Simulated Reality as Religion

[Atticus]

Could our interest in SRs be our way of trying to find a faith? I know
I have denounced God again and again, yet somehow I find myself very
taken by the notion of Simulated Reality and the opportunity that
could be there when I die. In fact, I have thought about this notion
for so long that I have convinced myself that it is what happens. Oh,
the common sense part of my brain still works, but ultimately in the
back of my mind I find myself not fearing death now because of it.

At any rate, is it a worthy substitute for standard religions?

[Matthew]

Ah, Atticus, this is quite in line with something I started on another
group which I am much more happy to continue here, so forgive me for
pasting in my observations:

>>>
I guess what I see new about it is the way it captures the imagination
of hardened atheists like me. As I played with this concept, I started
catching myself wondering if I am seeing the hand of this new
"God" (the simulation creator, who goes by the handle podtycoon, or
pod, in my story). It's the usual kind of trigger that sets off
theists: something happens which is so freakishly coincidental, or so
beautifully ironic, that I wonder if an author is behind it. I find
myself wondering if I have found some inkling that there is a creator,
and he has tweaked the program to see how I respond to his stimuli. In
my story (at http://www.podtycoon.com/shutdown), pod says he does this
very kind of intervention once in a while.

So what is new to me is that I (and I daresay other rationalists) who
otherwise have been free of supernatural thinking can be tempted by
this new construct.

I do not believe this simulation argument in my heart of hearts, but I
can't say I utterly reject it. I am mulling it over in a way I have
not done with any other religious idea for decades.

Does that make sense? This is new territory for me so I may not be
expressing myself clearly enough.
<<<

Let me know what you think of that, Atticus!

--Matt

[Winston Zardo]

Another way of looking at this is that we, all of us, are co-creators
of this reality, much like the online games involving millions of
people.

Zardo

On Dec 18, 2:42 am, Matthew <MatthewMF...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, Atticus, this is quite in line with something I started on another
> group which I am much more happy to continue here, so forgive me for
> pasting in my observations:
>
>
>
> I guess what I see new about it is the way it captures the imagination
> of hardened atheists like me. As I played with this concept, I started
> catching myself wondering if I am seeing the hand of this new
> "God" (the simulation creator, who goes by the handle podtycoon, or
> pod, in my story). It's the usual kind of trigger that sets off
> theists: something happens which is so freakishly coincidental, or so
> beautifully ironic, that I wonder if an author is behind it. I find
> myself wondering if I have found some inkling that there is a creator,
> and he has tweaked the program to see how I respond to his stimuli. In

> my story (athttp://www.podtycoon.com/shutdown), pod says he does this

> very kind of intervention once in a while.
>
> So what is new to me is that I (and I daresay other rationalists) who
> otherwise have been free of supernatural thinking can be tempted by
> this new construct.
>
> I do not believe this simulation argument in my heart of hearts, but I
> can't say I utterly reject it. I am mulling it over in a way I have
> not done with any other religious idea for decades.
>
> Does that make sense? This is new territory for me so I may not be
> expressing myself clearly enough.
> <<<
>
> Let me know what you think of that, Atticus!
>
> --Matt
>
> On Dec 18, 6:38 pm, Atticus <daryl.odono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Could our interest in SRs be our way of trying to find a faith? I know
> > I have denounced God again and again, yet somehow I find myself very
> > taken by the notion of Simulated Reality and the opportunity that
> > could be there when I die. In fact, I have thought about this notion
> > for so long that I have convinced myself that it is what happens. Oh,
> > the common sense part of my brain still works, but ultimately in the
> > back of my mind I find myself not fearing death now because of it.
>

> > At any rate, is it a worthy substitute for standard religions?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Matthew]

Good tangent Zardo. Why do we (usually) try to behave in a pleasant
manner in an online game? We don't need to be nice to other people
there since it's very unlikely we will meet them again in the virtual
world, and a practically zero chance we will meet them in the real
world. So why be nice at all? Is it only self-interest, hinging on the
small chance they could do something nice in return? Or is it, as I
believe, because we simply have a strong instinct to create pleasure
in others if the cost to us is small enough? I also feel pleasure
myself after the act of being nice to someone else, so in that sense
it can be a kind of self-interest.

Does podtycoon feel good about going the extra mile in explaining to
the ACs a bit more about their situation than he really needed to?
Would he feel good about talking personally with an AC online, making
the AC feel a bit better? Does it matter that the AC is not real in
the same sense that pod is? Should ACs still be nice to one another in
the online afterlife, another even after they know that the other is
not real, and know that the other cannot do any harm whatsoever in
revenge for rude treatment?

[Winston Zardo]

Perhaps altruism is its own reward. Our brains may produce an increase
in serotonin in response to altruistic acts. This would certainly
enhance the social networking that improves our chances of survival of
our species.
Zardo

[Kat Ford]

In my experience I feel there's a direct relation to maturity (emotional/psychological/physical) and altruism.

There are plenty of people in the online world who act neutral, they won't help you, nor will they harm you. But there ARE a few people who take pleasure from being as disrespectful and unpleasant as possible. This is evidenced not only in games but in opinion/comment threads. The point of those threads not being discourse or genuine "discussion" but just a lot of really terribly formed arguments and personal attacks. In a world with no consequences I believe those who feel powerless in the "real world" assert themselves quite strongly. Well this is an assumption on my part, but if I behave badly in a game it's directly related to the fact that there are no real consequences. However I gain much more enjoyment if there is structure and rules and everyone is playing by the same rules. If I argue with someone online I'd much rather it be intelligent point making rather than "you are a stupid bitch". Que sera...

Anyway, in my argument against "reality could possibly be something other than what we perceive it to be" I simply think that humans have a large brain for a reason and not just for figuring out "don't shit where you eat". We have to be social in order to survive. How can we kill the woolly mammoth if all we want to do is sit around and play World of Warcraft all day? But perhaps our social evolution will devolve because of the lack of direct relationship between your behavior and mine. Perhaps this is also why the fabric of religion gives such cold comfort these days when our social communities no longer revolve around who you shake hands with on Sunday. It's been a while since I studied the Communist Manifesto but I'd be interested to read it again as I felt it made some pretty valid points regarding social obligation, etc.

[Matthew]

On Jan 3, 2:36 am, Winston Zardo <winston.za...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps altruism is its own reward. Our brains may produce an increase
> in serotonin in response to altruistic acts.  This would certainly
> enhance the social networking that improves our chances of survival of
> our species.
> Zardo

I agree with this, Zardo. I think our species has selected self-
interested positive social behaviour (one might not call it real
altruism if it leads to a gain for the altruist). I know that many
evolutionary biologists resist accepting this kind of selection, but I
think it is valid. A social group that has a natural tendency to enjoy
helping one another probably will leave more progeny than a group
which does that have that tendency, and that seems to be all one needs
to get selection effects. Though humans have lots of nasty instincts
as well, I do think that in the mix is an instinct for nearly-
altruistic acts. So if you were pod, do you think you would feel drawn
to this kind of communication with the ACs, and feel good about having
done it?

[Matthew]

On Jan 3, 10:22 am, "Kat Ford" <katf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In my experience I feel there's a direct relation to maturity
> (emotional/psychological/physical) and altruism.

I agree with that. I know there are some interesting studies about
online behaviour, and this will be a rich research topic for a long
time, I reckon, as we humans seem to be headed for more and more
virtual interaction.

> Anyway, in my argument against "reality could possibly be something other
> than what we perceive it to be" I simply think that humans have a large
> brain for a reason and not just for figuring out "don't shit where you eat".
> We have to be social in order to survive. How can we kill the woolly mammoth
> if all we want to do is sit around and play World of Warcraft all day?

I think online games like WoW quite explicitly tickle our basic
instincts to hunt and collect. That is why the game is so popular.
Like nicotine, it hijacks our natural pleasure centers. Though we did
not evolve with WoW as a stimulus, the smarties who made the game (and
the many who made similar games on which WoW is based) knew how to
reach those pleasure centers.

> But
> perhaps our social evolution will devolve because of the lack of direct
> relationship between your behavior and mine. Perhaps this is also why the
> fabric of religion gives such cold comfort these days when our social
> communities no longer revolve around who you shake hands with on Sunday.
> It's been a while since I studied the Communist Manifesto but I'd be
> interested to read it again as I felt it made some pretty valid points
> regarding social obligation, etc.

This is really an interesting point, Kat. As an atheist, I don't want
to go to church. But I think something else needs to fill the gap that
was left by the removal of church. I want a secular equivalent of some
sort, a time and place where we are encouraged to think of deep and
meaningful things, talk about them with each other, meet as a
community, and do good works in a collective. I wish religion would be
replaced by a social institution that had many of the same admirable
effects but devoid of the great negatives.

What should that replacement institution be?