Suppose we start from the point Sharon made yesterday in her comment, and iterate from there:
Suppose you could wander freely throughout the world, with no restrictions on you at all, in the company of just one companion, whom you really like. The two of you would be totally free to explore the world, but without other people.
In the other extreme, suppose the two of you spent your entire life in a room together. Your interactions with other people would be virtual, pure exchanges of information. You both could have a great variety of friends, unlimited social connections, unbounded intellectual stimulation. But all from within that room.
If you had to choose one of these scenarios, which would you choose?
I would choose someone else and a vast empty world, but then I am new in love so am already seeking that scenario in a sense. Never the room never, I read The Machine Stops.
I can think of no situation more horrible then falling out with the other person who you cohabitante this thought-experiment with. No one around is lonely, one person around who you hate and hates you is enough for misery.
Intriguing. In the first option, would other people EXIST but we would not be allowed to see or interact with them? If not, then it would be an extremely difficult way to live given that our society has a lot of interdependencies and existing without any larger infrastructure would be an extremely difficult life – almost post-apocalyptic movie type life.
I’d have to go for that option still, regardless of the specifics, because I think I’m already living option two.
Those are really the same thing though aren’t they?
“Your interactions with other people would be virtual, pure exchanges of information.” — Hm, I suppose it depends on the interpretation of information here. Is information purely visual or does it apply to other senses as well? I wouldn’t want to live without the sound of music or the smell of freshly ground coffee in the morning (please, PLEASE don’t take away my coffee!).
But say the virtual information delivery mechanism encompasses my senses, then I would pick the room. I think it’s more romantic to choose option one, and I would like to be the type of person to champion “real” freedom. But, if I look at what I actually do, let’s face it, I’m already a cyborg feeding off of virtual connections with other people–emails, texts, internet blogs 🙂
Jorge: They are really not the same thing. For one thing, the psychological and social presence of other people is a very large part of our lives — even if we are not physically in their presence. I didn’t make the choice easy, but I made it stark.
Assuming the relationship with the other person is good enough that you’ll never want to permanently separate…
Assuming the state of VR is such that you don’t get any tactile senses through it…
Either way, you’ll only ever hug one person again. Or look into one other persons eyes. Or make love to one other person.
I think you’re trying to argue that VR will eventually become vivid enough that it makes up for those things, but I’m not sure I’m convinced that it ever will, short of jacking ourselves into something like the matrix.
Jorge: I was just trying to say that in my “wandering the word” scenario you don’t experience even phone calls or emails or other forms of conversation with anyone other than that one person, and that this creates a very different social / cultural experience than the “life in one media-connected room” scenario. Yes, in both scenarios you only get to hug one person, but there are also other forms of human connection.