Philip Rosedale: The Mind Itself is a Virtual World We Live In

The launch of Philip Rosedale's High Fidelity last week reminded me of a conversation I had with him last year, as I was preparing my Wired Magazine/Conde Nast story on VR and happiness. John Carmack told me, “If people are having a virtually happy life, they are having a happy life. Period.” Philip had a similar answer, but also threw me a Cartesian curveball I'm still thinking about.

"If someone spent most of their life in a VR rig and had pleasant experiences in it, would you say they lived a happy, meaningful life?" I asked him. "Do you think there's a meaningful difference between virtual experiences versus real, material ones?

"It's the right question," Philip answered. "My short answer is: NO. There is no difference between a life lived in virtual reality versus real reality. We already live in a virtual world -- it's called our brain. The difference between subjective experience and sensation that is already happening in your brain (caused by your past experiences) is certainly bigger than the difference is going to be between hanging out in the virtual Smithsonian Museum versus the real one. Living a happy meaningful life is a function of your internal state, not the nature or diversity of your sense inputs -- just ask a blind person!"

Emphasis mine, because it bears emphasizing, since Philip is basically arguing that our real lives might as well be an illusion created by Descartes' Evil Deceiver. I'm inclined to disagree, but that'd take a whole other post (or book) to discuss.

In any case, this isn't just a philosophical problem, because Philip is part of an industry currently investing billions on the premise that there really is no meaningful "VR versus RR" distinction. And in his particular case, he thinks virtual worlds like High Fidelity will eventually be more interesting than the one we were born into:

"I personally believe that the VR worlds that we can (and will) create in the near future will be a bigger and better place for us all, and likely represent the place where we will ultimately spend most of our time... Because of exponentially accelerating technology trends, the computers of the near future will be able to simulate the laws of physics in a way that will allow them to become a kind of 'inner space' that will be more interesting to us than the real world. For example, the laws of physics regarding information theory and computation tell us that a laptop-sized device could ultimately simulate a world as rich and complex as the entire surface of the our planet, including all of us!"

I put it to readers: Is that the kind of world you'd prefer live in, rather than the one we're currently confined to?

Please share this post:

Tweet

 

Comments

[BruceBourne]

A very timely question to ask, since billions of dollars are being spent as we speak creating the virtual worlds that we all are expected to slide into over the next few years.
But I'm not sure that anyone is paying attention right now; and if Trump wins the election in November then a mass exodus into a happier virtual world may seem justified and timely.

[namegoeshere]

Whole universe in a laptop? Maybe a universe made of cats. Cats would totally understand if you knocked the laptop off a shelf, they totally would do that themselves and they know it.

The quantum reality creating this reality thing does make me wonder if there is a God that existed in a world similar to ours. Maybe the limit on the speed of light etc. are protection, maybe the "real" universe died and that entity and his company of "angels" where all that was left? But, yeah cats would get it you know. Entities in this world in a laptop could also be made to not suffer or fear death. We could control the code much more so, but what if we make the simulation in a way that doesn't allow us to "make" the code line by line?

A simulation that just copies something from real life, kind of like a messy scan with limited ability to control topography due to time limits and processing limits. Also maybe our knowledge of math may limit automated topology improvements. What do we need to know before this is good enough to meet our moral standards? Though we have enough amoral people, sociopaths and enough desperation (as well as other issues, like loneliness) that may allow or even drive a world to be created by human people for AI to live in simply for individual human usage that is so real it should be a crime to cause so much pain.

Maybe the abhramic god seized the computer because he totally didn't like Vishnu but understood we are odd and simply lets the simulation run but with less manipulation. A few key figures with super genius helping to kick off an enlightenment, bam a few thousand years later they have a strong concept of peace and many universities to possibly lead to a safer world for themselves. So...uh...Jesus, Leanardo Devinch, Ghandi where all dudes with VR headsets on? Maybe it is a universe run by evolved cats? That would explain more nap time we have these days and most of the surface of the earth bearing fish. Maybe even global warming, 'cus you know why not more fish!

They obviously are VRing into our world all the damn time and driving large vehicles around and wasting gasoline. Though, the japanese eat a lot of see food don't they? Port cities have lots of fish and are usually largely populated? This is looking suspicious, heck they laugh at us every time we say "this looks fishy" don't they! I don't know wheater to laugh or be very afraid. Cats could be ruling our universe damn it, look at how we are slaves to their primitive versions! Look at how society calls lions "king of the jungle" I mean, really. This is all very obviously a universe run by cats!

[joe]

Nothing but slick pseudo-intellectual babble meant to easy people into a future where there minds are controlled by the Zuckerbergs of the world.

Too easy to see stoner Phil's self-proclaimed garbage.

[Dartagan Shepherd]

If that's the case, then it also validates happiness by hallucinogens. The next question is the same: Is it good for you?

I think the question also bypasses "is it real?". The philosophical answer might be yes. The practical answer cannot be changed, which is no, it's obviously artificially created.

So no, that isn't the world I'd rather live in. The experience of life is the challenge which is far different from happiness in VR.

Some of that is just Phil being Phil. The guy that waxed religious about Second Life and then never used it himself for anything substantial. Which puts these discussions squarely back into a commercial context.

It's an interesting argument until the power goes out.

[Clara Seller]

"There is no difference between a life lived in virtual reality versus real reality."

Yes, because we all live in a world where you just have to "want it bad enough" to make it happen.

Of course, I'm very anxious to see how VR is going to deliver a bowl of rice to kids in Sub-Saharan Africa.
I guess they don't really need to eat. Their brains just need to "experience" eating to be happy.

The privileged class is really on a roll these days.

[Cyberserenity]

I have a life in VR. There i can do stuff i would not do in real life. My VR life expands my real life in ways i never could imagine. The mix of RL and VR adds to my every day life. Very happy!

[zz bottom]

Is so many can be on minecraft, despite its horrible graphics and so many can use facebook i guess there always be space for what he says.

[melponeme_k]

Rosedale....OH my. Rosedale always looks out of his head and then is allowed to speak. And what Bon Mots he utters.

"We already live in a virtual world -- it's called our brain."

Wooohh.

But seriously, in other words he is saying "Come to my VR and fill it with great stuff I don't have to pay for in any form and which I can make millions off of it." He loves that FREE.

[melponeme_k]

Rosedale....OH my. Rosedale always looks out of his head and then is allowed to speak. And what Bon Mots he utters.

"We already live in a virtual world -- it's called our brain."

Wooohh.

But seriously, in other words he is saying "Come to my VR and fill it with great stuff I don't have to pay for in any form and which I can make millions off of it." He loves that FREE.

[Iggy]

"We already live in a virtual world -- it's called our brain."

BS CALL! I'm an academic and like many other academics, I often live inside my head. I'd argue that the Silicon Valley slicksters like Philip are also living inside their heads and egos.

That's not the same as living IN something. We live IN a physical world with all five senses engaged, a world with agons and joys that no VR rig can fully capture.

Fooled me once, Philip: shame on me. And to mix in a music lyric, I won't get fooled again.

[Nimue]

His words might carry weight when and if the planet as we know it is no longer home to what we call "nature". Akin to the "Ready Player One" plot.

For now, let's enjoy the bounty of outdoors while we can.

[Galatea]

Dartagan Shepherd: "I think the question also bypasses 'is it real?'. The philosophical answer might be yes. The practical answer cannot be changed, which is no, it's obviously artificially created."

My house is also man-made. Does that mean it's not real?

Artificial things are real. Just because it's man-made doesn't mean it doesn't actually exist. You're confusing "real" with "natural".

Considering the active role our minds play in forming the sensorium we live in, and the fact that we're human, it follows that we all live in artificial realities. This is not to say these isn't a natural, physical reality, just that we don't interact with it directly, and can't really say much about it. It would be the world of the noumena, and as Immanuel Kant noted, we can't really say anything about it. We interact with the world of phenomena, which is a product of our own minds. There's no Cartesian demon here, there's just us doing what our minds do: constructing our subjective, phenomenological reality.