Gaming Addiction?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Thoran: A way of life that's not real is pretty much the ultimate addiction isn't it? Alcohol makes you feel like superman but you're still stuck on the ground... what happens when you really CAN fly? Folks will spend all their free time living in totally immersive worlds, worlds that are compelling because folks will have everything they don't have in real life, and be able to do things they can't otherwise. Why drive a Civic when you can drive a Ferrari? Why get married to a real person with faults and different needs when you can have a supermodel for a partner? Why look in the mirror at your aging and non-perfect body when you can stay young and desireable until the day you die? Why live in a normal house when you can live in a mansion? All those things are already available in limited fashion. As computing power and (especially) interface technology improves, they will grow more and more immersive until VR approaches RL. Long before that day you'll have outliers becoming addicted... but eventually the attraction will become so powerful that addiction will be the norm, and those with strength of will to resist will be the outliers.

Sounds like the Matrix, or Vanilla Sky man. A horror world where you're surrounded with fantasy and delusion.

[Yorick]

p.s.

Originally posted by Thoran: eventually the attraction will become so powerful that addiction will be the norm, and those with strength of will to resist will be the outliers.

But who will pay the bills?

[Firestormalpha]

Hmmm... "Otherland" comes to mind.

[Thoran]

"Who's going to pay the bills?" is a good question.

There are already people making a living entirely on the internet... I think we're seeing the tip of the iceberg. As the level of immersion increases, the desire for (and complexity of) virtual 'accutraments' will increase. There's a couple virtual worlds out there that operate on a cash basis, and even games like WoW and Everquest have proven profitable for people who are willing to provide 'virtual services' to others.

Lots of folks have explored the virtual reality angle, and while there's a lot of speculation on direction there's no compass pointing the way yet.

One potential scenario involves exponentially increasing cost of RL travel (due to the collapse of the oil economy). In that scenario, it's not hard to imagine people logging in to go to work, reporting to a virtual office where they can interact with co-workers to maintain the contacts so necessary in business but without the associated travel costs. As people travel less in RL there would be an increase in demand for VR to provide the same stimulous. The economy could very well shift from RL to VR as the percieved 'value' of virtual 'stuff' increases. There've been a number of explorations of virtual focused worlds where your wealth is measured by the quality of your interface into a VR environment and the quality of the VR environment you control (Otherland like).

Most of us live a middle class existance, how much would an entirely virtual but also entirely immersive 'upper class' existance be worth to us?

Cypher: "You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss."

I think that quote is absolutely the best line in any of those movies, and sums up the overwhleming temptation that immersive VR will pose to humans.

Where I think the origonal Matrix falls short in on its philosophical underpinnings. Intelligent machines would have NO need to start a war to 'subjugate' humanity. If they had the capability to provide the VR experience they detailed in the movie, the VAST majority of people would happily sign up to be living batteries in return for an upscale or fantastic lifestyle. There would be no conflict and humans would likely not even see themselves as enslaved... rather they would see the AI as providing the ultimate service, letting us live out our wildest dreams in return for the heat energy we waste anyway.

[ 06-29-2007, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

[Yorick]

I completely reject the idea that the majority of humans will ever choose immersion into virtual computer worlds over the real thing.

There is no comparison. It's not even a discussion. Virtual worlds are simply ecapes from the problems of the real world, and when those problems are properly dealt with, the virtual world holds no allure at all.

Give me a real sunset by water, with wind, food, fragrance, my wife, and "surround" experience any day over WoW.

Besides, you have to physically eat to survive, and that takes time and money. The best prod off the backside is being unable to afford the monthly fee's, internet access or electricity bill to stir someone into getting a job (any job) and interacting with reality.

Games like WoW only exist because people with real life cash pay for it to exist. People who make a living playing wow - Chinese gold farmers - make 30 cents per hour, doing the same inanely boring mouse clicks day in, day out. But they can only do so, due to the demand for their services by people with more real life money.

The programmers etc. all make much more of course, but then they're creating a game, not playing it, and they still rely on the cash of real life patrons.

Someone has to pay the bills.

Re. Virtual connection for work etc, the value of face to face communication and collaboration far surpasses video conferencing, phone, emails and shared computers. 80% of communication is still in body language, and little things like trust are developed far easier in a real environment.

I do a lot of work for people remotely, (music creation) and it's usually most sucessful if I've already established some sort of relationship with the people in real life. Even so, actually being in the same room makes the process quicker, more fun, and more collaboratively involved.

I welcome the changes that increased technology will bring that will remove the obligation of people to work in same spaces all the time, thus perhaps decreasing the strain of speedy travel on the planet, but it will not decrease the necessity of close human interactions for our emotional and physical survival.

That's a major reason I live in New York and not L.A. All the "face time" with countless humans, as opposed to seeing them all through glass windsheilds as they drive by.

[Thoran]

It's all I/O... everything you mentioned regarding people's perceived needs is a matter of interfacing. Our REAL needs are pretty simple, food, shelter and water, everything else is a matter of desires... desires that can be met with the correct stimulii. If you see a sunset and the experience is identical in every way to RL then the what's the difference?

TODAY there is no comparison, but tomorrow there WILL be. If the virtual world becomes indistinguishable from the real world, WITH water, wind, food, fragrance, and a full 'surround' experience... then why bother with the inefficient and resource expensive real world for experience gathering?

When the interface is poor (as it is today), it's easy to say nobody will accept it... because nobody would.

I believe that the closer the interfacing gets to providing a RL level of interactivity (direct neural will be required), the more people will find it acceptable to live their lives there (assuming the cost/benefit is there).

Is it a long way off? Heck yea... but not as long a way as some might think. Maybe a century, not long in a historical context.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally posted by Thoran: It's all I/O... everything you mentioned regarding people's perceived needs is a matter of interfacing. Our REAL needs are pretty simple, food, shelter and water, everything else is a matter of desires... desires that can be met with the correct stimulii. If you see a sunset and the experience is identical in every way to RL then the what's the difference? TODAY there is no comparison, but tomorrow there WILL be. If the virtual world becomes indistinguishable from the real world, WITH water, wind, food, fragrance, and a full 'surround' experience... then why bother with the inefficient and resource expensive real world for experience gathering? When the interface is poor (as it is today), it's easy to say nobody will accept it... because nobody would. I believe that the closer the interfacing gets to providing a RL level of interactivity (direct neural will be required), the more people will find it acceptable to live their lives there (assuming the cost/benefit is there). Is it a long way off? Heck yea... but not as long a way as some might think. Maybe a century, not long in a historical context.

Yes, totally agree. If in a virtual world all needs can be met there would be no reason to remain in the limitations of the real world. Conditionally we are taught to perceive this concept as "bad" and "unhealthy" but if such a thing ever happens, everyone will be doing it. I mean, why walk if you could fly?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Thoran: It's all I/O... everything you mentioned regarding people's perceived needs is a matter of interfacing. Our REAL needs are pretty simple, food, shelter and water, everything else is a matter of desires... desires that can be met with the correct stimulii.

Human interaction is a fundamental and primal need. Without an "other" human consciousness is not fully realised at all infact. There is no concept of self, without awareness of others. The worst punishment humans mete out to other humans is solitary confinement. We NEED each other for survival.

Mental needs are as important as physical needs: We need a reason to keep living.

If you see a sunset and the experience is identical in every way to RL then the what's the difference?

Contradiction. Identicality voids comparison. But as long as one is externally and objectively real, and one is an artificially created situation, then the experience is not identical. One is genuine, the other imitative. One is truth, the other is a lie. One is humanly controlled, the other is not.

TODAY there is no comparison, but tomorrow there WILL be. If the virtual world becomes indistinguishable from the real world, WITH water, wind, food, fragrance, and a full 'surround' experience... then why bother with the inefficient and resource expensive real world for experience gathering?

The simple fact is that some people will always value truth and honesty over lies bro. Most people would prefer to know their partner cheated on them, rather than be blissfully unaware.

The Hindu worldview is that all life is an illusion in any case, so what would virtual worlds be? Illusions within illusions? The Judeo-Christian worldview is that all is real, and reality matters, so as long as those values exist, people will have regard for the real, even if it is painful and difficult.

Evidence also, in that today many of us choose to NOT take anti-depressants or alcohol, but face our misery head on, while others use chemicals/alcohol etc to create a false sense of comfort. (That said, I acknowledge certain drugs can help repair neural pathways that have reinforced negative behaviours)

The fact that a majority (yes, believe it or not) of humans choose to live most of their time in a real world, rather than a clouded drugged one is evidence that people do value real over placebos.

When the interface is poor (as it is today), it's easy to say nobody will accept it... because nobody would.

A lie is always inferior to truth no matter how elaborate it's presentation.

I believe that the closer the interfacing gets to providing a RL level of interactivity (direct neural will be required), the more people will find it acceptable to live their lives there (assuming the cost/benefit is there). Is it a long way off? Heck yea... but not as long a way as some might think. Maybe a century, not long in a historical context.

Well we'll have to wait and see then. I believe most humans will have fundamental philosophical problems with it - as per the Matrix and Vanilla Sky that I mentioned. Why? Because of the one thing you're missing in all this.

If the experience WERE identical, that would mean problems and difficulties were built in. In short, the virtual world would need to contain the very things that people are trying to escape from.
So if the virtual world is indistinguishable from the real, why go into the virtual at all? It's simpler and easier and cheaper to engage reality.

The only allure a virtual world would have is if the problems of the day are not there. Which then gives the virtual world a lesser value and lesser sense of achievement. For negativity in life is what gives positivity it's worth. You know a good thing because of a bad thing.

Thus, the real world with all it's problems will remain more valueable and worthwhile, unless the virtual is identical, which negates the purpose and reason for the virtual worlds existence.

[Firestormalpha]

In otherwords a shadow requires light and an obstruction of light. Without the light you wouldn't know the shadow, and without darkness, could you tell where the light was?

Yeesh, such reasoning makes me dizzy.

Never would've thought this post would come so far, it's kinda fun.

[SpiritWarrior]

So in other words you haven't paid your electrical bill.