Name: 虛擬現實會取代現實生活嗎？ (Will Virtual Reality Replace Real Life?)
Uploaded: 2020-11-23T19:50:32.000Z
Duration: 8 min 15 s

程度副詞

I want you to imagine a not too distant future where a company makes a super high-tech virtual

我想讓你們想象一下，在不遠的將來，有一家公司製造了一種超高科技的虛擬的

You can slip it on and experience anything that you want.

你可以穿上它，體驗任何你想要的東西。

Everything that you experience would feel 100% life-like and, in fact, you wouldn't

你所經歷的一切都會感覺到100%的生活化，事實上，你也不會

be able to tell your experiences apart from real life.

能把自己的經歷和現實生活區分開來。

This machine could maximize the total amount of pleasure you would experience in life.

這臺機器可以最大限度地提高你在生活中體驗到的快樂總量。

If you think you need a little pain to have more pleasure, it can produce that for you.

如果你認為你需要一點痛苦來獲得更多的快樂，它可以為你產生這種快樂。

No matter what, this machine can maximize pleasure over your lifetime.

無論怎樣，這臺機器都能讓你一生的快樂最大化。

There's also no reason to worry about anyone outside of the machine because they can plug

也不用擔心機器外的人，因為他們可以插上電源。

in too or you can assume that they are being taken care of by someone else (the government

或者你可以認為他們是被別人（政府）照顧的。

So, don't let your worries about serving others prevent you from plugging in.

所以，不要因為服務他人的顧慮而不敢插手。

Once you plug in, you won't even know that you're plugged in.

一旦你插上電源，你甚至不會知道你已經插上了電源。

You could do anything you want in that world but the only catch is that once you plug in,

你可以在那個世界裡做任何你想做的事，但唯一的問題是，一旦你插入。

Knowing this, would you plug into this world?

知道了這些，你會不會插入這個世界？

When I asked this question on Twitter 45% of you said yes, you would plug in, and 55%

當我在微博上問這個問題時，45%的人說是，你會插隊，55%的人說是

This question is actually a twist on an infamous thought experiment - posed by the philosopher

這個問題實際上是一個臭名昭著的思想實驗的轉折--由哲學家提出。

Robert Nozick in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia - titled “The Experience Machine”.

羅伯特-諾齊克在他的《無政府、國家和烏托邦》一書中--名為《經驗機器》。

The situation stays the exact same except instead of plugging into virtual reality,

情況保持完全一樣，只是沒有插入虛擬現實。

Robert refers to it as an experience machine.

Robert assumed that most people would choose not to enter this machine.

羅伯特以為，大多數人都會選擇不進入這個機器。

I wanted to revisit this thought experiment because I feel as if the question it asks

我想重新審視這個思想實驗，因為我覺得它所提出的問題好像是

is actually becoming more and more relevant in modern society.

其實在現代社會中越來越有意義。

We are seeing great advances in virtual reality and it doesn't seem impossible that we could

我們看到了虛擬現實領域的巨大進步，而且我們似乎也不是不可能

one day create something similar to an experience machine

總有一天會創造出類似於體驗機的東西

I believe that one of the initial responses that someone might have to this modified thought

我相信，有人可能會對這種修改後的思想有一個初步的反應，那就是

experiment is that they can control their usage.

實驗是，他們可以控制自己的使用。

“I would only play for a bit and plug out whenever I want - sort of like a video game”

"我只會玩一會，想什麼時候插隊就什麼時候插隊，有點像電子遊戲"

I'd argue that it's actually not so simple for two reasons.

我想說，其實並不那麼簡單，原因有二。

Video games are designed to be addictive in the same way fast food, and social media are.

電子遊戲的設計是為了讓人上癮，就像快餐和社交媒體一樣。

I mentioned this in one of my videos on self-discipline in the past and some viewers took it as a

過去我在一個關於自律的視頻中提到過這個問題，有的觀眾把它當成了一個

I have nothing against gaming, I've been a gamer myself for most of my life.

我並不反對遊戲，我自己大半輩子都是個遊戲玩家。

I DO think it's delusional to deny that developers don't try to make their games

我認為否認開發者不努力製作遊戲是妄想。

as addictive as possible similar to how fast food companies try to make their food as addictive

儘可能地讓人上癮，就像快餐公司試圖讓他們的食物儘可能地讓人上癮一樣。

as possible, and social media sites try to make their feeds as addictive as possible.

儘可能的，而社交媒體網站也試圖讓他們的feeds儘可能的讓人上癮。

It's in the creators best interest, financially at least, to make their creations as addictive

至少在經濟上，讓他們的作品讓人上癮是創作者的最大利益。

In a lot of cases, their livelihood depends on it.

在很多情況下，他們的生計都依賴於此。

It might even be impossible to remove what makes a good product from being addictive.

甚至可能無法去掉一個好產品讓人上癮的原因。

If you accept this premise, that people, more often than not, try to make their products

如果你接受這個前提，人們，往往會試圖讓自己的產品。

or creations as addictive as possible, then we can move on to my next premise.

或創作儘可能的讓人上癮，那麼我們就可以繼續我的下一個前提。

For better or worse, there are ways to take advantage of human biology.

無論好壞，都有辦法利用人類的生物學優勢。

Easy example: it can be hard to quit smoking cigarettes even when you really want to.

簡單的例子：即使你真的想戒菸，也很難戒掉。

If you accept both of these premises, that people make their things as addictive as possible

如果你接受這兩個前提，那就是人們儘可能地讓自己的東西上癮

and that it's possible to take advantage of human biology, then you would likely accept

並且有可能利用人類的生物學優勢，那麼你很可能會接受。

my conclusion that VR will be a highly addictive experience.

我的結論是，VR將是一種高度上癮的體驗。

If you can enter a world that feels real and can provide you with maximum pleasure, why

如果你能進入一個感覺真實的世界，並能為你提供最大的快樂，為什麼？

Coming out of that experience would make reality seem dull and drab by comparison.

從這種經歷中走出來，相比之下，現實會顯得枯燥無味。

The likelihood of you wanting to remain plugged in as much possible would be very high.

你想盡可能的保持插電狀態的可能性會非常大。

Now you see why I think this is a good thought experiment to discuss.

現在你明白為什麼我認為這是一個很好的思想實驗，可以討論。

I don't think it seems as unlikely of a scenario as when Nozick first proposed it.

我覺得這種情況似乎不像諾齊克第一次提出來的時候那麼不可能。

Keeping in line with the original thought experiment, we should also assume that technology

與最初的思想實驗保持一致，我們還應該假設技術

is at a point where they can connect us to this ultra-real VR experience and also keep

是在一個點上，他們可以將我們與這種超真實的VR體驗聯繫起來，同時也可以保持

our bodies functioning and alive while we are in it.

我們的身體在裡面的時候，我們的身體在運作和活著。

The primary one is a philosophy called hedonism.

最主要的是一種叫做享樂主義的哲學。

Hedonists believe that everything in life boils down to two things: pain and pleasure.

享樂主義者認為，生活中的一切都歸結為兩件事：痛苦和快樂。

Pleasure is what is intrinsically good and maximizing net pleasure over a life time is

快樂才是本質上的好，一生中淨快樂的最大化就是

Everything else is only good as long as it leads to the production of more pleasure or

只要能讓人產生更多的快感，或者說，其他的一切都只是好的

Another thing we hear people say often is, “just do what makes you happy.”

另外我們經常聽到人們說的一句話是："做讓自己開心的事就好"。

If doing what makes you happy is the most important thing - and this machine is designed

如果做讓你快樂的事是最重要的事--而這臺機器就是為你設計的。

to maximize pleasure and therefore happiness - there would be no reason not to plug in,

以使快樂最大化，從而使幸福最大化--就沒有理由不插手。

However, Nozick initially proposed this thought experiment to refute hedonism.

然而，諾齊克最初提出這個思想實驗是為了駁斥享樂主義。

He said that if you don't plug into the machine, which he suspected most people wouldn't,

他說，如果你不插入機器，他懷疑大多數人不會。

then there are things you value more than pleasure.

那麼有些東西你比快樂更重視。

It means there are things you think are more important than just our inner feelings about

這意味著有一些你認為更重要的東西，而不僅僅是我們內心的感受。

Judging by the poll I ran on Twitter, the majority of people, intuitively, do not want

從我在微博上進行的調查來看，大多數人，直覺上是不希望有

Nozick actually laid out three arguments as to why he believed someone wouldn't want

諾齊克實際上提出了三個論點來解釋為什麼他認為有人不願意。

We actually want to do things and not just experience them.

其實我們想做的事情，不僅僅是體驗。

There is something intrinsically valuable about actually doing an activity as opposed

有一些內在價值的東西，是關於實際做一個活動，而非

We want to become certain kinds of people.

Nozick said that entering the machine is a form of suicide because the person who enters

諾齊克說，進入機器是一種自殺的形式，因為進入機器的人

We don't know if they are kind, brave, loyal, or anything.

我們不知道他們是否善良，勇敢，忠誠，還是什麼。

Consider this: do you want to win an olympic gold medal to have the experience of having

考慮一下：你想獲得一枚奧運金牌，是否要有這樣的經歷？

a medal and to feel the pleasure of winning that medal, or do you want to win it because

獎牌，並感受到贏得獎牌的樂趣，或者你想贏得它，因為

it means that you are a strong, hard-working, and brave person.

說明你是一個堅強、勤勞、勇敢的人。

Lastly, Nozick said that people would not want to enter because the machine would prevent

最後，Nozick說，人們不願意進入，因為機器會阻止。

Everything that we experience in the machine would be man-made.

我們在機器中經歷的一切都將是人為的。

I believe here Nozick is saying that many of us would rather live in a world that is

我相信諾齊克在這裡說的是，我們很多人寧願生活在這樣一個世界裡。

true, rather than artificial, even if an artificial world produces more net pleasure.

真實的，而不是人為的，即使人為的世界產生更多的淨快樂。

When I first heard this argument, I totally agreed with it.

當我第一次聽到這個說法時，我完全贊同。

Of course, I would want to live in a world that is real but less pleasurable than one

當然，我也希望生活在一個真實的世界裡，但比起這個世界，我更希望生活在一個不那麼快樂的世界裡。

字幕列表影片播放

虛擬現實會取代現實生活嗎？ (Will Virtual Reality Replace Real Life?)

assume

scenario

improve

experience