29 KiB
[BST][MK][Q][WIP] How to tell if one is insane or real when experiencing a sudden game overlay?
-
Author: u/TennisMaster2 *
-
URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/3io536/bstmkqwip_how_to_tell_if_one_is_insane_or_real/
-
Score: 5
-
Created: 2015-08-28T01:08:27
Post:
Trigger warning for discussion of mental illness.
I'm writing a story involving a kid who suddenly sees labels on things, and has stats that functionally describe his body and mind. The only game mechanic is the descriptions, and that stats change via instant feedback, i.e. strength goes up immediately after exercise with enough energy in the system, instead of going down steadily during exercise, and intermittently rising over the course of 48 hours' recovery.
I can't resolve how the kid would definitively prove to themselves they're not insane. If they're insane, then the labels, stats, etc. are imagined. The system does not communicate to them, so it doesn't tell them to do things, and one of their stats is a word the kid doesn't think they know. However, if, say, the kid raises their intelligence or strength, and notices improved depth of thinking or ability to do more repetitions, the kid may just be imagining the improvements.
The solution I came up with was to have the kid go to a gym and do a weight-bearing exercise with maximum weight for two repetitions, under the instruction and supervision of a trainer. They'd then tell the trainer they would exercise for two hours, and ask how much weight lifted would constitute an impossible degree of improvement, considering they might have been holding back during the previous, baseline lift. If they succeed, they'd be able to do the lift, and would see disbelief on the face of the trainer (assuming the trainer doesn't lie). If they fail, they wouldn't be able to do the lift, and the trainer would have to step in to prevent injury. The game system wouldn't have the power to hack the body into doing a feat of which it's bio-mechanically incapable.
However, I thought of a snag. What if the kid imagines succeeding, when in reality they're on the ground writhing in pain? Or more realistically, they think they put the impossible amount of weight on the bar, when it's really only a smidgeon more, and the look of disbelief on the face of the trainer is really a look of bemusement. Any attempt at carefully verifying the amount of weight on the bar would similarly be subject to the kid's insanity altering his perception.
My current solution is for the character to submit their query in the form of a narrative question to their favorite online forum, as their search for mental illnesses related to not being able to perceive what is real and what is imagined yielded only delusional schizophrenia. Online results associate with the illness a muddiness of thoughts and convictions that don't follow grounded reason, and as the character finds their reasoning unaffected (or at least needs to operate under that assumption to do anything productive), discounts the probability that what they're experiencing is a schizophrenic episode. They recognize that if they can't trust their own perceptions, they need opinions outside themselves - even though their potential insanity might distort the words.
Since I can't come up with a solution myself, or rather, need confirmation regarding whether schizophrenia could manifest in such a way, I decided to do as the kid does and post a narrative brainstorming request to my favorite online forum.
So, in the face of such a system, how could one definitely, or beyond reasonable doubt, prove to one's self they are or are not insane?
Comments:
u/gbear605 [+18] history’s greatest story (an hour later)
If the possibility is full insanity, it's impossible to prove either way because of Solipsism (ie. you can't be sure that anything is real because we may be in the Matrix imagining everything). The character has to trust implicitly that everything he's seeing (outside of the game elements) is real because what exists in reality doesn't matter, only what he observes.
Let's say the character decides that this is a mental illness. What does he do? Turn himself into a mental hospital? He might just be imagining turning himself in to the hospital.
He could prove that he has a mental illness by getting someone he trusts that has expertise to tell him so - either he's imagining that he's being told it, in which case mental illness, or he's actually being told it, in which case mental illness. However, it's not falsifiable; there is no way that he can prove that he doesn't have a mental illness.
EDIT: There are three major possibilities:
- It's real
- It's imaginary, but that's the only thing he's hallucinating.
- It's imaginary, the whole world is imaginary.
If 1 or 3, impossible to prove real or imaginary. If 2, then he can prove that he's not in 1 (by using the methods you discussed), but he can't prove that he's not actually in 3, since the fake world could be lying to him about what happened. Therefore, he can distinguish between 1 and 2, but he can't prove that he's not in 3, so he has to go forward assuming that he may be hallucinating everything. If the experiments show that 2/3 is the case, he should go to a mental hospital. If 1/3 is shown to be the case, he should go forward assuming that everything is real, because there is no downside to assuming that and because there's no discernible difference between "everything is real" and "I am imagining that everything is real"
u/TennisMaster2 [+3] (an hour later)
Falsifiability! Perfect. Thank you for that, and for the clear explication of the problem. I'll have search for how to solve problems, find falsifiability, and then go from there.
This made me realize how close you can get to a work or character and still think you're considering all possibilities.
u/gbear605 [+1] history’s greatest story (2 hours later)
One piece of "perfect" rationality is thinking about everything like you are trying to logically prove it. Think about all one possibility and see if you could prove that it's true. If you can't prove that it's true, try seeing if you can prove that it's false. Try looking at alternate possibilities.
Using the example from above, we want to prove that it's real. Well, we can't do that because everything could be imaginary. Can we prove that it's imaginary? Well, we need to do tests like trying out what happens. Suppose the power works successfully; then we know that there is a possibility it is real. However, since that would be proving it is real, we know there must be an alternative - everything is imaginary. Suppose the power doesn't work successfully; then we know there is a possibility that everything is real except for the game windows. However, it's possible that everything is imaginary. There are more possibilities, (for example, everything is real except for something insignificant and the game windows), but for his purposes, they fold into the possibility that everything is imaginary.
(Note, I probably messed up some with the logic here, but it's the general idea)
Proving something by trying it a lot is infinitely less valuable than proving that thing logically, since trying it a lot could just mean that you're being very lucky or that there's something fudging the data. But if you prove something logically, then you know that the only way it could be false is if logic is false, and then you have bigger problems.
u/eaglejarl [+2] (16 hours later)
Think about all one possibility and see if you could prove that it's true. If you can't prove that it's true, try seeing if you can prove that it's false.
You're probably better off starting with 'prove it false.' It's very hard to prove a statement is absolutely true with no possibility of mistake or alternate explanation, but it's comparatively easy to prove something is false if it is. That's why scientists work to reject the null hypothesis instead of confirm their research hypothesis.
u/gbear605 [+1] history’s greatest story (19 hours later)
Well, sometimes you can very easily prove that it can't be proved true, which helps you later on. That said, most of the time it is probably better to start with 'prove it false' like you say.
u/EliezerYudkowsky [+9] Godric Gryffindor (11 hours later)
Ask people on the street if you've identified their names correctly. If they say yes, I don't think most psychotics hallucinate that hard. So your brain is exceptionally and unusually insane enough to prevent any error detection and cause all senory experiences to conform. At that point you might as well expect future sensory experiences to go the same way.
u/ulyssessword [+7] (45 minutes later)
I'd test the labels instead of the instant stat gains.
First, I'd check if the labels have senses than me. Look at the back of a card: is it labeled "Five of Hearts" or "Playing Card"? Is it "bottle of water", "bottle of vodka" and "bottle of vinegar" or is it "bottle of clear fluid" x3?
Next, I'd check if it has better memory/history tracking. Is a certain screw a "computer screw", while another is a "toaster screw" despite the fact that they're physically indistinguishable? Is one envelope an "envelope containing $0" while another is "envelope containing no letters"?
After that, I'd check its knowledge base. Can it tell that this oil filter is a PS 789465312, despite me never studying part numbers?
u/TennisMaster2 [+2] (an hour later)
The labels are inconsistent. It will be a function of how much attention the kid has given or gives to a particular thing or things of its set, but he won't think to test for that for a while yet.
The labels are also not so obviously useful. Sometimes it might say what something is objectively, other times it will explain its significance or what it meant to the person that created it, e.g. 'Uppity Failure' or 'Initial Impetus'.
Those are good ideas, though, and I'll keep them in mind.
u/Transfuturist [+1] Carthago delenda est. (an hour later)
The problem with those experiments is that you're assuming the effect doesn't play an identification subgame with you.
u/ulyssessword [+2] (an hour later)
It would still work with most forms of ID minigames. It would probably rule out all of the sense based ways of identifying things, but history tracking and knowledge base would still work.
u/gbear605 [+2] history’s greatest story (an hour later)
There's no guarantee that your memory isn't lying to you though.
u/FuguofAnotherWorld [+1] Roll the Dice on Fate (5 days later)
Well yeah, but if it is then the entire situation is hopeless anyway. So best not to think about it.
u/Transfuturist [+1] Carthago delenda est. (2 hours later)
No, the knowledge base wouldn't work, because ID games don't tell you what you don't already know. Besides that, any reasonable experiment of history tracking would require that you become uncertain of which item is which, and that's exactly the sort of thing I would want to lose information on in a game.
You're assuming that the details of the effect follow a distribution similar to what games have been released by now, when you can't actually say how this particular effect has come about. The effect having some details reminiscent of one pattern of games, or of extant games, doesn't actually imply reminiscence of other details. You don't have any real priors for this, besides the probability that you have gone insane.
I would say the only way to determine whether or not you're insane is with safety-prioritized experimentation to determine the effect's behavior, investigating the source of this effect, and then seeking confirmation by independent experimenters, with whatever evidence you can produce from the first two paths. You can't actually disconfirm insanity through your own sensory experience.
Without research, I think the weightiest evidence against insanity would be a continuing ability to feel surprise at elements of your experience that seem the most insane, but I don't know much about delusional ideation.
u/PlaneOfInfiniteCats [+1] (15 hours later)
Could you please elaborate? I don't understand how ID games can interfere with experiment.
u/Transfuturist [+3] Carthago delenda est. (19 hours later)
ID games are an essential part of the roguelike Nethack, and many other roguelikes, as well as other games. Essentially they only give you the information that your character has detected with their senses. So, instead of a potion of healing, you see an ominously black potion.
First, I'd check if the labels have senses than me. Look at the back of a card: is it labeled "Five of Hearts" or "Playing Card"? Is it "bottle of water", "bottle of vodka" and "bottle of vinegar" or is it "bottle of clear fluid" x3?
With an ID game, it would be a playing card, and three bottles of clear fluid, some of which smell funny.
Next, I'd check if it has better memory/history tracking. Is a certain screw a "computer screw", while another is a "toaster screw" despite the fact that they're physically indistinguishable? Is one envelope an "envelope containing $0" while another is "envelope containing no letters"?
This experiment would require becoming uncertain with the items in question. Most games don't have this mechanic, but for example, in Nethack you can forget the entire dungeon map and your entire inventory by drinking a potion of amnesia. In a finer-grained Nethack (or Dwarf Fortress in ten years or so), I might imagine you would be able to have someone switch two items identical in appearance behind your back, and when you turn back you would no longer be able to identify them.
ID games are a small part of games essentially keeping track of the character's mental state and displaying only that which the character knows, essentially making the game interface an organized interface to the character's mind.
After that, I'd check its knowledge base. Can it tell that this oil filter is a PS 789465312, despite me never studying part numbers?
With an ID game, you would not be able to glean the model number of an oil filter without examining the object yourself. Essentially, these experiments only tell you if the game-like effect, whether sane or insane, is one that gives you information that you yourself don't have. And if you were insane, your memory could lie to you, so not even positive confirmation of greater knowledge would mean anything without experiments run by an independent observer. In other words, the results of those experiments, at least on your own, tell you nothing of your own sanity.
If you find that the effect is appearing to give you greater information (the probability of which as compared to other effects is indeterminable without information of the effect's source), then you would have something to test with an independent observer, and that would give you information on your sanity. If you don't find that you gain greater knowledge, you don't have anything to test, and only gain information on the limitations of the effect's abilities.
u/PlaneOfInfiniteCats [+2] (a day later)
I'd say that the most useful experiment in determining sanity is that which distinguishes between game interface having information you don't have, and game interface behaving like Nethack interface.
Also, if you get close enough to full solipsism (and having significantly unreliable memory is close enough) there is no useful experiments at all.
It seems I completely agree with you on this. Thanks for clarification.
u/Shadawn [+6] (2 hours later)
He can't prove his sanity, as Solipsism can't be proven wrong. But, with enough testing with third-party observers (which can work for intelligence too) insanity ceases to be practical position. If you can't discern them, it's simpler and more convenient to think about "real word with strange ability behaving consistently" than "insanity making me see real world with strange ability behaving consistently".
On the other hand, there is an illness which makes blind person believe that he can't see, and it's very difficult to argue him out of it. So, perhaps he could from time to time ponder on that, while usually trying to solve his problems and save the world.
u/TennisMaster2 [+2] (2 hours later)
Good phrasing of the two conditions, that.
u/pizzahotdoglover [+1] (27 days later)
On the other hand, there is an illness which makes blind person believe that he can't see, and it's very difficult to argue him out of it.
Could you please explain this?
u/Shadawn [+1] (27 days later)
I meant to type "can", obviously. And I was talking about Anton-Babinski Syndrome
u/RidiculousAvgGuy [+6] (an hour later)
I don't think schizophrenia does visual hallucinations. Maybe, delusional disorder?
That said: How young would he be when this starts? Because if he's young enough, he might just roll with it. From there the real issue is other's figuring out and then thinking he has a mental condition (Temporal lobe epilepsy? Autism? IDK.)
If he's old enough for it to be notable: He could just look at someone he's never met before, write down their name, and then Google them, look on Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. Find a matching picture.
if he's paranoid enough to think he imagined that: He's fucked, there's no objective way to definitively prove he isn't hallucinating this. If he's willing to talk to someone they could let him know, but that could also just be part of the delusion.
He could jump off a building after buffing VIT/STR and then having himself looked over to prove he has no injuries, but that could be imagined.
Basically, at some point he just has to trust it's real.
u/TennisMaster2 [+1] (2 hours later)
They're young enough to roll with it yet also think critically about it. Meaning no freak out, just playing with it like it's a new toy, and on the way almost reasoning themselves into insanity.
u/Transfuturist [+1] Carthago delenda est. (a day later)
no freak out
I don't think that's likely at any age above 8. Like, SOD-breaking levels of improbable.
u/TennisMaster2 [+2] (a day later)
Would their quest to determine whether they're insane qualify as a freak out?
As it stands now, the kid discovers the ability upon returning from school, when they realize their mother can't see the labels. They then go about the house until they reach the bathroom, seeing what has and hasn't labels. When they see they're also labeled, they fall back against the wall, think for a bit, then start their testing. They refuse to just wait until they can go to the city to test the veracity of the labeling of others' names, as they need to find out whether the thing is real or they're insane.
Does that qualify? Your concern is valid and worrying, so I'm committed to take what you say very seriously.
u/Transfuturist [+2] Carthago delenda est. (a day later)
How old are they?
u/TennisMaster2 [+2] (a day later)
Ten.
u/FuguofAnotherWorld [+1] Roll the Dice on Fate (5 days later)
You could establish them as a curious character who takes wonder in discovering new things. Or you could have them have a quiet freak out on the way home then try really hard to let anyone find out because they don't want to leave their friends/something important is happening at school soon/they don't want to go to the madhouse.
Depends on how your characterisation is going to go and how much buildup you're willing to do before introducing the premise. Personally I'd go for introducing it as soon as possible, so as to nab readers early before they wander off.
u/TennisMaster2 [+1] (6 days later)
The premise is introduced one hundred words in. You think I should cover school? I wasn't certain on that point.
u/FuguofAnotherWorld [+1] Roll the Dice on Fate (6 days later)
Well, I know that personally I am fickle as a reader, and can often lose interest very quickly if it doesn't look like something interesting will happen. Therefore I lead towards sucking them in as soon as possible. So I guess either only cover it if you can do it quickly, or possible start out with something interesting, flash back to a schooling snippet then run from there. Though one doesn't necessarily have to do it a school. Subtle things like marvelling at an atlas of stars or space rockets are also an option.
In the end though, it's up to you. I only started writing recently and though I feel I've certainly gotten a lot better than I was, I'm hardly infallible.
u/DCarrier [+3] (an hour later)
So basically you're writing [The Gamer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gamer_(manhwa))?
How do you know you're not already insane?
I figure you could do some simple tests to find out whether it's a simple hallucination or either real or you're too insane for anything to matter. For example, find a random person, ask them their name, and see if it matches what appears above them.
u/TennisMaster2 [+2] (an hour later)
That was the inspiration. It's an exploration of reality with instant feedback and perfect information about other's and one's own strengths and weaknesses.
I actually wrote the last as an option the kid considers, but they haven't access to people or places with people sufficiently strange as to be able to discount having heard their name somewhere, sometime. If they had easy access, they'd quickly quit school and go to the city instead, which would result in emotional disaster for the kid, and I'd rather not write that kind of story with this.
u/Farmerbob1 [+5] Level 1 author (13 hours later)
If the only game mechanic is the descriptions, then he should start to see if the descriptions will tell him things that he cannot know.
For example. Two identical unmarked, opaque jars. One with water in it, the other with milk in it. Will the descriptions reliably indicate what is in the container, even if the positions of the containers are moved around?
Try to figure out some way that the game mechanic will tell you things you shouldn't know. If there is no scenario where the game mechanic provides unknowable information, then I'm confused about the point of the story, unless it's entirely based around self-sanity exploration.
EDIT: Another option. Find someone who is good at card tricks. Especially if you are not already good at card tricks. See if they can fool you.
u/TennisMaster2 [+3] (18 hours later)
The first example is a nice fringe case I needed to consider - thank you for posing it. So far, no thing has a label that the character couldn't have subconsciously or have consciously noticed. So those opaque containers would either not have labels, or have labels reflecting the containers themselves, depending on how much attention the character gives or has given each jar.
The labels on inanimates give supplementary information that relate more to the how or why of the thing, rather than the what of it.
All people all have labels regardless of whether the character attends to them, because faces are important to the human brain. Someone with a completely covered head would be without a label until such a time as the character comes to view that someone as a person.
u/Jiro_T [+3] (20 hours later)
First, he opens the containers, so one has the label "container of milk" and the other has the label "container of water". Then he closes them. Then someone else moves around the containers so he can't keep track of which is which.
Does the container of milk still say "container of milk" because it keeps the label? Or when he loses track of which container is which, does the label lose information and turn into plain "container"?
If the label loses information when he loses track of the information himself, that's "there's no scenario where the game mechanic provides unknowable information". If the label doesn't lose information, then this is an easy way to test the game mechanic.
u/TennisMaster2 [+2] (20 hours later)
Good experiment, thank you.
u/kaukamieli [+3] (3 hours later)
Beyond reasonable doubt?
Get a crowd of psychologists. Explain them the situation and prove it by making stuff disappear by putting stuff to the inventory, or knowing info about everyone by observing them (The Gamer), or such feats.
If they agree it at least looks real, and you can get Penn and Teller there too to check you are not cheating while you are at it, you can be pretty sure you are not just insane.
OFC there is the possibility you are just imagining the psychologists and Penn and teller too, but there is not much you can do at that point.
You can't prove anyone you are seeing stuff. (without some cool brain scans) You can prove how the thing affects the world you all share.
TL;DR: Prove it to others and see how they react.
u/Gurkenglas [+3] (12 hours later)
To prove you are not currently in a straightjacket in a psych ward and hallucinating a life, acquire a calculator, multiply large numbers, and manually check the result. (Go do it, it's quite reassuring.)
Therefore, you want to make an experiment where you can acquire a calculator iff the information the labels provide is accurate.
u/GaBeRockKing [+2] Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857 (an hour later)
Draw UI and ask other people what they think it is (without implying you see it). I'm not aware of any mental conditions that would cause a useful, recognizable UI (that is, not just cause you to think the UI is good) so I'd estimate the chances that someone placed it there as higher than a mental illness.
u/ArgentStonecutter [+2] Emergency Mustelid Hologram (10 hours later)
Consistency.
Track the numbers and labels, and verify that they are the same from day to day, in a blind study (that is, do the tests over a week and don't look at what you'd written down until the end of the test to avoid reinforcing effects).
u/eaglejarl [+2] (16 hours later)
The labels seem like the easiest thing to test. Exactly what sort of information do they provide?
u/TennisMaster2 [+2] (19 hours later)
The labels are inconsistent. It will be a function of how much attention the kid has given or gives to a particular thing or things of its set, but he won't think to test for that for a while yet. The labels are also not so obviously useful. Sometimes it might say what something is objectively, other times it will explain its significance or what it meant to the person that created it, e.g. 'Uppity Failure' or 'Initial Impetus'.
So far, no thing has a label that the character couldn't have subconsciously or have consciously noticed. So those opaque containers would either not have labels, or have labels reflecting the containers themselves, depending on how much attention the character gives or has given each jar. The labels on inanimates give supplementary information that relate more to the how or why of the thing, rather than the what of it. All people all have labels regardless of whether the character attends to them, because faces are important to the human brain. Someone with a completely covered head would be without a label until such a time as the character comes to view that someone as a person.
u/None [+2] (22 hours later)
[deleted]
u/TennisMaster2 [+2] (22 hours later)
No.
u/None [+2] (a day later)
[deleted]
u/TennisMaster2 [+3] (a day later)
That was the inspiration, aye. Thanks!
u/rineSample [+2] (a day later)
I don't have a solution for you, but this is almost exactly what Descartes' demon is about.
u/TennisMaster2 [+2] (a day later)
Ah, forgot about the specifics of that. Thanks!
u/codahighland [+1] (3 days later)
You know, this post could be reasoned about self-referentially:
My current solution is for the character to submit their query in the form of a narrative question to their favorite online forum
Are you, /u/tennismaster2, currently seeing unexpected video game elements in your day-to-day life?