I have been thinking a lot about inverses lately, and when you invert the Experience Machine, you get a rebuttal of pure-truthism. In its' weaker form, you get to see how people gamble as well ^.~
The Reverse Experience Machine (weak form):
- You are given indisputable proof that you are living in a simulated reality
- Yes, sort of like "The Matrix"
- Everyone else is a computer simulation, including all the people you know
- You have always lived in this virtual reality
- You can get "unplugged" and live in reality, but you can never plug back in if you do
- You are not told what unplugged reality is like

Several questions are raised by the weak formulation:
- Do you value your lived experiences as authentic?
- Could continue to do so?
- Do you value all that you have invested in the virtual reality?
- Relationships
- Education
- Way of life
- To what degree is actual reality valued?
- This directly correlates to the probability that someone would unplug
- How motivated are you by curiosity? (yes, this one is common)
- How much of a gambler are you?
- 49.999% chance it's better, 49.999% chance it's worse, 0.002% chance it's the same
- You are given indisputable proof that you are living in a simulated reality
- Yes, sort of like "The Matrix"
- Everyone else is a computer simulation, including all the people you know
- You have always lived in this virtual reality
- You can get "unplugged" and live in reality, but you can never plug back in if you do
- You are given indisputable proof that unplugged reality is dystopian
Most people probably use mixed values and strategies, so the weak forms of the thought experiment actually tell you more about an individual, whereas the strong forms are clear enough to make a point.
The bias that both of these reveal about the original and reverse Experience Machine is that people many simply choose what is familiar. You're already used to the reality/unreality that you know, and "if it's not broken, don't fix it."
I'm interested in what people would do in both formulations of the Reverse Experience Machine. Please tell me what you'd do in the comments section if you are so inclined!
The bias that both of these reveal about the original and reverse Experience Machine is that people many simply choose what is familiar. You're already used to the reality/unreality that you know, and "if it's not broken, don't fix it."
I'm interested in what people would do in both formulations of the Reverse Experience Machine. Please tell me what you'd do in the comments section if you are so inclined!
Blogspot just ate the essay I've been composing for forty minutes.
ReplyDeleteI am annoyed at Blogspot.
We must do coffee instead: when are you free?
Here are my closing paragraphs, preserved by a partial copy-and-paste:
ReplyDelete===
But I can also infer, from the fact that I do not remember having been inserted into a computer simulation before, one of several possibilities:
* Entry into this simulation happened before I became self-aware;
* Entry into a simulation temporarily blocks memories of the real world;
* Entry into a simulation permanently replaces memories of the real world; or
* My analogue is already independently aware, with one-sided access to the my experiences.
All but the first of these suggest that my analogue is living on a much slower time scale than I am. Delaying my death by a few decades, until it naturally occurs, will not particularly inconvenience my analogue, and will greatly extend my lived experience by the time I return to the real world.
Therefore it's rational to stay plugged in, and on my eventual awakening to think about plugging in once more.
This is not inconsistent with my decision to stay out of the original Experience Machine. Right now I am aware that my decision theory would change if I entered the Experience Machine: I would lose valuable information about the real world, and from that moment forward, my best possible model—formed on ignorance—would tell me to stay inside. I am not currently ignorant, and so I know that I prefer the real world. I would not willingly enter a state of ignorance that causes me to make a worse decision.