Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy

Unlike Jake G (Philosophy of the Matrix) I have great respect and admiration for David Chalmers. And like him, I find “the hard problem” of philosophy fascinating. (Actually, I would say “hard problems” because it includes many interrelated questions). Chalmers does use many references to movies and includes “cartoons” to illustrate some points. Perhaps this is an effort to make philosophy more accessible to people who do not want to slog through lengthy and complex arguments. What is wrong with that?One problem I had with this book is how qualified much of it is. Words like “may” and “could” are so common that the entire book strikes me as highly speculative. This was particularly evident in his discussion of the “it-from-bit” and the “simulation” hypotheses. Maybe one purpose of this book was to throw out a ton of ideas that others could follow-up with more careful analysis.One of Chalmers’ major theses is that we are very likely living in a simulation. Here he is referring to an advanced form of a traditional simulation created from software (probably including AI) running on an advanced computer system. Well, maybe/maybe not. But I am absolutely convinced that our experiences and subjective view of the world is a simulation that arises from our brain. Staying for the moment within our current level of reality where it makes sense to talk about “internal” and “external” all of our perceptions and knowledge of the external world are from our perspective as sapiens. Our perceptions and knowledge are limited by our biology, our senses, our neurology, and most of all our brain. These perceptions and knowledge are undoubtedly very different from that of bats, but who is to say that our view is better or more accurate? In a world where “internal” can be separated from “external” we can not know things in themselves in the external world. We must remain completely agnostic regarding external “reality”. What we perceive and know about the external world is experienced as a simulation. Even science does not get us to external reality. The scientific method is designed for specific purposes, primarily to explain data/observations and make accurate predictions, and it serves those purposes extremely well. But that is not a compelling claim that our scientific models are the same as capital R reality. Our scientific models are just that, models. So, yes, we actually live in a simulation not all that different from Chalmers’ vision of super AI software made of bits and running on a super-duper computer.I think most people interested in philosophical issues related to simulations will find this book worth reading. It may lead to more questions than answers, but maybe that was Chalmers’ intent.

I made note of my objections as I was reading the book, and here they are:In the augmentation reality chapter, he heavily centers on what the Internet can do for us, totally ignoring that the Internet is full of ignorant malevolence, and fake news. It’s like he’s an egghead only reflecting on the subject matter, avoiding what we already know about the Internet.He states that in a post-apocalyptic world, most of us would choose to enter a virtual world where the “pods” are heavily protected. This is completely divorced from what we already know of a kind of VR - the Internet where people often behave very differently than they would in the real world. What’s to stop a VR denizen from killing people for fun?He argues that elements from VR are real. But what about our typical appreciation of real objects, that they’re things that only exist truly in the real world? Or things that we can only believe about the confidence that objects that are represented by sources we trust, such as telescopes.In the subsection about equality in virtual worlds, he seems to say that virtual worlds will enhance equality. Yet how does this square that in many existing virtual worlds, you have to use real-world money to pay for certain crucial capabilities. The author is blind to this.He says he’s an atheist, which makes me question his most important tenet: that we’re likely living in a virtual reality simulation. If that was true then he’d have to acknowledge that we have a creator, who, to us, would have the attributes of a god.His postulate is that most civilizations will reach a point where the creation of artificial universes will be routine. But what about the counterargument that most civilizations won’t last beyond global warming or nuclear devastation? Again, sticking his head in the sand.

Revisits fundamental philosophical questions equipped with what we know about computer science and physics. A bit of work in some places, but overall, a fascinating read.

Part confession of atheist video game lover and part exploration of simulation theory, this book covers a lot of ground in depth without sacrificing any attention to detail.

The philosopher whose fame derives from an understatement (that explaining consciousness from physics is a "hard problem") argues for reality, both within virtual worlds as well as our own. However, trapped as he is within the cave of materialism, he slams his head against stone walls of "structure" in every direction. After groping through fringe physics, highly abstract mathematics, and increasingly ridiculous thought experiments, he ends up declaring that anything which generates experience is real.For those of us who have already embraced the primacy of experience, this makes for a very painful read. To understand Chalmers' main point, I recommend sparing yourself the 462 pages and watching the movie "Free Guy" instead. Then, when you're convinced that VR can indeed prompt genuine experiences, read Bernardo Kastrup to free yourself from the structural cave Chalmers shares with the majority of modern thinkers.Chalmers is a celebrated philosopher and experienced professor, and although his outlook seems entirely backwards to me, I did enjoy his lessons from the history of philosophy.

Book came damaged (see picture) but this says nothing of Chalmers' work.I haven't read all the book yet, but what I've read so far is great. Chalmers is adept at making hard-to-grasp ideas nicely palatable, even for the layman.There are also wonderful illustrations and pop-culture references throughout. I never thought a serious philosophy book would talk about Descartes and Fortnite within a page, but here we are.Tl;Dr, buy the book if you are even slightly interested but go elsewhere.

It just didn’t work for me and seemed uninteresting, perhaps I’m just not smart enough for the authors discussions

Challenging at times as philosophy is not my bread and butter but interesting to have such discussions. Reality is in the brain/simulator of the beholder/simulating generating machine.

This is nothing more than a summary of recent books on VR, with color by the numbers writing. Not buying a book on Farhad Manjoo's recommendation ever again. The author comes across as rather ditzy. Every third sentence is "I will explain" or "Here's how this works" like he is talking to a twelve year old.

Enfim a coisa ficou séria. Muito séria. David Chalmers é um gênio e escreve de forma fluida para uma leitura rápida.