While many games rely on emergent principles, video games commonly present simulated story worlds where emergent behavior occurs within the context of the game. The term “emergent narrative” has been used to describe how, in a simulated environment, storyline can be created simply by “what happens to the player.”

The thunderbolt experience can be attained by meditation on the vajra, which is a symbol of union of relative and absolute truths. Relative truth is that which we experience in everyday time and physical space. Absolute truth exists in a timeless state of being in unity with all: Buddhahood. Yet the experience of Buddhahood is synchronous with relative truth. The vajra object itself shows two spheres joined in the center, like the two spheres of the brain, and the experience of the thunderbolt comes at the center of the brain. Following this powerful “bolt” one rests in equinamity in both worlds, being in the everyday world yet not identified with it.

It’s just different, not better or worse. A neutral novelty, technology adapts to all possible uses. All experience is relative, since experience seems to require a particular viewpoint and ordering or sequencing of details perceived within some kind of sensorium.

That’s true, but I think that saying it’s not better or worse is looking at the subjective experience in an objective way. I agree, any experience is a valid experience, but since we experience experience from within a particular viewpoint, shouldn’t a certain level of voluntary continuity be maintained from within that viewpoint? To do otherwise would be to risk a complete dissolution of the subjective, it seems to me.

Of course, the dissolution of the subjective viewpoint is considered a good thing by many spiritual traditions, but generally not if you haven’t prepared yourself for it…

As a person experiencing myself through myself, perhaps I am better off using the sensory technology I was born with? I’m not saying that the broadcast-of-experience that you’re exploring is an invalid experience, just that it might be less valuable than engaging in our own experience of experience.

And actually, paparazzi are a good example of technology used to translate someone else’s experience for others consumption. Tabloid papers and shows are designed to make their consumers feel as if they’re a part of those famous people’s lives. But it’s not real, and it’s not the same thing as being those stars at all.

Perhaps it’s just that our technology hasn’t developed far enough yet, but I’ve never known anybody to have a better life because they regularly read those magazines…

I’ve thought before about making some kind of DARPA-esque cloud of robo-insects which would constantly orbit the periphery of VIPs and obscure and obfuscate interference or access from illegal or unlicensed mediographers…

Assuming something like this did exist, would we benefit as much from being able to partake of someone else’s broadcasted experience in this way, as we would were we to truly experience it our self?

It’s just different, not better or worse. A neutral novelty, technology adapts to all possible uses. All experience is relative, since experience seems to require a particular viewpoint and ordering or sequencing of details perceived within some kind of sensorium. Whether you experience something in real life or on tv, you’re still always experiencing the same thing at the very root of it all: yourself experiencing yourself.

The whole thing’s a rabbit hole, but a fun one to explore!

To whit, a question for you: Assuming something like this did exist, would we benefit as much from being able to partake of someone else’s broadcasted experience in this way, as we would were we to truly experience it our self? It’s something I’m kind of exploring now myself, and finding good evidence for both a yes and a no answer.