My Consensual Reality is Better Than Yours?

MMORPGS and Reality.

Published on November 7, 2005 By greywar In Gaming

I would like you to meet two friends of mine : Thomas and Dane. Different guys living in different parts of the country. Let me tell you about Thomas first ok?

Thomas started from almost nothing and worked his ass off to get where he is today. Homeless and alone he struggled as an orphan in a hostile and uncaring place. The only thing that saved him was perserverance. He knew that if he worked long and hard he could make it and slowly he did.

He managed to sell a few things he found in the streets or had managed to make on his own eventually parleying this into his own business.

Along the way he has helped countless people move along in their own lives even giving them money, clothes, shelter, and his own possessions that he had worked so hard for.

Thomas is respected in the community and recognized as a man who will help those who are struggling and down on their luck. He has a lovely wife (Kendra) and two children (Ty and Gaius) who adore him. He spends all of his available time with his wife and children continuing his good works.

Pretty successful and decent guy wouldn’t you say? The American dream in a nutshell right there.

Now lets talk about Dane:

Dane had a middle class upbringing and good parents who loved him. An only child Dane struggled socially but managed to keep his grades up enough to go to college and get his B.S. in management. Dane now works for a fortune 500 company as a middle manager.

While he will never rise to any leadership role due to his innate shyness and somewhat homely face he makes good money, donates heavily to charity, and lives in nice home in Burbank. He and wife Kathy have a quiet life with 2 kids (Bob and Janet).

Hey Dane is a pretty decent fellow too right? Which one of them has led the best life? Tough call really. Who can say which is better? Both are hard working, humanitarian, family men right?

Now what if I told you that Thomas’s life story took place entirely within the confines of an online game? All the people he helped along were other players, his wife is another player and they have never met face-to-face, and the kids are younger players who they help along in the rough and tumble MMORPG community.

In our reality Thomas is a janitor who only works to support rent, food, and his MMORPG bills. He lives alone and has no kids. In fact Thomas has never even dated.

Is Thomas’s life now invalid somehow? Is Dane the more successful one?

Thomas has simply opted out of our consensual reality and opted into a different one. His footprint in our world is limited to his job as a janitor and the money he spends in our economy.

You might say that this scenario is farfetched but I based Thomas off of a real-life acquaintance (not really a friend since he doesn’t socialize in our reality). The man has a great online life and loves it. His online marriage is good, his online kids are great and he fills a necessary job in our reality to pay for it. Is he to be scorned because his kids don’t take up space on the overcrowded dirtball? Not by me. He has simply decided to excel in a different plane of existence.

Dane helps people in his plane of existence while Thomas helps those who like him choose to live in another. Are both helping people?

Dane and Thomas? Both successes in my mind.

This is the paradigm shift that looms in the ever closer future, I think it bears debate.

Comments (Page 2)

SlothLuvChunk

on Nov 08, 2005

My apologies for hastily hitting "post comment" ... I now notice some spelling errors... crap
In all cases, "now way" = "no way"

xtine

on Nov 08, 2005

Yeah, what SlothLuvChunk said...

Actually, that's sorta what I meant by:

Thomas has TWO lives while Dane only has one.

Only I'm not quite as coherent.

greywar

on Nov 09, 2005

In fact, the initial premise is flawed, as our reality is not consentual, it is obligatory.

actually by admitting the possibility of opting out at all you acknowledge that this statement is false.

xtine

on Nov 09, 2005

Are we reduced to debating the debate now?

Spc Nobody Special

on Nov 09, 2005

Are we reduced to debating the debate now?

Isn't that where every blog argument ends up? Followed of course by the name calling.......you fascist. (joking)

SlothLuvChunk

on Nov 09, 2005

Well, at least do us all the favor of explaining your position.... I'm sure you'd like more of a reply than me than: "no, it's not."

While you may be able to "opt out" of some aspects of our reality, you can not completely opt-out of our reality. Even opting out physically from our reality (ending your life) arguably only moves you to another plane of the same reality. You change form, but not reality.

reality is in itself unavoidable. Reality is by definition not consensual, but "real". It is the reality of what is. A virtual reality is just that, virtual. It is not reality to begin with, but a "virtual" version of reality. It is not a seperate and equal reality, it is a copy of what is real, and in being such, is not real in itself.

We can debate all day about the subjective attributes of each "reality", but at the end of the day it is obvious that only one is "reality", and the other is an off-shoot thereof.

It's very easy to test:
Thomas gives up his reality for one week, and lives in the other.
Dane does the same.

Only Thomas will be able to give up his reality, as it is virtual to begin with. Dane's reality is literal ... it is real ... he can not give it up. It is therefore not consensul, while aspects of it might be.

You can choose to ignore this reality, but you can not physically remove yourself from it.

greywar

on Nov 09, 2005

So physical presence then is the determiner of reality and the validty of marriages, parenting, and life?

Tom

on Nov 09, 2005

My first reaction is to say that Thomas is not successful. But thats not fair. Its not that I think its bad what he is doing. Its horribly horribly unhealthy. Thomas needs help desparately. I am not here to attack this alternate reality. But to warn about it. Get Thomas help, before he shoots at everyone who works with him.

Talisein

on Nov 09, 2005

"Before he shoots at everyone who works with him"?

Yes, those different people are dangerous! Make sure they act like us before they hurt us! Disgusting.

Icarus Goodman

on Nov 10, 2005

I was thinking about this today and I would like to bring up the example of the Matrix. There is no difference between the Matrix (a computer generated imitation of reality) and an online game world except in the level of technology. Like the character Cypher in the movie, what if you found the "real" world completely lacking in any value? Instead you could plug into a vitrual reality that was exactly like the real world except the rules of that world were much more appealing (say a world with magic for instance). Would the fact that you knew your body was "actually" just sitting in a chair, and you were being fed through a tube and what not, diminsh your experiences in the "virtual" world?

Thomas is doing the same thing approximatly, except the technology isn't near as good at duplicating reality. He doesn't like the real world, where he is a janitor and has to worry about paying rent. Instead he likes the version of reality the game offers. He chooses to "plug in" by sitting in front of his computer screen. Even though his physical body is only sitting and typing, his mind is still experiencing within the context of the game. The fact that those experiences don't take place in the physical world doesnn't diminish the effect on Thomas' consciousness.

If the technology was better I dont think he would be ridiculed nearly as much. I'm sure if Thomas had the option that Cypher had, he would gladly choose to leave this "reality" and be plugged full time into the matrix. Unfortunatly, the technology isn't there, so he has to interact with "reality" to some extent in order to keep his physical body alive and to be able to afford the game.

As technology improves, I see communities like this increasing and more and more people choosing their own virtual reality over this one. Maybe in time, we can all become gods ourselves as we fashion the types of worlds within which we wish to exist. But until that happens, I'm content with the "real" world.

Meg

on Nov 10, 2005

That's one of the saddest things I ever read. Good lord, people. Relationships can begin online and become physical, or they can begin physically and continue at a distance, but at some point, meeting is required and proximity is required. Anything else is a fantasyland of near-nothingness. You can develop a strong connection, but it's not a marriage until you've merged the emotional with the practical and made some sacrifices to live in community with another human being.

I'm IN a long distance relationship WITH someone I met online and we sure as hell could not have continued without times of touch and being close and existing beyond telephone wires and emails and whatever else. We're not planning to live at a distance forever, nor does anyone who is apart from a loved one (a soldier, someone at a faraway job, someone waiting for immigration clearance) plan to be apart forever.

In a real relationship, you make plans to be together or at least to alternate togetherness with awayness. Anyone who says otherwise is living some sort of bizarre, unaccountable, hermit-like pseudo-existence and needs to step away from the computer for a LONG time and experience things as a human, not a cyberbeing. True relationships cannot be conducted online without ever meeting in reality. Period.

And please, don't even talk about jobs that take you away from home, like soldier -- ask soldiers if they LIKE being away from their wives at war. They are always dreaming of coming home. And if they aren't -- if the phone and email is enough to get them by forever or they prefer to be away from home -- they shouldn't be in the relationship.

Harsh? Yes. But please, for the love of normalcy, get your heads out of your IMing, game playing, socially awkward asses.

And a giant

at the idea of "helping those who are down on their luck" and "being respected in the community". It's a GAME. Read up on Martin Luther King or Rosa Parks or Jimmy Carter or SOMEONE, ANYONE who is ACTUALLY helpful. Oh, gosh.

SlothLuvChunk

on Nov 10, 2005

Jimmy Carter?? .... different discussion, I know.

Nobody's debating that the other reality can't be entertaining, or even equally "good" to the end user. In fact, I'd wager that in almost every case the virtual reality is much better than reality because it is "build to suit".

The debate is whether they are equally viable and valuable. Nobody has yet given a good argument though as to why they can both be considered equal to society.

The virtual reality is still in every case a subset of reality, and as such ranks lower hierarchically.
So as a subset of reality, it is not equal, and therefore is really just another form of entertainment. More involved perhaps, but really just entertainment. I applaud it, I encourage it, and I enjoy it. But I won't support the delusion that it is an equally valuable reality. It can't exist without this reality, and as such is inferior.

Icarus Goodman

on Nov 10, 2005

Who cares about society? Do I live to please other people? Fuck no. I live for my own life, my own happiness. As reality is of course needed for the existence of any virtual realm, it of course must take precedence. Even if you have a matrix-like virtual reality realm, if you can't pay the electric bill it's all for naught. But I really don't see how that is of any real importance. The question was whther the experiences that Thomas has in the virtual realm are of lesser value than experiences he could have in the real world. Right now I say they probably are. But if technology can make the virtual realm closer to the real thing, then I think just the fact that they are not "real" does not lessen their value to Thomas or to anyone he interacts with within the virtual realm.

SlothLuvChunk

on Nov 11, 2005

Of course society doesn't matter to you now. In a few years though you'll grow up a bit and realize how foolish you sound wanting to live solely for yourself.

Onto the real debate though (as whether or not society is important is not really debatable), to determine which reality has more or less value, first we have to determine how we are defining value? Even aside from that question though, as you stated, one reality is dependent on the other. This means that in every aspect, some of it's value is derived from the other, and as such can never equal or succeed the other.
It's interesting to me that everyone keeps bringing up the Matrix as an example of a working virtual reality, as the whole point of that movie was the real world struggle of these people to break free of their less-than-equal virtual reality. Their real life was less gratifying materially than their virtual one, yet they were willing to fight to the death to protect their real lives.
There's no debate as to which is more valuable. The only question is whether or not the end user perceives one as being better. Clearly the end user may perceive the virtual life as better than reality. This doesn't negate reality though. As you said, it's all for naught if you can't pay the power bill.
It's also an escape, and like any other escape it should be used in moderation. Drinking alcohol is ok, as is smoking pot, or playing video games. Moderation is the key. To withdraw from reality and live in a virtual world be it a video game, an alcoholic stupor, or a drug induced coma is bad. Anyone who doesn't see that is ignorant, naive, and selfish.

To answer your first question: "Who cares about society?"
You should.
Certainly you can live solely for yourself ...

Icarus Goodman

on Nov 12, 2005

Thank you for enlightening me, wise one. You may live your life for the pleasure of others, but please, when your 90 and you realize your whole life has been wasted as a slave of other peoples desires, don't be bitter about it.

No one is denying that the reality is necessary for a virtual world to exist. It is. Reality takes precedent. Reality wins! Woohoo!

The question is, given reality is taken care of, given that the necessities that reality demands have been met, can a person who chooses to live primarily in a virtual world rather than the real world lead a life as fulfilling as someone who leads a life in the real world alone. The point about the matrix, those people weren't fighting soley for that crappy existence they had, they were fighting for the freedom to choose. Surel some people, like cypher, would choose the matrix while others would chose reality. They were fighting to give people that coice instead of being focefully duped into the default choice of the matrix.

So who is right? The person who chooses the matrix or the person who chooses reality? Ultimatly it is a personal choice. Expereince is experience whether it happens in the real world or a virtual one. The values of those experiences are determined ultimiatly by the individual. Whichever reality provides that individual with the best opportunity to flourish, to reach his full potential and to garner him the most happiness is the right choice, as long as he has taken the steps necessary to secure reality (as that must be secured in order for the virtual realm to exist)

I do live for myself, who do you live for?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!