Sfdebris.net

Been pondering a lot of futurist ideas now, and one I'd had was when we have fully interactive Internet hook-ups to your brain that will let you download VR and play it as a fantasy world, similar to a video game, fully programmable, with the fully range of sensory experiences, either in safe mode or non-safe mode. Kind of like the holodeck, only way more personal and intimate. One thing I could see people doing in the future is... therapists get special leave when somebody comes in confessing problems in how they have so much anger they wanna KILL people, or have urges to fuck a dog or a child, and send them into this fantasy world to relieve it so they don't hurt anybody out here.

That said, such is a new technology and will breed a new social discussion, so I figure I'd have it here! I could see people who are against it simply on principle, because of how bestiality and pedophilia are wrong, which we know. That said, if it can literally satiate a need in your brain, how is that so wrong if the brain is what's "malfunctioning" here? If it makes sure you don't hurt people "out here?" The state will run into horrible problems regulating this. Especially if you get to STUDY a person's brain as they do this? The possibilities for research on the brain seem limitless. I dunno, what do you guys think are the ethical ramifications of something like this?

This is why child porn was banned.

It's not just a substitute or an outlet; it can end up encouraging you instead.

It somewhat depends on how realistic it is- they have to be able to distinguish fantasy from reality. The more intensely realistic a VR experience is, the less helpful it will be, as it will just make things worse.

Otherwise, using video games as an outlet for violent feelings is something that already happens. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it exacerbates the problem- it depends on the individual.

It really does depend, doesn't it? That said, count me firmly among the "whatever you want, you should get in the world of VR" camp. There is no limitation except for human imagination. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the issue with... child porn... that they exploit REAL people to do so? That's the problem and it hurts REAL people who are in the REAL world. In a trippy dream-world, no one gets hurt. That's the appeal for me. Unless programs can be constituted as AI, in which case... it's like what Chuck said in "Fair Haven" and "Spirit Folk." Talk about a nightmare, lol.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the issue with... child porn... that they exploit REAL people to do so? That's the problem and it hurts REAL people who are in the REAL world.

Not just that, no, because ANY image of a naked child is illegal, no matter how innocent. Plenty of naked child images were just parents finding it funny that their little kid kept taking their clothes off, or otherwise thought nothing of it. The idea that this could be associated with something like pedophilia was utterly alien only a decade or so ago.

Try that now, see where it gets you.

True. And yeah, that's a result of people overthinking things. It can have positives, and negatives. In this area, I'd say again, depends on the context.

Can we please get back on topic? The future of VR, basically. As a form of psychotherapy.

Okay so let me see if I can break down the timeline this will have.

*Exciting New Technology! Buy it NOW!!!
* I don't understand this new hippy crap. In my day we played games with monitors and screens. Kids today are spoiled.
* Oh noes! Someone has done something wrong and may have walked passed the new tech. We must ban it immediately!

Continue till this tech is in every household and the next comes out. Rinse, repeat.

Now to the ethics. First, child porn is in a black and white stage. Under age girls are being held as child pornographers for taking pictures of themselves with no intent to sell or distribute. Till the law meant to protect these children actually does. There is no safe nor in my opinion sane ground.
As to the concepts of letting someone burn off the need to kill in a simulation. You have the part where some are actually helped and such desires are curbed. But for some they will learn that the only method of dealing with an issue. Any issue, is violence. So these individuals the 'treatment' will have the reverse effect. And three guesses which will actually make the news?
Now consider current law environment. Our society is basically plutocracy. Those with money are affected by laws differently than those that do not. If you are new to the work force and ride a bicycle to work and make minimum wage. Your manager makes a good living and drives a recent car. If he deliberately destroys your bike the police are unlikely to care. Finding a lawyer to take the case is slim. So you want to lash out. If you damage his vehicle in retaliation, you committed a felony. Because the car costs more. Now you are in trouble with police, and lawyers will go after you.
How does this all fit in with the futurist question? Glad you asked. Because laws are not keeping up with technology nor is psychology. The idea might have great merit for many. Go home and login to a simulator to beat your boss or some fictional counterpart that seems to truly deserve it. May be a relief. (There is a word for it, but my brain turns more to mush each year.) But these benefits will be kept hidden as the news is not exciting. So few will be actively supplied with what they may need. And the current parenting trends seem to be "Don't make things I find offensive. Because my children might find it!" So you want a little porn? Nope kids might see it. Violence? Nope kids will emulate it. Classical music? Nope kids might appreciate more than the stuff I listen to.

But the parts where your idea has merit. And it does.

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/video-game-stress-reduction-need-start-playing-right-now/

I was just raising that as a "what-if!" Good God, I do NOT condone that thing. But if an alternative is found that genuinely helps people from hurting others in the real world, is that so wrong? If it's hurting NO ONE? That said, that is hard to quantify because... people... are... complicated. And psychology STILL isn't an exact science. So, who knows? How about the need to murder? Some people have such VIOLENT cravings past what you'd typically expect from "somebody of their station." And they just want to kill, kill, KILL because their only real emotion comes from that. Why does somebody do that? Again, VR therapy as a form of treatment might work in the most deranged cases. The question is, should we?

Yukaphile wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:22 pm I was just raising that as a "what-if!" Good God, I do NOT condone that thing. But if an alternative is found that genuinely helps people from hurting others in the real world, is that so wrong? If it's hurting NO ONE? That said, that is hard to quantify because... people... are... complicated. And psychology STILL isn't an exact science. So, who knows? How about the need to murder? Some people have such VIOLENT cravings past what you'd typically expect from "somebody of their station." And they just want to kill, kill, KILL because their only real emotion comes from that. Why does somebody do that? Again, VR therapy as a form of treatment might work in the most deranged cases. The question is, should we?

The issue is as I said. The laws may very well curtail such an investigation.
I had an argument with a friend of mine. He had recently gotten a degree in psychology. I brought up a girl, in Sweden I think, that was going to sail around the world solo. She was experienced and both of her divorced parents gave consent to her. But people were trying to block it as child endangerment. My friend commented that she was too young. (16 if I remember correctly) And that being alone that long would negatively affect her. I went off. I asked how it is better to walk to school with bullies, armed individuals and abusing authority figures. And how I hate psychology saying eating this is bad mentally, do this is bad mentally. And I was still going when he interrupted to demand I not disparage his field. I said I was leading to a question. He asked me to get to it. and my question was this. "All I hear is what is bad for use mentally and socially. What is GOOD for us?" And he deflated. "We don't know." And went on to explain that ethics prevents them from studying psyche to destruction. Thus seeing where things go and how to avoid it.
Psychologists will be on the fence with this idea for years to come. You may be exactly right. It does help and it may be a prescribed effect. But it will not get here soon. Science in those areas, and the laws to follow, move far slower than our technology.

Very true. It won't happen soon. Real progress or any lasting change takes time. And the way I see it, psychology is like the new "fix-all" approach. That was religion back in ancient times. Or science, for those who cared back then, and in the Renaissance. And now it's become psychology. It's an attempt to understand a system so insanely complex, it might as well be locked together by a billion strands that are made up of another billion strings all weaving together. You can't pin this stuff down to pure math. As much as we wish we could, there is no great "answer of all." Not yet. We have to find our own meaning.