That might be true in reality but in the hypothetical for omega to completely erase the event from both your conscious and subconscience
Language exists only on the surface of our consciousness. The great human struggles are played out in silence and in the ability to express oneself.
Thank you for finding the source (I read it in a book and was to lazy to fact check it).
Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.
Yes but as stated above if there is superintelligent being capable of making perfect stimulations of reality than the Copernican Principle states that the probability of our "reality" not being a stimulation is extremely low If thats the case it would be obvious to choose Option 1, it being the stimulation that yields you the most utility
Interesting interpretation of my scenario. I don't know about other people but I personally wouldn't mind being a paperclip in paperclippium if meant realizing infinite utility potential (assuming paperclips are conscious and have sensory experience of course).
Keeping in mind that the questions such as the below would be part of the hilariously meta above question:
"Exactly, in full detail without compression and to the full extent of time, what would all of my current and potentially new senses experience like if I took the simulation in Option 1?"
As for this question, that is pretty ingenious but avoiding the conflict of my scenario entirely! No need to undermine my thought experiment unneedlessly! :) Anyway thanks for the nice comment.
That's not quite the question I am trying to convey with my conundrum. What I wanted Option 1 and Option 2 to represent is a hypothetical conflict in which you must choose between maximizing your utility potential at the cost of living in simulation or maximizing your knowledge of the truth in this reality. My point with in sharing this scenario did not have anything to do with the probability of such a scenario occurring. Now, everybody is free to interpret my scenario any way they like but I just wanted to explain what I had in mind. Thank you for your criticism and ideas. By the way.
Thank you so much. Very useful.
I interpreted it to mean not to believe information simply because you hold the source of the information in high regard. It is very possible to change your mind and keep within your own reason and common sense.
My interpretation of the quote was not that language exerts a trivial influence on our consciousness but that language is an imperfect form of communication.