're talking as though I'm targeting you.

I do believe that professional psychiatric help would be of great benefit to the OP and anyone else wishing to replace their life with a virtual one, which is what I assumed you were talking about.

 

[FluxWaveZ]

I do believe that professional psychiatric help would be of great benefit to the OP and anyone else wishing to replace their life with a virtual one, which is what I assumed you were talking about.

No, the OP's situation isn't what I was addressing. I have no say on whether or not the OP requires psychiatric help.

 

[jeremiahg]

Kind of an amusing thought: For those wondering who will take care of you while you are in a virtual world - how about robots? Kind of interesting that we are simultaneously trying to take virtual minds into the real world (AI, robotics), while we are trying to put our minds in virtual worlds (VR). The idea sounds absurd to us now, but who knows what the distant future will bring.

 

[frostshade]

Interesting thing about VR is that the person/company who created the virtual world can literally be seen as a god in a manner of speaking, especially if they have a virtual avatar that has all the power. :/