Reality Vs Second Life

I just discovered this thread today-- thanks for referring to my Mindjack article, Jeffrey and others. Reality versus virtual reality is of course of great interest to me, and this conversation has been fantastic brainfood. I look forward to pursuing more information on de Charden.

I don't have much to add to the discussion at this time except to point out a stimulating paper entitled "ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION?" wherein author Nick Bostrom argues that at least one of the following is true:
(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage;
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.

There's a dark side to intelligence in an evolutionary framework, as well. When a single species becomes as successful as ours and removes as many barriers to reproduction as we have, reproduction itself becomes maladaptive and the snake eats its tail--the species in question either wises up or dies back. We show few signs of wising up (most of the successful religions and ideologies in the world are still encouraging rampant reproduction) and we're doing everything our clever little paws can manage to postpone death, so human evolution opens up the third possibility that we'll actually overpower the natural mechanisms that keep pests in check and not simply die back, but self-destruct and take the whole ecosystem with us.

If at some point a post-biological option opens up, it will only be attractive to a minority and only available to a plutocracy. Think about what people spend in SL now, and then imagine the cost of Ultimate Tier--actually uploading yourself to the system.

I have to agree with Forseti's assessment that even in a world that includes such options, human experience remains unchanged in its essence. We will never discover a technology to overcome the dissatisfaction inherent in existence, and to pursue these things only multiplies that dissatisfaction. Even a technology that removes every biological constraint on lifespan will not allow you to live forever--the technology itself will be impermanent, as is everything that has form in the universe, and nothing we can desire or claim to be will erase that fact.

What is it that you have wished you could have in Second Life or Real Live, that others might wish for also? Learn everything you can about how to fullfill that wish, then go into business helping others do so.

OK, you are cynical.

But you are right, it isn't a matter of making them do anything. Evolution takes place over long periods of time, much longer then our lifetimes. You are absolutely correct, in recognizing that many people aren't ready to change, can't see beyond physical reality. No, SL will not change that for them, but for some who are on the cusp of awakening, it could make all the difference.

You can't pull the skin off of the rattle snake, it must shed it at its own rate.

I'm sorry.

What are you going to do to correct that?

In spite of all the advancements we have seen, the internet is still in its infancy. That is my point, when you look at what advancements have been made in the last 50 years and extrapolate that into the future, where do you think it is leading?

In spite of your dark view on things, you must be getting something out of it or you wouldn't keep signing on. And you wouldn't be wasting your time sharing your dark thoughts here. But its good that you do, it may help you, and at least I appreciate it. It has helped me realize that even my darkest days have not been so dismal as what you have shared. I'm sorry, perhaps you should consider upping your medication.

I'm sorry, that wasn't my desire. I was just trying to keep this thread from being demoted to the "off topic" folder again. I don't think that will be a problem with posts like yours which explain how the concepts explored in sci-fi novels are relevant to a discussion about Second Life. << Whisper: Thanks, I love science fiction and you have given me some new novels to look for. >>



This brings me back to one of the things I shared in my demoted to "off-topic" post:

<<The well accepted thermodynamics principal of "entropy" would indicate that life must evolve beyond its physical form if it is to continue to survive.

"Entropy = The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity".

Life as we know it feeds off of the flow of energy from an ordered to a disordered state (entropic). As the energy concentrations in the universe disipate, the energy flow that life feeds off of will diminish and eventually stop.>>

One could speculate that perhaps we will some day find a way to overcome this physical law, but right now it seems to be a very essential function of the physical universe. But what do we know?




Yes, I also find that enlightening. If our science and our spirituality disagree with each other, we have a lot of reconcilation to do.



I'm not sure I gathered that from my readings of him, but I don't claim to comprehend everyting he wrote. I would have to agree the concept of a final goal is out of keeping with the concept of an infinite universe. I don't have an answer for that whole infinity thing.



I share so many of those same opinions and observations, I can't tell you how thrilled I am to find other like minded individuals to share them with.

Blissed out...

Vudu, you raise a lot of interesting points. I do not think they are reason against the assumption, that virtual simulated worlds may be part of the evolutionary process of mankind now or at some time in the furtureSadly enough, you are probably right in your assessment, that this actually might be the case for humanity too. But actually, this is nothing new under the sun - a lot of species died back (some died out) because of overbreeding. (Some human sub-popukations too.) This has a lot to do with the evolutionary mechanisms ... but not a lot with the question, which role virtual simulated worlds might play in this process. There is even the possibility that virtual worlds might help the situation. If more people satisfy some of their desires in a virtual world, the burden on the real world becomes a lesser one.

Again, you may be right, but that also is nothing new with evolutionary processes. There never has been a case of all the individuals of a species marching step by step in their development, all making all evolutionary changes together, leaving behind nothing from the former species. That simply is not how it works. And no, I am not sure, that money (in RL) will be the deciding factor for which individuals will get their feet wet in virtual environments and be successful there. This might be the case - which we tend to find 'unfair' (but - what is 'fair'?). I hope there are other qualifications ...

Even if you accept the idea in principle, that virtual simulated worlds may be part of the evolutionary process of mankind (not a solution to all the problems our species faces now) there is no reason to assume that 'all of mankind' will be 'uploaded'. There are a lot of plausible models for a society, in which some individuals live a bodily existence, others a virtual one - and at some time in their lifespans or even in a daily routine switch between the two forms. If you are into SF, read up Greg Bears 'Eon' and 'Eternity'. Interesting novels, IMHO, that show us models of virtual worlds with none of the cyperpunk coolness of Neuromancer or Snow Crash. You maybe able to live in a simulated environment without beeing a sword-wielding street fighter.

Aggreed. Which I don't look at as essentially a bad thing. It is the driving force behind 'progress' - which some people despise; but which is just evolution in another form.

Immortality is not a desirable trait in an individual from a evolutionary point of view... leads to conservatism.