At this point I don't know. I think the only difference is that you cannot experience most of your emotions in a perfect dream. I believe the only difference between free will and what Sunday wanted is just the removal of being able to tell what is right from wrong and the removal of pain. In that fantasy there is only good which causes the feeling of being happy to be dulled out. You cannot make wrong or dumb decisions essentially.
Ah I think I'm following, sorry I don't know much about HSR hahaha, I just saw the discussion topic and decided to jump in lol. There's actually a lot to unpack here though! I'll take a stab at the idea of fantasy worlds/perfect dreams causing happiness to become dull if there's only "good" that can be experienced.
Can you think of a time in your life when you had at minimum an "okay" day, maybe even a "good" day? Maybe it was a trip somewhere, maybe it was just a good stay home day, or anything else of the wide variety of days humans experience haha? Even though the day was okay or good, was happiness blunted? Maybe happiness would become blunted if that day were copied and pasted across a timeline of weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, and no less than precisely 17 eternities. But that's more a symptom of our human biology. We have brains that get bored from repetitive stimulation, but also maybe not for some individuals given our collective neurodiversity. Can we change that with genetic engineering, where we could just do a small number of things that make us happy, and never become bored but never experience dullness? Maybe, who knows?
Let's imagine this chart spans a high of 100 and a low of -100. Would it be such a bad thing to create a world in which we progressively eliminate experiences that dip people below -90,-70,-50,-25, etc., while expanding the range of experiences to exceed highs beyond +110,+150,+250,+500, etc.? And aren't we already trying to do this with all of our advances in medicine, technology, entertainment, etc.? I think dullness in a dream world comes from the idea that a perfect world must remain at a constant happiness value, with no variance. And if that's incompatible with our biology or however we change our biology, then sure that's going to create a dilemma where we question if we really want that kind of world, like in the original post for this thread.
So I think the answer is a third option. We don't need to settle for what we are currently experiencing. But I don't think we need to think the only alternative is dulled out happiness. If perfect worlds don't sound so perfect to us, then we don't have to settle for what other people try to sell us. We can reject flawed ideas, we can reject what people call perfection, and I think humans can create something better. We can have a varied experience of increasing and decreasing stimulation, time for activity, time for rest, it can all be good, and badness/wrongness can be discarded at no cost.
But I'm also an Antinatalist and if the way I think is what all humans thought, we would abruptly die out within a generation or two or whatever :) But if I suddenly exist again after dying (just like existing now is evidence that people can suddenly exist after not existing, thanks to fucking universe physics), and I decide I want to play around with whatever that existence is, well maybe one day I'll see a perfect world. Who knows, not me lol.
Best regards :)
