Would you live in VR?

[Edwardo Piet]

Something that is "there"? Again... I feel this is just saying the same thing. It's "there"... it "exists"... what new information am I getting?

How can I ever know what "exists" and what doesn't, without making any assumptions?

I can conclude it "exists" in some relative sense, but how can I upgrade that to be objective? I think it's impossible. If all this is VR... do things here exist less?

Well we don't know what exists and what doesn't, because we don't know what things are just our imagination and what things are not. I just mean that whether something is or isn't there is a different question to whether it is or isn't imaginary, because everyone with an imagination has an imagination that is 'there' in the sense that they have one.

[robvalue]

Sure, no problem Thank you very much!

I would say that a person's imagination is "a reality". Everything in it "exists" as much as everything else in it.

My phenomological experience is another "reality". In fact, it's all I have. Everything in it "exists" as much as everything else in it.

The next logical group is some sort of non-user dependent reality, from which our phenomological experiences can be drawn. Things in that "reality" "exist" if they produce a consistent response in different people's experiences (when their brain is functioning correctly at least).

That's as far as I would go. Is this NUDR "really real"? Not only do I not know, I don't think it means anything. It appears to be a term that only has relative meaning. If it's potentially responsible for an experience in another reality, then it itself is "real" in some way. Whether or not this NUDR is "a dream" or "VR" makes no meaningful difference as far as I can see...

Ultimately, things are as real as they appear to any particular observer, that is my motto. What would it mean to say something exists independent of any point of view whatsoever? I don't know. Intuitively, I do know; but again, I have to first assume the NUDR is "real" in the first place.

I have pondered that consciousness is just the universe "experiencing itself".

[Edwardo Piet]

I agree with you, and there is a name for the opposite of phenomena reality. This NUDR is what Kant called the 'noumena' and I agree that if it exists it is meaningless.

The sense that you are saying that our imagination is a reality, I agree with you. Same with our overall phenomenological experience, and everyone's.

I would say our imagination exists or is a 'reality' but isn't real. But let's just define 'real' and 'existent' the same and say in a sense it's real, let's go with that.

So yeah in that sense I would say the imagination exists despite what is imaginary being the direct opposite of what is real.

If I didn't have an imagination then when someone asked if my imagination existed I think the correct answer would be both "What imagination?" (or "what thing?") or "No" (or "That thing doesn't exist, it's not a thing, there's nothing there.").

Hehe, of course if I truly had no imagination I wouldn't be capable of answering the question but let's ignore that for sake of argument hehe

[robvalue]

Okay, it seems we're pretty much in agreement, despite a few terminology issues

I suppose we can separate "realities" into "experiences" and "experience creating potential" (noumena probably!). The second would be what is generally coined "real". In fact, we can never experience what is real directly...

What makes one noumena any more real than another?

I suppose... within an "experience" we can have a fake and implied noumena, with or without an actual one as well.

But... an experience not linked to a noumena? What happens then? It sounds like a contradiction, of course.

[Edwardo Piet]

I think both are real because phenomena at least can exist for more than one person, it's more real than solipsism and it includes the experience of the senses and not just the experience of our own internal thoughts or imagination.

So I'd say there's a sense the imagination is real - we have an imagination - but there's a sense it isn't.... the latter sense being often when we ask "Is it real?" we are asking "Is it unimaginary?"

[robvalue]

So, we're asking what the source is, to make the distinction. Did it come from one of those urethra things, or was it generated another way, like internally by the brain?

But then... the phenomenological experience is also created internally by the brain... just in combination with a NUDR.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah the NUDR/Noumennal reality is necessary for the creation of our phenomenal reality/phenomenological experience.... but despite it being necessary our life experience would be the same without it so who cares? Lol.

So yeah, the experience machine/VR would just be a new phenomenal reality that was vastly improved. So I guess my question is "Who gets to decide?"

If I wanted to go to heaven in the sense of go somewhere where I can have everlasting bliss, I wouldn't want to go alone but if I were to take my friends and family I'd still want them to have a choice in the matter even if it's a no-brainer... and if their answer was "no" I wouldn't go.

[SteelCurtain]

I wouldn't. Perfect lives are boring.

[Edwardo Piet]

That's the one imperfection of a perfect life damnit!

[robvalue]

I wouldn't. Perfect lives are boring.

Well, it's your VR. It would only be boring if you decided you wanted it to be boring. You can "fix yourself" in that regard You can create pretend problems to overcome and such, in advance. And you wouldn't know they weren't real.

I would fuck around with myself to remove such negative feelings occurring any more than I wanted them to.